Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri.Rajit
For the Respondent: Smt.R.Rajitha, Smt.Vinaya V.Nair, Sri.Santhosh P.Poduval

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. In a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction based on possession, it is essential for the plaintiff to prove that the property has well-defined physical boundaries that can be identified from adjoining properties. The identification of the property should be based on tangible physical boundaries such as walls, fences, trees, boundary stones, or differences in level, rather than on survey lines, which are imaginary [judgement_subject].

2. The appointment of a survey commissioner to measure the property and prepare a sketch is not an automatic or essential prerequisite in a suit for injunction simpliciter. Such measurement becomes necessary only if the pleadings genuinely raise the need for it, such as when the precise boundaries are in dispute or when the physical identification of the property is unclear. Unnecessary measurement can cause avoidable expenses and delays (!) .

3. The primary method of establishing the boundaries and the nature of the easement or possession is through physical, visible marks on the land and local inspection, supported by reliable evidence. Detailed physical features and continuous user over a long period are crucial in establishing easements by prescription or necessity. A survey based on imaginary lines is considered unnecessary in such cases (!) (!) .

4. In cases where the dispute involves obstruction, encroachment, or construction within the claimed easement or boundary, an effective decree can be granted based on local inspection reports and physical evidence alone, without the need for a surveyor’s measurement or a survey plan, unless the pleadings explicitly indicate the necessity for such measurement (!) .

5. The necessity for measurement with a surveyor arises only if the pleadings or the circumstances genuinely require it. Denying the property’s identity or boundary issues alone should not automatically lead to a survey, nor should it delay proceedings. The goal is to avoid unnecessary expenses and delays that often hinder the timely conclusion of injunction suits (!) .

6. The law emphasizes that physical and visible evidence should be the basis for establishing boundaries and rights related to easements or possession, rather than imaginary survey lines, unless a genuine need for precise measurement is demonstrated (!) (!) .

7. If a later stage reveals overlapping boundaries or claims, a survey commission can be considered to clarify the boundaries, but such measurement is not required at the initial stage if the physical boundaries are sufficiently clear and established through local inspection and evidence (!) .

8. The decision underscores that the correct legal approach is to rely on tangible physical features and local inspection rather than on imaginary survey lines, aligning with established legal principles that prioritize tangible evidence over survey-based measurements in disputes related to possession and boundaries (!) (!) .

These points collectively highlight the importance of physical, tangible evidence in boundary and possession disputes and caution against unnecessary and costly survey procedures unless genuinely warranted by the pleadings and circumstances.