Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 56123
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
C.RAJASEKHARAN – Appellant
Versus
SINDHULEKSMI – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 1574 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.JAYASANKER, RASMI NAIR, T.
For the Respondents: K.SHAJ
In boundary disputes, adherence to title deeds and accurate measurements is essential; flawed survey reports cannot support executable decrees.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 39 - This original petition challenges an order regarding the fixation of boundaries and the report of a surveyor. The petitioner contends that the surveyor failed to comply with prior court directives, resulting in inaccuracies in property measurement and identification. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Property Law - Title and Boundary Disputes - The court emphasizes the importance of adhering to title deeds and accurate measurements in boundary disputes, stating that a flawed survey report cannot lead to an executable decree. (Paras 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an additional plaintiff, challenges a survey report that inaccurately identifies property boundaries, claiming the report fails to comply with previous court orders and misrepresents the extent of land belonging to the defendants.
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the surveyor's report did not adhere to the title deeds, resulting in an incorrect assessment of property boundaries.
Issues: The main issues include the accuracy of the survey report, adherence to court directives, and the implications of measurement errors on property rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the surveyor's failure to comply with court directions necessitates reconsideration of the case, affirming that inaccuracies in property measurement undermine the legitimacy of the survey report.
Result: The order is set aside, and the trial court is directed to reconsider the application.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and previous court orders. (Para 5) |
| 2. petitioner's contention about surveyor's errors. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's observations on survey discrepancies. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Above original petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 order passed by the learned Munsiff in I.A. No.8 of 2022 in O.S. No.396 of 2023 of the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the original petition are as follows:
Petitioner is the additional plaintiff No.2 in O.S. No.396 of 2003 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta. The suit was filed for fixation of boundary and consequential relief. It is averred that in fact the original plaintiff had an extent of 46 cents of land covered by way of Sale Deed No.986/1991 of SRO Pathanamthitta, out of which she exchanged the eastern 4 ½ cents with side measurements of 48.9 meters from the southern boundary towards north, on the eastern and western boundary lines stretching north-south and 3.74 meters each on the southern and northern boundary lines to one Jacob, S/o. Samuel which is described as 1st schedule under the Exchange Deed No.2139/2001 dated 17.08.2001 of SRO Pathanamthitta against the 2nd schedule of 2 cents with side measurements of 15.5 meters length, on the southern and northern boundary lines with 5.40 meters on the east and 4.60 meters in the west from the northern boundary line towards south on the eastern and western ends respectively to have heavy vehicular access to her property covered under Sale Deed No.986/1991 from eastern ring road.
2. Thus Mr. Jacob had title over a total extent of 26 cents of land comprising of 21 ½ cents in Sy.No.P229/5B and 4 ½ cents in Sy.No.P 229/4 of Pathanamthitta Village covered by Settlement Deed No.1589/1974 and Exchange Deed No.2139/2001 both of SRO Pathanamthitta. He sold this 26 cents he had to the defendants by way of separate sale deeds. As follows:
1. 6 cents to the 1st defendant by Sale Deed No.1315/2003
2. 7 cents to the 2nd defendant by Sale Deed No.1312/2003
3. 7 cents to the 3rd defendant by Sale Deed No.1313/2003
4. 6 cents to the 4th defendant by Sale Deed No.1314/2003 Total Area of items 1+2+3+4 = 26 cents.
3. In all the above sale deeds the Exchange Deed No.2139/2001 executed between Sri. Jacob and petitioner’s mother Rajamma (original plaintiff) is referred to as one among the two prior title deeds of Jacob the Vendor in the sale deeds referred to above. Thus the defendants are only entitled to have their claim only over the 26 cents of property lying on the east of the plaint schedule item No.1 and south of plaint schedule item 2 which belonged to Jacob, their vendor.
4. An Advocate Commissioner assisted by the surveyor prepared a sketch and plan, and after taking evidence the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit for the reason that the properties were not identified properly by the Advocate Commissioner. Though the judgment and decree of the trial Court was challenged in A.S. No.87 of 2007, the same was also dismissed as per order dated 16.03.2011. The judgment and decree of both the Courts were challenged in RSA No.1132 of 2011 before this Court and by Ext.P3 judgment this Court set aside the judgment and decree of both the Courts and the suit was remanded back to the trial Court for fresh disposal by permitting the parties to set out a new survey commission and to locate the property based on the old survey plan and the documents of title. Thereafter a fresh application was filed as I.A. No.4 of 2021 seeking issuance of an Advocate Commission assisted by the surveyor. Thereafter the said application was allowed and Ext.P5 commission report was filed along with a mahazar and sketch.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the sketch appended to the report itself will clearly show that the same has been prepared without complying with the directions contained in Ext.P3 judgment of this Court. Thereupon the plaintiffs filed an application as I.A. No.7 of 2022 in O.S. N
