LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court correctly assessed the evidence of encroachment in light of a court-appointed surveyor’s report.
CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute
Case Name: Matadin Surajmal Rajoria (Deceased) Through Sole Legatee Lalita Satyanarayan Khandelawal vs. Ramdwar Mahavir Pande (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 21 September 2021
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 21 September 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 636
Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J. and Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Can a court ignore a surveyor’s report when deciding a property encroachment case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a land dispute in Amravati. The Court found that the High Court had not properly considered the surveyor’s report and remanded the case for fresh review. This case highlights the importance of accurate land measurement in resolving property disputes. The judgment was authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
Case Background
The case revolves around a land dispute in Amravati. The plaintiff, Matadin Surajmal Rajoria, purchased land on 28 December 1995. The sale deed mentioned that part of the land was occupied by Ramdwar Mahavir Pande and Sudamadevi Pande. The plaintiff claimed that upon measuring the land on 23 November 2002, he discovered that the defendants had encroached on his property. The plaintiff sought a declaration, injunction, and possession of the encroached land. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed ownership of the occupied areas based on their respective sale deeds from 1969 and 1977.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 17 April 1969 | Defendant No. 1, Ramdwar Mahavir Pande, claims title based on a sale deed. |
| 02 November 1977 | Defendant No. 2, Sudamadevi Pande, claims title based on a sale deed. |
| 1979 | M/s Edulji Dotimal Ginning and Pressing Factory Ltd. filed a suit against defendant no. 1 for encroachment, which was dismissed. |
| 28 December 1995 | Matadin Surajmal Rajoria purchased the land, noting existing occupation by the defendants. |
| 23 November 2002 | Plaintiff measured the land and alleged encroachment by the defendants. |
| 2003 | Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 332/2003 alleging encroachment. |
| 1 September 2008 | Trial Court dismissed the suit, stating the plaintiff knew of the defendants’ possession. |
| 2008 | Plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 199 of 2008, which was also dismissed. |
| 2013 | Plaintiff filed Second Appeal No. 297 of 2013 in the High Court. |
| 7 June 2016 | High Court ordered a surveyor to measure the property. |
| 28 November 2016 | Court Commissioner (Surveyor) visited the site and prepared a measurement map (Exhibit 131). |
| 5 July 2017 | The surveyor was examined in court. |
| 22 February 2018 | High Court ordered the Appellate Court to certify the encroachment findings. |
| 10 April 2018 | Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s findings, stating the defendants had encroached on 38R (40,888 sq. ft). |
| 2 May 2018 | High Court framed a substantial question of law for the Second Appeal. |
| 14 August 2018 | High Court dismissed the second appeal. |
| 21 September 2021 | Supreme Court remands the case back to the High Court. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, stating that the plaintiff was aware of the defendants’ possession when he bought the land. The Appellate Court upheld this decision. The High Court, during the second appeal, appointed a surveyor to measure the land. Based on the surveyor’s report, the Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision, finding that the defendants had encroached on 38R (40,888 sq. ft). However, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the concept of encroachment and the determination of property boundaries. The legal framework includes the sale deeds of both the plaintiff and the defendants. The court also considered the report of the court-appointed surveyor.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The High Court did not properly consider the surveyor’s map (Exhibit 131) and the surveyor’s testimony, which showed that the defendants had encroached on the plaintiff’s land.
- The recital in the plaintiff’s sale deed (Exhibit 47) was misinterpreted by the High Court.
- The defendants’ sale deeds (dated 17.04.1969 and 2.11.1977) do not match the actual area they occupy, which is 38R (40,888 sq. ft).
- The court should have given importance to the surveyor’s finding that the defendants were in illegal possession of excess land.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court have all given concurrent findings in favor of the defendants.
- The plaintiff’s sale deed (Exhibit 47) specifically mentions the area under occupation of the defendants, indicating that the plaintiff had prior knowledge of their possession.
- The plaintiff cannot claim the areas occupied by the defendants since the defendants were in possession before the plaintiff’s purchase.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| High Court erred in overlooking the surveyor’s report |
✓ The High Court failed to consider the measurement map (Exhibit 131). ✓ The High Court failed to consider the deposition of the Court appointed Surveyor. |
Appellant |
| Misinterpretation of the sale deed | ✓ The recital in the plaintiff’s sale deed dated 28.12.1995 (Exhibit 47) was misconstrued by the Court. | Appellant |
| Mismatch in land area |
✓ The defendants’ claim on the basis of the respective sale deeds (dated 17.04.1969 and 2.11.1977) mismatch with the land under defendants’ occupation. ✓ The area occupied measures 38R (40,888 sq. ft.) whereas this is not compatible with the extent of land mentioned in the sale deeds relied by the defendants. |
Appellant |
| Concurrent findings by lower courts | ✓ The Trial Court, the Appellate Court and the High Court have given concurrent findings in favor of the defendants. | Respondent |
| Plaintiff’s knowledge of existing occupation | ✓ The plaintiff’s sale deed (Exhibit 47) specifically mentioned the area under occupation of the two defendants in the land purchased by the plaintiff. | Respondent |
| No claim on occupied areas | ✓ The plaintiff on the basis of the sale deed (Exhibit 47) can have no legitimate claim on the areas under occupation of the defendants since before the sale transaction of the plaintiff. | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but considered the substantial question of law framed by the High Court:
“Whether in the face of order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the appellate Court in pursuance of direction of this Court for appointment of Surveyor and carrying out measurement in the present case, the concurrent findings rendered by the two Courts below are sustainable?”
