Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The addition of Item No. 2 in the plaint schedule was sought to be justified through Ex. A-16 dated 25.3.1982 captioned as "continued lease deed", whereas under the said document, no lease sought to be continued. As a matter of fact, Ex. A-1 lease deed was for a period of ten years from 27.8.19 81. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by Mr. G. Masilamani, as on 25.3.1982 viz., Ex. A-16, there was no need for any extension of the lease deed Ex. A-1. Further, a reading of the recitals in Ex. A-16 reveals that the same was not one for extension of lease but purport to add Item No. 2 of the plaint schedule in Ex. A-1 lease deed. Therefore, it is contended that Ex. A-16 was in effect seek to create leasehold right in respect of item No. 2 of the plaint schedule also owned by the defendant i n favour of the deceased plaintiff for a period of ten years. As already seen, this document was captioned as "continued lease deed" and sought to be referred to by the deceased plaintiff as a rectification deed to Ex. A-1 lease deed. According to Mr. G. Masilamani, neither of these claims were correct. In reality, it creates a transfer of right in immovable properties which were not covered by Ex. A-1, by way of lease, that too for a period of ten years, strangely for the same rent of Rs. 1,000 per year mentioned in Ex. A-1, de hors the addition 46 Kuzhies and 11 Vizams to the already existing leasehold extent of 1 Kani.

17. We have closely scrutinised Ex. A-1, which reveals that the said document is an unregistered one and that the defendant denies the execution of the same. Ex. A-16 is typed on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 5 only. The said stamp paper was purchased in the name of one G. Dhanam of Poraiyur, who is not connected with the parties to the document. No explanation was given as to why the stamp paper was purchased in the name of a person who was either fictitious or unconnected to the document. Even though this document is dated 25.3.1982 and a very important document connected with the suit schedule property, the same was not produced along with the plaint dated 4.7.1983 even though the lease deed Ex. A-1 dated 27.8.1981 was produced as the first document. Further, Mr. G. Masilamani would contend that Ex. A-16 is not admissible in evidence since the same was neither properly stamped nor registered even though the same was compulsorily liable to be registered since it purports to create transfer of right in an immovable property on an annual rent of Rs. 1,000 that too, for a period often years. As already stated, the plaintiffs described this document as a rectification deed to the lease deed Ex. A-1. Even assuming it to be so, Ex. A-1 being registered, a deed of rectification thereof also should be a registered instrument. We find much force in the argument of Mr. G. Masilamani in this aspect. Hence, we are of the view, that this document is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon for more than one reason.

18. The plaintiffs had not taken any tangible steps to prove satisfactorily that the deceased plaintiff had put up construction in the leasehold land. The only document marked by the plaintiffs and which was some what germane to resolve this dispute was Ex. A22 dated 3.7.1987, which is a certified copy of the Commissioner's report filed in the plaintiff s former injunction suit O.S. No. 212 of 1983 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry. As per this report, the suit schedule in O.S. No. 212 of 1983 contained only two items mentioned in the lease deed Ex. A-1. Further, the Commissioner's report states that the deceased plaintiffs construction was found in R.S. No. 120/10, which was not the subject matter of Ex. A-1 lease deed. The Commissioner also found that the construction was within the suit boundary description, which relates to R.S. No. 120/10. The plaintiffs having come to know that their construction was in R.S. No. 120/10 and not in the survey numbers covered in the lease deed Ex. A-1, desired to bring R.S. No. 120/10 also within Ex. A-1 lease deed. To give effect to this illegal desire, the plaintiffs, brought about Ex. A-16, the alleged continued lease deed/rectification deed providing for the inclusion of R.S. Nos. l20/10 and 120/11 in Ex. A-1.It appears to us that R.S. No. 120/11 was also included perhaps as an abundant caution. Finding that the defendant was not obliged to them in this regard, they were rest content with Ex. A-16 as an anti-dated and unregistered document, typed on an old stamp paper which stood in the name of some third party. The origin of the document ought to have been much later than its purported date of execution since not even a xerox copy of the said document was filed along with the plaint in this suit.

