Sabu V Sasi Preparation of Survey Plan Explained

----------------------------------------------------------
CaseSearch 2023 (Full Text) Copyright © Em Tee En Publications

03/04/2023
This Product is Licenced to Karthik Sarangan., Adv., Vaikom. | Last updated on 24-03-2023 | Page:1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2022 (2) KHC 435

Kerala High Court
K. Babu, J.
Sabu v. Sasi
Parallel citation(s) : 2022 (2) KHC 435 : 2022 KHC OnLine 191 : 2022 (2) KLT
722 : 2022 (2) KLJ 206
CaseNo : R. S. A. No. 1002, 1004 of 2014
Date : 26/11/2021
Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 -- Survey map -- Essential
components of a Survey map -- Held, 'Ladder', 'G line', 'Check-line', and
'Offset' measurements are essential requirements of a proper Survey map --
It is impossible to plot, calculate area or refix the field with a map having
boundary measurements alone -- A survey plan becomes complete and self
explanatory only when it contains 'Ladder', 'G-line', 'Check line', and 'Offset'
measurements -- Kerala Survey Manual, Vol 1, Chap.7, R.27, R.28 and R.29
-- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O.20 R.3, O.26 R.9 and R.10
Facts of the case

The appellant instituted O.S 9/2008 for recovery of damages and mandatory
injunction against 1st respondent, alleging that the he demolished appellant's
compound wall on the western side. The respondents filed OS 32/2009 for
declaration of title over Plaint 'A' & 'B' & 'C' schedule properties and for recovery
of a possession of 'C' schedule property said to have been encroached upon by
the appellant. The Trial Court decreed OS 32/2009 based on Ext. C3(a) Survey
Commission, and dismissed OS 9/2008. It was upheld by the first Appellate
Court. These second appeals are filed thereagainst.
Allowing the second appeals, and remanding the matter to Trial Court, the Court
held:
The Amicus Curiae submitted that an FM Sketch shall contain 'F-line', 'G-line',
'Check-line' and 'Offset' measurements. The 'G-line' measurements, 'Check-line'
measurements and 'Offset' are entered in the 'Ladder' in the FM sheet. In
addition, the direction of adjoining field boundaries and adjoining survey numbers
are entered on the sides of the field. 'Ladder' is necessary to plot the field and
verify the area of the field. It is impossible to plot and calculate the area or refix
the field with the aid of boundary measurements (F-lines) only. To re-fix the field
----------------------------------------------------------
03/04/2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
'G-lines', 'Check-lines', 'F-lines' and 'Offsets' are required. A survey plan becomes
complete and self explanatory only when it contains the requirements mentioned
above. Ext.C3(a) plan contains only 'F-lines', which cannot be used to find the
area of any of the properties described therein and to identify the boundaries of
the properties. Ext.C3(a) plan relied on by the Courts below has not been
prepared following the requirements mentioned above. It is impossible to
ascertain how 'C' schedule property was identified as 617 sq.links by the surveyor
from Ext.C3(a) Survey Plan. 'G-line', 'F-line', and 'Sub-Divisional Lines' are
necessary for plotting and re-fixing the boundary of a property and 'Check-line'
and 'Ladder' are necessary for computing the area of the property surveyed.
Ext.C3(a) plan, which is made part of the decree is not useful to find the area of
the property depicted therein and to fix the boundaries of the property.
Important Para(s):17, 18
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -- O.26 R.9, O.26 R.10 -- Survey Commission -
Preparation of Survey Plan -- Explained -- Principle of 'Chain surveying' is
to divide the field into a framework of triangles -- Sides of a triangle are
measured directly in the field -- Each field is divided into triangles by
chaining lines called Diagonal or Check lines from tri junction to tri junction
and the Offsets taken from G line or Check line to the bend points - 'G line',
'F line', and 'Sub Divisional lines' are necessary for plotting and re fixing the
boundary of a property, and 'Check line' and 'Ladder' are necessary for
computing the area of the property surveyed
Important Para(s):16
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -- O.26 R.9, O.26 R.10, O.20 R.3 -- Suit for
recovery of possession -- Identification of property -- Default or
carelessness of the parties does not absolve the Trial Court of its
obligation to satisfy that the property ordered to be recovered is identifiable
-- Decree passed appending incomplete survey plan is liable to be set
aside, and remanded for afresh adjudication
Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 -- Survey Map -- Components of

----------------------------------------------------------
03/04/2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Survey map -- G line, Check line, Offset etc., explained
Referred: P. Chandrasekharan and Others v. S. Kanakarajan and Others, 2007

KHC 3567; Referred to
Advocates:
P. Thomas Geeverghese; Tony Thomas Inchiparambil; For Appellant

