Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 521 (MAD)

Durai v. Kamala & Another

2010-02-09

S.TAMILVANAN

body2010
Judgment : 1. TheSecond Appeals in S.A.No.281 of 2006 and S.A.No.282 of 2006 have been preferred against the common Judgment, dated 30.08.2005 made in A.S.No.42 of 2004 and A.S.No.65 of 2004 respectively on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 28.01.2004 made in O.S.No.455 of 1998 and O.S.No.848 of 1998 respectively on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai. 2. Theappellant herein was the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.455 of 1998 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.848 of 1998. The suit in O.S.No.455 of 1998 filed by the first respondent herein was decreed and the suit in O.S.No.848 of 1998 filed by the appellant was dismissed by the trial court. Hence, the appellant herein preferred the first appeals against the common Judgment of the trial court. The appellate court confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court and dismissed both the appeals in A.S.No.42 of 2004 and A.S.No.65 of 2004. Aggrieved by which, the second appeals have been preferred. 3. For the sake of convenience, in both the second appeals and the connected suits, the term referred to as appellant, respondents, plaintiff or defendant, in general without referring specifically the appeal or the suit number, will denote only the second appeal in S.A.No.281 of 2006 and the connected suit in O.S.No.455 of 1998 and the parties and documents therein. 4. The suit in O.S.No.455 of 1998 had been filed by the first respondent in the second appeal in S.A.No.281 of 2006 against the appellant and the second respondent herein, seeking recovery of possession of ABCD portion of the plaint schedule property, from the appellant herein and also for permanent injunction restraining the appellant / first defendant not to cause any interference with the first respondents / plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of "ABEF" portion of the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property in the possession and enjoyment of the first respondent / plaintiff is described as punja land in R.S.No.254/4, measuring 19 ½ feet in North-South and 100 feet in the East-West direction in Kuttalam, Rajagopalapuram village, Mayiladuthurai Taluk, which has been shown as south of the ABEF portion in the possession and enjoyment of the first respondent / plaintiff, which is west by a main road, east by the property of one Sivakadaksham, south by vaikkal (channel) and north by ABCD portion, for which relief of permanent injunction is sought for. The ABCD portion shown in the plaint is also related to R.S.No.254/4, punja land, measuring 10 ½ feet in the North-South direction, 100 feet in East-west direction, which is shown on the North of the appellants / first defendants property and also allegedly an encroached portion by the appellant, for which the first respondent / plaintiff had sought mandatory injunction for recovery of possession. 5. Thesuit in O.S.No.848 of 1998 was filed by the appellant in the second appeals against the first respondent herein, seeking permanent injunction restraining the first respondent herein from cutting the fence containing living plants and trees that exists between the property of the plaintiff and the first defendant. 6. Both the suits were tried together and by a common Judgment of the trial court, the suit in O.S.No.455 of 1998 filed by the first respondent herein was decreed as prayed for and the suit in O.S.No.848 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein was dismissed, without costs. Against which, appeals in A.S.No.42 of 2004 and A.S.No.65 of 2004 were preferred by the appellant herein. The appellate court, while confirming the Judgments of the trial Court, dismissed both the appeals preferred by the appellant herein without costs. Aggrieved by the common Judgment and Decree rendered by the Court below, the Second Appeals have been preferred by the appellant, who was the plaintiffs in O.S.No.848 of 1998 and the first defendant in O.S.No.455 of 1998, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai. 7. The Second Appeals were admitted on the following common Substantial Questions of Law, apart from one separate substantial question of law in each second appeal : "1. 7. The Second Appeals were admitted on the following common Substantial Questions of Law, apart from one separate substantial question of law in each second appeal : "1. Whether the Judgments of the Court below are liable to be set aside on the ground of failure to take into consideration of material evidence on record like surveyor and commissioners report and plan which falsified the plea of alleged trespass by the appellant ? 2. Whether the Judgments of the Court below are liable to be set aside on account of the failure, to advert to the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.6 and also Advocate Commissioners and Surveyors Report ? 