In case of disputed measurements, the boundary shall prevail over the extent, and the entitlement to the property is determined based on the boundaries mentioned in the settlement deeds.

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.916 of 1986 on the file of III Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore/Trial Court is the appellant herein. He filed the suit i) for permanent injunction, ii) for recovery of possession of 'B' schedule property and iii) for mesne profits.

2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is as follows:-

i) The suit property and the eastern property originally belonged to one Alamelu Thayammal, who is the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant. The mother gifted the suit property, which is situate on the western side to the plaintiff, under a registered settlement deed-Ex.A.3, dated 17.06.1983. Eversince the date of settlement, the plaintiff is enjoying the property as the absolute owner. As the defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction. After the suit was filed, the defendant encroached upon 'B' schedule property, and therefore, the prayer was amended to include the relief of recovery of possession.

3. The defendant resisted the plaint, by filing a written statement, stating that under a registered settlement deed-Ex.B.1, dated 13.06.1986, the mother executed the property in respect of eastern portion and put him in possession of the same, and the plaintiff cannot claim absolute title to the entire extent of the suit property, and the plaintiff is also not entitled to 2,361 sq.ft., under the settlement deed, dated 17.06.1983 and the defendant has not encroached upon any portion and the alleged encroached portion absolutely belongs to the defendant and the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the same. The defendant also filed an additional written statement, denying various allegations made in the plaint.

4. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and the defendant examined himself as D.W.1, and fourteen documents were marked on the side of the plaintiff and nine documents were marked on the side of the defendant. An Advocate Commissioner was examined on the side of the plaintiff, and his report and plan were marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2.

5. The Trial Court on the basis of the above pleadings and evidence, framed the following Issues as well as Additional Issues : -

Issues:-

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction? And

ii) To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?

Additional Issues:-

i) Whether the defendant along with Abdul Majith trespassed into 'B' schedule property ?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of possession in respect of 'B' schedule property? and

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits, in respect of 'B' schedule property?

6. The Trial Court relied upon the Commissioner's plan and Exs.A1 to A.3 and Ex.B.1, and held that the settlement deed-Ex.A3 executed by the mother in favour of the plaintiff, is earlier in point of time than Ex.B.1, viz., the settlement deed executed in favour of the defendant, and after settling the western portion with specific measurements, the mother cannot give more extent in another settlement deed, viz., Ex.B.1 in favour of the defendant and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to enjoy the property as per the measurements and boundaries given in Ex.A.3, and answered Issue No.i in favour of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction.

7. Additional Issues i to iii) were also answered in favour of the plaintiff holding that i) the defendant has encroached upon 'B' schedule property after the filing of the suit, ii) the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of possession of 'B' schedule property and iii) the defendant is liable to pay Rs.200 per month, as mesne profits.

8. In the result, the Trial Court decreed the suit, as prayed for, except that the mesne profits were given at the rate of Rs.200 per month.

9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendant filed an Appeal, viz.., A.S.No.203 of 1995 on the file of