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court addressed the issue:
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts are sustainable given the surveyor’s report? | The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to record a finding on the substantial question of law formulated by it. The High Court did not address the mismatch between the area occupied by the defendants and the area mentioned in their sale deeds, especially in light of the surveyor’s report. The Supreme Court held that without a decision on this issue, the High Court’s judgment could not stand. The matter was remanded back to the High Court. |
Authorities
The judgment does not explicitly mention any specific cases or books relied upon. However, the court did consider the following:
- Exhibit 47: The plaintiff’s sale deed dated 28.12.1995.
- Exhibit 66: Defendant No. 1’s sale deed dated 17.04.1969.
- Art. A: Defendant No. 2’s sale deed dated 02.11.1977.
- Exhibit 131: The measurement map prepared by the Court Commissioner (Surveyor).
| Authority | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|
| Exhibit 47 (Plaintiff’s sale deed) | The Court noted that the sale deed mentioned the existing occupation of the defendants, but also noted the mismatch between the area mentioned in the sale deed and the area found by the surveyor. |
| Exhibit 66 (Defendant No. 1’s sale deed) | The Court noted that the area mentioned in the sale deed was smaller than the area occupied by the defendant as found by the surveyor. |
| Art. A (Defendant No. 2’s sale deed) | The Court noted that the area mentioned in the sale deed was smaller than the area occupied by the defendant as found by the surveyor. |
| Exhibit 131 (Surveyor’s map) | The Court emphasized that the High Court failed to properly consider the surveyor’s report, which indicated that the defendants had encroached on 38R (40,888 sq. ft) of land. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The High Court did not properly consider the surveyor’s map (Exhibit 131) and the surveyor’s testimony. | The Court agreed with this submission, noting that the High Court did not address the surveyor’s findings. |
| The recital in the plaintiff’s sale deed (Exhibit 47) was misinterpreted by the High Court. | The Court did not explicitly agree or disagree, but noted that the sale deed did mention the existing occupation of the defendants. |
| The defendants’ sale deeds do not match the actual area they occupy. | The Court agreed with this submission, highlighting the mismatch as a key reason for remanding the case. |
| The lower courts had given concurrent findings in favor of the defendants. | The Court acknowledged the concurrent findings but stated that these findings could not be sustained given the surveyor’s report and the mismatch in land area. |
| The plaintiff’s sale deed (Exhibit 47) specifically mentions the area under occupation of the defendants. | The Court acknowledged this fact but noted that it did not negate the surveyor’s findings of encroachment. |
| The plaintiff cannot claim the areas occupied by the defendants since the defendants were in possession before the plaintiff’s purchase. | The Court did not agree with this submission, stating that the surveyor’s report indicated an encroachment that needed to be addressed. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied heavily on the surveyor’s report (Exhibit 131) to determine the actual area occupied by the defendants. The Court also considered the sale deeds of both parties but noted that the area mentioned in the defendants’ sale deeds did not match the area they actually occupied. The Court noted that the High Court had not properly considered the surveyor’s report, vis-a-vis the legal battle over the suit land.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the High Court’s failure to address the surveyor’s report and the mismatch between the area occupied by the defendants and the area mentioned in their sale deeds. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have made an independent finding on the substantial question of law framed by it.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of Surveyor’s Report | 40% |
| Mismatch in Land Area | 30% |
| Need for Independent Finding | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
- The High Court did not properly consider the measurement map (Exhibit 131) and the deposition of the Court appointed Surveyor.
- The High Court did not address the mismatch between the area occupied by the defendants and the smaller area covered in their two sale deeds.
- The High Court did not make an independent finding on the substantial question of law framed by it on 2.5.2018.
The court considered the argument that the plaintiff’s sale deed mentioned the defendants’ occupation, but weighed it against the surveyor’s report. The court found that the High Court’s judgment failed the scrutiny of law and therefore, remanded the case.
The Supreme Court did not express any dissenting opinions.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the High Court’s order:
“Whether in the face of order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the appellate Court in pursuance of direction of this Court for appointment of Surveyor and carrying out measurement in the present case, the concurrent findings rendered by the two Courts below are sustainable?”
The Court also noted the following:
“The learned Judge skirted the issue and instead endorsed the findings of the courts below to the effect that the defendants had not made any encroachment, after the plaintiff purchased the land on 28.12.1995 under the Exhibit 47 Sale deed.”
“The conclusion in the second appeal was therefore devoid of any independent finding on the substantial question of law formulated by the Court itself on 2.5.2018.”
“Without the decision on the relevant aspect which goes to the root of the dispute, the impugned judgment in our assessment, fails the scrutiny of law.”
Key Takeaways
- Courts must carefully consider surveyor’s reports in property disputes.
- A mismatch between sale deed details and actual land occupation can be a critical factor in encroachment cases.
- High Courts must make independent findings on substantial questions of law formulated by them.
- Concurrent findings of lower courts can be overturned if there is a failure to consider crucial evidence.
- The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of accurate land measurement and proper consideration of evidence in property disputes.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court and remanded the case back to the High Court. The High Court was directed to consider and render a finding on the substantial question of law framed on 2 May 2018. The High Court was also requested to decide the second appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months of receipt of the order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court must consider the surveyor’s report and the mismatch between the area occupied by the defendants and the area mentioned in their sale deeds. The Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of proper evaluation of evidence and the need for the High Court to make an independent finding on the substantial question of law framed by it. This case does not change any previous position of law but emphasizes the importance of proper procedure and evaluation of evidence in property disputes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Matadin Surajmal Rajoria vs. Ramdwar Mahavir Pande highlights the importance of accurate land measurement and proper consideration of evidence in property encroachment cases. The Court remanded the case back to the High Court, emphasizing the need for an independent finding on the substantial question of law and proper consideration of the surveyor’s report. This judgment underscores the necessity for courts to address all relevant evidence and issues in property disputes, ensuring a fair and just resolution.