Imortance of Boundaries.
allurisivajiraju
(Querist) 07 January 2009
This query is : Resolved
Respected Seniors,
Mr. 'X' purchased an extent of Ac.03-00 Cents from Mr. 'Y' in the year 2005. But adjacent to the above said extent there is a porambok land which belongs to the panchayat an extent of 15 Sq.Yards. But the above said proramboke is covered with in the boundaries mentioned in the above said Extent of Ac. 03-00 Cents.
Now Mr 'Y' claiming that the said poramboke is belongs to him since he was not sold the said extent of 15 Sq. Yards.
Now Mr. X is ready to defend himself as " Boundaries prevails an extent".
In the above circumstances please send latest citations with regard to the " Boundries Prevails an Extent" in favour of Mr. X.
PALNITKAR V.V.
(Expert) 29 January 2009
Please See the following citation.
2006 INDLAW DEL 560
[DELHI HIGH COURT]
Mohd Kamil (Since Deceased) and Others
v
Chootey Lal
S. K. Kaul
08 Aug 2006
BENCH
S. K. Kaul
CASES REFERRED TO
Ravinder Kaur v Ashok Kumar and Another 2003 Indlaw SC 855
Jagdish Dutt and Anr. Vs. Dharam Pal and Ors. [1999 (4) AD(SC)
36]
Krishna Lal Dutta Vs. Behari Lal Chhabra 1988 (36) DLT 324
M/s. Roy and Co. and Anr. Vs. Sm. Nani Bala Dey and Ors. [1979
AIR(Cal) 50]
Chitturi Perraju and Anr. Vs. Yednapudi Venkamma and Ors.
[1971 AIR(AP) 74]
ACTS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950[art. 227]
Transfer Of Property Act, 1882[s. 108]
Indian Evidence Act, 1872[s. 116]
CASE NO
Cm (M) No.1476 of 2004 and Cm(M) No.1491 of 2004
KEYWORDS
Constitution of India, Mesne Profits, Eviction Order
LAWYERS
Satya Prakash Gupta, Ramesh Saraf, H.L.Raina
.JUDGMENT TEXT
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN
KAUL
(1) Admit.
(2) At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the
petitions are taken up for final disposal.
(3) The two petitions arise from the grievance of the
petitioner in respect of the common order passed in two
execution proceedings by the learned Civil Judge on 20.7.2004
(4) The petitioner had filed two suits for recovery of
possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits in respect of
plot Nos.1 and 2, forming part of Khasra No.38/5/1, Khureji
Khas, Patparganj Main Road, Shahdara, Delhi. In the two suits,
the plots 1 and 2 have been described as ad measuring 400 and
500 sq. yards respectively. The description of the plots as
given in para 1 of the plaints for plots 1 and 2 respectively
are as under:
Plot No.1
North: Plot of Gaon Sabha
South: Plot forming part of Khasra No.38/5/1 of Ahmed
Chaudhary, etc.
East: Road
West: Plot of Shri Ram Chander, etc.
Plot No.2
North: Plot of Gaon Sabha
South: Plot forming part of Khasra No.38/5/1 of Ahmed
Chaudhary, etc.
East: Road
West: Plot of Shri Ram Chander, etc.
(5) The two suits were decreed and the first appeal as well as
the second appeal filed by the respondent were dismissed. The
matter, thus, came for execution of the decree. At that stage,
the respondent filed objections, which were also dismissed.
The problem has arisen at the stage of the execution of the
warrants of possession in respect of the suit property.
(6) A perusal of the impugned order shows that an architect
was directed to go to site to identify the plots to carry out
measurements. At site the architect did not find any
discrepancy insofar as the boundaries of the plots are
concerned but the two plots were found to be measurin
