1986 (3) TMI 343 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules in favor of plaintiffs for property possession. Defendants entitled to half based on evidence. Mesne profits awarded.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, establishing their right to recover possession of the disputed property. The defendants were found to be ... Construction of deed - incorporation and weight of plan in deed - identification of property by measurement and plans - parol evidence and recitals versus scheduled description - possession and right to recover possession - mesne profitsConstruction of deed - incorporation and weight of plan in deed - identification of property by measurement and plans - parol evidence and recitals versus scheduled description - possession and right to recover possession - Whether the defendants are entitled to the extent of land as described by survey sub-divisions and extents in the schedules to Exts. A1 and A2, or whether plaintiffs retained the northern half of the measured property as shown in the plans and recitals. - HELD THAT: - The Court construed Exts. A1 and A2 as a whole and gave primacy to the recitals and the plans prepared after actual measurement over isolated schedule descriptions of survey subdivisions and extents. The documents expressly stated that the true extent had been ascertained on measurement and that plots A, B, C and D were marked accordingly; plans were appended to the sale deeds and the commissioner's Ext. C4 plan corroborated the lie and demarcation of the property. The evidence of witnesses (P.W.1, P.W.2) and admissions by defendants' witnesses (D.W.1, D.W.3) supported that only one half of the estate was intended to be sold and that plaintiffs retained the northern half. Applying established principles of construction - that a document must be read in its entirety, that an incorporated map or plan may be treated as part of the deed, and that inconsistent later particulars may be disregarded when the subject-matter is otherwise sufficiently identified - the Court rejected the defendants' reliance on the schedule extents alone and held that the plans and recitals reflecting actual measurement controlled the meaning of the deeds. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10]Only one half of the property was sold by Exts. A1 and A2; plaintiffs retained the northern half (the suit property between PQK and RB lines in Ext. C4) and are entitled to recover possession from the defendants.Mesne profits - possession and right to recover possession - Whether plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits and, if so, at what rate and for what period. - HELD THAT: - The Court accepted uncontroverted evidence (P.W.1 and commission reports) regarding the productivity of the rubber trees on the suit property and found the plaintiffs' claim for mesne profits at Rs. 5000 per annum to be conservative in light of the material on record. The commissioner's mahazar and report corroborated tapping and yield estimates; the plaintiffs' evidence as to the quantity and value of rubber was not challenged in cross-examination. Applying these findings to award compensation for wrongful dispossession, the Court fixed mesne profits at Rs. 5000 per annum, awarded arrears from June 1981 (date of alleged trespass), future mesne profits from date of suit to date of decree, and thereafter for a further period of three years or until recovery of possession, whichever occurs earlier. [Paras 11, 12]Plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits at Rs. 5000 per annum, with arrears from June 1981, future mesne profits from suit to decree, and thereafter for three years or until recovery of possession, whichever is earlier.Final Conclusion: The judgment and decree of the trial court are set aside; appeal allowed with costs. Suit is decreed: plaintiffs to recover the suit property (as between PQK and RB in Ext. C4) and awarded mesne profits as fixed above. Issues Involved:1. Entitlement of the plaintiffs to the disputed property.2. Accuracy and relevance of the property plans appended to sale deeds.3. Calculation and entitlement to mesne profits.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement of the Plaintiffs to the Disputed Property:The plaintiffs filed the suit to direct the defendants to set up a boundary wall and recover the trespassed property, claiming Rs. 5000/- as mesne profits per annum. The Sub Court dismissed the suit, finding no entitlement for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants could only claim rights over 9.75 acres, half of the total 19.50 acres of the estate. The defendants contended they were entitled to 5 acres 95 cents each, as per the sale deeds Exts. A1 and A2.The court had to determine if the defendants could claim the extent of property mentioned in the sale deeds or only half of the actual extent found on measurement. The court found that the defendants were aware of the actual extent of the property, and the sale deeds indicated that only half of the property was sold. The evidence from P.W. 1 and the plans appended to Exts. A1 and A2 supported this conclusion. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, establishing their right to recover possession of the property.2. Accuracy and Relevance of the Property Plans Appended to Sale Deeds:The court emphasized the importance of construing a document as a whole, rather than picking out stray sentences. The recitals in Exts. A1 and A2 indicated that the property was measured and divided into plots A, B, C, and D. The plans appended to these documents showed the pathway and boundary lines, which matched the commissioner's Ext. C4 plan. The court noted that the plans appended to Exts. A1 and A2 were significant and could not be ignored, as they formed part of the documents.The court referenced several precedents, including Andiappa v. Meyyappan, AIR 1944 PC 80, and Delhi Development Authority v. Durga Chand, AIR 1973 SC 2609, to support the principle that the entire document must be considered to understand the parties' intention. The court concluded that the plans appended to Exts. A1 and A2 accurately represented the property and supported the plaintiffs' claim.3. Calculation and Entitlement to Mesne Profits:The plaintiffs claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per annum. P.W. 1 testified that the property had approximately 320 rubber trees, yielding 9 kgms of rubber sheets, with each kgm fetching Rs. 15/- in 1980. This evidence was not challenged in cross-examination. The commissioner's report (Ext. C3) corroborated this, estimating that 10 liters of latex could be obtained from the property, with tapping possible for 200 days a year.The court found the plaintiffs' claim for mesne profits reasonable and supported by evidence. The court awarded mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per annum from June 1981 (date of trespass) and future mesne profits at the same rate until the date of decree and for three years thereafter or until recovery of possession.Conclusion:The court set aside the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, allowing the plaintiffs to recover the suit property with mesne profits at Rs. 5000/- per annum. The plaintiffs were granted arrears of mesne profits from June 1981 and future mesne profits until recovery of possession or for three years, whichever occurs first.