The court determined that issues regarding property title require precise measurements of the disputed land to resolve ownership claims.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated

09.02.2021, passed in A.S.No.28 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Thuraiyur, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.07.2017, passed in O.S.No.65 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The suit property originally belongs to the plaintiff's father Govindasamy Naidu. He purchased the same on 24.06.1950. The other portion was purchased on 26.11.1959. He executed a registered Will in favour of his wife Pochammal on 27.08.1953 in respect of the properties covered in both the sale deeds. He died some 22 years back leaving behind Poochammal. The Will came into effect. Poochammal became the absolute owner of the property. She died leaving behind the plaintiff some 16 years back. So the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the properties covered in the above said documents. The defendant's house is situated on the eastern side. The defendant's predecessor in title constructed the property without leaving any space on the west. So the defendant has no right or title over the land situated in the south of his wall. But, the vendor of the defendant, in the sale deed, wrongly stated that 1 ½ feet lane is available on the west of the wall mentioned as 'ABCD' in the sketch. On the basis of the above said wrong description in the sale deed, the defendant interfered with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

3.Statement was filed by the defendant stating that wrong measurements are mentioned in the plaint. The suit property never belongs to the plaintiff or his father. Apart from the plaintiff other son was also available to his mother. The suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It is denied that the vendor of the defendant constructed house without leaving any space on the west. The defendant's vendor namely Prema purchased property situated on the east - north and other properties now purchased by him on 30.08.1987. Out of the above said properties purchased by him, she sold the property measuring east-west 26 feet, north-south 52 ½ feet. In that property the defendant constructed the house measuring east-west 23 feet. So the defendant had properties on the west and east of his house, measuring about 1 ½ feet equally. The wall was constructed by the defendant's vendor, the plaintiff did not make any objections. When the defendant put up further construction by fixing window, the plaintiff created trouble.

4.Along with the written statement, the defendant filed counter claim, seeking declaration that he is entitled for 1 ½ feet east-west, north- south 52 ½ feet in the property and 1 ½ feet on the north-west and east- west 26 feet and for permanent injunction in respect of the counter claim portion.

5.To that counter claim the plaintiff filed reply statement denying the right of title over the disputed portion of the property.

6.On the basis of the pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues.

1. Whether the suit rough sketch is right?

2. Whether is it correct to say that the plaintiff is entitled for the measurements mentioned in the plaint schedule?

3. Whether the sale exists in favour of the plaintiff's father is right? If it so, whether the vendors have right to sell the same for the measurements mentioned in the sale deed?

4. Whether the Will dated 27.08.1953 alleged to have been executed by Govindasamy Naidy is true and valid?

5. Whether is it right to say there is 1 ½ feet space belongs to the defendant on the western side of the western wall of the defendant?

6. Whether the defendant is entitled to relief as claimed in his counter claim?

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?

8. Whet