In Cases Of Discrepancy With Regard To Identity Of Land, Boundaries Mentioned In Sale Deed Would Prevail: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The bench comprising Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed that in such cases, the onus is on the aggrieved party to get a rectification deed executed-

It is well established principle of law that when there is a discrepancy with regard to identity of the land, then the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed would prevail. If the defendants were of the view that wrong boundaries have been mentioned in the sale deed, then they should have executed a rectification deed. Admittedly, in the present case, no rectification deed has been executed.

Facts of the case were that the Respondent/Plaintiff had purchased a land from the Appellant/Respondent and the former had been in possession of the same since the execution of sale deed. Later, the Appellant began disturbing the peaceful possession of the suit property by the Respondent. The Respondent thereafter filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to the suit property. After conducting the trial, the lower court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court and the same was allowed. Challenging the decision of the lower appellate court, the Appellant/Defendant preferred an appeal before the Court.

The Appellant submitted before the Court that the Respondent/Plaintiff took advantage of his illiteracy because of which wrong boundaries of the suit property were mentioned in the sale deed. It was also pointed out that he had not alienated the suit property and was in possession of the same. Thus, it was argued before the Court that the Respondent/Plaintiff could not take advantage of the fact that wrong boundaries were mentioned in the sale deed.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court was not convinced with the averments of the Appellant. It noted that if the Appellants were of the view that the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed were wrong, the only option available to them was to get a rectification deed executed. However, the Appellants had not exercised the option.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court concurred with the decision of the lower appellate court. Accordingly, the decision of the lower appellate court was affirmed and the appeal preferred by the Appellant was dismissed.