TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctual measurements to be 19 acres 50 cents though in the documents it has been mentioned as 23 acres 80 cents. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in 1976, the estate was measured and divided into four equal plots as A, B, C and D and the southernmost plot was sold to the 1st defendant's younger brother Gopinathan Nair and the adjoining northern plot to the 1st defendant by means of two registered sale deeds (Exts. Al and A2) with plans appended thereto. Ext. A2 relates to plot A and Ext. A1 relates to plot B in the plans. Ext. B1 is the original of Ext. A1. According to the plaintiffs, Plots A and B comprising an extent of 9 acres 75 cents-were thus sold and the remaining northern portion of equal extent remained in their possession. When 1st plaintiff wanted to put up barbed wire fence on the southern boundary of the plaintiffs' property in June 1981 and when pillars were planted, the 3rd defendant removed the same and obstructed the erection of any demarcating boundary between AB and CD plots contending that they can do so only on the northern boundary of the property of the defendants having an extent of 11 acres 90 cents. 1st plaintiff was constrained to construct fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acres 44 cents and that it lies within well defined boundaries. In Ext. Al, there are recitals to the effect that the pathway from the eastern public road leads to B schedule property and it is meant for plots C and D also. The plans appended to Exts. Al and A2 show the pathway from the public road. It is just south of the demarcating line between plots A and B on the one hand and C and D on the other. From Ext. C4 also it can be seen that the boundary line is just north of the pathway leading from the public road. This is sufficient indication to show that the plans appended to Exts. Al and A2 and the plan prepared by the commissioner (Ext. C4) tally with respect to the He of the property. Ext. C4 plan and the commission report would show that on actual measurements the entire extent of the property is having an extent of 20 acres 44 cents. 6. 1st plaintiff's brother who is also the uncle of the 1st defendant examined as P.W. 1 has sworn that as per Exts. Al and A2 only one half of the entire property was sold. It is his evidence that the property was measured at his and 1st defendant's instance. P.W. 1 stated that 1st plaintiff attempted to erect fence on the bou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence of D.W. 3 that plaintiffs have rights over one half of the property clinches the issue in favour of the plaintiffs. Mere description of the properties in the schedules in Exts. Al and A2 giving the survey number and sub-division and extent cannot override the overall impact of the recitals in the documents and the evidence in the case. P.W. 1's explanation is that the survey number and sub-division number and extent were particularly shown in the description of the property only for the purpose of effecting mutation in the revenue records and for nothing else. This is plausible in view of the evidence in the Case. 8. In Delhi Development Authority v. Durga Chand, AIR 1973 SC 2609 it is held as follows : In construing the documents one must have regard not to the presumed intention of the parties, but to the meaning of the words they have used. If two interpretations of the documents are possible, the one which would give effect and meaning of all its parts should be adopted and for the purpose, the words creating uncertainty in the documents can be ignored. One principle of construction of documents is that when the property has been suffici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... littled. In this context, it would be useful to refer to the fact that Ext. C4 plan prepared by the commissioner and the plans appended to Exts. Al and A2 give an identical picture as regards the lie of the property. As already pointed out, the pathway leading from the road to the estate and the gate provided to the property is almost near the boundary line separating the property of the plaintiffs and defendants. Plans appended to Exts. Al and A2 would go a long way to show that plaintiffs retained northern half of the property and sold the southern half to the 1st defendant and his brother. Very often plans are not appended to documents and the parties are satisfied with the description of the properties and the boundaries. In cases where executants of the documents take particular pains to have plans appended to documents, their importance cannot be lightly ignored as they form part of the documents. Merely on the basis of the measurements given in the description of thaproperty in the schedules to Exts. Al and A2 it is difficult to accept the contention of the defendants that they are entitled to that much extent of property in utter disregard of the recitals in the documents, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms. of rubber sheets could be obtained per day from the suit property. In para 22 of Ext. C3 mahazar, it is stated that there are 320 rubber trees in the disputed property, that 10 litres of latex can reasonably be obtained and that tapping could be done for 200 days in a year. Thus, it can be seen that the claim of mesne profits by the plaintiffs at the rate of ₹ 5000/-per annum is much below than what could be obtained from the suit property. As already pointed out. P.W. 1's evidence regarding the estimated mesne profits has not been controverted even by a suggestion in the cross-examination. Considering the entire aspects of the matter, we hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits at the rate of ₹ 5000/- per annum. 12. For the reasons stated above, the judgment and decree of the Court below are set aside and the appeal is allowed with costs. Suit is decreed allowing the plaintiffs to recover the suit property (the property in between PQK and RB lines in Ext. C4) with mesne profits at ₹ 5000/- per annum. Plaintiffs are granted arrears of mesne profits at the above rate from June 1981 (date of trespass by defendants) and future mesne pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