3. Whether the Judgments of the Court below are not sustainable on the ground of non-compliance of the mandate given under Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C ?" Substantial question of Law No.4 in S.A.No.281 of 2006 : "4. Whether the solitary prayer for possession is maintainable without prayed for declaration when title of respondent is specifically disputed by the appellant herein ?" Substantial question of Law No.4 in S.A.No.282 of 2006 : "4. Whether the Courts below are right in negativing the prayed for injunction when possession of appellant is admitted by the respondent ? " 8. Substantial Questions 1 & 2 : In the suit in O.S.No.455 of 1998 relating to the second appeal in S.A.No.281 of 2006, the first respondent herein, being the plaintiff in the said suit, had sought the relief for recovery of possession of the suit ABCD portion of the property, as shown in the plaint plan from the first defendant who is the appellant herein and also permanent injunction restraining the appellant / D1 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, which is described as ABEF in the plaint plan. ABCD portion of the suit property is a piece of land in R.S.No.254/4 measuring 10 ½ feet in North-South direction and 100 feet in East-West direction in Kuttalam- Rajagopalapuram Village, Mayiladuthurai Taluk, which is said to be the encroached portion by the appellant herein. 9. It is an admitted fact that by a common Judgment of the trial court, the suit filed by the first respondent herein in O.S.No.455 of 1998 was decreed and the other suit in O.S.No.848 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein against the first respondent was dismissed. 9. It is an admitted fact that by a common Judgment of the trial court, the suit filed by the first respondent herein in O.S.No.455 of 1998 was decreed and the other suit in O.S.No.848 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein against the first respondent was dismissed. Aggrieved by which, two appeals were preferred in A.S.No.42 of 2004 and A.S.No.65 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai, by the appellant herein. The appellate court, while confirming the common Judgment and Decree, passed by the trial court, dismissed both the appeals preferred by the appellant herein. .10. Mr.S.Sounthar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there was no encroachment made by the appellant herein in the property as stated by the first respondent herein. It is further submitted that the first respondent filed the suit for mandatory injunction, without seeking relief of declaration of title, though the alleged title by the first respondent in the ABCD portion is being disputed by the appellant as defendant in the suit. According to the appellant, the first respondent herein could not have filed the suit, without seeking relief of declaration of title, as the suit is for recovery of possession of ABCD portion and the title claimed by the first respondent herein for the said property is disputed by the appellant herein before the courts below. Hence, the suit filed by the first respondent, without a prayer for declaration of title was not legally sustainable. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this court to the sketch, attached to the decree, relating to O.S.No.455 of 2008. As per the sketch attached to the decree, the measurement of AB East-West portion is stated as 100 feet and from the point, the measurement on the North-South portion from points A to F is stated as 19 ½ feet. In respect of possession and enjoyment of ABEF portion on the north is concerned, the appellant has not raised any objection. As per the plaint averments, Mrs.Kamala, the first respondent herein had purchased her property, as per the sale deed, dated 06.02.1997 marked as Ex.A.1, from the second defendant Mrs.Janaki in O.S.No.455 of 1998, measuring 30 feet North-South direction and 100 feet East-West direction. As per the plaint averments, Mrs.Kamala, the first respondent herein had purchased her property, as per the sale deed, dated 06.02.1997 marked as Ex.A.1, from the second defendant Mrs.Janaki in O.S.No.455 of 1998, measuring 30 feet North-South direction and 100 feet East-West direction. As per Ex.A.1, sale deed on 06.02.1997, one Samsudeen, power agent of the second defendant, Mrs.Janaki had executed the sale deed in favour of the first respondent herein. As per Ex.A.1, the first respondent purchased her property measuring North-South 30 feet, East-West 100 feet and totally of 3000 sq.ft., It is not in dispute that the property on the south of the first respondents / plaintiffs property was purchased by the appellant herein, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.848 of 1998 from the same vendor Mrs.Janaki and the North-South measurement of the appellants property is also 30 feet as per his sale deed. 12. As per the Commissioners Report, Ex.C.1 and Sketch No.1, Ex.C.2, on the northern side of the first respondents property, one East-West channel is shown and there is no dispute regarding the East-West measurement of the property. As stated in the Commissioners Report, the North-South measurement on the East of the property in the possession and enjoyment of the first respondent / plaintiff shown as CD, measuring 329" upto the northern boundary and the North-West measurement on the west is also shown as 34. The Commissioner has also stated that there was a fence between the properties of the appellant and the first respondent and in the fence, the Commissioner could note living plants and trees. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, there is no dispute with regard to the East-West measurement of the property, similarly both the appellant and the first respondent had purchased their respective properties only from the common vendor, Mrs.Janaki. 13. As per Ex.A.1, sale deed, the first respondent / plaintiff purchased the property from the common vendor through her power of attorney, Samsudeen on the northern side, measuring 30 feet North-South and 100 feet East-West. Similarly, by the sale deed, dated 30.07.1997, the appellant herein purchased the land immediately on the south of the first respondents property measuring East-West 95 feet and North-South 30 feet from the common vendor, Mrs.Janaki, the second defendant in O.S.No.455 of 1998. 