A rectification deed cannot create title where the original vendor lacked authority to convey property rights, reaffirming legal principles regarding property transfers.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the defendant No.3 assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.10910/1998, wherein the plaintiff's suit seeking relief of declaration of title and for possession is decreed.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Facts leading to the case are as under: Plaintiff instituted a suit seeking declaration of title based on registered sale deed obtained by plaintiff from one A.P. Srinivasulu under registered sale deed dated 01.07.1998. Plaintiff specifically asserted that plaintiff’s site bearing No.8-C measures 20x30 feet and the same is part and parcel of Sy.No.7. Alleging that defendant No.3 on the strength of sale deed executed by defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated 10.05.1999 pertaining to Site No.2 illegally trespassed and dispossessed plaintiff and therefore, suit is filed asserting title over Site No.8-C.

4. On receipt of summons, defendant No.3 entered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Per contra, defendant No.3 asserted title to the property measuring 23x30 feet pertaining to Site No.2 in Sy.No.8/4. Defendant No.3 asserted that post-purchase, she has put up construction and she is residing and plaintiff has no semblance of right insofar as site No.2 is concerned. Defendant No.3 alleged that plaintiff cannot seek relief of declaration and injunction without producing layout plan pertaining to Sy.No.7. Defendant No.3 specifically contended that defendant No.3's property bearing Site No.2 is part and parcel of Sy.No.8/4 situated at 10^th cross and it measures 23x30 feet while plaintiff's site bearing No.8-C is part and parcel of Sy.No.7 measuring 20x30 feet.

5. Based on rival claims, trial Court formulated appropriate issues. Plaintiff and defendant No.3 were permitted to lead oral and documentary evidence in support of their claim. The core issue that was raised by the trial Court was in regard to identity of the suit schedule property and whether defendant No.3 illegally dispossessed plaintiff on 14.10.1998.

6. Trial Court on assessing oral and documentary evidence, while answering Issue No.1 in the affirmative recorded a categorical finding that the sale deed obtained by defendant No.3 pertaining to site No.2 does not convey title under Ex.P-21 as defendant No.1 had already conveyed the site in favour of one Muniswamy through sale deed dated 30.05.1968 who in-turn sold it in favour of M. Kharar Hussain under registered sale deed dated 19.12.1979, which are marked as Exs.P-24 and P-25 respectively. The trial Court also adverted to the encumbrance certificate indicating that Site No.2 is formed in Sy.No.8/4. Consequently, suit was decreed and defendant No.3 is directed to hand over possession.

7. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.3 reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo would point out that defendant No.3 has not seriously questioned plaintiff's title. Since defendant No.3 is asserting title over Site No.2 which is part and parcel of Survey No.8/4 and therefore, both the properties being distinct and separate, plaintiff’s fictitious suit seeking possession of Site No.8-C has virtually tried to lay a claim over defendant No.3's Site No.2 situated in Survey No.8/4.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff straight away taking this Court through Ex.P-51 has demonstrated that two private layouts were formed while the plaintiff’s Site No.8-C is part and parcel of Sy.No.7, the disputed Site No.2 is part and parcel of a layout formed in Site Nos.8/4, 9/1 and 10. The layout formed in Sy.Nos.7 and 8/4, 9/1 and 10 are adjacent to each other. The same can be gathered from the layout plan ma