SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2044

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
Gurrappa Naidu – Appellant
Versus
Munusamy Naidu – Respondent
S.A.No.224 of 2021 And CMP No.4441 of 2021
Decided on : 15-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan
For the Respondent: Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy

Boundaries prevail over extent in property disputes, and the burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish entitlement beyond what is specified in the Partition Deed.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - The appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court confirming the Trial Court's decision regarding the partition of ancestral property. The plaintiff claims title over Acre 1.36 based on boundaries specified in the Partition Deed dated July 5, 1982, while the defendants assert rights over the same land based on a subsequent Partition Deed dated January 25, 2010. The courts found that boundaries prevail over extent, and the plaintiff is entitled only to Acre 1.26 as per the original Partition Deed. (Paras 10, 22)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 101 - Burden of Proof - The court held that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the validity of claims regarding the land's measurement and subdivision, which was not satisfactorily demonstrated. (Paras 10, 22)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff and the first defendant are siblings who entered into a Partition Deed in 1982. The plaintiff claims additional land based on subsequent possession and subdivision, while the defendants contest this claim based on a later Partition Deed.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the Trial Court's ruling that the plaintiff is entitled to Acre 1.26 only, and the defendants have an easementary right over a Cart Track.

Issues: The main issues were whether the burden of proof was correctly placed on the defendants and the validity of the northern boundary designation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the original boundaries specified in the Partition Deed are paramount, and the plaintiff cannot claim more than what was allotted.

Result: The Second Appeal is partly allowed, affirming the plaintiff's title to Acre 1.26 and recognizing the defendants' easement rights. (Paras 22, 23)

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated June 26, 2020 passed in A.S.No.4 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated February 13, 2017 passed in O.S.No.23 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated June 26, 2020 passed in A.S.No.4 of 2018 by the 'learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court' for the sake of brevity and convenience] confirming the Judgment and Decree dated February 13, 2017 passed in O.S.No.23 of 2013 by the 'learned District Munsif, Krishnagiri' [henceforth 'Trial Court' for the sake of brevity and convenience].

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF:

3. One Appaiyan @ Munusamy and Pappammal are husband and wife. They have four sons, namely Munusamy (Plaintiff), Gurrappa Naidu (1st Defendant), Krishnan and Govindasamy. Appaiyan @ Munusamy passed away 60 years ago and his wife Pappammal passed away 30 years ago from the date of plaint (Date of plaint is January 26, 2013). After the demise of Appaiyan @ Munusamy and Pappammal, the aforesaid four sons entered into a Registered Partition Deed dated July 5, 1982 (registered on July 12, 1982 as Document No. 1161 of 1982) in respect of their ancestral and joint family properties. In the said Partition Deed, an extent of Acre 1.26 in Survey No.663 was allotted to the plaintiff and an extent of Acre 0.88 was allotted to the 1st defendant. According to the plaintiff, at the time partition, though extents were specified in the aforesaid Partition Deed, no measurement was made and lands were divided on the basis of boundaries. On and after the said Partition, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant were enjoying the lands allotted to them within the specific four boundaries mentioned in the said Partition Deed. Considering the possession and enjoyment, the lands of the plaintiff and the first defendant were sub-divided as Survey Nos.663/1 and 663/2 respectively under the ‘Up-Dating Registry Scheme’ ['UDR Scheme' for short]. Further, Patta was granted to the plaintiff for an extent of Acre 1.36 in Survey No.663/1 and to the 1st defendant for an extent of Acre 0.68 in Survey No.663/2 under UDR Scheme. The 1st defendant was very well aware of the above facts and never raised any objection nor claimed any right over the land allotted to the plaintiff. There is a well -formed ridge dividing the lands of plaintiff and first defendant. The Suit Property is Acre 1.36 of land in Survey No.663/1. Further, as per the Partition Deed dated July 5, 1982 the 1st defendant was permitted to use the east to west Cart Track in the Suit Property which proceeds from North-West Corner of the Suit Property and reaches first defendant’s property. The plaintiff has not obstructed the 1st defendant for his access as per the terms of the Partition Deed.

4. The 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant and 3 to 8 defendants are the sons and daughters of the 1st and 2nd defendants. All of a sudden, the defendants created a Partition Deed dated January 25, 2010 among themselves including a portion of the Suit Property spanning 11 Cents.

The said 11 Cents of land absolutely belong to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 68 Cents only. Hence, the defendants have no right to include in the Partition Deed more than the extent available in their possession. On the strength of the Partition Deed dated January 25, 2010, the defendants trespassed and encroached the said 11 Cents of land in the first week of October 2012. The plaintiff came to know about the alleged Partition Deed dated January 25, 2010 in the year 2012 only. The Partition Deed dated January 2010, in so far as the said

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top