In the original sale deed, a 'Bimash' number is mentioned while in the patta a survey number is given.Even this survey number is assigned a new sub-division within the same survey number along with a 'numeric' survey number - this numeric survey number is now the standard reference for all my land reference purposes.
This being so, I had filed an injunction suit against the trespassers and obtained a permanent injunction - But ultimately, my injunction suit was dismissed citing the difference is survey numbers mentioned in my plaint and proof of affidavit - while in all these petitions I have correctly quoted the present survey number.
2. There are some minor differences in the measurements shown in my sale deed and the govt. land surveyor when he physically measured my property in the presence of the defendants and also the advocate commissioner appointed by court - this is mainly because of the compound walls constructed by my neighbours and other factors - But the land has been clearly identified to be standing in my name.
3. It is pertinent to note that the defendant in his written statement and other replies to the court has mentioned the same survey no. as mine and in the same way as mentioned in my documents and suddenly makes a 'U' turn and says that the suit property and his property are different.
The court seems to have only relied more on his statements and not the documentary proofs submitted by me - Is this judgement correct - I am now forced to file 'appeal' in a higher court.
