Court upheld the principle that well-defined boundaries in property law prevail over stated extents in title deeds.

JUDGMENT

The defendants in O.S.No.165/2006 on the files of Principal Munsiff Court, Palakkad are the appellants in this Second Appeal filed under Order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent is the sole plaintiff in the above suit.

2. Concurrent verdicts rendered by the trial court as well as the appellate court in O.S. No.165/2006 on the files of the Principal Munsiff Court, Palakkad and A.S. No.329/2009 on the files of the District Court, Palakkad, are under challenge in this appeal.

3. For easy reference and convenience, the parties in this appeal will be referred hereafter as `plaintiff' and `defendants' relegating their status before the trial court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants as well as the sole respondent/plaintiff in detail.

5. As on 6.7.2015, my learned predecessor who admitted this appeal raised the following substantial questions of law to be decided in this appeal:-

“1) Whether the courts below are justified in decreeing the suit in spite of the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan reveal that the appellants' case is more probable than the respondent's case ?

2) Whether the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to get a declaration and injunction in view of the fact that he does not lay a claim in respect of any property having an extent more than that is covered by Exts.A1 and A3 ? “

6. Originally, the suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property obtained by the plaintiff on the strength of assignment deed No.1586/2004 and sale deed No.1902/2002. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property was obtained by the plaintiff from its prior owner, who obtained the same as per document No.494/1981, as item No.5 in the schedule.

7. Initially, the suit was filed apprehending trespass upon the plaint schedule property and later the suit was amended with a prayer to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

8. The defendants filed written statement and additional written statement. It was contended that , 3 cents of property abutting the plaint schedule property is part of the property obtained by the defendants on the strength of patta dated 4.10.1976 issued vide Patta.No.6956/1976 of the Special Tahsildar, Kuzhalmannam. It is also submitted that defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the said extent of land and for which they have been paying tax. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

9. The court below recorded the evidence, confining the same to PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 on the side of the plaintiff. DW1 examined and Exts.B1 to B4 marked on the side of the defendants. Exts.C1, C2 and C3 also were marked. Finally, the learned Munsiff granted decree as under:

“a) Suit is decreed.

b) A decree of declaration is granted holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the property shown in Ext. C3(a) plan that comprised in survey No. 475/4 and 475/2. It is made clear that Ext. C3(a) plan will form part of this decree.

c) A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is granted restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property that is shown in Ext. C3(a) plan that comprised in survey No. 475/4 and 475/2.

d) No costs”

10. Though A.S. No.329/2009 was filed before the District Court, Palakkad, challenging the verdict of the trial court, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and concurred the verdict of the trial court.

11. Coming to the substantial questions of law, the case of the plaintiff is that, the plaintiff obtained the plaint schedule property on the strength of assignment deed No.1586/2004 and sale deed No.1902/2002. The above title deeds got marked as Exts.A1 and A3 and the prior title deed of Exts.A1 and A3 is marked as Ext.A2.

12. Per contra,