14. Similarly, by the sale deed, dated 30.07.1997, the appellant herein purchased the land immediately on the south of the first respondents property measuring East-West 95 feet and North-South 30 feet from the common vendor, Mrs.Janaki, the second defendant in O.S.No.455 of 1998. 14. Mr.B.Dyaneswaran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent herein had purchased her property measuring East-West 100 feet and North-South 30 feet from the second respondent, Janaki in O.S.No.455 of 1998, for which she is entitled. 15. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the East-West measurement stated as 100 feet in Ex.A.1, sale deed of the first respondent is not correct, as it was only 95 feet, as per the Commissioners Report and Plan. In both the second appeals and the connected suit, the dispute is only with regard to the North-South measurement and there is no dispute with regard to East-West measurements. As a subsequent purchaser from a common vendor, the appellant herein cannot dispute the title of the first respondent. The appellant claiming title through the common vendor and being subsequent purchaser is estopped from disputing the title of the vendor, that was passed on to the first respondent, by way of his sale deed. However, the substantial questions are different, which are based on the alleged encroachment by the appellant herein. 16. It is seen that the Advocate-Commissioner, after inspecting the property has filed his report and sketches, Exs.C.1 to C.3, wherein he has specifically stated that there was a fence of living plants and trees between the properties in enjoyment of both the parties to the suit. As per the Commissioners Report and sketch, the first respondent herein is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 329" in North-South, on the western side and 34 North-South on the eastern side, though she had purchased her land measuring only 30 North-South, under Ex.A.1, sale deed. There is no contra evidence on the side of the first respondent against the Commissioners Report and the sketch, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. As per the sketch marked as Ex.C.4, prepared by the Taluk Surveyor, it is seen that a portion of the land in the possession and enjoyment of the appellant is shown in S.No.254/4 and also in the other survey number. As per the sketch marked as Ex.C.4, prepared by the Taluk Surveyor, it is seen that a portion of the land in the possession and enjoyment of the appellant is shown in S.No.254/4 and also in the other survey number. However, it is made clear that the first respondent / plaintiff is enjoying the property North-West more than 30 feet, though she had purchased only an extent of 30 feet North-South, under the sale deed, Ex.A.1 hence, there could be no encroachment in her property. However, the oral and documentary evidence on record regarding the measurement was not considered by the trial court as well as the first appellate court. .17. In the plaint plan, the first respondent / plaintiff in O.S.No.455 of 1998 has stated that she is in possession and enjoyment of only an extent of 19 ½ feet North-South and the East-West measurement as 100 feet and that there was an encroachment of 10 ½ feet North-South made by the appellant / first defendant, which is shown by her as ABCD in the rough sketch filed along with the plaint in O.S.No.455 of 1998. It is seen that the sketch attached with the decree of the court below is only the sketch prepared by the first respondent / plaintiff and with regard to the extent of land, the same is contrary to the report and the plan submitted by the Advocate-Commissioner and also the sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor. However, the trial court has accepted the rough sketch filed by the first respondent / plaintiff and made it to be form part of the decree, without legally appreciating the evidence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, accepting the rough sketch containing incorrect details, the trial court has decreed the suit and also attached the rough sketch filed by the first respondent / plaintiff in O.S.No.455 of 1998 as part of the decree and that was confirmed by the appellate court. As per the Commissioners Report and sketch, it is clear that the first respondent / plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of more than 30 feet North-South, immediately on the north of the appellants property. As per the Commissioners Report and sketch, it is clear that the first respondent / plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of more than 30 feet North-South, immediately on the north of the appellants property. But, as per the plaint sketch, the first respondent / plaintiff has stated that she is in possession and enjoyment of only 19 ½ feet North-South and the remaining 10 ½ feet North-South shown as ABCD portion in the plaint was encroached by the appellant herein. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant cited various decisions of the Honble Apex Court, in support of his contention and argued that the finding of the court below is perverse, though the same is a concurrent finding by the courts below and argued for allowing both the second appeals. 1. Ponnusamy Pandaram vs. The Salem Vaiyappamalai Jangamar Sangam, 1998 LW 112 2. Ishwar Dass Jain vs. Sohan Lal, 2001-1-LW 425 3. Bondar Singh vs. Nihar Singh, 2003 (2) CTC 635. 