MOHAMMED ISMAIL Vs. HAMEED SULTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case is as under:

(2.) On 06.06.1970, the plaintiff had purchased the suit property shown as Schedule A and B in the plaint from the defendant. As per the sale deed, the extent of the property is mentioned as "more or less" 11 cents, the boundaries are mentioned in the sale deed. Later the younger sister of the defendant Sulthana Rashia Begum filed a suit for partition against the defendant and others in O.S.No.166/77 in which she sought for 7/104 shares in the properties mentioned in her suit schedule which includes the property bearing S.No.137/1 in Adiakkamangalam. The said property is now in dispute because in the partition suit mentioned above preliminary decree was passed, and consequently in I.A.No.416/79 was filed and Commissioner measured the land at S.No.137/1. At that time, it was found that the actual extent on ground was 19 cents and not 11 cents, as it is mentioned in the sale deed of the plaintiff as well as in the other documents.

(3.) The allegation of the plaintiff is that after knowing that the actual extent of S.No.137/1 is 19 cents and not 11 cents as it was presumed, the defendant trespassed into the portion of the plaintiff's land and put up fence. The entire land purchased by the plaintiff is described under A Schedule and the encroached portion is described under B Schedule of the plaintiff.