Property can be identified either by boundary or by any other specific description is well established: Chhattisgarh High Court
In the case where it is evident that the land has been identified by boundaries by the Commissioner in a demarcation held in presence of the parties then there is no reason for upholding the dispute regarding the ownership. A single-judge bench comprising of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal adjudicating in the matter of Vinay Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh (SECOND APPEAL No.251 of 2007) dealt with an issue whether to grant relief to the appellant or not, In the present case, the second appeal is preferred by Defendant seeking “Whether   the   lower   appellate   Court   was justified   in   reversing   the   well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 28­12­2006 passed by   the   1st  Civil   Judge   Class­,   Janjgir Champa   in   Civil   Suit   No.211­A/2003 and granting relief of permanent injunction against the appellant/defendant?” The plaintiff filed a suit that he is the title and possession holder of the suit land was he purchased from original holder   Nathan Singh by registered sale deed dated 6.9.1961 in which his name is also mutated and ultimately after the change, khasra number became 3820/10   and through which he approaches his remaining land. It is in the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 started creating a nuisance and started construction on the land for which suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining defendant   No.1   from interfering with his possession. The defendant in his written statement denied the averments of the plaintiff and stated that he has purchased the suit land bearing Khasra No.3820/9 area 0.06 decimal from Nathan Singh by registered sale deed dated 15.5.1980 and he owns his land and making construction on his own land. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to a permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the trial court appointed Revenue   Commissioner to ascertain whether the suit land is part of Khasra No.3820/10 or it is part of Khasra No.3820/9, Revenue   Commissioner to ascertain whether the suit land is part of Khasra No.3820/10 or it is part of Khasra No.3820/9. The trial court after looking into the evidence passed a judgment and dismissed the suit by the plaintiff. The plaintiff preferred the first appeal and granted decree in favor of the plaintiff against which the defendant filed the present (second) appeal. Defendant submitted that the first appellate   Court is absolutely unjustified in granting decree for permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff ignoring the Commissioner’s report in which the Commissioner has clearly indicated that it is the   defendant who has the said land and there is no objection to report of the Commissioner,   therefore,   the first appellate   Court ought to have accepted the report of the Commissioner. He would further submit that it is only a suit for permanent injunction in which title could not have been looked into by the first appellate Court.  The Respondent submitted that the impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and submit that written statement is not verified in accordance with Order 6 Rule 4 of the CPC and defendant­Vinay Kumar has even not entered into the witness box to examine himself,   therefore,   the defendant did not have opportunity to cross­examine the plaintiff, as such, adverse inference against the defendant has to be drawn. It was also submitted that the evidence of the   Commissioner and other evidence on record,   inevitable conclusion would be the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and decree for a permanent injunction has rightly been granted in favor of the plaintiff,   as such,   the second appeal deserves to be dismissed. The court after hearing all the submissions of both the parties stated that The suit land was earlier held by Nathan Singh, he sold the suit land bearing Khasra No.3820 area 0.10 decimal by registered sale deed dated   6.9.1961to   the plaintiff showing no boundaries of land sold to the plaintiff and thereafter it was renumbered as Khasra No.3820/10, whereas he also sold the land bearing Khasra No.3820/9 area 0.06 decimal to defendant No.1­Vinay Kumar showing boundaries in the sale deed.   When defendant   No.1   started raising construction on his land, the plaintiff disputed his raising of construction by saying that the suit land belongs to him and defendant   No.1   is not competent to raise construction, which led to the filing of suit for permanent injunction simpliciter stating inter­alia that the suit land in which construction is being made is owned by him and therefore, defendant No.1 be restrained from making construction on the suit land.