19. Per contra, Mr.B.Dyaneswaran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent cited the decision Praga Tools Corpn., Ltd., vs. Mahboobunnissa Begum, reported in 2001 (6) SCC 238 and submitted that the court below have held the finding properly and according to him, the appellant has raised question of fact, which cannot be challenged in the second appeal. 20. It is not in dispute that under Ex.A.3, dated 09.08.1996, power of attorney of the second defendant had executed a gift settlement deed in favour of Kuttalam Town Panchayat, a portion of the property of the vendor for the purpose of forming a road. As the suit has been filed for recovery of possession of ABCD portion of the property and the title to the alleged encroachment claimed by the plaintiff is being disputed by the appellant, who was the contesting defendant in the suit, the first respondent / plaintiff could have sought relief for declaration of title and recovery of possession. As the suit has been filed for recovery of possession of ABCD portion of the property and the title to the alleged encroachment claimed by the plaintiff is being disputed by the appellant, who was the contesting defendant in the suit, the first respondent / plaintiff could have sought relief for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Though the first respondent / plaintiff has stated that she is in possession and enjoyment of only an extent of 19 ½ Feet North-South and the balance of 10 ½ feet North-South stated as ABCD portion was encroached by the appellant herein in the 30 feet North-South extend purchased by her in R.S.No.254/4, as per the Commissioners Report and sketch, it is made clear that the first respondent is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 34 feet North-South on the East and 329" North-South on the West, more than the extent specified in her said sale deed, hence, there is no evidence for the alleged encroachment made by he appellant. However, the trial court decreed the suit against the appellant, that was confirmed by the appellate court. 21. InBondar Singh vs. Nihar Singh, reported in 2003 (2) CTC 635, the Honble Apex Court has held as follows: "4...An appeal under Section 100 C.P.C can be entertained by the High Court only on a substantial question of law. There can be no quarrel with this legal proposition. The scope of powers of High Court under Section 100 C.P.C. is a matter of settled law. The learned counsel for the appellant cited several judgments in support of his contention. We do not consider it necessary to discuss these decisions because so far as the question of powers of High Courts under Section 100 C.P.C is concerned, it needs no discussion. If the findings of the subordinate courts on facts are contrary to evidence on record and are perverse, such finding can be set aside by the High Court in appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. A High Court cannot shut it eyes to perverse findings of the Courts below. In the present case, the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate court were contrary to evidence on record and, therefore, perverse and the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the same resulting in the appeal being allowed and suit being decreed." 22. In the present case, the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate court were contrary to evidence on record and, therefore, perverse and the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the same resulting in the appeal being allowed and suit being decreed." 22. In Ishwar Dass Jain vs. Sohan Lal, reported in 2000-1-LW 425, the Honble Supreme Court has held that there are two situations,in which interference with the findings of fact is permissible : .(i) The first one is when material or relevant evidence is not considered which, if considered would have led to an opposite conclusion. .(ii) The second situation in which interference with findings of fact is permissible is where a finding has been arrived at by the lower appellate court by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence which if it was omitted, an opposite conclusion was possible. 23. This Court in the decision, Ponnusamy Pandaram vs. The Salem Vaiyappamalai Jangamar Sangam, reported in 1998 LW 112 , has held that as per Order 26 Rule 9 & 10 CPC, local investigation made through Commissioner would be the best evidence to decide the controversy on the pleadings as to whether the constructions referred to in that suit, constitute encroachment or not and the right of the party to place evidence required to substantiate the case before the court and that the duty of the court is to allow the same. 24. It is a well settled proposition of law that a second appeal is not maintainable, as per Section 100 CPC, if there is no substantial question of law to be decided by this Court. In the instant case, there is a concurrent finding by the Courts below. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent placed his arguments based on the decision in Praga Tools Corpn., Ltd., vs. Mahboobunnissa Begum, reported in 2001 (6) SCC 238 . However, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, as the concurrent finding of the courts below is against the evidence available on record. 25. However, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, as the concurrent finding of the courts below is against the evidence available on record. 