In Dispute In A Conveyance Deed Between Area And Description Of Boundary, The Description Of Boundary Will Prevail- Tripura HC
A Tripura High Court Bench of Justice Sanjay Ghosh has reiterated that in a dispute in a conveyance deed between the area and description of boundary, the description of boundary would prevail.
In that context, the Court relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Arshad Sk. & Anr. vrs. Bani Prosanna Kundu & Ors., and said that, "This view of mine is supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in a case of Arshad Sk. & Anr. vrs. Bani Prosanna Kundu & Ors., reported in Civil Appeal No.4805 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.12773 of 2009) where the Supreme Court has clearly held that in a dispute in a conveyance deed between the area and description of boundary, the description of boundary would prevail."
Senior Counsel DR Cowdhury, among others, appeared for the appellants, while Senior Counsel P Roy Barman, among others, appeared for the respondents.
This case was a second appeal that had arisen from a property dispute case. The original suit involved the appellants, who were the defendants, and the respondent, who was the plaintiff. The case revolved around a piece of land that was originally owned by the plaintiff's father, who had passed away in 1991, leaving it to the plaintiff and his mother. After his parents' deaths, the plaintiff claimed that he had been in possession of the land until January 22, 2014. However, on that day, he had found that the appellants had encroached upon the land, built a hut, and denied his ownership.
The plaintiff had subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of his title to the land and the recovery of its possession. He had also mentioned a prior dispute involving the land, which had been addressed in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in 2009.
Both the Trial Court and the first appellate Court had ruled in favor of the plaintiff, affirming his right to the land and ordering the appellants to vacate it. Dissatisfied with these decisions, the appellants had filed a second appeal, questioning the findings of facts.
The key issue in this appeal was whether the judgments by the lower Courts were erroneous or perverse due to a lack of evidence. The appellants had argued that the plaintiff had incorrectly stated the date of the cause of action and had relied on reports from a proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC, while the plaintiff had asserted that the suit was well-founded and within the limitation period.
On the question regarding the cause of action and limitation period, the Court observed that, "From the aforesaid decisions rendered by Supreme Court, it is aptly clear that the Court can look into only the averments made in the plaint and at the highest, documents produced along with the plaint. The appellants/defendants and the documents relied upon by them cannot be a deciding factor to decide the question of cause of action."
Regarding the findings of the lower Courts regarding the title of the respondent over the suit land, it was observed that, "There is no dispute in regard to the proposition of law that boundary will prevail over the Plot Nos./Khatian Nos. when there is dispute, but, in the instant case, both the Courts below held that the sale deeds under which the predecessors of the appellants/defendants purchased the land from the father of the respondent/plaintiff does not tally with the suit land, then, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC will not disturb these concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below. More so, it is noticed that the appellants/defendants did not make any effort to trace out the exact land in question they wanted to identify because it is their specific case that they have been possessing the land which they had purchased by registered sale deeds in the year 1965 from the father of the respondent/plaintiff. They have not prayed for appointment of any Survey Commissioner to controvert the position, location and status of the suit land to substantiate their claim. Inconsistent to their claim, it is the findings of both the Courts below that the schedules mentioned in their title deeds do not tally with the suit land of the instant suit."
In light of the same, the Court dismissed the appeals.
Cause Title: Sri Nakul Chandra Das & Ors. vs Sri Chanmohan Saha & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
