CHUMAR Vs. NARAYANAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defeated plaintiff. The suit was for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property on the strength of title with future mesne profits and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove a granite bund constructed by him in the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is only 1/3rd of a cent of a large paddy field in Sy.No. 44/1. The plaintiff and defendant are adjacent owners. ....... ..

(2.) The short question to be considered is whether the plaint schedule property is included in the title deed of the plaintiff. Of course, the plaintiff contends that it is part of his property and that it is included in his title deed. Defendant also with equal force submits that the plaint property is included in his title deed and that he is in possession of the same as part of his holding. He maintained in the written statement that he had/has no intention to trespass into the plaintiffs property. He put up the granite bund only in his property. This contention was not accepted by the Trial Court. The Trial Court held that the property is not included in the title deed of the defendant and that it formed part of the property owned by the plaintiff. On this finding, the suit was decreed.

(3.) The defendant filed an appeal. The appellate court made a thorough re-appraisal of the evidence. The appellate court has taken great pain in analysing the facts of the case. The appellate court held that though the survey number of the property is not seen included in the title deed of the defendant, on a careful examination of the description of the property which has been given in kole measurements it is seen that the disputed property is included in the title deed of the defendant. Ext. D1 assignment deed is the title deed of the defendant. Ext. P1 is the title deed of the plaintiff.