Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8.In the grounds of appeal in A.S.No.21 of 2008, it is stated that the trial Court has failed to give any findings to issue no.5 pertaining to the identity of the http://www.judis.nic.in property. The total extent of the suit property is 2 acres and 36 cents as per the plaint and as per the survey records, the total extent of the suit property was one acre and 86 cents. The measurement stated in Exs.C1 and C2 was one acre and 96 cents but the lower Court failed to consider Exs.C1 and C2. There was no possibility for the suit property to have an extent of 2 acres and 36 cents in Paimash Nos.147 and 147A. The trial Court failed to consider that Paimash nos.147 and 147A was not related to the suit property. The trial Court failed to consider that the measurement in the zamin patta was not accurate. The trial Court wrongly considered that the extent in Paimash No.133 was 68 cents which was different from the suit property. The trial Court failed to consider that Exs.A1 and A3 were executed on the same day and that Paimash No.147 only was mentioned and Paimash No.147A was not mentioned and no patta was issued to P.W.3 for survey No.98/1B, 24 and that no patta was issued to P.W.2. The trial Court failed to consider that the first defendant has already cleared the Karuvelam trees in the suit property for preparing the suit property fit for cultivation. On the basis of the grounds of appeal, the first Appellate Court has framed the following issues:

http://www.judis.nic.in

10.In the grounds of second appeal, it is stated that the Courts below failed to appreciate the defence of the appellant in the proper perspective. Both the Courts below failed to consider that the plaintiffs have not identified the suit properties with the help of the documents of title and the suit property did not correlate and the boundaries did not fix up. The trial Court failed to frame an issue regarding the identity of the suit property. Both the lower Courts have failed to consider that the extent of the property as per the patta was 1 acre and 86 cents whereas the suit property was described in the plaint as 2 acres and 36 cents. Paimash Nos.147 and 147A each with an extent of 1 acre 18 cents was not available of ground. There was no proper survey during the Zamin period and the extent in the Paimash numbers under the Estate Land Act would not tally with the extent of the properties on land and that both the lower Courts have failed to consider that the extent for Paimash No.133 was wrongly given as 68 cents. The trial Court failed to consider Exs.A1 and A3 were executed on the same day and that Paimash No.147A was not mentioned in them. Both the lower Courts failed to consider that P.W.3 was not given patta though he was the lawful owner of survey No.98/1B,24. The lower Court failed to consider that P.W.2 was not given patta, though he was in possession of survey No.98/1B6. Patta issued in the name of the first defendant instead of P.W.2 was cancelled by Ex.B7. The Courts below were wrong in considering Exs.A24 to A27 issued by the Village Administrative Officer. Possession was with the first defendant and the same was admitted by the plaintiffs. But the plaintiffs http://www.judis.nic.in failed to make any arrangements for recovery of possession. Considering Exs.C1 and C2, the Courts below came to a wrong conclusion as to the extent of the suit property. The Courts below failed to consider that Paimash No.133 did not correlate survey No.98/1 and Ex.B1 and that the wrongful grant of patta in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 during UDR scheme was set aside by Ex.B7 and that Exs.B2 to B5 proved the possession by the ancestors of the first defendant.

18.The contention of the appellant is that the property of the plaintiffs as per the settlement patta is 2 acres 36 cents. But the suit property is only 1 acre and 90 cents and that the trial Court failed to consider this aspect. The appellant is questioning the extent of land available to the plaintiffs on the basis of the settlement patta. At the same time the defendants were claiming the property triple the extent stated in the patta stating that there were chance for differences in measurement mentioned in that patta. Ex.A4 was a document based upon the settlement patta. In the settlement patta, Paimash No.147 with an extent of 1 acre 18 cents was entered in the name of Ramayee and Paimash No.147A with an extent of 1 acre 18 cents was entered in the name of Sundarraj. In Paimash No.133 only 68 cents was mentioned in the name of the father of the first defendant. Exs.B3 and A4 were copies of the settlement document. Enteries in both the documents were similar. The settlement survey number 133 was with an extent of 68 cents as per Ex.B3 which was issued in the name of Moothandi Thevar. An extent of 34 ares which is equivalent to 83.98 cents was mentioned in Ex.A20 patta no.613.

22.On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the plaintiffs are claiming right over the suit property through patta issued for Paimash No.133. The case of the http://www.judis.nic.in appellant is that the measurement given in Paimash No.133 is not accurate measurement as there is no survey during the Zamin period. The extent stated in Paimash No.133 in Ex.B1 is 68 cents. The suit property is 1 acre and 96 cents. The defendants are claiming that the extent mentioned in the Paimash No.133 is not correct and they are disputing the extent stated in Paimash No.147. A person cannot play hot and cold at the same time.