The need for definitive evidence of title and property boundaries is crucial in eviction cases, with the court requiring thorough examination of claims and measurements.

JUDGMENT :

The Second Appeal in S.A.No.148 of 2022 is preferred by the defendant in O.S.No.912 of 2007 challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2021 made in A.S.No.5 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Sub-Ordinate Judge at Pondicherry partly allowing the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2019 made in O.S. No. 912 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.

2.The Second Appeal in S.A.No.1027 of 2022 is preferred by the plaintiff defendant in O.S.No.912 of 2007 challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2021 made in A.S.No.5 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Sub-Ordinate Judge at Pondicherry, reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2019 made in O.S. No. 912 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

4.The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff in O.SNo.912 of 2007 had purchased the suit property from his vendors Lakshmanan and Arumugam vide sale deed dated 30.08.1988. From the date of purchase he is in possession and enjoyment of the 'A' schedule property without any disturbance. He has taken effective steps for raising construction in the 'A' schedule property. During the 1st week of May 2007, the defendant who is the owner of the adjacent property, tried to encroach upon the 'B' schedule property, which is a part of 'A' schedule property and the same was resisted by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff took steps to measure his property with the help of a surveyor. The defendant despite informed by the plaintiff regarding the date of surveyor's visit for measuring the properties, did not give assistance for measuring the property. The defendant gaining knowledge about the representation given by the plaintiff for measuring the property, under the ill advice of her husband, encroached into the 'B' schedule property to an extent of 2x43 feet and started to raise construction over the same without any right whatsoever. He had reported the matter to the SHO, Villianur Police station, but the police officials after enquiry advised the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court. Hence, the suit.

5.The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant. The defendant would contend that the property in R.S.No.67/3 belonged to one Krishnaraj and he has sold the said property to one Nagamuthu by a registered sale deed dated 26.07.1988 and the said Nagamuthu who also had the right over the adjacent properties in R.S.Nos. 70/4, 70/7,166/3, 166/7 and 166/8 developed the same by dividing into 65 plots by a lay out. The defendant has purchased an extent of 1279 sq.ft in plot No.61 A in R.S.No.67/3 through a registered sale deed dated 04.09.2006 under Ex.B5. The defendant took possession of the said property and made arrangements to start the construction in the year 2007 by investing huge amount. While so, the plaintiff is claiming a portion of the said property without any right. Hence, prayed for dismissing the suit.

6. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff granting the relief of declaration of title and directed the defendant to handover vacant possession of encroached portion in 'B' schedule property to the plaintiff, against which the defendant preferred the appeal suit in A.S.No.5 of 2021. The first Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal suit directing the plaintiff to sell the encroached portion to an extent of 49 s