Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

28. What emanates from this discussion would be the plane on which the present dispute will be now resolved. Here are the defendants who had obtained title to their property under Ext.B-2 settlement deed, dated in 1978. This property abuts the street on the west, which form its natural western boundary. Its side measurements are given and it has been plotted by the surveyor as could be seen in Ext.C-4 plan. Necessarily the defendants would not be entitled to anything more than what they are entitled to under Ext.B-2, and whatever that lies to the east of the property so plotted cannot be their property. But the surveyor has drawn a boundary line to the survey field (R.Sy.No:521/14) wherein defendants' property ends not at the points where his property ends in terms of the boundary measurements of his property, but some 3'3” inches to its further east. This has reduced the plaintiff's property substantially by the same extent. And if this extent is added to the extent in S.No:521/15 wherein the plaintiff has her house, then the plaintiff would have the entire property covered under her Ext.A-8 http://www.judis.nic.in settlement deed. If however, this boundary line fiasco that demonstrably impacts the title of the plaintiff is considered as conclusive, then the plaintiff has to lose her property to an extent of 3'3” and for the entire length of the property, it will then be a case of the survey operation divesting title of the plaintiff and vesting it in the defendant. This is not the job of the surveyor. More so, since the defendants have not founded their defence on the finality of the resurvey boundary.