25. It has been held categorically by the Honble Apex Court in the decisions referred to above and various other decisions, that if the finding of the subordinate courts on facts are contrary to the evidence on record, the same has to be construed as perverse finding, which can be set aside by the High Court in the second appeal under Section 100 CPC and further, the High Court cannot shut his eyes, when there is perverse finding of the courts below, when a finding is against the evidence available on record or without evidence and that could be construed as perverse. The first respondent herein had filed the suit in O.S.No.455 of 1998 seeking recovery of possession of ABCD portion of the suit property from the appellant, without a prayer for declaration of title, though the appellant / defendant has specifically disputed the title of ABCD portion of the property claimed by the first respondent /plaintiff. The appellant / defendant has not disputed that ABEF portion on the North belongs to the first respondent / plaintiff and according to him, he has neither encroached nor attempted to encroach any portion of the land belongs to the first respondent and as such there is no cause of action to maintain the suit, even in respect of ABEF portion of the property is concerned. 26. In the rough sketch prepared by the first respondent / plaintiff, that was attached with the decree of the trial court, ABCD portion is shown as 10 ½ feet North-South and 100 feet East-West, immediately on the north of the appellants property. According to the first respondent / plaintiff, that was the portion encroached by the appellant / first defendant herein. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, except the self-serving sketch prepared by the first respondent / plaintiff, that was attached with the decree, there is no supporting document to establish the alleged encroachment by the appellant herein and further, it is clear that the Advocate-Commissioners Report and the sketches, Exs.C.1 to C.3 and the sketch prepared by the Surveyor marked as Ex.C.4 are against the rough sketch filed by the first respondent / plaintiff. The Courts below have simply accepted the rough sketch filed by the first respondent / plaintiff for forming part of the decree, without any basis, despite the fact that the same is totally contrary to the Advocate-Commissioners Report and the sketches and disputed by the appellant / first defendant. Further, as per the Commissioners Report, Ex.C.1 and the sketches filed by the Advocate-Commissioner, Exs.C.2, C.3 and Surveyors sketch marked as Ex.C.4, it is made clear that the first respondent / plaintiff is in possession of 34 North-West, on the eastern side and 329" North-South on the western side, which is more than the extent purchased by the first respondent / plaintiff, contrary to the Commissioners Report and sketch, in the plaint plan, the first respondent / plaintiff in O.S.No.455 of 1998 has stated that an extent of 10 ½ feet North-South of her property was encroached and in the possession and enjoyment of the appellant, which cannot be accepted, as the same is against the evidence. So far as the East-West measurement is concerned, there is no dispute between the appellant and the first respondent. The second respondent, being the common vendor of both the parties is only a formal party in the suit. 27. It is settled proposition of law that the plaintiff, who has filed the suit and seeking the relief has to prove his claim, he cannot pick holes in the defence raised by the defendant and succeed, as the plaintiff has to stand or fall on her own case. In the instant case, the Commissioners Report and sketches marked as Ex.C.1 to C.4 are against the averments made by the first respondent / plaintiff and there is no acceptable contra evidence on the side of the first respondent / plaintiff. In fact there is no evidence on the side of the first respondent / plaintiff to show that the appellant / D1 had encroached any portion of the first respondents / plaintiffs property and to substantiate the alleged cause of action in the suit O.S.No.455 of 1998. In fact there is no evidence on the side of the first respondent / plaintiff to show that the appellant / D1 had encroached any portion of the first respondents / plaintiffs property and to substantiate the alleged cause of action in the suit O.S.No.455 of 1998. In view of the decision referred to above, considering the evidence available on record, I am of the view that the Courts below have given only a perverse finding, as the finding of the courts below is against the evidence available on record and therefore, the substantial questions of law 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the appellant and against the first respondent herein. 28. Substantial Question of Law No.3 : The appellant has raised the third substantial question of law that the appellate court has not complied with the mandate given under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. As contemplated under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, the Judgment of the appellate court should have the following contents, which are mandatory : .(a) the points for determination; .(b) the decision thereon; .(c) the reasons for the decision; and .(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled; and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge concurring therein. 29. Inthe instant case, it is seen that the trial court had framed four issues in O.S.No.455 of 1998 and another four issues in O.S.No.848 of 1998 for the disposal of the suits and answered the issues. The first appellate court instead of framing points for determination, also framed the following issues for determining the appeal : "1. Is plaintiff Kamala the title holder of the disputed portion of the suit property as shown in the plaint plan in O.S.No.455/98 ? 