Disputes over property identity require comprehensive legal actions, not mere injunction claims.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal basically raises a question of identity of the property in a suit for injunction. The plaintiff claims that he is in absolute possession of 64 cents covered by Exts.A1 and A2 documents, whereas the defendants also claim that they are in possession of various extents of property, which takes in the 64 cents claimed by the plaintiff.

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

One Karuppan Chettiyar had various extents of property. The plaintiff claimed that his mother was in possession of 1 Acre 10 cents and while so, Karuppan Chettiyar transferred 64 cents by Ext.A1 sale deed to the father of the plaintiff, who later by virtue of Ext.A2 transferred the said extent in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants claims the possession on the basis of Ext.B3. According to the defendants, after the death of Karuppan Chettiyar, his son had transferred the various extents of property which consist of five taks. In O.S No.144/1991, the plaintiff sued the defendants for a permanent prohibitory injunction, based on sale deed No.567/1984 (Ext.A2 in this case). The claim of the plaintiff was negated on the ground that the plaint schedule property was not identified. The plaintiff carried the judgment in appeal in A.S No.9/2000, by judgment dated 28.06.2007, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit and hence the present suit. The defendants resisted the suit by contending that the plaintiff has no possession over the plaint schedule property and raised an identity issue. In order to prove the identity, the plaintiff took out an Advocate Commissioner, who inspected the property and filed a report on 22.09.2007. The said report was succeeded by yet another report filed on 21.12.2009. The Advocate Commissioner who identified the property gave a conflicting view as regards the identity of the property. The plaintiff had included item No.1 and 2 of Ext.A2 sale deed in the plaint, but whereas Ext.A2 sale deed contained three taks of property comprising of 64 cents. The Advocate Commissioner while filing the report had erroneously looked into an extent of property covered by Ext.A2 document and formed an opinion that item No.2 property of the said document is identified as ‘C’ plot. Apparently, when the Advocate Commissioner identified the property, and on the basis of its exact lie, the boundaries as noted by the Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C2 report did not match, with the boundaries of the schedule mentioned in the document. Resultantly, the trial court formed an opinion that the plaintiff could not prove the identity of the property and thus the non- suited the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Though the plaintiff preferred an appeal, the same was also dismissed and hence the present appeal, raising the following substantial question of law as under:- (i) In the light of the commission report and plan, were the courts below justified in coming to the conclusion that the property claimed by the plaintiff is not properly identified?

3. Heard Shri.Jayesh Mohankumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri.G.Sreekumar (Chelur), the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Shri.Jayesh Mohankumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the entire exercise done by the Advocate Commissioner was erroneous, inasmuch as he was not required to identify any other property except the plaint schedule property, which consists of 50 cents of land. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that going by Exts.A1 and A2, the first two taks, comprises of 50 cents of property and item No.2 of the said document comprise