Interpretation of Sale Deeds, demarcation of property boundaries, factual findings based on oral and documentary evidence

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.03.2010 in A.S.No.29 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchengode, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2008 in O.S.No.138 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.)

1. The defendant is the appellant in the present Second Appeal.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking for the relief of identifying and specifying the western boundary of the suit property and to demarcate the same from the land of the defendant on the western side as per the recitals of the title documents of the plaintiff and defendant and for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the suit property.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the suit property under a registered Sale Deed dated 03.09.1999 and thereby, he became the absolute owner of the suit property. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant also purchased the remaining portion in the same Survey Number from the common owner on the very same day and this property is situated on the western side of the suit property.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff was that the defendant was attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by taking advantage of the non-demarcation of the properties. Hence, the suit was filed seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

5. The defendant filed the written statement and took a stand that he is the owner of an extent of 2.11 acres by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 03.09.1999. According to the defendant, the plaintiff is only entitled for 1.87 acres and the balance 24 cents actually belonged to a temple. The plaintiff was trying to take possession of the land in excess of 1.87 acres by misusing the Sale Deed that was executed after the same common owner had already conveyed 2.11 acres of land in favour of the defendant. Hence, the defendant rejected the very claim made by the plaintiff and had sought for the dismissal of the suit.

6. The trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, was pleased to decree the suit and grant the relief of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff for an extent of 2.11 acres and for demarcation of the property. The relief of permanent injunction was also granted in favour of the plaintiff.

7. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.29 of 2009. The lower Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after considering the findings of the trial Court, was pleased to interfere with the relief of declaration of title granted by the trial Court. Insofar as the other reliefs granted by the trial Court, the same was confirmed through Judgment and Decree dated 23.02.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed this Second Appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

9. This Court also carefully perused the materials available on record and the findings of both the Courts below.

10. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to measure the property and file a Report along with Sketch. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner has also filed a Report along with Sketch.

11. In the present case, the plaintiff has purchased 2.11 acres of land out of 4.26 acres in S.F.No.44/2C through Sale Deed dated 03.09.1999, registered as Document No.2819/1999, marked as Ex.A1. The defendant has also purchased on the very same day an extent of 2.11 acres out of 4.26 acres in S.F.No.44/2C from the same owner and the document was registered as Document No.2818/1999, marked as Ex.A5. Both the Courts below on considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the plaintiff has established his right over