Second Appeal dismissed. The Court held that where specific extents are mentioned in title documents and subsequent partition deeds executed by parties, the extent prevails over boundaries. The appellants admitted entitlement to only a portion of the property, thus their claim for entire suit property was unsustainable.
Second Appeal dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.
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 JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.07.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN
S.A. No.2129 of 2002
Second Appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 12.07.2002 made in A.S.No.21 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupattur, Vellore District, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.10.2000 made in O.S.No.991 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Ambur.
For Appellants : Mr.K.R.A.Muthukirushnan For Respondent : No appearance
J U D G M E N T
This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 12.07.2002 made in A.S.No.21 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupattur, Vellore District, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.10.2000 made in O.S.No.991 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Ambur.
and mother. Sathyamurthy also died on 02.09.1995. Thereafter, the plaintiffs, being legal heirs of Sathyamurthy have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant attempted to trespass into the suit property on 25.04.1996 and 28.06.1996 and his attempt was thwarted by the plaintiffs with the help of others. Therefore, the present suit.
"The Courts below failed to follow the ruling reported in 1984 (97) Law Weekly Page 365, wherein it was held that boundaries will prevail over the extent."
"The property in question bears a subdivided town survey No.371/2, with an extent of 2400 sq.ft. The property in question is not an unsurveyed area or an area in respect of which the extent is in doubt. In laying down the principle that the boundaries should prevail over the extent, in the above decisions, the learned Judges have applied the following principles : - (1) In case of doubtful or varying extents in the documents of title relating to the property, boundaries should be preferred to the extent; (2) Only in the absence of definite material to show the actual extent intended to be sold the boundaries should outweigh the doubtful extent mentioned in the document; (3) If the recitals in the documents and the circumstances of the case show that a lesser extent only was conveyed than the area covered by boundaries and there is clear evidence as to the intention of the parties with reference to the extent conveyed, then the extent should prevail over the boundaries. Bearing in mind, the above said principles we will have to examine the facts of this case."
the plaintiffs and defendant executed partition deed, Ex.B.2, dated 29.06.1996 among themselves with respect to a portion of the suit property. Through this document, the plaintiffs and defendant agreed for allotment of 11 x 75 feet in favour of the defendant and 1 x 75 feet in favour of the plaintiffs, in the disputed extent, 12 x 75 feet. Therefore, by executing the said partition deed, the plaintiffs themselves admit that they are entitled to the suit property, by extent wise and not by boundary wise. Thus, there is clear evidence as to the intention of the parties with reference to the extent of the suit property. Therefore, the appellants / plaintiffs cannot claim that extent should prevail over the boundaries on the basis of the above Judgment. Hence, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondent. It is also clear from the partition deed, dated 29.06.1996 that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the entire extent, as per the four boundaries shown in the plaint schedule.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether boundaries should prevail over extent in case of existing documents showing specific measurements.
Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction given the specific extent mentioned in partition deeds.
Whether the principle cited from Dina Malar Publications is applicable given clear evidence of parties' intention regarding extent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1984 (97) Law Weekly Page 365Distinguished¶25
Dina Malar Publications v. Tiruchirapalli MunicipalityDistinguished¶25
Dina Malar Publications v. Tiruchirapalli Municipality, reported in (1984) 97 LW 365
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Devi
Minor Kowsalya
Minor Gowrishankari
Minor Vasagi
Venugopal
P. KALAIYARASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
P. KALAIYARASAN
Parties & counsel