2. Is defendant Durai in possession and enjoyment of the disputed portion namely ABCD as on the date of suit ? If so, Durai is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? 3. Is plaintiff Kamala entitled to permanent injunction to that portion of ABEF ? 4. Is the suit O.S.848/98 bad for non-joinder of necessary party ? 5. Is plaintiff Kamala entitled to recovery of ABCD portion of the suit property ? 6. To what relief ?" and has given findings for the aforesaid issues. 30. 3. Is plaintiff Kamala entitled to permanent injunction to that portion of ABEF ? 4. Is the suit O.S.848/98 bad for non-joinder of necessary party ? 5. Is plaintiff Kamala entitled to recovery of ABCD portion of the suit property ? 6. To what relief ?" and has given findings for the aforesaid issues. 30. As contemplated under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, the first appellate court should have framed only points for determination, instead of framing issues, however, the nomenclature employed in the impugned Judgment is issues instead of point for determination. As the appellate court has framed the issues relating to the relief sought for with reference to the point for determination on the relevant factors, merely on the technical reason of the nomenclature employed by the appellate court as issues, instead of point for determination, under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, this Court is of the considered view that the second appeal need not be allowed, solely on that ground, accordingly, the substantial question of law number 3 is answered. .31. Substantial Question of Law No.4 in S.A.No.281 of 2006 : Mr.S.Sounthar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / first defendant submitted that the relief of recovery of possession sought for by the first respondent / plaintiff, without a prayer for declaration of title is legally not maintainable, since the appellant / first defendant has disputed the title to the ABCD portion of the property claimed by the first respondent / plaintiff. The relief sought for by the first respondent / plaintiff in O.S.No.455 of 1998 is for recovery of possession of the ABCD portion of the property, as per the sketch filed along with the plaint and also permanent injunction against the appellant / first defendant in respect of ABEF portion of the property, immediately on the North of ABCD portion, as shown in the plaint plan. As per Ex.A.1, sale deed, dated 06.02.1997, the first respondent / plaintiff had purchased only an extent of North-South 30 feet and East-West 100 feet in S.No.254/4 of Rajagopalapuram village. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it is seen from the original document, Ex.A.1, that the North-South extent was originally written as 25 feet, which has been corrected as 30 feet, without any attestation in the document. 32. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it is seen from the original document, Ex.A.1, that the North-South extent was originally written as 25 feet, which has been corrected as 30 feet, without any attestation in the document. 32. The first respondent / plaintiff, who was examined as P.W.1, has also admitted the said correction in her cross-examination. In the plaint, the first respondent / plaintiff has not specifically stated the date and month of the alleged encroachment made by the appellant herein. According to the first respondent / plaintiff, when she was examined as P.W.1, in the suit only an extent of land North-South 19 ½ feet, East-West 100 feet was in her possession on the date of filing of the suit. The first respondent as P.W.1 has further deposed that she could not examine her vendor, the second respondent, Janaki, as she had not inclined to depose evidence and she could not examine the power of attorney, Samsudeen, since he died prior to the date of her deposing evidence. Admittedly, there was no pre-suit notice given by the first respondent / plaintiff to the appellant / first defendant. The first respondent has admitted that the Advocate-Commissioner had inspected the property and filed his report and sketch, however, no objection was filed by her against the report and the sketch prepared by the Advocate-Commissioner. As per the Commissioners Report and the sketch, it is made clear that the first respondent / plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of 34 feet North-South on the East and 329" North-South on the West, which is more than the extent that was purchased by the first respondent / plaintiff, under Ex.A.1, which is against her case that the appellant had encroached the property belongs to her. On the circumstances, the prayer for recovery of possession, without a prayer for declaration of title is not legally sustainable, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 33. It is a settled proposition of law that when the possession and enjoyment of the property is with the defendant, without establishing the title to the property, plaintiff cannot claim recovery of possession of the property, however, if the title of the plaintiff to the property is admitted by the defendant or established by the plaintiff, relief of recovery of possession is maintainable. Declaration of title is mandatory, when the defendant is disputing the title to the property claimed by the plaintiff and the relief sought for is for recovery of possession of the property from the defendant, when the defendant has disputed the title claimed by the plaintiff. .34. In the instant case, the first respondent / plaintiff had alleged that there was an encroachment made by the appellant / first defendant in her property, without specifying the date and month of the alleged encroachment and further, her claim and the rough sketch filed by her are against the Commissioners Report and plan and that there is no acceptable evidence to substantiate the allegation that the plaint ABCD portion was encroached by the appellant herein. Therefore, the relief for recovery of possession sought for, without a prayer for declaration of title is legally not sustainable. Accordingly, the substantial question of law number 4 in S.A.No.281 of 2006 is answered in favour of the appellant and against the first respondent / plaintiff. 