Vipin Narayan; Anil Kumar M. Sivaraman; For Respondent
A. A. Rajan; Amicus Curiae
JUDGMENT
'CR' marked.
1. These two Regular Second Appeals arise from the common judgment dated
29/03/2014 in A.S.Nos.102 & 103 of 2011 passed by the Subordinate Judge's
Court, Perumbavoor. The Appeal Suits arose from the common judgment and
decree dated 29/07/2011 in O.S.No.32 of 2009 and O.S.No.9 of 2008 passed by
the Munsiff's Court, Kolenchery. The appellant instituted O.S.No.9 of 2008 for
damages and mandatory injunction against respondent No.1. The respondents
instituted O.S.No.32 of 2009 for declaration of title regarding the plaint schedule
properties and for recovery of a portion of the immovable property said to have
been encroached upon by the appellant. The respondents also prayed for a
permanent prohibitory injunction.
2. Material facts relevant for the adjudication of these appeals are briefly
narrated below:
2.1. The appellant is the absolute owner in possession of 10 cents of land
comprised in Survey No.379/9 of Thiruvaniyoor Village. He constructed a house
in the plaint schedule property. He resides in the said house. The respondents
own properties on the western side of the appellant's property. On the western
side of the appellant's property, a pathway runs. The respondents are living in
inimical terms with the appellant. On 26/01/2008, the respondents, along with
their men, destroyed the compound wall constructed by the appellant on the
western, southern, and northern boundaries of the plaint schedule property. The
----------------------------------------------------------
03/04/2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
respondents destroyed the foundation of the boundary wall. They are liable to
construct the compound wall destroyed by them, for which a mandatory injunction
is to be granted. The appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,625/- from
the respondents.
2.2. The respondents contended that they are the owners in possession of 30
ares of property in Survey No.379/3 of Thiruvaniyoor Village. These properties
are described as 'A' and 'B' in the schedule appended to the plaint in O.S.No.32
of 2009. The appellant encroached upon a portion of the respondents' properties
and annexed the same. The extent of the property over which the appellant
encroached upon would come to 617 sq.links. The respondents are entitled to a
declaration that they are the titleholders of the properties scheduled in the plaint
and for recovery of possession of the portion encroached upon by the appellant,
which is described as 'C' schedule. The respondents are also entitled to the
fixation of boundaries of the properties.
3. Both the suits were jointly tried. O.S.No.32 of 2009 was taken as the lead
case. During the trial, PWs 1 to 3 were examined, and Exts.A1 to A5 were
marked on the side of the respondents. DWs 1 to 4 were examined, and Exts.B1
to B5 were marked on the side of the appellant. Exts.C1 to C4 series were
marked as Court exhibits.
4. The Trial Court dismissed O.S.No.9 of 2008 and decreed O.S.No.32 of 2009,
holding that the respondents have title over 'C' schedule property and are entitled
to recovery of possession of 'C' schedule property from the appellant. The Trial
Court held that the properties had been identified and located in Ext.C3(a) plan.
The Trial Court also declared that the boundary lines set in Ext.C3(a) are the
boundary lines separating the properties of the appellant and the respondents.
The Court declared that the respondents are the owners of the plaint 'C' schedule
property. The Trial Court directed the appellant to surrender the possession of 'C'
schedule property to the respondents. The eastern boundary of the plaint
schedule properties was fixed as the black line between the red coloured shaded
portion, and violet coloured shaded portion in Ext.C3(a) plan. The appellant was
restrained by an order of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into
the plaint 'A' & 'B' schedule properties, committing any mischief therein and
preventing the respondents, their agents, and men from using the plaint 'D'
schedule pathway.
----------------------------------------------------------
03/04/2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The appellant challenged the decree and judgment before the First Appellate
Court in A.S.Nos.102 & 103 of 2011. The First Appellate Court confirmed the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
6. After hearing both sides, this Court reformulated the substantial questions of
law as follows:
"(i) Is not Ext.C3(a) plan incomplete since it does not contain G - Line, Check -
Line and Ladder that are necessary to identify, and re - fix the properties in
dispute?
(ii) Whether the Courts below committed error in accepting Ext.C3(a) plan for
granting decree in respect of the immovable properties scheduled in the plaint
without obtaining a plan which is sufficient to identify the properties."
7. The appellant's case is that he is the absolute owner in possession of the
property comprised in Survey No.379/9 of Thiruvaniyoor Village, the extent of
which is 10 cents. The appellant pleaded that the respondents destroyed the
western boundary wall of the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.9/2008.
8. The respondents' challenge is that they are the titleholders of the properties
comprised in Survey No.379/3 of Thiruvaniyoor Village. The respondents pleaded
that the appellant encroached upon a portion of their property ('C' schedule) and
are entitled to recover the possession of the same.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ext.C3(a) plan relied on
by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court is incomplete. Therefore,
there had not been effectual adjudication of the lis in the Courts below. The
learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ext.C3(a) is insufficient to re - fix
the property as it lacks the requirements such as 'G - line', 'Check - line' and
'Ladder'. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the properties are
not identifiable with the aid of Ext.C3(a) plan to draw a proper decree. It is
submitted that the property sought to be recovered from the appellant's
possession is also not identifiable.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, contended that
Ext.C3(a) plan is sufficient to identify the properties.
11. In a suit for possession of immovable property, identification of the disputed
