2018 Supreme(Mad) 3518
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. RAMATHILAGAM, J.
Gnanaguru - Appellant
Vs.
Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 91 of 2004
Decided On : 25-09-2018
A. Arumugam, Adv., W. Sathasivam, Adv.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of substantiating property rights with valid documentation and accurate measurements.
Headnote:
Property Dispute - Civil Law - Settlement Deed, Sale Deed - [S. Ramathilagam, J.]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming ownership and possession of certain properties and sought injunctions against the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the decision. The plaintiff appealed, raising substantial questions of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his right over the disputed properties as per the settlement deed and sale deed. The Commissioner's report indicated discrepancies in the plaintiff's claimed measurements, and the defendant's constructions were found to be within the limits of his property.
Issues: The issues included the plaintiff's entitlement to possession and injunctions, the maintainability of the suit, and the applicability of res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Commissioner's report, documentary evidence, and oral testimony to determine the plaintiff's rights over the properties. It concluded that the plaintiff's claims were not substantiated, and the defendant's constructions did not encroach on the plaintiff's rights.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgments of the lower courts.
S. Ramathilagam, J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein against Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.47 of 2002 dated 27.2.2004 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.64 of 1999 dated 3.6.2002 on the file of District Munsif, Srivilliputtur.
2. The brief facts of the case is as follows;
The appellant herein is the plaintiff who filed the suit for the following relief’s;
(a) for declaration declaring that the second item of the schedule mentioned property belongs to him exclusively, and also for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant or his men, agents, servant from causing any interference and disturbing plaintiff's possession and enjoyment with regard to 2nd item of schedule mentioned property;
(b) for declaration declaring that the 3rd item of schedule mentioned property belongs to only the plaintiff and 5th and 6th defendants, and also for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant or his men form interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by the plaintiff and 5th and 6th defendants;
(c) for mandatory injunction for removal of the encroachments made by defendants 1 to 4 in the 1st item of the 4th schedule mentioned property and for removal of wiring in the 2nd item shown in 4th schedule mentioned property by defendants 1 to 4. Facts of the case
3. The brief case of the plaintiff is that the property which he has referred in plan attached with the plaint in item No.1 of the property viz., A, A1, B, C, D, E, F2, F1, F, G, H, A belongs to the plaintiff and the said house is situate on the north and the vacant site surrounding the said house and also the north south common pathway belongs to plaintiff.
4. The case of the plaintiff is also that the suit property belongs to him by way of a settlement deed executed by his father on 11.3.1994. The property belongs to his father by way of a sale deed of the year 7.10.1937.
5. The plaintiff claims that he is in exclusive possession of 46.3/4 feet, running from north to south, situate on the western side of his house and the vacant land measuring 3 feet running east to west as shown in plaint plan as A, A1, H1, G1, G H A which is 2nd schedule of property. The land situate on the southern side of 46.3/4 feet, running south towards street is a pathway commonly belongs to the plaintiff and 5th and 6th defendants and the same has been shown as G, G1, G2, D, E, F2, F1, F, G in the suit plan which is the 3rd schedule property.
6. The house of the 1st defendant lies at the west of A, H, G, F (as shown in plan), north of vacant land, to which, a loom shed is situate on the northern side.
7. The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant encroached in the plaintiff's property which is mentioned as H, H1, G1, F1, F, G H, by constructing a wall. Further the defendant has also constructed a loom shed without obtaining proper permissions and he has also extended his wiring for getting service connection by encroaching the 1 + feet east to west shown as A H2 G2 F2 in the eastern side of the portion encroached by the 1st defendant.
8. The plaintiff has also stated that already he filed a suit in O.S.No.384 of 1994 against the defendants 1 to 4 for permanent injunction for removal of the encroached constructions.
9. On perusal of the plaint averments, it is observed that the plaintiff is claiming right over the suit property by way of Settlement Deed and also the sale Deed as referred above.
10. The 1st defendant in his written statement totally denies the extent of the suit property and right of the suit property by the plaintiff. It is the strong objection in the statement that there is no vacant site as stated by the plaintiff at the western side of his house measuring 3 feet. Further the plaintiff has no right of any property at the western wall of his property. The defendant has also stated that the house which he is residing and the loom shed that lies on th