35. Substantial Question of Law No.4 in S.A.No.282 of 2006 : The appellant herein had filed the suit in O.S.No.848 of 1998 seeking permanent injunction restraining the first respondent, her men or agents from cutting the fence between the properties of the appellant and the first respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Commissioners Report and the sketch would support the case of the appellant herein and establish that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property as on the date of inspection by the Advocate-Commissioner, since the measurements and the living trees and plants available in the East-West fence. As per the Commissioners plan- 1, the CBK portion has been described as fence where standing Kiluvai, othian, murungai trees were shown. There is no dispute that the Advocate-Commissioner had inspected the suit property and noted down the physical features,namely the aforesaid trees in the fence and further, the learned Commissioner has specifically stated that he had measured the properties with the help of surveyor and found survey stone at the western end of the fence, other stones were found removed, however, with the help of the surveyor, he identified and measured the property and submitted his plan and sketch, furnishing necessary details of measurements and also the physical features. When there was no objection filed by the party, who has subsequently disputing the Commissioners Report and sketch in the appellate stage, in the absence of any acceptable evidence against the Commissioners Report and sketch, the report and sketch supported by Surveyors sketch, has to be construed as best peace of evidence to decide the issue relating to an immovable property. 36. As per the Commissioners Report, the first respondent / plaintiff in O.S.No.455 of 1998 is in possession and enjoyment of the property to an extend of 34 North-South on the east and 329" North-South on the west, though she had purchased only an extent of 30 feet North-South. I am of the considered view that the Commissioners Report and sketches marked as Exs.C.1 to C.3 and Ex.C.4, would make it clear that the first respondent / plaintiff is enjoying the property more than the extent she had purchased through the power of attorney of the second respondent, who is also the vendor of the appellants property. The respondent / plaintiff has not established that there was any encroachment made by the appellant herein. Therefore, there is no cause of action for the first respondent / plaintiff in O.S.No.455 of 1998 for seeking the relief of recovery of possession or injunction. However, the appellant, who is plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.848 of 1998 has established that there is a fence containing living plants and trees between the properties of the appellant and the first respondent. The appellant has proved that there is cause of action for filing the suit in O.S.No.838 of 198 against the first respondent herein, however, the Courts below without considering properly the evidence on record, have given the findings in favour of the first respondent / plaintiff and against the appellant, which has to be construed as perverse, since the same is against the evidence. 37. As per the plaint averments in the suit in O.S.No.848 of 1998, the appellant who is the plaintiff in the said suit has established that there is a fence as found by the Advocate-Commissioner and noted in his plan number 1, as CBK from West-East. The first respondent, who is the defendant in O.S.No.848 of 1998 is in possession and enjoyment of the property, which is more than the extent, that was purchased by her under Ex.A.1, sale deed. The first respondent, who is the defendant in O.S.No.848 of 1998 is in possession and enjoyment of the property, which is more than the extent, that was purchased by her under Ex.A.1, sale deed. Hence, she has no right to cut the trees available in the fence, and therefore, the appellant who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.838 of 1998 is entitled to permanent injunction restraining the first respondent herein from cutting the trees available in the fence. Therefore, the appellant, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.848 of 1998 is entitled to the relief of injunction sought for in the suit filed by him. Accordingly the substantial question of law number 4 in S.A.No.282 of 2006 is answered in favour of the appellant and against the first respondent herein. In the result, the second appeals in S.A.Nos.281 and 282 of 2006 are allowed and the Judgment and Decree rendered by the Court below in A.S.No. 42 of 2004 and A.S.No.65 of 2004, confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.455 of 1998 and O.S.No.848 of 1998 are set aside. The suit in O.S.No.455 of 1998 is dismissed and the suit in O.S.No.848 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein is decreed as prayed for. No order as to costs.