In property disputes, discrepancies between title deeds and TSLR reports favor the registered dimensions in determining ownership and encroachment, with physical possession reports being pivotal.

JUDGMENT :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1. This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2021 made in A.S.No.1 of 2021 passed by the Sub Court, Alandur reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2017 made in O.S. No. 370 of 2011 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Alandur.

2.The unsuccessful plaintiff is on appeal.

3.The plaintiff has filed the above suit in O.S.No.370/2011 seeking the relief of permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction asserting that she possesses absolute title and uninterrupted possession over the 'A' schedule property to an extent of 1210 sq. ft., in T.S.No.35 under Ex.A2 sale deed dated 07.03.1996. While so, the defendant is trying to construct compound wall on the eastern side by encroaching a portion of plaintiff's 'A' schedule property and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit.

4. On the other hand, the claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant stating that he has purchased the property in T.S.No.34 under Ex.B1 sale deed 22.07.1991. He then constructed the building after getting approval from the Alandur Municipality and also obtained EB service connection and his property was assessed for property tax. When the defendant was trying to construct the compound wall on the eastern side, the plaintiff prevented him and removed the basement of the compound wall. The further contention of the defendant is that, the defendant's family were in continuous possession of his property for more than 80 years, prior to the purchase of plaintiff and the boundaries are fixed. The defendant has constructed his compound wall entirely within his own legitimate boundary.

5. The trial Court after framing necessary issues and based on the materials on record decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this, the defendant preferred the appeal suit in A.S.No.1 of 2021 before Sub Court, Alandur. The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Hence, this second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court.

6. This second appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1) Whether the first appellate Court is right in rejecting the learned Advocate Commissioner's report and survey plan marked as Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 as not conclusive proof, particularly, when the commissioner's report and survey plan are relevant under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C to elucidate the matter in dispute as to the encroachment, as held in 2020 (1) SCC 1 (CB)?

2) Has not the first appellate Court erred in giving undue credence to the lesser extent mentioned in the TSLR (Ex.A3) by overlooking the correct extent of the property purchased by the plaintiff under the Sale Deed dated 07.03.1996 (Ex.A2)?’’

7. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff would submit that the suit property was originally owned by Tmt. Muniyammal and Madana, who had sold it to Tr. CM. Hasan under a sale deed dated 11.09.1975 (Doc.No.1565/1975) marked as Ex.A1. His legal heirs sold it to Mr. MSM. Syed Ibrahim under a sale deed dated 25.11.1982 (Doc.No.3920/1982). Thereafter, MSM. Syed Ibrahim had executed a sale deed to the plaintiff on 07.03.1996 (Doc.No.859/1996) marked as Ex. A2. After purchase, the plaintiff had constructed a residential house in the year 1996. She had obtained EB service connection. The House was assessed for property tax. The defendant is the owner of the house site on the western side. Both the pl