Appellate Court Mandates Local Investigation in Property Dispute, Overturns Trial Court Ruling Citing Boundary Ambiguities

Appellate Court Orders Fresh Probe into Land Dispute, Citing Boundary Discrepancies

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – In a recent judgment, the High Court has set aside a trial court’s dismissal of a suit seeking possession of property, directing a fresh investigation into a contentious land dispute. The case, Laxmi Lakhani v. Rajesh Tah & Ors. , revolves around a property in Bilaspur and a disagreement over its boundaries, title, and possession. Justice RajaniDubey presided over the appeal.

Case Background: Battle Over Possession and Boundaries

The plaintiff, Laxmi Lakhani , appealed against a lower court's decision that had dismissed her claim for vacant possession of a property she purchased from Ram Kumar Tah. Lakhani also sought damages for being deprived of property use. The defendants, Rajesh Tah and Yogesh Tah, contested Lakhani 's claim, asserting ownership based on ancestral property rights and disputing the boundaries mentioned in her sale deeds.

Lakhani argued she bought the property through registered sale deeds and her name was recorded in official records. She claimed the defendants were residing on the first floor with the previous owner's permission and refused to vacate after her purchase. The defendants countered that the property was their ancestral home, inherited through oral partition, and that the seller, Ram Kumar Tah, lacked valid title. They also highlighted discrepancies in the property descriptions within the sale deeds, claiming the boundaries actually referred to their property, not the one Lakhani believed she purchased.

The trial court sided with the defendants, dismissing Lakhani 's suit and upholding the defendants' counterclaim for rectifying the boundary descriptions in Lakhani 's sale deeds.

Arguments on Appeal: Title, Evidence, and Boundary Disputes

Representing the appellant, counsel argued that the trial court erred by prioritizing oral evidence over documented evidence (sale deeds) and disregarded Section 91 of the Evidence Act, which emphasizes documentary evidence in property transactions. It was contended that Lakhani had established her title through sale deeds and official records. Furthermore, it was argued that the defendants' counterclaim for rectification was flawed as they were not party to the sale deeds and the seller, Ram Kumar Tah, was not made a party in the counterclaim, a requirement under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act.

The defendants' counsel defended the trial court's judgment, asserting that the plaintiff had failed to prove her claim and the defendants had successfully proven their counterclaim.

Court's Reasoning: Focus on Boundary Demarcation

Justice Dubey , after reviewing the case, observed a significant dispute regarding the property boundaries. The court noted previous litigations involving the same property, further highlighting the complexity of the boundary issues. Referencing the need for clarity, the judgment cited precedents like Suryanarayan Reddy and Others Vs. Nawab Md. Kabiruddin Khan and Bishnu Maya Rai Vs. Rameshwar Prasad , emphasizing the appellate court's power to order local investigations for boundary disputes under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code ( CPC ).

The court stated, "…looking to the dispute of boundaries, two sale deeds and judgments of the trial Court, we are of the opinion that the dispute cannot be resolved without ascertaining actual area of disputed property and boundary of each plot..."

The judgment highlighted the necessity of a commissioner's report to accurately determine the disputed area and boundaries, quoting M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Pachama, District Sehore and others V. Modi Transport Service to underline the role of a commissioner in elucidating factual disputes.

Decision and Implications: Fresh Investigation Ordered

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's judgment and decree. Crucially, the court ordered a local investigation.

Key Directives for Local Investigation:

• A team comprising two Nazul Officers, two Revenue Officers, and one Advocate will be appointed by the trial court.
• The team will investigate and report on the total plot area and boundaries based on Nazul records and sale deeds.
• They will demarcate the disputed property (Plot No. 4/1 and 2/4) and prepare an accurate map.
• Both parties are required to be present with relevant property records during the investigation.
• The parties are granted leave to amend their pleadings and submit additional documents.

The case is remanded back to the trial court for a fresh decision after the local investigation and report are submitted. The court underscored that after considering the commissioner’s report and any objections, the trial court must decide the case afresh on all issues.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of accurate boundary demarcation in land disputes and reinforces the appellate court's power to order local investigations to resolve such factual ambiguities, ensuring a more informed and just adjudication. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on April 1, 2025, to proceed with the court-ordered investigation.