Property title disputes should prioritize precise extent descriptions over erroneous boundary and survey details in adjudicating ownership.

J U D G M E N T

RSA No.700 of 2010 arises from OS 15/1998. It was filed by the appellants as the plaintiffs. That suit was originally one for fixation of boundary, and was later amended for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Therein, the respondents raised a counter claim for a declaration that the existing boundary is the boundary of the disputed property. RSA No.749 of 2016 arises from OS 14/1998. It is a cross suit filed by the respondents as plaintiffs, for prohibitory injunction against trespass and from destroying the boundary. The Courts held against the appellants.

2. The courts considered OS 15/1998 to be the leading case. For the sake of convenience, herein also the same course is followed, and the parties and the plaint schedule are referred to as per the status and description in OS 15/1998 (plaintiffs-appellants and defendants-respondents).

3. An extent of 2 acres of property, including the plaint schedule property, belonged to the first plaintiff as per Ext.A1 Sale Deed of the year 1989. It was executed in his favour by one Joseph. The second plaintiff is the husband of the first plaintiff. On the eastern side of the property of the plaintiffs is the property of the defendants. The plaintiffs allege, trespass by the defendants into the south-eastern portion of the 2 acres. The alleged trespassed portion is the plaint schedule 42 cents.

4. The defendants denied the allegation of trespass. They contended that, the plaint schedule property forms part of the larger extent of 5 acres of property belonging to them, as described in counter claim schedules 1 to 4 and also in the plaint schedule in OS 14/1998. They claim to have obtained title to the said property under Exts.B9 to B11 Sale Deeds. According to them, the plaint schedule property lies well demarcated from the property of the plaintiffs by barbed wire-fencing. They allege that the plaintiffs are attempting to destroy the boundary. They raised a counter claim for a declaration that, the existing boundary is the boundary separating the properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. They also filed a suit OS 14/1998 for prohibitory injunction against trespass. 5. The Courts, relying upon the identification of the properties done by the Commissioner in Ext.C6 plan, and also taking note of the existing ridge and barbed wire-fencing separating the plaint schedule property from the property of the plaintiffs, dismissed the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs, and decreed the counter claim and the suit filed by the respondents. 6. Heard Sri.M.Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondents on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) On facts of the case, were the courts justified in having decided the title over the plaint schedule property on the basis of survey records, including re-survey and old survey?

(ii) Having found that there is apparent discrepancy in the description of the plaint schedule property by boundaries and survey numbers, were the courts right in having fixed the identity and title based on re-survey, especially when the re- survey was done pending the present suit on title ?

7. On the eastern side of the admitted property of the plaintiffs is the admitted property of the defendants. Taking it to be that the properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants are almost rectangular plots, the disputed property is on the south-eastern side of the property of the plaintiffs. In other words, the disputed property-plaint schedule lies protruded towards the west and into the admitted property of the plaintiffs. The lie of the properties is evident from Exts.C1 and C4 Commissioner's reports with rough sketches attached thereto. These reports are by the very same Commissioner and are similar. The reports indicate that, on the western and northern sides of the disputed property-plaint schedule, there exists a ridge having a height varying from 1.5 feet to 4.5 feet, with a barbed wi