The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence, proper interpretation of sale deeds, and adherence to factual findings when evaluating ownership and possession in property disputes.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, affirming the First Appellate Court’s findings. It held the plaintiff’s possession was supported by the sale deed’s boundaries and the Commissioner’s Report. The Court noted the High Court erred in reappreciating findings of fact without evidence of perversity.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – Second Appeal

Subjects:

• Property Dispute

• Sale Deed

• Injunction

• Ownership Rights

• Commissioner’s Report

• Settlement Deed

• Title Discrepancy

Nature of Litigation: The litigation arose from a property dispute concerning ownership and possession of certain portions of land described in a sale deed.

Relief Sought: a) Permanent injunction restraining defendants from entering and trespassing on the suit property. b) Mandatory injunction to remove granite construction allegedly erected by the defendants.

Reason for Filing the Case: The plaintiff claimed ownership based on a registered sale deed dated August 23, 1988, and alleged unlawful interference and encroachment by the defendants.

Prior Decisions: a) Trial Court: Suit dismissed on April 29, 2004, due to lack of prima facie case as the disputed portion fell outside the plaintiff’s sale deed. b) First Appellate Court: Allowed the appeal, holding the defendants’ evidence insufficient to establish ownership or possession. c) High Court: Reversed the Appellate Court’s decision, holding the plaintiff’s suit unsustainable without a declaration of title.

Issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunction.

2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to remove the granite construction on the disputed property.

Submissions/Arguments: a) Plaintiff argued the sale deed clearly described the boundaries and no portion was retained by the vendor. b) Defendants contended the disputed well and portion remained with the vendor and was later vested in the Gram Panchayat.