NARAYANA IYER Vs. VELLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. 79 of 1972 of the Munsiff Court, Alathur, who has lest his case in the Trial Court as well as in the lower appellate court. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession on the strength of his title on the allegation that the defendants committed trespass into the plaint schedule property in March 1969. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property was demised on kanam to Narayana Iyer, that the kanari mortgaged it in favour of Subramania Iyer and another, that the plaintiff took assignment of the kanari's right as per Ext. A1 and redeemed the property in O.S. 54 of 1943 and that he is entitled to recover the property from the unauthorised possession of the defendants. It is the admitted case that the plaintiff bad filed O.S. 115 of 1969 before the Munsiff Court, Alathur and that it was dismissed by this Court. The main contention of the plaintiff is that even if it is found that the suit property is not covered by Ext. A1 still there is ample evidence with regard to his possession of the property as evidenced by the grant of patta, revenue receipts, land acquisition notices and the commission report. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that as against the aforesaid evidence there is hardly any evidence in support of the defendants' contentions. Counsel for the defendants submitted that the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has not proved his title to the property and hence no interference is warranted in the Second Appeal.

(2.) Property in item 12 in Ext. A1 has 2 taks. The measurement of the first tak is shown as 43 x 43 six feet koles and that of the second tak as 88 x 35 six feet koles. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property is included in R.S. 72/4A. Item 12 of Ext. A1 property is in R.S. 70/2. The boundaries of the property in item 12 in Ext. A1 and that of the plaint schedule property are net the same.

(3.) The Trial Court held that the Commissioner has not identified the property with reference to Ext. A1 or any other document produced by the plaintiff. It is settled law that in the event of conflict between boundaries and extent the former will prevail. As there is not only conflict between boundaries and extent but also in respect of other details, it is possible to identify the plaint schedule property to be the same as item No. 12 of Ext. A1.