Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
PEEDIKAYULLAPARAMBATH CHANDRAMATHI – Appellant
Versus
P.P.RAVEENDRAN – Respondent
RSA 508 2021
Injunction - Property - Indian Evidence Act, Section 83; Code of Civil Procedure, Order XXVI Rule 10 - The courts affirmed the use of survey plans as evidence, determining that proper procedural adherence was observed in their preparation, which was pivotal in granting the injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed for a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent the defendants from trespassing onto property originally gifted to him, asserting rightful possession of a smaller area after subsequent amendments to the plaint schedule.
Finding of the Court:
The courts confirmed the plaintiff's title and possession over the specified plots in the amended plaint, while recognizing a procedural anomaly in including an unrelated plot, leading to a partial modification of the injunction.
Issues: The appeal questioned whether the courts erred in granting an injunction for an area not specified in the original claim and whether possession was established without examining the surveyor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that adherence to procedural rules regarding amendments and confirmations of plans is crucial, allowing for injunctions if the property is sufficiently identified, even without survey confirmation.
Final Decision: The appeal is partially allowed, modifying the injunction to exclude the unrelated plot, confirming it solely for the identified A, B, and C plots.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The court emphasized the importance of procedural adherence in evidentiary plans, especially concerning property identification for granting injunctions. Proper identification of the property, such as survey plans, suffices for the issuance of such injunctions, even if survey confirmation is not explicitly obtained (!) (!) .
The case involved a suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent trespassing on a property originally gifted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim was based on ownership and possession derived from a gift deed, with subsequent amendments to the plaint narrowing the scope of the property in question (!) (!) .
The initial description of the property included a larger extent (7 acres 42 cents), but subsequent amendments limited the claim to 5.14 acres, specifically identified as plots A, B, and C in the survey plan (Ext.C4). An anomaly was noted where an unrelated E plot was mistakenly included in the schedule, but the court clarified that the relief should be confined to the amended extent and identified plots (!) (!) .
The evidence showed that the survey plan (Ext.C4) was unopposed and was duly prepared with proper procedural steps, including notice to parties. The court held that this plan was sufficient to identify the property for the purpose of granting an injunction, even without survey confirmation, based on the clarity of measurements and boundaries (!) (!) .
The court discussed the evidentiary value of survey plans and reports, referencing relevant procedural rules and principles. It clarified that reports and plans prepared after serving notice to all parties are considered evidence, and non-examination of the commissioner or surveyor is not fatal if the process was properly conducted (!) (!) .
The possession of the plaintiff over the identified plots (A, B, and C) was supported by the evidence, and the defendants failed to prove possession or ownership over the disputed C plot. The oral lease claimed by the defendants was not substantiated, and the evidence confirmed the plaintiff’s title and possession over these plots (!) .
The appellate court’s decision to uphold the injunction was modified to restrict the injunction to the identified plots A, B, and C, excluding the E plot, which was sold to third parties. The court emphasized the importance of accurately describing the property and ensuring amendments are properly incorporated into pleadings and records (!) (!) .
The court highlighted the necessity for civil courts to ensure that amended pleadings are properly filed and legible, advocating for procedural improvements to avoid ambiguity and ensure clarity in future cases (!) .
The final ruling allowed the appeal in part, modifying the scope of the injunction to the specific plots identified in the survey plan. Both parties were directed to bear their costs, and the survey plan (Ext.C4) was to be incorporated into the appellate decree as part of the official record (!) .
Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance with specific legal implications.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of September, 2023 This appeal is at the instance of the defendants in OS No.
243/2014 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Nadapuram, where the defendants suffered decree and judgment dated 10.06.2019 at the hands of the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit. Though, the appellants herein challenged the verdict of the Munsiff Court granting decree of prohibitory injunction acting on Ext.C4 plan, the learned Sub Judge, Vadakara, also dismissed the appeal as per judgment dated
27.02.2021 in AS No.17/2019.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. This appeal was admitted by my predecessor on raising the following questions of law.
(2) Whether the two court below ascertained the factum of possession on the date of suit without examining the Advocate Commissioner and Surveyor?
(3) Whether the two courts below granted a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of an area of 5 acres and 14 cents, particularly, when the plaint schedule description and the plan has not become part of the decree?
4. I shall refer the parties as ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendants’
for convenience.
5. The facts of the case: The suit is one filed for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property, where the plaintiff asserted title and possession on the strength of a gift deed No.18/1970. Subsequently the plaint was amended, limiting the extent of land to 5.14 acres in tune with second commission report and plan. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property having an extent of 7 acre 42 cents originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff and the defendants, Kunhikanaran. While Kunhikanaran was in possession and enjoyment of the same, Kunhikanaran executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff accepted the gift deed and took delivery of the same. Thereafter, he made improvements in the property. Out of the plaint schedule property he had exchanged 2 Acre 4 ½ cents to one Nanu and sold an extent of 8.892 Ares to one Pradeepan. Thus the remaining extent of 5 Acre 14 Cents absolutely belonged to him and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants have no right over the plaint schedule property and there exists proper demarcating boundaries in between the plaint schedule properties and other properties. At the time of execution of the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff, his father had title over property on the eastern and northern sides of the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, father executed a registered Will No.15/1979 dated 07.03.1979 regarding those properties. Thereby property having an extent of 8 Acres was bequeathed to the defendants. Thereafter the defendants partitioned the said property among themselves as per partition Karar No.2149/1991 of SRO, Nadapuram. When the plaintiff, who permanently settled in Koothuparamba about 25 KM away from the plaint schedule property, reached the plaint schedule property on 03.12.2014, defendants 1, 4 and 5 raised dispute and claimed right over certain portions of the plaint schedule property and objected the plaintiff from taking the usufructs.
It was at this juncture, this Suit was filed.
6. The defendants resisted the suit and contended that in the year 1954, Kunhikanaran obtained title to properties including the plaint schedule property. But the legality of the gift deed relied on by the plaintiff was seriously disputed. Even though the defendants admitted that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to their father and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same, it was contended tha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
