Dismissed

Kuttiporichankandy Kelan v. Mandrolil Usman

Madras HC15 Dec 2016SA/460/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed an appeal against a judgment and decree confirming the dismissal of a private suit for permanent injunction and recovery of possession. The court held that boundaries prevail over measurements when extent is doubtful, leading it to find no evidence of bona fide encroachment.

What did the court decide?

No costs. The Second Appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the Courts below is confirmed.

Kuttiporichankandy Kelan Vs Mandrolil Usman — Partition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on :02.12.2016

¶4

Pronounced on :15.12.2016

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶7

Second Appeal No.460 of 1996

¶8

Kuttiporichakandy Kelan Appellant

¶9

/vs/

¶10

1.Mandrolil Usman(died) 2.Mandrolil Yousuf

¶11

3.Kuttiporichakandy Ayichu

¶12

4.Kuttiporichakandy Ashraf 5.Tahira(minor) represented by guardian first respondent (RR2 to 5 recorded as LRs of the deceased R1 vide order in Memo USR.2771 in S.A.No.460/96 by DR dated 05.10.1998) ..Respondents

¶13

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Pondicherry dated 31.10.1994 in A.S.No.2 of 1991 confirming the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Mahe, dated 09.09.1991 in O.S.No.2 of 1987.

¶14

For Appellant :Mr.C.Rajan For Respondents :Mr.A.Sasidharan for R2,3,& 5 R4-No appearance, R1-died

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The suit in O.S.No.2 of 1987 was filed for the relief of

¶17

permanent injunction. Pending disposal of the suit, the plaint was

¶18

¶19

amended alleging that the defendants have encroached a portion of the suit property and sought for an alternate relief of recovery of possession. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 09.09.1991 and on appeal, the trial Court's judgment was confirmed. Negative by both the Courts below, the plaintiff has preferred the second appeal.

¶20

2. The brief facts leading to the appeal are as follows:-

¶21

The property in dispute found in two taks or sections viz.,

¶22

upper and lower section. They were separated by a boundary ridge called as 'Sthanakollu' though a notorial sale dated 15.05.1961. The upper section measuring East to West 75 koles and North to South 47 koles at carpenter's scale, was assigned tenancy right to Kuttiporichakandy Kelan (hereinafter to be referred to as “Kelan” or “plaintiff”) by Mandrolil Pokker (hereinafter to be referred to as “Pokker”). Question this assignment of tenancy, one Manicotte Polil Gopalan Nair filed a suit in O.S.10/1968 (affaire Civil No.55/61) for cancellation of notarial assignment deed dated 15.5.1961 between Pokker (husband of the first defendant in this suit) and Kelan (plaintiff in this suit), alleging Mandrolil Pokker by assigning a portion of his lease hold right over of the property to Kuniyil Kelan, had breached the terms of lease. He further alleged that both Pokker and Kelan have caused damages to the property through their acts of

¶23

¶24

extracting stones from the suit land and also have not paid the lease rent. Pending suit in OS 10/1968, the said Manicotte Polil Gopalan Nair filed an application in I.A.No.42/69, wherein he gave up his main claim of cancellation of assignment deed and vacant possession. In turn, Pokker and Kelan have agreed to pay the arrears of rent. Accordingly, consent decree has been passed on 31.12.1969.

¶25

3. Subsequent to the disposal of O.S.10/1968 dated 31.12.1969, Kelan filed a petition in M.C.No.5 of 1971 before the SubDivisional Magistrate, Mahe against Pokker raising a dispute over the extent of the land assigned to him on lease and the same was disposed of by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahe, dated 01.09.1971. The order in M.C.No.5 of 1971 was marked as Ex B-6 in this suit. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-

¶26

“The respondent asigned his tenancy right over the upper sections of the Paramba with all the improvements therein for consideration of Rs.500/- as per nortaire dated 15.05.1961, to the petitioer and gave actual possession thereof. While the remaining Section was and still is in possession and enjoyment of pockers wife kadeessa. He has also stated that no portion of the north of Sthana kolln was sold or given possession to the petitioner.

¶27

Since this is a case in which exact area sold out to the petitioner by the respondent has to be specified and ownership of the extent of land has tobe determined the petitioner may seek

¶28

¶29

redressal of his grievance in the Civil Court having jusrisdiction”.

¶30

4. In the above said circumstances, Kelan has presented

¶31

the present suit in O.S.No.2 of 1987 on 10.02.1987 alleging that Pokker's

¶32

wife and Children resisting baseless claim to a section of the plaint schedule property to its extreme North 75 koles to East to West; and 2 koles North to South on the western side. They attempted to trespass

¶33

into the above said portion. The defendants filed their written statement.

¶34

5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings, had framed the following issues :

¶35

“1.Whether the Court fee paid is correct?

¶36

2.Whether the defendants have encroached upon the property of the plaintiff on its northern side to extent of 75 koles East to West and 2 koles North to South on the Eastern Side and 12 koles North to South on the Western side?

¶37

3.Whether the property sold to the plaitniff is property described in the deed by its boundaries or by the measurement?

¶38

4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of any portion of the property from the defendants?

¶39

5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for issue ofinjunction as prayed?

¶40

6.To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?”

¶41

¶42

6. After assessing the evidence let in by the rival parties,

¶43

the trial Court has concluded that, in Ex A-1, only two sides measurement is given and boundaries on all four sides are demarcated and specifically mentioned. “Sthanakollu” is shown as one of the boundary and P.W.1 admits in his deposition that the property assigned to him was not regular in shape and property is 8 feets above the property of the defendants. Referring the Advocate Commissioner Report and Sketch, which were marked as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, the trial Court has concluded that, boundary prevails over the dimension (extent). The physical feature noted by the Advocate Commissioner shows the plaintiff property and the defendants properties are divided by 'Sthanakollu” (boundary of housesite). The properties are at different level and no way or footpath or access to the lower portion from the upper portion through the Sthanakollu. For the above said reasons, the trial court dismissed the suit.

