Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute over encroachment. The petitioners (original plaintiffs) filed a suit alleging encroachment by the respondents. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision, decreeing the suit. The High Court examined the issue of whether the extent of encroachment can be proved by oral evidence alone. The court noted that while the fact of encroachment can be proved by oral evidence, the extent of encroachment cannot be proved without actual measurements and evidence of the measurer. In this case, although measurement was carried out, the person who carried out the measurement was not examined, and the map was not exhibited. Therefore, the appellate court's finding that the extent of encroachment was proved was not based on legal evidence. The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the appellate court's judgment and restoring the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Encroachment - Proof of Extent - Oral Evidence Insufficient - The issue involved was whether the extent of encroachment can be proved by oral evidence alone. The court held that while the fact of encroachment can be proved by oral evidence, the extent of encroachment cannot be proved without actual measurements and evidence of the measurer. In the present case, measurement was carried out but the person who carried it out was not examined, and the map was not exhibited. Therefore, the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's dismissal of the suit. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the extent of encroachment can be proved by oral evidence alone in the absence of actual measurements and evidence of the measurer
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court's judgment, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
Law Points
- Encroachment can be proved by oral evidence
- but extent of encroachment cannot be proved without actual measurements and evidence of the measurer
