The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case Tejal And Anr. v. Pragyanand And Anr observed and has reiterated that in cases where there being discrepancy between parties with respect to the identity of the land, then the boundaries which are being mentioned in the sale deed executed by them would be prevailed. The bench comprising of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia in the case observed that in such cases the onus onus is on the aggrieved party to get a rectification deed executedThe court stated that it being a well settled principles of law that when there a discrepancy with regard to identity of the land, then the said boundaries which is being mentioned in the sale deed would prevail.
At the Outset, if the said defendant is of the view that wrong boundaries have been mentioned in the sale deed, then the rectification deed has to be executed by them. In the said case, no rectification deed has been executed. FACTS OF THE CASE: A land has been purchased by the Plaintiff/Respondent from the Appellant/ Respondent and the former had been in possession of the same for the execution of sale deed. Lately, the Appellant began disturbing the peaceful possession of the suit property by the Respondent.
Therefore, a suit has been filled by the Respondent for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to the suit property. The court after conducting the trail, the suit was dismissed by the Lower court. The respondent aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court and the same was allowed. Challenging the decision of the lower appellate court, an appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Defendant before the court. It has been submitted by the Appellant before the Court that the Plaintiff/Respondent 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 he was in possession of the same. Before the court, it was argued that the Plaintiff/Respondent could not take advantage of the fact that wrong boundaries were mentioned in the sale deed. The court while examining the submissions made by the parties and the documents on record, the said court was not convinced with the averments of the Appellant.
Therefore, the court noted that if the Appellants were of the view that the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed were wrong, the only option which is being available to them was to get a rectification deed which is to be executed. Further, the appellant has not exercised the option. The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case concurred with the decision of the lower appellate court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision of the lower appellate court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Appellant.
