Back
A. BADHARUDEEN
N. P. Vijayaraghavan – Appellant
Versus
Jayachandran – Respondent
The case involves a dispute over property boundaries and possession between the petitioner, N.P. Vijayaraghavan, and the respondent, Jayachandran. The petitioner filed a suit for prohibitory injunction to prevent trespass and encroachment on the property, claiming ownership and possession based on title deeds and sale documents. The respondent raised a counterclaim for boundary fixation and recovery of possession, asserting that the property belonged to him and that the petitioner was encroaching upon his land (!) (!) .
The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner, granting a prohibitory injunction based on possession, and dismissed the respondent’s counterclaim. The appellate court upheld this decision (!) (!) .
However, on appeal, the higher court found that the lower courts erred in granting an injunction solely based on possession without properly identifying the properties in question through detailed survey and title deed verification. The court emphasized that in cases involving boundary disputes and claims of ownership, proper identification supported by survey plans and title deeds is essential before granting reliefs such as injunctions or recovery of possession (!) (!) .
The appellate court remitted the matter back to the trial court for a fresh determination, directing the court to re-measure and identify the properties based on title deeds, old survey plans, and new survey plans, and to allow both parties to adduce evidence accordingly. The court also ordered the trial to be expedited, with a deadline to conclude the case within eight months (!) (!) .
All interlocutory orders were vacated, and pending applications were dismissed (!) . The case highlights the importance of proper property identification in boundary and possession disputes and clarifies that possession alone, without clear identification supported by documentary evidence, is insufficient to grant injunctions or resolve boundary conflicts (!) .
JUDGMENT :
This appeal has been filed under Section 100 r/w Order XLII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the C.P.C.’ hereinafter) against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.5/2016, dated 23.3.2018 on the files of the Sub Court, Manjeri, arose out of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.79/2012 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Manjeri. The appellant herein is the defendant in the suit.
2. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as ‘plaintiffs’ and ‘defendant’ for convenience.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs.
4. As on 13.9.2021, my learned predecessor admitted this appeal, raising the following substantial questions of law:
2. Has not the first appellate court grossly erred in confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court which decreed the suit in which title with respect to the disputed property was in issue
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
