Measurement of property for boundary disputes must accurately reflect legal boundaries and title, ensuring disputed evidence is considered before decreeing a suit.

JUDGMENT

The 4^th defendant in a suit for fixation of boundary and for declaration of title has come up in the present appeal.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

2.1. As per the plaint averments, Item No. 1 belongs to the plaintiff under E schedule to the partition deed no. 327 of 1963 and the southern boundary of item no. 1 is having a length of 4.75 meters and there is a kayyala having a length of 130 feet and height of 6 feet having more than 60 years. There is a strip of land having a width of 1.8 meters on the south- western side and of 9.9 meters on the south eastern side on the northern side of the southern boundary of item no.1. The said portion is scheduled as plaint schedule item no.2. The remaining property is lying at a lower level and there is a canal having a width of 1.5 meters on the southern side of item no. 1 situated at a depth of 6 feet. The canal and the properties lying on the lower level belongs to the defendants which is included as item no. 3. There is an Anjily tree and other trees in item no. 2 and item no. 1 and 2 are in possession of the plaintiffs. From the resurvey records, item no. 2 was mistakenly included in the defendant's property in Re. Sy. No. 468/7 at the instance of the 2^nd defendant who was the Re-Survey Deputy Tahsildar. Though it is stated that the plaintiff has filed application for correction of the resurvey records, nothing has been done. While so, the defendants made attempt to cut and remove the Anjily tree and plaintiff filed O.S. No. 259 of 2002 and the suit was withdrawn with permission to file a comprehensive suit for declaration of boundary and title and hence the present suit.

2.2. Defendants entered appearance and contested the suit by raising contentions as follows:

The suit is not maintainable and that the plaintiff has no property on the southern side of the kayyala and the property on the southern side including item no. 2 belongs to the defendants and they are in continuous occupation of the property and obtained pattayam for the properties. Item no. 2 forms part of item no. 3 and the cultivations in item no. 2 have been done by the defendants. The suit has been instituted with the intention to take possession of the Anjily tree standing in item no. 2 and even if it is found that the plaintiff has right in item no. 2, the same has been lost by adverse possession.

2.3. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts. A1 to A5 were marked and PW1 to Pw4 were examined. On behalf of the defendant, Exts. B1 and B2 were marked and DW1 was examined. Exts. C1, C1(a) and C1(b) are the report and the survey plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner. The plaintiff also produced Exts. A6 and A7 before the First Appellate Court as additional documents.

2.4. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not disputed the resurvey records and that there is no pleading in the plaint that the resurvey authorities fraudulently created the entries in the revenue records and therefore, held that the revenue records were binding upon the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 253 of 2008 before the District Court, Kottayam. The First Appellate Court on the reappreciation of the evidence found that since there is no dispute on the side of the defendants as regards the measurements done by the Advocate Commissioner, the plaintiff was entitled to succeed and accordingly reversed the findings of the Trial Court and decreed the suit an