ORDER: Heard Mr.Shiva Shanmugham, Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Even though notices have been served on the respondents on 3.12.2001, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

2.1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No.833 of 1978 laid by the respondents/ plaintiffs for a decree and judgment to declare that the compound wall is within the boundary of the plaintiffs’ land in T.S. No.230/1 and consequently, restraining the defendant from demolishing the same by means of a permanent injunction.

2.2. The respondents/ plaintiffs filed the suit on a specific plea that they had purchased the suit building and vacant site in T.S. No.230/1 in Block No.3 of T.S.Ward No.3 of Palayamkottai Municipality and therefore, had prayed for the said declaration.

2.3. The suit was resisted by the revision petitioner/ defendant contending that even though the respondents/ plaintiffs had purchased the property located in T.S. No.230/1, they had raised a compound wall not in T.S. No.230/1, but in T.S. No.234, which lies west of T.S. No.230/1.

2.4. Upon the above rival contentions, the suit was originally decreed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, on 30.9.1993 and on appeal in A.S. No.7 of 1994 before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, the decree and the judgment of the trial Court dated 30.9.1993 were set aside and the appeal was allowed by a decree and judgment dated 13.2.1996 by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, who had remitted the matter to the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, with a direction to survey the suit property and render a decision on merits.

2.5. It is, at this stage, the respondents/ plaintiffs had chosen to amend the prayer in O.S. No.833 of 1978, contending that the boundaries prevail over the measurements and accordingly, prayed for amendment of the original prayer namely, to declare that the compound wall is within the boundary of the plaintiffs’ land in T.S. No.230/1 and consequently, restraining the defendant from demolishing the same by means of a permanent injunction and prayed to strike down the words “in T.S. No.230/1” and in that place add “west of the compound wall and the fence of the Government Forest Bungalow” in I.A. No.814 of 2000.

2.6. The above amendment was objected by the revision petitioner contending that the respondents/ plaintiffs are attempting to project a new case and protract the proceedings. Accepting the case of the respondents/ plaintiffs, the Principal District Munsif, Tiruneveli, allowed the above I.A. No.814 of 2000, by an order dated 23.11.2000. Hence, the above revision.

3. Mr.Shiva Shanmugham, learned Government Advocate, reiterated the submissions made on behalf of the revision petitioner before the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, in I.A.No.814 of 2000. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents/ plaintiffs as observed above.

4.1. In my considered opinion, it is well settled in law that the boundaries will prevail over the extent alone, but, not the Survey Number also. That apart, the said principle is applicable only in a transaction agreed and entered between the parties, but not in a case of unilateral approach.

4.2. In the instant case, the respondents/ plaintiffs had specifically come forward with a case that they had purchased the property located in T.S. No.230/1. Therefore, they are permitted to seek a relief only with regard to the boundaries of T.S. No.230/1, but, not the property of the revision petitioner/ defendant, a notified forest area, which is located in T.S. No.234. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot, at this stage, come forward with a new case that extending the area of T.S. No.230/1 and also attempting to encroach the forest area i.e., located in T.S. No.234.

4.3. The principle that the boundaries prevail over the extent, in my considered opinion, shall not construe boundaries prevail over the Survey Number also, when the r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document