In property disputes, specific boundaries in a sale deed take precedence over the stated extent of land, and failure to prove possession negates claims.

JUDGMENT

The dispute is with regard to 8 cents. According to the appellant, he is in possession and enjoyment of 8 cents, after selling a portion of the properties to the respondent, in the year 1985. The appellant sold only 2 acres of lands to the Vendors in 1984 and he retained 8 cents on the South East side. The remaining extent of 1 acre and 32 cents which is adjacent to the disputed land was sold to another third party that is the Eastern side of the disputed land.

2.The learned counsel for the respondent contended that though the extent was granted in 2 acres of lands but with a specific four boundaries the land was conveyed by the appellant to original purchaser Kannammal of the year 1984.

3.The respondent's father purchased the property from the original vendor Kannammal under a Sale Deed in the year 1985 to an extent of 2 acres with specific four boundaries. Thereafter, from 1995 onwards, after demise of the respondent's father, the respondent is enjoying the property through Ex.A3 – Will executed by his father. In the year 2018, Ex.A5 - Joint patta was issued in respect of S.No.27/4B in favour of both the respondent and the appellant. Thereafter, the dispute arose between them. After selling a portion of the property, the original owner retained the then 8 cents, thereby, he claimed that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. Hence, the respondent filed a suit for declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of the extent of the entire land with four boundaries as per the Sale Deed. The suit was dismissed after analysing the evidence holding that in the conveyance Deed, the measurement of the property is approximately cited. The measurement was not properly cited in the documents. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the First Appellate Court held that as per Ex.B4 – Sale Deed dated 25.04.1994 through which the appellant sold the remaining extent of 1 acre and 32 cents in favour of the third party wherein it is mentioned as Southern boundary belongs to Kaliyappan, father of the respondent, thereby, the First Appellate Court held that the appellant/defendant has not retained any extent much less 8 cents, The Sale Deed relied by Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 wherein the boundaries where clearly mentioned, though the extent is different the boundary prevails accordingly and the Appeal Suit was allowed. Challenging the said findings, now the defendant has filed this Second Appeal.

4.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that as per the Sale Deed relied by the respondent/plaintiff Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, the extent was mentioned only 2 acres but, 2 acres 8 cents is available, thereby, during the sub division in the year 2018, joint patta was issued in favour of the appellant and the respondent. It proves that the original owner/the appellant is holding 8 cents of lands through S.No.27/4B but as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent through the Sale Deeds. The appellant sold the entire extent with specific boundaries and not retained 8 cents as they claimed now.

5.A perusal of the Sale Deed reveals that the four boundaries were mentioned and there is no recitals and that originally owner retained 8 cents as claimed in the Written Statement. A portion of the lands was acquired by the National Highways for expanding the road. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that only 2 acre was sold to the plaintiff but he is claiming more that extent.

6.Considering all the submissions made on either side, there is no proof on the side of the appellant that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property 8 cents after selling the property to the respondent and one Srirangan family. Besides the boundary prevails over the extent also.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent is inclined to settle the issues and even agreeing to pay the compensation to the alleged 8 cents to avoid further litigations.

8. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the a