32 years R o. Kera Road Janjgir Tahsil Janjgir 1. Ganpati S o Ram Ratan aged about 50 years R o Janjgir Tah. Janjgir Distt.­Janjgir­Champa2. State of Chhattisgarh Through:­ Collector Janjgir­ 1. This second appeal preferred by defendant No.1 was “Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the well reasoned by the 1st Civil Judge Class­I Janjgir­ Champa in Civil Suit No.211­A 2003 and granting relief of permanent injunction For the sake of convenience the parties would and nomenclature given in the suit before the 2. The plaintiff filed a suit that he is title and possession holder of the suit land bearing Khasra which he has purchased from original holder Nathan Singh by registered sale deed dated 6.9.1961 and he is in possession of his land and making construction on his own land. Therefore the 4. During the pendency of the suit the trial Court appointed Revenue Commissioner to ascertain whether part of Khasra No.3820 9 in which the Commissioner 5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record by its judgment and decree dated 28.12.2006 dismissed the plaintiff against which defendant No.1 preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC 6. Mr.Sourabh Sharma learned counsel for the appellant defendant No.1 would submit that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in the plaintiff ignoring the Commissioner s report in is the defendant who is in possession of the said land and there is no objection to report of the Commissioner therefore the first appellate Court ought to have accepted the report of the not have been looked into by the first appellate appellate Court to grant decree in favour of the possession of the suit land. It is only the as such the judgment and decree of the first 7. On the other hand Mr.Somnath Verma learned counsel for respondent No.1 plaintiff would support the impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and submit that written statement is not and defendant­Vinay Kumar has even not entered into witness box to examine himself therefore the defendant did not have opportunity to cross­examine the plaintiff as such adverse inference against the defendant has to be drawn. He would reply upon the Bhai C. Patel alias Bachu Bhai Patel v. Harihar Behara and another1 and S. Kesari Hanuman Goud v taking the evidence of the Commissioner and other evidence on record inevitable conclusion would be 1 AIR 1999 SC 1341 212 SCC 64 decree for permanent injunction has rightly been granted in favour of the plaintiff as such the 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost 9. The suit land was earlier held by Nathan Singh he decimal by registered sale deed dated 6.9.1961 Ex.P­1) to the plaintiff showing no boundaries of land sold to the plaintiff and thereafter it was the land bearing Khasra No.3820 9 area 0.06 decimal to defendant No.1­Vinay Kumar showing boundaries in the sale deed. When defendant No.1 started raising bearing A B C and D as shown in map appended with plaint belongs to him and defendant No.1 is not inter­alia that the suit land in which construction is being made is owned by him and therefore on the suit land. Defendant No.1 after entering appearance disputed the same by holding that it is therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for to identification of the land directed for defendant vide order dated 11.12.98 which demarcation report was submitted by revenue officer examined as Court witness No.2. The Commissioner in his report has clearly reported that defendant has Khasra No.3820 10 area 0.10 acre total area 0.16 acre but in the spot out of two khasra numbers only held that the defendant s land bearing Khasra No.3820 9 area 0.06 acre is available on the spot By virtue of Order 26 Rule 10(2) of the CPC the evidence in the suit and shall form part of the subjected to lengthy cross­examination by the plaintiff but nothing could be extracted to hold that the plaintiff s land is also available in the 0.06 acre is available on the spot in which he is making construction as such from perusal of the Commissioner s report it is quite vivid that in the spot defendant No.1 was making construction on his land and he is in possession of the said land as such defendant No.1 was making construction on his own land being in possession of the suit land and of Balkrishna Datariya Galande v. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta and another3 in which the Supreme Court has clearly held that in a suit filed under the date of suit is a must for grant of permanent injunction as such the first appellate court failed into error in reversing the judgment and decree of 3SCC Online SC 135 There is one more reason for not upholding the The Supreme Court in the matter of Subhaga and any other specific description is well established Here the attempt had been to identify the suit property with reference to the boundaries and the Commissioner has identified that property with In that view of the matter the defendant s his report is binding to the parties as such the plaintiff has failed to establish that he is in possession of the suit land and on his land Commissioner s report and sale deed filed by is in possession of his own land bearing Khasra 45 SCC 466 No.3820 9 area 0.06 decimal and he was making from sale deedas such the first appellate Court fell in grave legal error in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court as such the judgments cited by learned counsel for respondent No.1 plaintiff are distinguishable to the facts of Consequently the judgment and decree of the the trial Court is hereby restored meaning thereby The second appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove leaving the parties to bear Sd 