Muthirulandi Poosari and Another vs Sethurama Aiyar and Others

Assuming that in this case the boundary was disputed and the dispute was the subject of an order by the Survey Officer u/s 11 of Madras Act IV of 1897, we think that order, if not reviewed by the appellate authority or questioned by suit as provided in the section, was conclusive as to the rights of the partial, and nonetheless so because the unsuccessful party who was in possession at the date of the order was not subsequently ousted from possession. In Krishnamma v. Achayya 2 M.P 306 : 4 Ind. Jur. 284 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) there does not appear to have been any order u/s 25 of the Boundaries Act of 1860, which corresponds to sections 11 and 12 of the present Act. The suit had been treated in the District Court as a suit governed by Article 16 to Schedule II of the Limitation Act of 1871 "to set aside any act of an officer of Government in his official capacity, not herein otherwise expressly provided for." The official act appears to have been the actual demarcation of the land by fixing the boundary stones. If there was an order in that case u/s 25 of the Act of 1860, we think the decision was wrong. Reference answered in the affirmative.