Registered documents prevail over oral evidence, and failure to properly plead easementary rights undermines claims for relief.

JUDGMENT

In this Second Appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No.28/2018 dated 30.09.2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Coonoor, confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2018 passed in O.S. No.96/2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coonoor.

2. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following Substantial questions of law.

"(1) Whether the Courts below have substantially erred in law in ignoring Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 which are the registered documents and Title Deed to both the appellant and the 1st respondent in view of the well settled principle of law that the registered documents will prevail over the oral evidence of parties?

(2) Whether the Courts below have failed to give their findings on the strength and evidence produced by the appellant?

(3) Whether the reports given by the two experts, viz., the Town Sub Inspector of Survey and the Government approved valuer (Licence No.F-8924) in Coonoor who are competent and have the requisite special expertise in this particular field, based on the physical features and factual aspects after the joint site inspection carried out in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the trial court, appellant and the respondents, can be totally ignored.

(4)Whether the issue of encroachment can also be decided based on the continuous use of the common road for over four decades as easementary right to the appellant's property and the usage of common road emanating from the Parent Deed is legal and sustainable in Law?

(5)Whether the Subordinate Court was justified in passing the impugned Judgment, when the 1st defendant has purchased the common land for which the vendor to the 1st defendant had no absolute right to sell in terms of the Parent Title Deed, the Partition Deed dated 28.10.1955 registered as Doc.No.828/1955 on the file of the SRO, Coonoor?"

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

4. The plaintiff has filed the above suit against the defendants for the following reliefs.

a) Granting permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant and their agent servants, subordinate, not to proceed with any construction work on the northern side of the common motorable road branching out from Bed Ford Main Road and ending with the plaintiffs property and in the common land.

b) Directing the 3rd defendant to demolish the illegal construction on the Motorable Road and in the common areas ('B' schedule property) failing which enable the plaintiff to demolish the same by court of law.

c) To declare the Motorable Road branching out from the Bed Ford Road is a common road.

5. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiff, he is the absolute owner of 'A' schedule property, i.e. 0.268/16 acre in R.S. No.933 and 3- 4/16 acres of land in R.S. No.935/1, which he bought under a sale deed dated 10.03.1967. The vendor and the other owners partitioned the property under the partition deed dated 28.10.1985, wherein an extent of 1798 sq. ft of land was kept as common land which is described as 'B' schedule in the suit. The 1^st defendant purchased the 'B' schedule property from the 2^nd defendant, who had no title, and had put up barricade in the common road. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit.

5.1. The 1^st defendant resisted the plaintiff's claim contending that the 1^st defendant is the absolute owner of the 'B' schedule property to an extent of 1798 sq. ft. of land in Old Survey No.935/1 correlating to subdivided T.S. Nos.B/33/2/2 and B133/3/2 of Coonoor Town. He had purchased the same through Ex.B5 sale deed on 06.02.2009. Ever since