Courts must accurately identify properties in dispute based on primary documents to resolve ownership challenges effectively.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff over plaint A and B schedule properties and for recovery of possession of plaint A schedule property. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the plaintiff before the Sub Court was also dismissed. It is in the above circumstances, this second appeal is filed.

2.The case of the plaintiff is that properties scheduled as A and B in the plaint belonged to him. A schedule is stated to be an extent of 32 cents. Admittedly, the entire property belonged to the father of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, late Govindan. Govindan had executed Ext.A1 settlement deed settling properties in favour of his children. The plaintiff who was a minor at the time of execution of the settlement deed has been alloted item No.4 in the settlement deed. As per the recital of the document, the house situated in the property was set apart to the plaintiff reserving the right of the father and mother to reside there during their life time. B schedule is stated to be the property which is alloted to the plaintiff's brother Chellappan who is stated to have transferred his share as per Ext.A2 document in 1976. According to the plaintiff, after the 1st defendant retired from military service, he had requested the plaintiff to permit him to reside in the house situated in the A schedule property till he is able to construct his house in the share allotted. It is stated that even after constructing the house, the 1st defendant did not vacate the premises. It is in the above circumstances, the suit is filed. The prayer in the suit is for declaration of title over plaint A and B schedule properties and for recovering possession of the building situated in A schedule property. The defendant admitted execution of Ext.A1 settlement deed and Ext.A2 sale deed. However, the contention that he was permitted to reside in the house is denied. According to the defendant, the plaintiff had demolished the building which was situated in plaint A schedule. The defendant's case is that he had constructed a house in the share alloted to him and he is residing there. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was not entitled to the entire extent of land which is claimed by him and there is a shortage of extent. The trial Court dismissed the suit finding that the plaintiff has not prayed for recovery of possession of the land over which the building is situated and did not take steps to measure out the property which is in the possession of the defendant. The first appellate Court has confirmed the decree. It is observed that schedule 1 in Ext.A1 is alloted to the brother Chellappan, schedule 4 is the property alloted to the plaintiff, schedule 3 is the property alloted to the 1st defendant and schedule 2 is the property alloted to Janardhanan, another brother of the plaintiff. The Appellate Court went into Ext.A2 document and found that even though 25 cents of land was alloted to Chellappan as per Ext.A1 partition deed, he could have sold only 20 cents to the plaintiff as that alone was the extent available. The Appellate Court granted decree of declaration of title with regard to plaint B schedule property. As far as A schedule is concerned, the Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court. The Court while considering the extent of land available in A schedule property, has found that instead of 32 cents, only an extent of 25.94 cents was available as per the report of the Commissioner. However, for the reason that there is no prayer to re-convey the possession of 7 cents of land abutting the house, the appellate Court denied the relief to the appellant. It can be seen from the report of the Commissioner that the building is found to be situated in schedule 1 of the property identified on the basis of Ext.A1. According to the plaintiff, the said property is scheduled as A schedule in the plaint. The 1st defendant has no case that he is entitled to