24. P.W. 5 is the Advocate Commissioner who inspected the suit property and submitted Ex. A-22 report and plan in O.S. No. 212 of 1983. He also does not speak anything about the controversy on hand in this suit. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is clear to us that the plaintiffs had not proved clearly that they had put up construction only in the leasehold property.

25. Mr. K. Yamunan, learned Counsel for the respondents, attempted to establish that the construction was within the boundary description contained in Ex. A-1 lease deed, as found by the Advocate Commissioner in Ex. A-22, even though the boundary description relates to R.S. No. 120/10 which was sought to be included in Ex. A-1 lease deed dated 27.8.1981 through Ex. A-16, alleged rectification deed dated 25.3.1982. He placed reliance on the well established general principles of law that the boundary descriptions shall prevail over survey number, extent, etc., when there is conflict. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decisions reported in The Palestine KupatAm Bank Co-operative Society Limited v. Government of Palestine A.I.R. 1948 P.C. 207 : 62 L.W. 21, Sheodhyan Singh v. Sanichara Kuer and Kamakshi Ammal v. R. Ranganaihan 82 L.W. 142. There can be no quarrel over this proposition of law. However, the same cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. Ex. A-1 lease deed, as mentioned earlier, contains only two items of properties in R.S. Nos. 120/2 and 120/9, having an extent of 1 Kani and 25 Kuzhies. For this Survey Number and extent, a boundary description was given. Out of this, only one Kani on the southern side was leased out. Subsequently, under Ex. A-16, the alleged rectification deed, two more survey numbers viz., R.S. No. 120/10-33 Kuzhies and 10 Vizamsand R.S. No. 120/11-13 Kuzhies and 1 Vizam, were added to the extent mentioned in the lease deed aforementioned. Even after the addition of two more survey numbers and another total extent of 46 Kuzhies and 11 Vizams, the same boundary description is given. If really what was sought to be done under Ex. A-16 was to rectify the mistake, viz., to incorporate in Ex. A-1 the lands which were comprised within the boundary description in Ex. A-1 viz., R.S. No. 120/10 : 33 Kuzhies and 10 Vizams and R.S. No. 120/11 = 13 Kuzhies and 1 Vizani, totalling 46 Kuzhies and 11 Vizams, then, the two other survey numbers in R.S. No. 120/2 = 75 Kuzhies and R.S. No. 120/9 = 50 Kuzhies totalling 1 Kani and 25 Kuzhies, ought to have been deleted under Ex. A-16. Failure to delete as aforesaid result in the boundary description which encompassed 1 Kani and 25 Kuzhies after the rectification deed encompass 1 Kani 71 Kuzhies and 11 Vizams. Further, as per Ex. A-22, Commissioner's report, the boundary description relates to R.S. No. 120/10 wherein the construction was found. R.S. No. 120/10 consists of only 33 Kuzhies and 10 Vizams. Perhaps, only placing reliance on the Commissioner's report, R.S. No. 120/10 was sought to be included under Ex. A-16, the alleged rectification deed. Ex. A-16 was created by using an old stamp paper issued in the name of some third party by anti-dating the document, that too, a xerox copy was produced before court by P.W. 4. The original has not seen the light of the day and no explanation was given for the same. If really, as per Ex. A-22, the Commissioner's report, the boundary descriptions contained in Exs. A-1 and A-16 relate to R.S. No. 120/10 only, how then in Ex. A-16 the plaintiffs could claim that within the same boundary not only R.S. No. 120/10 but also R.S. No. 120/11, in addition to the survey numbers mentioned in the lease deed Ex. A-1 viz., R.S. Nos. 120/2 and 120/9, are also comprised. Ex. A-1 mentions that the leasehold right was created specifically in respect of only one Kani out of one Kani and 25 Kuzhies, that too, on the southern side. If that is so, R.S. No. 120/10 having an extent of 33 Kuzhies and 11 Vizams only cannot come within the boundary description.