JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below is the appellant before this Court and the parties are referred to in the same litigative status as before the Trial Court. The facts in brief are as follow:-

2.The plaintiff had filed a suit O.S.No.30 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Myladuthurai seeking grant of an injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from in any manner trespassing and removing the trees, fences, ridges in the suit property belonging to the rd plaintiff and for a direction to the 3 defendant to rectify the survey number which was wrongly entered as Survey No.344/3 in the sale deed dated

19.04.1982 instead of Survey No.343/2A.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had purchased the suit schedule properties from the 3rd defendant under a Registered Sale deed dated 19.04.1982 and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since rd then. The 3 defendant had in turn purchased the property under a sale deed dated 16.12.1980 from one Smt.Thailammal. It is the case of the rd plaintiff that along with this sale deed the 3 defendant had also handed over the original copies of the sale deed dated 16.12.1980 and the mortgage deed dated 11.07.1978. The suit property was situate to the east of the plaintiff’s house. The plaintiff has been in enjoyment of this house property which is situate to the west of the suit property for over 70 years.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the month of January 2012 one Maniammal who is residing on the rear of the plaintiff’s house had informed the plaintiff that the Survey number as noted in the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has been wrongly mentioned as Survey No.344/3 and that the property purchased by the plaintiff is not comprised in this Survey Number. Thereafter, the plaintiff found out that the correct Survey Number is 343/2A.

rd The 3 defendant had purchased the suit property from one Dhanalakshmi Ammal under a sale deed dated 04.12.1980. Dhanalakshmi Ammal came into possession of the property being the daughter of one Thailammal. It is his case that for all these years the Survey Number of the suit property was being wrongly entered. Therefore, now that the plaintiff has come to know about the true facts, he had sought to have the discrepancy rectified. It is also the case of the plaintiff that for the last 50 years he has been enjoying the said Survey Number and that it is an axiomatic principal of law that boundaries would prevail over the Survey Number and considering the same the plaintiff has come forward with the suit in question.

5. The defendants had filed a written statement denying the plaintiff’s claim and stating that the Survey No.343/2A and the property comprised in Survey No.344/3 are distinct and different properties. The defendants further contended that the very description of the suit schedule properties would clearly establish that the plaintiff is totally unaware about the actual description of the suit property. That apart, even the documents of title under which the plaintiff claims a right has no reference to Survey No.343/2A.

6. As regards the second relief it was the case of the defendants that the plaintiff has only sought for a rectification of the sale deed in her favour without seeking rectification in the earlier documents. The defendants had also raised the plea of limitation stating that after so many years the plaintiff is coming forward with the suit for rectifying a document which was executed nearly after 3 decades back. An additional written statement was also filed wherein they had stated that the plaintiff has not stated that the rectification is sought for on account of a mutual mistake that has cropped in. In all, the plaintiff wanted to have the suit dismissed.

7. The Trial Court had framed the following issues:-

a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for injunction against the defendants1 and 2?

b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for rd mandatory injunct