Property disputes require clear title proof for injunction orders; unresolved boundary issues prevent such injunctions.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff, who was concurrently non-suited by the Munsiff Court, Haripad, in O.S. No.205 of 2005, as well as the Additional District Court-I, Mavelikkara, in A.S. No.58 of 2007, has come up in the present appeal.

2. O.S. No 205 of 2005 was filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to cut and remove the branches of the overhanging trees into the plaint A and B schedule properties. The defendants disputed the title of the plaintiff over A schedule property. The trial court found that the plaintiff could not satisfactorily prove her title over the property and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No.58 of 2007 before the Additional District Court-I, Mavelikkara. During the appellate stage, though the plaintiff produced additional documents, the appellate court found that there exists a serious boundary dispute between the plaintiff and defendants, and held that it would not be proper for the court to issue the mandatory injunction and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, R.S.A. No. 1244 of 2009 is filed.

3. Heard Sri. Millu Dandapani, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Saijo Hassan, the learned Counsel for the respondents.

4. Suffice to say, on consideration of the rival submissions, this Court finds that there arises no substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal. As rightly found by the courts below, when there exists a boundary dispute between the parties, the plaintiff cannot seek for any mandatory injunction. Hence, no further consideration of the appeal is required.

5. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and the interim award was passed on 22.6.2010, which reads as under:

Parties and their counsel are present. After elaborate discussion, parties have agreed to settle their entire disputes relating to the property in the following manner.

The entire property of the appellant and the respondent will be measured by the Taluk Surveyor, Karthikappilly with reference to the respective title deeds and a sketch showing the measurements will be prepared. Parties agreed to abide by the measurement and boundaries so fixed. When the entire property is measured, if there is any shortfall in the extent of the total property; the shortfall will be proportionately suffered by the parties. Likewise if there is any excess property found on measurement, the excess property will be shared by the parties proportionate to their holdings. On fixation of boundary as stated above, branches of the trees overhanding on either side will be removed by parties. The expenses of measurement and proportion of sketch will be borne by the respondent. After the measurement and fixation of the boundaries, the parties will withdraw or file compromise petition in all the pending cases between them. Accordingly, Taluk Surveyor, Karthikappilly, is directed to measure the property of both parties in this case and prepare a sketch indicating the boundaries and produce the same before the Adalat. Post this matter on 15.09.2010.

6. Pursuant to the interim award, the retired Head Surveyor was appointed for the purpose of measuring out the property. Accordingly, a sketch and a report were filed before this Court on 22.3.2011.

7. In the light of the report and the sketch, the boundary dispute stands resolved between the parties, and the parties can be ordered to be governed by the settlement arrived on the basis of the interim award by making the same as final. Thus, while affirming the dismissal of the suit by the first appellate court, it is made clear that the parties will be governed by the terms of the settlement arrived based on the interim a