Karnataka High Court
Ranganath Ramchandra Suryavanshi vs Mohan on 12 June, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 (NOC) 2814 (KAR.) = 2008 (5) AIR KAR R 369, 2008 (5) AIR KANT HCR 369, 2008 A I H C 3656, (2009) 1 ICC 502, (2008) 72 ALLINDCAS 791 (KAR), (2009) 2 CIVLJ 17, (2008) 5 KANT LJ 504
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
appellate court abserveé that the appellant did not exalnine the author of the ccrtfiicate E;x.l'.)-4. reasoning, the suit of the plaintiff was _._bj§<' allowing the appeal 311d thus, the defettdjajiiti' this Court.
6. I harm hearé the leamaafi ccfilutlésai for *' None appeared fer therefore, in the abse1}cevQf:"a,;ly I ltourit could not have Qf on behalf of the resI30li1cie17*;A'xt~7-l;vl.l l A A ll
7. V:'l'_l1€; for the appellant contended that 1:l1eVvla;1;§31*ecliafiC1i evidence by the lower appellate '~ is: e:jr0ne£jus,...l3e3tl1 on facts and in law iI1asI1";ucl1 as produced by the appellant particularly the delelcll will go to Show that the property of the appelléznt measured 61' easbwest and 82' nor'£.h~south "7 this fact is admitted by the piajmifi lzinaself. ' Secondly, it was submitted that the report Qf the suiveyexy B3x.P--4 suffers from several defects inasmuch as it is said ta himen clrzawn on '28. 10.1995 Whereas,
12. It is, therefore, clear frem a careful reading cf the said Section/that if any map or plan is made. 'fr_$re..r11e purpose of any cause, the said map or elan Wiil.' be reved to be accurate. The onus » .. '«.s1:e}x«.. P _ P_ » 8 _ , map as accurate lies on the w_f:;e i1e?;«.:1.;eiisE---tt)'V 1"e}yv»:.er1 the said map or plan. It Esiasg to ;'jrove€i"':t.-'fit' L. map 9;' plan or survey rep0i*t«7é1e.Vir1 thee_:i1istai:;t CE-1S€}iS accurate by exa111i11ii;g fil"_1e'«_pe§_'eei;..wiie aetuaily prepared it. It is not $11 dis{3ute:'~f11e,f§gin jneizant ease, the sL1rve}?0r,, Ex.P--4, was net exa1ni:1ed,';V"~§_§i1i€:e erirrre-j¢...rc§pert EX.P-4 is prepared for tire filed by the plainfiif and, in the abserxee caf 'fzheie any evidence placed to Show eaidh Vszzrvefv repcsrt was prepared fer a pubiic I incumbent on the part. of the plaintiff to izafii}e ;:;jfe¥.%;_ the report by examinixlg the surveyor in erdezfit: Show that survey report is "aeemate" repert. The reason for the report being insisted upon as V% 2 __:§&eeurate is net far to seek. It is not uneemmon to some imsimcas across "where apart from playing fraud, there is a tendency to exaggerate) while preparing maps or survey J>V , / 18 rz=::ports Elild the Said infirmity OI' dfifect can be overcozne enly by oflefing the makar cf the survey 1*epQr'%:_"'c;>me before the couri: and lictstigfy with regard to _tiie' _ of t:l1c: report and, in the instant «.sLI_§;tlw 7- ()pp()I"{.?_11}i'l1:'se* was available for:;tj1g.,. i;(:={f-1:_}.'c3:;;3:~ l'3Xa'{I}ZlI1C the S"L1I'V{*2}i{)I') as =f;l':<3_ plaintiff Vr;iia'i"'1é:§3t..,_¢:{a113i:1gg the s'm*v"ej§;0x* to prove the accliracgsaf E'x.«.P_-#3». E
14. For the feregoirig ?.'I{eé;$(§I§S,that the: lower appellate c{>urt_}--1as::__ faiiéil appreciate the. Jnatexéal téfidiéxffiiéllén it is rather unfoxtmzate that 11_:;1:1e_xréiijsk'._-figgliun-alit.',Vpr0¢uced by the defendant i.e., sale dééxi anal made by the plaintiff in his plélétdiilg xxzuereli _::::<.§t éigllt of by the lw;-"er appellate court pltayisians of Section 83 of the Elvidence Act also .W-Lfzrel I1f5i..V'p1'{};'j}€irl}? considered. Hence, I am of the View tliat thé jtfilgnlant 01" the lower appellate court cannot be u.<:.L1_stla.i:'3ed 03:1 facts and in law as there is not only '.:;t1isi'ear:liI1g of the evicltznoe on record but emnneeus ll " " 'Qpplicafion of law is also clear from the reasons given by the lower appellate Cougrt. The trrtial court haci rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for want ef accuracy in L g-
1} the survey report produced by the piajntgifi' and it also task note 01' Section 83 0:1' the Evidence Act in mrifigiizg at this conclusion. Hence, the substantial quastizéjn. 31:__1w is answered in favour 9f the appeilant "§'Q1izifJving £13., the order that has to M ::__paSi.S¢{3 circumstances.
15. The appeal is and decree of the lower apfiszflaiés aside and that ska/~ A Sd/-3;