¶44

7. On appeal by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court held that Ex A-2 the proceedings of the Land Tribunal, Mahe, does not contain the measurement of land, but only, the total extend is mentioned. In Ex.A.1, the plaintiff's property is described as property

¶45

¶46

above “Sthanakollu”. In Ex.B.2, defendants's property is described as property below “Sthanakollu”. Conjoint reading of these two documents makes it clear that, the Sthanakollu is the boundary. It is an old sthanakollu and the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendants breached the boundary, is unfound. With these findings, the first appellate Court has confirmed the trial Court judgment and dismissed the appeal.

¶47

8. The Second Appeal fileld by the plaintiff was admitted on the following Substantial Question of Law:-

¶48

“Whether the lower appellate court was right in considering the oral evidence against the recitals contained in Ex A-1, the assignment deed in favour of the appellant executed by the predecessor of the respondents, as such evidence should be excluded under section 92 of the evidence Act ?

¶49

9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that

¶50

the respondents have ameliorated the boundary on the northern portion, taking advantage of the injunction in their favour, in the earlier suit in O.S.No.10 of 1968 filed in the year 1961. Therefore, naturally the Sthanakollu created by them, after breaching into his land, appears old.

¶51

¶52

Further, he contended that, the house of the respondents was constructed, pending the earlier suit, in the encroached portion, hence, the relief of recovery of possession was sought and the Courts below, without considering these facts in proper perspective, have dismissed the suit.

¶53

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, in the earlier proceedings initiated by the appellant, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahe, has directed the appellant to settle his dispute with the respondents regarding the extend of the land through Civil Court. At that point of time itself, the appellant never had the extent of land, he claims. It has taken 16 years for him to file the present suit, after the disposal of his representation regarding edtend of land that too with false averments and allegations. The Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence, which required no interference.

¶54

11. It is now well settled proposition that when there is an element of doubt with reference to the extend, the boundaries would prevail over measurements. In this case, only two side measurement is given in Ex.A1, whereas, in Ex.A2, such measurement is not given. The assignment certificate is dated 06.02.1984. While in Exs.A1 and A2,

¶55

¶56

the measurements are missing for all four sides, in such case, naturally,

¶57

the boundaries only prevail.

¶58

12. In Subramania Bathar v. Srinivasa Bathar and 9

¶59

others reported in 2002-1-L.W.120, at paragraph No.16, this Court

¶60

has held:-

¶61

“16.It is established legal postition that boundaries would prevail over measurements in case there is conflict. In Dina Malar Publications v. The Tiruchirappalli Municipality (1984 II MLJ 306) = (1984) 97 L.W. 365) R.Sengottuvelan, J. After referring to a number of decisions set out the principles underlying the concenpt.

¶62

(1)in case of doubtful or varying extents in the documents of title relating to the property, boundaries should be preferred to the extent;

¶63

(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;

¶64

(3)If the recitals in the documents and the circumstance of the case show that a lesser extent only was conveyed then 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.

¶65

When there is an element of doubt with reference to the extent, the statement as to area is to be rejected as false demonstratio in a recent judgment in Roohnisha Beevi and 15 others v. A.M.M. Mahudu Mohamed and 29 others (1998 1 L.W. 244) S.S.Subramani, J. On this question held as follows:-

¶66

“The evidence supplied by boundaries, extent survey numbers and pymash numbers are the determining factors when the identity of the property

¶67

¶68

is put in issues. In case of conflict boundaries predominate and the rest is regarded as erroneous or inaccurate descriptions. Erroneous survey numbers or ommission to state them should be rejected as false demostratis.”

¶69

13. In the light of the above judgement, this Court see

¶70

force in the respondents' submissions. The plaint is for injunction alleging that just 2 days before filing the suit, the respondents tried to trespass into 2/75 koles of land on the eastern side and 12 koles of land on the northern side of the plaintiff's property, whereas his own pleadings, in the earlier proceedings, indicates that there was no proper measurment regarding extent of his land and he has approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahe, who has directed the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court for the purpose. The injunction dated 17.05.1961 has come to end as early as 31.12.1969. Even as early as 29.05.1971, the Deputy Collector of Mahe has disposed of the appellant's representation regarding measurement of his land and his allegation of encroachment by Pokker and others. The Deputy Collector has further directed him to apply before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Executive) with relevant records, if he desire to recive the portion entitled to him. Later, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahe, in M.C.No.5/71, dated 01.09.1971, has directed the appellant to seek redressal of his grievance in the Civil Court,

¶71

¶72

having jursidiction, since a case is in respect of exact area sold out to him by Pokker.

¶73

14. Thus, the extend of land has been in dispute for a long time between Kelan and Pokker's family. In his earlier representation itself, Kelan has mentioned about the missing Sthanakollu on the northern portion of his property. Whileso, the claim of the appellant that he was in possession of the suit schedule property in entirety and the respondents have encroached upon his land, recently just before filing the suit false to ground. Further, the ire-silence, after the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, dated 01.09.1971, till the filing of the suit in the year 1989 with imaginary allegations, renders the suit to be dismissed. There is no reasonable ground to interfere with the well considered judgment of the Courts below. Since the title document does not carry the measurements on all four sides, it is inevitable to rely on the oral evidence and Commissioner's Report to ascertain the factual position on ground. Hence, the Substantial Question of Law framed is answered accordingly.

¶74

¶75