The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence such as the Advocate Commissioner's report, sale-deeds, and the FMB sketch to confirm encroachment and shortage of land, as well as the consideration of the Doctrine of Estoppel and Acquiescence.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

Prayer: First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code read with under Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2017 made in O.S. No. 154 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

The case has been heard through video conferencing.

1. The Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree of the III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, passed in O.S. No. 154 of 2012, declaring the plaintiff is the absolute owner of “B” schedule property to an extent of 127.50 sq. ft. shown as ‘ABEC’ in Ex.C.4 and direction to the appellant herein to handover the possession of the said portion to the plaintiff/respondent, after demolishing, removing the illegal and unauthorised construction put up in the said disputed area.

2. The averments in the plaint is that the plaintiff/Mr. K. Munusamy being the absolute owner of the “A” schedule property to an extent of 3 Kuzhies and 2 Veesams through sale-deed dated 06.10.1987, purchased from one John Christopher. He is in possession and enjoyment without interruption. The defendant/Smt. V. Bhavani on 30.10.2009 purchased 900 sq. ft. of land adjacent to the plaint “A” schedule property and started constructing house in the said land from month of January-2011. In the process of construction, the defendant attempted to encroach into the “A” schedule property owned by the plaintiff on the Eastern side. When the matter was reported to the local police on 09.02.2011, the police advised them to approach Civil Court and get remedy. Keeping quiet for sometime, the defendant had started construction by encroaching around 600 sq. ft. measuring, East-West 10 feet, North-South 60 feet, on the Eastern side of the “A” schedule property. The plaintiff gave representation to the Directorate of Survey and Land Records, Pondicherry, on 27.01.2011, requested the Authorities to measure and demarcate the plaint “A” schedule property. The Surveyor from the said Office visited the field on 11.03.2011 and demarked the boundaries. Despite demarcation of the boundaries, the defendant did not stop her attempt to illegally encroach upon the Eastern portion of the plaintiff’s land. The Surveyor, who revisited the property on 30.07.2012 measured the field in the presence of defendant and gave a report dated 01.08.2012 stating that the defendant has encroached into the plaintiff “A” schedule property to an extent of 600 sq. ft. Since, the redressal sought before the Revenue Authorities did not fructify, suit for declaration regarding ownership of the encroached portion morefully described as “B” schedule property in the plaint which form part of the larger extent of land, morefully described under “A” schedule was filed.

3. The defendant in their written statement has averred that she purchased 900 sq. ft. of land in Plot No. 71 from one Swarnalatha W/o Suriyanarayanan under sale-deed dated 30.10.2009. After purchase, she obtained PPA approval from the Department concern and started constructing house in the said land. When temporary electricity service connection to the property was sought, the plaintiff objected. After submission of sale-deed and FMB copy, the Electricity Department provided temporary service connection for construction purpose. The plaintiff gave petition to the Land and Survey Department, Pondicherry, to measure his Plot No. 70 and identify the boundaries. In the presence of the defendant and the plaintiff, the land was measured and report was submitted by the Surveyor on 11.03.2011. The plaintiff as well as defendant were satisfied with the report, measurement and the boundaries fixed. Thereafter, the defendant started constructing the house and completed it and peacefully living in Plot No. 71. The said suit is filed without proper Plot number and description, hence, liable to be dismissed. Further, she has not encroached upon the plaintiff’s property. The portion of the p