The identification of suit property based on sale deed, layout plan, patta, and advocate commissioner's report is crucial in property disputes.

1. The defendant in O.S. No. 487 of 2007 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is the appellant. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the “A” schedule property and for recovery of “B” schedule property, which is part of “A” schedule property, from the defendant and also for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month from September, 2003 to October, 2006 and for other reliefs.

2. The suit was decreed holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and recovery of possession and mesne profits can be ascertained only in a separate proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

3. Pursuant to the decree passed in O.S. No. 487 of 2007, the decree holder/respondent herein filed E.P. No. 1040 of 2009 to execute the decree in O.S. No. 487 of 2007 and in that petition, he filed an application in E.A. No. 553 of 2011 to appoint an advocate commissioner to identify the suit property with reference to the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the layout attached with the sale deed. The advocate commissioner submitted a report stating that the property cannot be identified as per the title deed of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff/decree holder filed another application in E.A. No. 3411 of 2011 for appointing another Advocate Commissioner to identify the suit property with reference to the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the lay out, which has been attached with the sale deed. That the application was allowed and aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtor filed C.R.P. No. 4981 of 2011. Both the appeal and the Civil Revision Petition were head together.

4. The case of the respondent/plaintiff in the appeal as well as in the revision is as follows:

The plaintiff purchased the suit property on 17.9.1976 under a registered sale deed and a layout plan of the property is attached to the sale deed. He purchased only Plot Nos.1 and 2 at Sri Ganesh Nagar, Velacherry, Madras and altogether, he is entitled to 60 ft.East - West and 80 ft. North-South and the total extent of the property is 4,800 sq.ft., which is described as “A” schedule property and patta was granted in Patta No. 9532 in favour of the plaintiff and after purchase, he got possession of the property. In 1995, the defendant approached the plaintiff and “B” schedule property was given to the defendant and in that, the defendant erected a hut measuring 100 sq.ft. and agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 10/- per month and thereafter, the defendant failed to pay the rent. Therefore, a notice was sent to the defendant terminating the tenancy and the defendant sent a reply containing untenable allegation and therefore, the plaintiff filed Ejectment Suit No. 4 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Chennai, and that suit was decreed and the appeal filed by the defendant in Ejectment Appeal No. 6 of 2003, was allowed on the ground that the title of the suit property was disputed by the defendant and therefore, the plaintiff was advised to file a suit for declaration of his title. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of “B” schedule property. It is also stated that the defendant is attempting to claim right over the suit property on the basis of a sale deed dated 9.11.1973.

5. The defendant filed a statement in the suit contending that, originally, the property in larger extent belonged to one R. Shanmugam and he appointed one Power Agent, Krishnamurthi and the total extent of the property owned by R. Shanmugam was 2.10 acres in Survey No. 257 and the other extent of 2.10 acres in Survey No. 257 was owned by one Dandapani. R. Shanmugam executed Power of Attorney in favour of Krishnamurthi on 5.11.1973 and representing the owner, R. Shanmugam, the power agent, executed a sale deed in respect of Plot Nos. 24 and 25 in favour of Muniammal and her son, Kuppan and, in turn, they sold the property und