The court affirmed that discrepancies in survey numbers must be rectified for valid title claims, and boundaries do not prevail over survey numbers in property identification.

JUDGMENT :

V.Sivagnanam, J.

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.93 of 1997, dated 23.7.2002, on the file of First Additional Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram(Camp), confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.265 of 1993, dated 28.1.1997, on the file of Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.

The Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree made in A.S.No.93 of 1997, dated 23.7.2002, on the file of First Additional Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram(Camp), confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.265 of 1993, dated 28.01.1997, on the file of Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.

2. The Plaintiffs in O.S.No.265 of 1993, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram(Camp) are the appellants in the Second Appeal. The respondents are the defendants.

3. The Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their title, possession of plaint schedule properties and for an order of injunction from interfering and disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. The defendants filed the Written Statement and contested the suit.

4. The Plaintiffs’ case in brief is as follows:

The plaintiffs vendor Nagamony Nadar, son of Velayudhan Nadar, Alenchy Oor, purchased 39 cents including the plaint schedule property from one Chellayan Nadar as per sale deed No. 11928 of 1953 of the Colachel Sub-Registrar Office for valid consideration with a recital to redeem 1109 ME mortgage. On the date of sale, by change of hand, the above mortgage right came to the hand of Selvathas, son of Innasi. So Nagamony Nadar had filed O.S.No.197 of 1959 of the District Munsif, Padmamabhapuram for redemption and recovery of the plaint schedule property from the mortgage. In the above suit, he impleaded the original mortgage Savariaradimai, son of Meeyal Nadar and the assignee mortgage Selvadas. Thus Nagamony got delivery of the plaint schedule property from the mortgagees as per delivery list, dated 12.11.1960. Since then, Nagamony Nadar had been in physical possession and enjoyment of the entire 39 cents property as absolute owner. He effected improvements by planting coconut trees therein. Whileso, he gave ‘otti’ of 30 cents to one Soosammal, daughter of Marriammai as per Deed No.1093 of 1963 of the Colachel Sub-Registrar Office. As per the Deed No.216 of 1970, Soosai Ammal gave assignment of the above mortgage right to Joseph Nadar, son of Manuvel Nadar got possession of 39 cents in the suit survey number and by change of hand, it came to one Mercy, wife of Thankappan of Alenchy Oor. In the meantime, a road was formed on the eastern side of the above 39 cents plot with the consent of Nagamony Nadar and the same occupied some area from three cents. He also gave a cent on the north eastern corner of the above plot to Killioor Union so as to dig a well. Thus after excluding area left for road, the well etc., the available area is only 31 cents and the same is the suit property in the plaint.

4(1).The Jenmi Nagamony Nadar sold the equity of redemption in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of plainiff as per Deed No.867 of 1976 of the Colachel Sub-Registrar Office with a recital to redeem the otti from the hand of assignee mortgage, Mercy. Accordingly, the plaintiff got release of the mortgage right as per release deed No.388 of 1978 of the Colachel Sub-Registrar Office and entered into physical possession of the plaint schedule property. Since then, she has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner without any interruption from anybody. Her possession is in continuation of her predecessors- in-interest is peaceful, absolute and uninterrupted.

4(2).In the plaintiffs sale deed, by wrong assumption the Resurvey Number was given by mistake as 86/1 of Keezhamidalam Village. Along with the plaint, the sale deed, the plan of the suit property is attached. It has clearly located R