Boundaries specified in a sale deed prevail over measurements when determining property ownership.

JUDGMENT :

C M Joshi, J.

Being aggrieved by the common judgment and decree in OS No.2504/1999 and OS No.1059/1999 passed by the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, (CCH No.28) dated 21-10-2009, the plaintiff in both the suits is before this Court in appeals.

2. OS No.2504/1999 is a suit for declaration of title and possession and OS No.1059/1999 is for injunction simplicitor. Therefore, the facts as narrated in OS No.2504/1999 would be relevant and will have greater scope.

3. The brief facts as contended by the plaintiff in OS No.2504/1999 are as below:

The suit schedule 'A' property is described to be property measuring 62 ft. East-West on the northern side and on southern side 64-1/2 ft; and North- South 40 ft; situated in CTS No.2645 and site No.118/35 at 2nd Main Road, Industrial Town, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-44. The suit schedule 'B' property is described as a portion of suit schedule 'A' property having Asbestos sheet roofed shed measuring 18 ft. on the northern side of 'A' schedule property.

4. The plaintiff contended that he is the absolute owner of the 'A' schedule property since he purchased the same under the registered sale deed in the year 1966 from its previous owner. Later, suit 'A' schedule property was included in Bangalore City Corporation limits and thereafter, there was assessment of municipal taxes and the plaintiff/appellant has paid the taxes and betterment charges. Earlier, the suit schedule property was part of Jedarahalli village and later it became part of the Bangalore City Corporation. Simultaneously, the City Survey Authorities have also held an enquiry and have given City Survey Number and have also prepared survey sketch. It is contended that the plaintiff is doing business in the name and style as 'Balaji Screen Printers' and the suit schedule 'B' property is the portion of the same. It is contended that the defendants are in permissive possession of 'B' schedule property and in fact, the plaintiff had allowed the defendants to lookafter the entire suit 'A' schedule property. The defendants do not have any right, title or interest over the same and the plaintiff says that he had inducted certain tenants in 'A' schedule property and they have been evicted from the same. It is contended that the registered sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff mention the measurement of the suit schedule property to be "30 ft. East-West and 40 ft. North South", but it had clearly mentioned the boundaries. The plaintiff aver that the boundaries prevail over the extent of area mentioned in the sale deed and therefore, the entire suit schedule 'A' property is about 62 ft. East-West was the subject matter of the sale in favour the plaintiff. It is contended that the enquiry was held by the City Survey Authorities and after holding such enquiry, the entire suit schedule property was entered in the name of the plaintiff. It is contended that the defendants denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and therefore, there is cause of action.

5. On issuance of summons, defendants No. 1 to 4 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement. They contended that the address of the defendants is 'No.118, 2nd Main road, West of Chord Road, Industrial Town, Rajajinagar, Bangalore'. But the contention of the plaintiff is that, he is the absolute owner of suit schedule 'A' property which is situated somewhere else. The defendants denied that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed in the year 1966 from its previous owner and they denied that City Survey had conducted an enquiry and had recognized the ownership of the plaintiff. They also denied that the defendants are in permissive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

6. Per contra, they asserted that the owner of the property was one Muniyappa and he had entered into a sale agreement with defendant No.1 in January 1962 and had agreed to sell the same to the defendants