Property rights are determined primarily by the adherence to title descriptions, with access concerns being subordinate to established legal boundaries.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of December, 2023 This regular second appeal has been filed under order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC” hereinafter) challenging the decree and judgment in A.S. No.34/2018 of 2018 dated 19.05.2020 on the files of the Court of the Additional District Judge-II, Pathanamthitta arose from decree and judgment in O.S. No.292 of 2008 dated 08.02.2018 on the files of the Court of the Munsiff, Pathanamthitta. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondent is the defendant/counter claim plaintiff in O.S. No. 292 of 2008.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The parties in this appeal shall be referred as “plaintiffs” and “defendant” relegating their status before the trial court.

4. In this matter, the plaintiffs who are husband and wife asserted title and possession over plaint schedule item No.1 property having and extent of 32.79 Ares as per sale deed No.264/1/2005 of Pandalam S.R.O. Similarly, the contention of the plaintiffs was that the plaint schedule item No.2 property having an extent of 33 Ares also is one lying adjacently on the northern side of plaint schedule item No.1 property belonged to the defendant. Plaint schedule item No.3 property, having an extent of approximately 10 cents of land forming the northern portion of plaint schedule item No.1 in east-west alignment also belongs to the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the entire properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants were originally belonged to Anandavalli Amma, who is the mother of the defendant and she executed settlement deed No.195/1995 of Pandalam S.R.O. in favour of her daughter Chandrapraba Bhai and the plaintiffs purchased the plaint schedule item No.1 property from the said Chandrapraba as per sale deed No.264/1/2005 of Pandalam S.R.O. According to the plaintiffs, there is cloud in so far as the title of the plaintiffs over plaint schedule item No.3 property. Accordingly, title over plaint schedule item No.3 property sought to be declared and the plaintiffs also sought for decree allowing separation of the northern boundary of the plaint schedule item No.1 property with that of the defendant’s property. Prohibitory injunction also was sought for in the suit.

5. The defendant filed written statement with counter claim. According to the defendant, Anandavalli Amma obtained 1 Acre and 85 Cents of property in Old Survey No.425/10 A and B of Kulanada Village out of which Anandavalli Amma sold 901/ cents of property in favour of

2 Chandrapraba Bhai as per sale deed No.195/1995 and the plaintiffs derived title to the said extent of property as per sale deed No.264/1/2005 of Pandalam S.R.O. The remaining property on the northern portion of the said 1 Acre and 85 Cents obtained by Anandavalli Amma was transferred to the defendant.

6. According to the defendant, 0.36 Ares of land is owned and possessed by Chandrapraba Bhai which was given in favour of the sister of the defendant on the western side of the plaintiffs’ property and on the eastern side of defendant’s property, 0.36 Ares of land in Re survey No.50/2012 and 50/2013, there is no reason to fix the eastern boundary of the said 0.36 Ares of property. The defendant also prayed for fixation of the southern boundary of the counter claimed property.

7. The trial court tried the matter. PWs 1 to 5 examined and Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of the plaintiffs. DW1 examined and Exts.B1 to B8 marked on the side of the defendant. CWs 1 and 2 examined and Exts.C1 to C2(c) marked as court witnesses and court exhibits.

8. Finally it was found by the trial court that the prayer for declaration of title as claimed by the plaintiffs over plaint schedule item No.3 property could not be allowed and the dispute could be resolved by fixing the northern boundary of the plaint schedule property with that of the counter claim scheduled property. Accordingly, the s