In property disputes, boundaries prevail over measurements, and the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim.

COMMON JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal has been filed , against the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.22 of 2002 dated 28.06.2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankovil modifying the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.135 of 1995 dated 30.11.2001 on the file of the Additional Munsif Court, Sankarankovil.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

3. The defendants are the appellants in S.A.No.1891 of 2003 and the respondents in S.A(MD)No.470 of 2005. The plaintiffs are the appellant in S.A(MD)No.470 of 200 and the respondents in S.A.No.1891 of 2003.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Narayanasamy Naickar and his son Ramasamy Naickar. They partitioned the property on 01.07.1961 by way of a registered sale deed, in which, the 1st schedule was allotted to the said Ramasamy Naickar. The said Ramasamy Naickar sold the first schedule property and other properties on 21.09.1962 by way of a registered sale deed to Rajalakshmi, Dhanalakshmi, Sithalakshmi (second plaintiff) and one Rukmani. After the sale, Dhanalakshmi and Rukmani sold their share to the first plaintiff R.Ramasamy ( husband of the second plaintiff) by way of a registered sale deed dated 01.09.1973. Rajalakshmi also sold her share on 12.09.1980 to the second plaintiff by way of a registered sale deed. Thus, the entire first schedule property is owned by the plaintiffs. Patta was granted in their favours. They are enjoying the property by paying house tax. They are enjoying the property more than 32 years. To show the plaint schedule property, they enclosed rough sketch, in which, the first schedule is shown as A, B, C.D. The second schedule property is shown as B, B1, B2 and B3 and third schedule is shown as D1, D2, D3, D4. In the first schedule property, between A and B point and eastern side of the B point there is a feet height 80 year old wall on the east-west direction. On the west of B point, the plaintiffs’ vendors’ shed there. On the western side of the first schedule property, on the portion of A and D1 point, they constructed mach box office. While constructing the office, they left l½ feet vacant place on the southern side from D1 to maintain the southern side east-west wall. Simultaneously, the defendants’ vendor also left 1½ feet on the northern side of the property. Thus, the three feet vacant is using as a common lane enjoyed by both the plaintiffs and the defendants. It is shown as third schedule in the plaint. The plaintiffs on the eastern side of their property fixed a natural gas tank and equipments and maintain in vacant place. The defendants, who are the husband, wife and son, have no right over the first schedule of property. But by creating documents, they are attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment and also attempted to construct a wall in the common land. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaring title over the plaint second schedule property with permanent injunction not to disturb their enjoyment and possession by the defendants and grant permanent injunction with regard to the third schedule property for their peaceful possession and enjoyment.

5.The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement.

In the written statement, they denied the allegations contained in the plaint. They further contended that first schedule property in between AB point and on the eastern side of the B point, there is a wall. The first schedule property totally east-west 12 Thachumulam, north-south 9¼ Thachumulam. It was originally owned by Kandasamy Naickar and he sold it to Ramasamy Naickar’s son Kandasamy Naickar on 24.11.1945and he and his brother enjoyed the property and other properties and they partitioned among them in the year 1961 orally. In that partition, the property the property purchased on 24.11.1945 was allotted to Kandasamy Naickar’s brother Narayanasamy Naickar. Thereafter, Narayanasamy Naickar and his