Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
Appu Joseph, Son Of Vellaringat Joseph – Appellant
Versus
Mayinkutty Son Of Madhurakariyan Kunharamu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RSA 935/2018 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.100/2019
1. The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the appellants. They are husband and wife. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration of his rights over Plaint B schedule property, mandatory injunction to the defendants 3 and 4, who are the State and Superintendent of Survey, to correct the mistake in resurvey by including Plaint A Schedule property as part of Plaint B schedule property in resurvey records, and permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from trespassing into plaint A schedule property and committing waste therein.
2. Plaint A schedule property was originally shown as 9.7 cents of land in Sy No.496/1A in Resurvey No.114/3 in Resurvey Block No.82, and after the Commission Report it was amended as8.94 cents incorporating Resurvey No.114/2 also. Likewise, Plaint B schedule property was originally shown as 7 acres 12 cents of land in Sy No.496/1A in Resurvey Nos.99 &114/3 in Resurvey Block No.82, and after Commission Report it was amended as 7 acres 24.94 cents incorporating Resurvey No.114/2 also.
3. The case of the Plaintiff is that A schedule property is a part of plaint B schedule property
Revenue records do not confer title; boundaries can be established through man-made markers, and the inclusion of property in resurvey does not alter ownership.
The right and title to property have to be determined not with reference to survey demarcation but based on other cogent materials, primary of which is title deed. The record of survey result shall b....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that in a suit for injunction, the court's principal obligation is to examine the plaintiff's lawful possession, and the identification of prope....
Proper identification of properties based on respective title deeds supported by old survey plan and new survey plan is necessary to grant reliefs sought in a suit for injunction and counter claim fo....
Point of Law : Default or carelessness of the parties does not absolve the Trial Court of its obligation to satisfy that the property ordered to be recovered is identifiable.
Boundaries specified in a sale deed prevail over measurements when determining property ownership.
A simple suit for injunction is not maintainable when there is a dispute over title, and the plaintiffs must prove possession within the claimed boundaries.
In property disputes involving re-survey inaccuracies, the court affirms that established rights of access and title must be properly adjudicated, supporting the necessity for evidence in contesting ....
Concurrent findings on title and property identity not perverse; no substantial question of law under CPC ss.100, 103 for reappreciation.
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
