14.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant that the parent deeds of the plaintiffs do not contain any measurement and four boundaries have alone been given. That apart, the superstructure alone has been conveyed both under Ex.A.1 as well as Ex.A.2. However, in Ex.A.3 the dimensions have been given. Even in Ex.A.3, it has been mentioned that the property is comprised in Survey No.1620. A mere look at Ex.B.8/FMB sketch would show that the Survey No.1620 measures 42 feet on west, 118 feet on the north, 87 feet on the south and 54.5 feet on the east. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have given the north-south measurement as 54.5 feet and east-west measurement as 118.5 feet. This may be true in respect of one side but not in respect of the other side. That apart, the Surveyor who was examined on the side of the plaintiffs had categorically deposed that no encroachment was committed by the defendant. The learned counsel for the appellant would of course point out that not only the property of the appellant but also that of the defendant/respondent is comprised within the very same survey number namely., S.No.1620. The wall of the plaintiffs running from A to D as shown in the defendant's rough sketch is the demarcating line. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant has admitted that the A.D. wall belonged to the plaintiffs and that while the plaintiffs will not have claim on the property lying to the south of the wall, likewise the defendant did not have any right on the property lying to the north of the wall. According to the appellant's counsel, the appellant need not ask for any formal relief regarding declaration. It is true that the Courts below have not gone into the said aspect at all. In this case, there is a real dispute between the parties as to whether there has been encroachment or not. The defendant asserts that the new construction lies within his boundaries. In such circumstances, without also asking for relief of declaration, it is idle to maintain the suit for mere permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. In this view of the matter, the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. Hence, I decline to interfere with the judgment and decree impugned in S.A.(MD)No.543 of 2011 and it is dismissed.
