Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, arising from a dispute over agricultural land boundaries. The appellants are the original defendants, and the respondent is the original plaintiff. The suit pertained to land measuring 3.06 Hectares, originally Survey No.1 at mouza Mukta, Tq. Maregaon, District Yavatmal, which was subdivided into Survey No.1/1 and 1/2 and later renumbered as Gat Nos. 5 and 6. The trial Court had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed, and the High Court admitted the appeal on a substantial question of law regarding the necessity of an agreed map or appointment of a Court Commissioner (Cadestral Surveyor) to prepare a map of the disputed lands. The High Court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that in boundary disputes, when parties cannot agree on a map, it is essential for the trial Court or first Appellate Court to appoint a competent Cadestral Surveyor as Court Commissioner to prepare a measurement map. This ensures that the court is meaningfully assisted and that the decree can be executed properly, resolving the real controversy. The Court noted that the defendant had examined a witness from the Taluka Inspector of Land Records office, but the absence of an agreed map or commissioner's report hindered proper adjudication. The judgment emphasizes the importance of such maps for just decision and execution.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Boundary Dispute - Court Commissioner - Agreed Map - In a suit concerning boundaries of agricultural land, where parties do not agree on a map, it is essential for the trial Court or first Appellate Court to appoint a competent Cadestral Surveyor as Court Commissioner to prepare a measurement map of the suit properties. This facilitates meaningful assistance to the court and execution of the decree, setting at rest the real controversy between the parties. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether it is essential to get agreed map in respect of the disputed agricultural lands and if parties cannot agree, whether it is necessary to appoint Court Commissioner preferably Cadestral Surveyor so as to draw such map in respect of disputed agricultural lands for just and proper decision of the real controversy between the parties?
Final Decision
The High Court answered the substantial question of law in the affirmative and allowed the appeal, holding that it is essential to appoint a Court Commissioner (Cadestral Surveyor) to prepare a measurement map when parties cannot agree on a map, for just decision and execution of decree.
Law Points
- Boundary dispute
- Court Commissioner
- Cadestral Surveyor
- Agreed map
- Execution of decree
- Immovable property
- Substantial question of law
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (02) 207
SECOND APPEAL NO.433 OF 2013
Ms Kirti Satpute, Adv. for the Appellants; Mr.Anand Deshpande, Adv. for the Respondent
Hemraj s/o. Gangaram Iname, Waman s/o. Shravan Iname, Sau. Kusum w/o. Ramesh Jivatode, Sau.Vatsala w/o. Tulsiram Salve, Sau. Sushila w/o. Shalikram Bobade, Smt. Salchu wd/o. Shrawan Iname (Dead)
Suryabhan s/o. Bhiva Dhawas
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against decree in a suit concerning boundaries of agricultural land.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (original defendants) sought to challenge the trial court's decree in favor of the respondent (original plaintiff).
Filing Reason
Dispute over boundaries of agricultural land measuring 3.06 Hectares, originally Survey No.1 at mouza Mukta, Tq. Maregaon, District Yavatmal, which was subdivided and renumbered.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues
Whether it is essential to get agreed map in respect of the disputed agricultural lands and if parties cannot agree, whether it is necessary to appoint Court Commissioner preferably Cadestral Surveyor so as to draw such map in respect of disputed agricultural lands for just and proper decision of the real controversy between the parties?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the trial Court decreed the suit without proper map; respondent contended that the defendant examined a witness from Taluka Inspector of Land Records office.
Ratio Decidendi
In boundary disputes over immovable property, when parties do not agree on a map, the trial Court or first Appellate Court must appoint a competent Cadestral Surveyor as Court Commissioner to prepare a measurement map to facilitate meaningful adjudication and execution of decree.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether it is essential to get agreed map in respect of the disputed agricultural lands and if parties cannot agree, whether it is necessary to appoint Court Commissioner preferably Cadestral Surveyor so as to draw such map in respect of disputed agricultural lands for just and proper decision of the real controversy between the parties ?
My answer to the above question is in the affirmative as in the cases where dispute is as to boundaries or boundarymarks of the immovable property and when parties do not agree to any map produced on the record, it becomes essential for the trial Court or the first Appellate Court as final Court on finding of facts to ensure that a competent Cadestral Surveyor is appointed as the Court Commissioner to prepare measurement map in respect of the suit properties so that after receiving authentic map or plan from the competent Official on behalf of the State Government, the trial Court is assisted meaningfully with a view to execute the decree that may be passed.
Procedural History
The suit was filed by the respondent (plaintiff) in the trial Court, which decreed the suit. The appellants (defendants) filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was admitted on a substantial question of law. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 6.2.2014.
