Property demarcation disputes must consider original deeds and documented sales to ascertain rightful ownership, resolving conflicting claims based on established ownership records.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.392 of 1985 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai have filed the present second appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

2.According to the plaint averments, the plaintiffs' father namely Ponnan Nadar was allotted 65 cents out of 1 Acre and 30 cents in Old Survey No. 2747/1(Resurvey No.47/2) in partition under Exhibit A1 dated 11.04.1948. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that on the same day of partition, the father of the plaintiffs had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the first defendant under Exhibit A3, for an extent of 15 cents which is on the southern most portion of 65 cents. The first defendant has executed a registered sale deed in favour of the second defendant under Exhibit B3 on 28.07.1982. Therefore, the second defendant is entitled to only 15 cents. He had demolished the bund which is on the southern boundary of the plaintiffs' property. Therefore, the present suit has been filed for demarcation of boundary on the southern side.

3.The defendants have contended that under Exhibit B1 dated 15.10.1979 when the plaintiffs have partitioned the suit schedule property among themselves, it is shown as if the plaintiffs' family owned 62 cents. On the other hand, the plaintiffs' father has already sold 15 cents and out of the balance 50 cents, 3 cents has been acquired by the Government. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to just 47 cents in Old Survey No.2747/1. On the other hand, claiming 62 cents based upon Exhibit B1 is illegal. Therefore, the prayer in the suit cannot be granted.

4.It was further contended by the defendants that if plaintiffs claim more extent from the above the said survey number then the second defendant would be entitled to 19 cents.

5.The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have proceeded to dismiss the suit primarily relying upon Exhibit B1 and the contention of the defendants. After alienating the property in favour of the first defendant and the acquisition by the Government, the plaintiffs' family would be entitled to just 47 cents in Old Survey No.2747/1. However, they claim 62 cents under Exhibit B1 partition deed. The defendants claim 19 cents even though they have purchased just 15 cents under Exhibit A3 and B3. When both the parties claim more extent than the extent found in the document, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have proceeded to dismiss the suit for demarcation of boundaries.

Challenging the concurrent findings, the present second appeal has been filed.

6.At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law have been framed.

a)Whether Exhibit B3 is void ab initio, since it had come to be registered in the State of Kerala, when no part of the property comprised therein is situated in that State?

b)When a specific extent of 15 cents alone have been conveyed under Ex.A.3 could the buyer under Ex.A3, enlarge the extent of land purchased by him by giving the measurement of all the four boundaries in Ex.B3, the sale deed?

7.According to the learned counsel for the appellants, Exhibit A3 has been registered in Parasala and it is a void document. No property is located in Parasala and therefore, the said document ought not to have been relied upon by the Courts below for dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. He had further contended that when specific extent has been conveyed under Exhibit A3, the defendants cannot claim more extent than what is found under Ex