Superior title via consistent sale deeds and commissioner's report prevails over inconsistent boundary claims; encroachment warrants declaration, recovery, and injunctions.

JUDGMENT :

K. KUMARESH BABU, J.

The present first appeal has been filed challenging the decree andjudgement dated 12.01.2017 made in the O.S.No.13 of 2015 on the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore.

2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction, and damages. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to one Ismail Sahib, and upon his demise, it devolved upon his legal heirs, namely Razia Begum, Ashiya Begum, Karimunisa Begum, Akbarunissa Begum, Rahimunissa Begum, and Zohara Jabin Begum. One of the daughters, Razia Begum, wife of V. Mohamed Athar Sahib, separated from the family, effected a partition of the family properties, and alienated her entire share through her power agent, thereby divesting herself of all right, title, and interest in the suit property

3. The remaining legal heirs retained a portion of the land, which they subsequently sold directly to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 14.06.2011, thereby conferring absolute title upon him. It is further stated that due to the expansion of the National Highways, several adjacent lands, including those held by third parties such as Girivasan and Ghouse Sahib, were acquired by the Government, leaving them only with a right to claim compensation and no subsisting right over the property. According to the plaintiff, the defendant, claiming through his father Ghouse Sahib, attempted to unlawfully encroach upon the suit property and had manipulated revenue and registration records, particularly by altering boundary descriptions in his sale deed, with an intention to usurp the plaintiff’s land. Hence, the plaintiff sought declaration of title and consequential reliefs.

4. The defendant, in his written statement, denied the allegations and contended that he had validly acquired 2200 sq. ft. in Plot No. 1B under a registered sale deed dated 11.11.2010 executed by the power agent of the original owners, and that he had further consolidated his title through a release deed executed by the legal heirs of his father. The defendant asserted that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property, supported by tax receipts and other records, and that there is no encroachment as alleged by the plaintiff. He further contended that the allegations of manipulation of documents are false and that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

5. On the aforesaid pleadings the following issues were framed

a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Declaration and Recovery of Possession?

b) Whether the defendant has put up construction by encroaching over the plaintiff’s property?

c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction?

d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?

e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages?

f) To what relief?

On the Plaintiffs’ side, PW1 to PW 4 was examined as witnesses and documents Ex. A1 to Ex. A11 were marked. On the Defendants’ side, DW1 was examined and documents Ex. B1 to Ex. B7 along with court exhibits Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 were marked.

6. On Issue (a),the Trial Court, upon the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff established a valid and lawful title over the suit property. The evidence of PW1 was found to be consistent with the pleadings, while the testimony of PW2 affirmed the execution of the sale in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff relied upon Ex.A4 – regist