Second Appeal dismissing suit for fixation of boundary and injunction. Court held boundary fixation is not maintainable when title and possession of disputed portion are contested. Proper remedy is suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
Suit for fixation of boundary and injunction dismissed. Cross Complaint dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931
SA.No. 725 of 1995()
-------------------AS.55/1994 of PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY OS.694/1992 of ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
PUTHIYADAVAN PUTHIYAVEETTIL KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR, S/O.DEVAKI AMMA, AGED 63 YEARS, RETIRED MILITARY MAN, RESIDING AT PRADEEP NIVAS, CHELERI AMSOM DESOM.P.O.,CHELERI.
BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN
SRI.A.K.ALEX SRI.CIBI THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS.:
ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
SRI.V.RAMKUMAR
THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
S.A.No.725 of 1995
-------------------------------------Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Following substantial questions of law are framed in this Second Appeal brought from judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Thalassery in A.S.No.55 of 1994 arising from judgment and decree of learned Additional Munsiff, Kannur O.S.No.694 of 1992:
i. Whether in a suit for fixation of boundary is the appellate court justified in dismissing the suit on the ground that there is a well defined boundary when the case of the appellant is that is not the real boundary?
ii. Whether the lower appellate court was correct in law in stating that the court cannot do any act to work out equity to be parties in a suit for fixing the boundary?
iii. Where it is found that defendant claims to be in possession of more area than his entitlement and where plaintiff's area is lesser than his entitlement as per the case of the defendant was the appellate court correct in stating that the remedy is a suit for recovery of possession.
iv. Whether the court below has considered correctly the documents showing possession?
SA No.725/1995
2
SA No.725/1995
3
Learned District Judge found after consideration of the documents relied on by either side that though extent of the property allotted to the appellant is stated in Exts.A12 and A1 as 1.38 acres, kole measurements given in the said documents revealed that appellant and others did not get that much extent of property. Learned District Judge also found that going by the evidence and Exts.C1 and C2 there is at present a well defined mud ridge along ABCD line in Ext.C2 which formed physical boundary of the property and that if OP line in Ext.C2 is to be taken as boundary line it would mean that 2.5 cents allegedly belonging to the appellant is in the actual possession of respondents. Learned District Judge observed that in the above circumstances without declaring title over disputed portion and seeking recovery appellant cannot seek fixation of boundary. Since physical boundary between the properties as seen at the spot is ABCD in Ext.C2, the mud ridge, learned District Judge held that it is not necessary to fix the boundary, accordingly set aside judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that first appellate court was not correct in interfering with the judgment and decree of the trial court. Further contention is that it is within the power of the court to grant equitable relief even if a portion of the property is found to be in the possession of the respondents.
SA No.725/1995
4
respondents do not admit title or possession of the appellant. Learned District Judge has referred to the relevant title deeds and found that there appeared to be difference in extent in the property allotted to the appellant and others as per Ext.A12 and following that, in Ext.A1. Learned District Judge has also come to the definite conclusion that going by Ext.C2, the disputed property having an extent of 2.5 cents is in the possession of the respondents, it is beyond OP line in Ext.C2 along which line learned Munsiff fixed the boundary of the property. The findings that the disputed portion of the property is in the possession of respondents and that there is difference in the extent of property allotted to the appellant as per Exts.A12 and A1 are based on evidence and hence this Court in Second Appeal cannot interfere with it as it is not shown that the said findings are perverse. Question is whether when a portion of the property regarding which the fixation of boundary is prayed for is found to be in the possession of the respondents, court could grant a decree for fixation of boundary and injunction.
Bapputty @ Sydali v. Cheriakutty @ Veerankhani Rawther (1990
(1) KLJ 218) in paragraph No.6 has referred to the issue and stated thus:
SA No.725/1995
5
“I fail to understand how the courts below thought of a tentative fixation of boundaries liable to be varied later. The suit ought to have been dismissed by the courts below atleast on the ground that necessary parties are not in the array. Even otherwise, such a suit is not maintainable without a cause of action. So also, fixation of boundaries in such a suit could only be after settling various other disputes as to title and possession put forward by the appellants. Fixation of boundary cannot be a short cut to over reach such contentions. Fixing boundaries and then directing the parties to settle their disputes including the correctness of the boundaries elsewhere is not a decision at all.” (emphasis supplied)
I am in agreement with the law as above stated. Court cannot fix the boundary and then direct the parties to settle other disputes regarding title and possession. Appellant cannot get boundary of the property fixed when title of the disputed portion is in dispute, it is not settled and the disputed property is found to be in the possession of respondents. Appellant cannot in the circumstances maintain a simple suit for fixation of boundary and prohibitory injunction even on equitable grounds. The proper course open to the appellant was to seek declaration of title, recovery of possession and such other reliefs including fixation of boundary as he may otherwise be entitled. Learned District Judge has made it clear that dismissal of the suit will not affect the right of the appellant to seek appropriate reliefs based on title.
SA No.725/1995
6
Answering the substantial question of law framed above in the above lines, this Second Appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the right if any of the appellant to establish his title and seek appropriate reliefs regarding the disputed property if the appellant is otherwise entitled to that course. Parties shall suffer their cost in this appeal.
C.M.P.No.1786 of 1995 will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
SA No.725/1995
7
Thomas P.Joseph, J.
S.A.No.725 of 1995
JUDGMENT
18th September, 2009.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appellate court can fix boundaries when the disputed portion is claimed by the respondents as being in their possession.
Whether a suit for fixation of boundary is maintainable when there is a dispute regarding title and possession of the disputed land.
What is the proper course of action for a plaintiff when a portion of the property is found to be in the possession of the respondents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bapputty @ Sydali v. Cheriakutty @ Veerankhani RawtherReferred¶41
Bapputty @ Sydali v. Cheriakutty @ Veerankhani Rawther (1990) (1) KLJ 218
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PUTHIYADAVAN PUTHIYAVEETTIL KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR
MATTATHIL VAROONON JANAKI AMMA
MOHANAN
RAMANI
KAMALAKSHI
THOMAS P.JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