property is highly relevant to enable the Court to draw a proper decree as
----------------------------------------------------------
03/04/2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
required by O.20 R.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the relevance of the
identification of the property in dispute in P. Chandrasekharan and Others v. S.
Kanakarajan and Others, 2007 KHC 3567 : AIR 2007 SC 2306 : JT 2007 (6) SC
347 : (2007) 5 SCC 669 : 2007 (104) Cut LT 585. the Apex Court held thus:
"10......... The plaintiff, before his suit is decreed, must establish the cause of
action in respect of the property in question wherefor the relief for recovery of
possession has been claimed. In case the suit is decreed, the Executing Court
must be able to deliver possession thereof and thus there cannot be any doubt
whatsoever that the property in suit must be adequately identifiable."
12. In the present case, the question that falls for consideration is whether
Ext.C3(a) plan relied on by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is
sufficient to identify the properties. Ext.C3(a) is admittedly a field measurement
sketch.
13. This Court appointed Sri. A. A. Rajan, Assistant Director of Survey in charge
of Deputy Director of Survey, Ernakulam, to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.
The Assistant Director of Survey perused Ext.C3(a) plan and submitted that
'Ladder' is necessary to plot the field and verify the shape and area of the field.
Re - fixation of the property in the field is impossible in the absence of 'Ladder', 'G
- line', 'Check - line', and 'Offset'. Sri. A. A. Rajan submitted a report describing
the steps to be followed in preparing the plan. He relied on the Kerala Survey
Manual in support of his submissions. The Amicus Curiae submitted that the
surveyor concerned has adopted 'chain survey' in preparing Ext.C3(a) plan.
14. The relevant portion of the report submitted by the Amicus Curiae is
extracted below:
"Surveying is the process of making such measurements as will determine the
relative positions of points on the surface of the earth in order that the shape and
extent of any position of earth's surface may be ascertained and delineated on a
map or plan. A plan is therefore the representation to some scale, of the ground
and the objects upon it.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
The following are the various components of a survey plan: -
a. G - Line. - G - line outlines the making of the entire sketch. It is an imaginary
line that converts the sketch into various sizes of triangles to fix the boundary
lines and the various points in the sketch. Errors in G - line will affect all the
----------------------------------------------------------
03/04/2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
pertinent calculations.
b. F - Line. - F - line signifies the actual field boundaries in the outer lines of the
sketch. Its points are fixed with reference to its offset distance from the G - line.
c. Check - Lines. - Check Lines are lines that divide a survey field into triangles,
so that off - sets can be laid to the field line points, and thereby area can be
calculated.
d. Sub-Divisional Lines. - Subdivision lines demarcate a small portion of land
within a survey number. A sub-divisional extent of a polygon is directly correlated
to the extent found for the particular subdivision. The subdivision lines are
generally defined through a ladder, or the likes of it.
e. Ladder. - The field line points are defined with reference to an offset distance
from the G - line or check line. The offset distance may deviate to the left or right
side of the G - line. This left or right angle deviation is highlighted by the ladder.
f. Extension Lines. - Each survey number field forms a crucial part of the village
map, and as a result of it, other fields surround each sketch. The precise direction
wherein the subject field joins the neighbouring field is depicted on the survey
map as an extension line.
g. Neighbouring Field Survey Nos. - The other fields surround each of the survey
sketches. These surrounding field numbers are marked around each FMB.
h. Off - set. - It is the perpendicular distance which is the least distance to a point
measured from a G line or Checkline. In a Survey, the position of the details such
as boundaries, buildings, roads etc. is located with respect to the Surveyline by
means of lateral measurement taken at right angles to the survey line. Every
offset has two measurements 1) the distance along the chainline called Chainage
and 2) the length of the offset.
i) Field Measurement Sketch / FM Sketch. - Field Measurement of a field is a
plan plotted to scale in the field measurement sheet with triangulation
measurements and off - sets. As a rule, the top of the page will represent north,
but when it does not, the north point line should be shown. Measurements of F
lines, G lines and Checklines are recorded in the sketch.
The G line measurements, Check lines measurement and offsets are neatly
entered in the 'ladder' in the FM sheet. Offset are numbered in series in red ink
from the bottom of the ladder.
The direction of adjoining field boundaries, and adjoining survey numbers are
entered in the sides of the field.
The ladder is necessary to plot the field and verify the shape and area of the field.
----------------------------------------------------------
03/04/2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not possible to plot and calculate area or refix the field with boundary
measurements only.
j) Measurement of Fields. - An Eyesketch of the field to be surveyed is prepared
before taking the measurements. All side and subdivision boundaries measured
are noted in the Eyesketch. Junctions are named A, B, C, D etc. G lines
connecting trijunctions are then measured. Offsets are taken for field boundary
bends from G lines. Offsets for subdivision points are taken from checkline.
Offsets are recorded in the field book (Ladder) on the left or right of the line. Each
point of the field can be refixed using this ladder."
16. The principle of 'Chain surveying' is to divide the field into a framework of
triangles. The sides of a triangle are measured directly in the field. Each field is
divided into triangles by chaining lines called Diagonal or Check - lines from tri -
junction to tri - junction and the Offsets taken from G - line or Check - line to the
bend points.
17. The Amicus Curiae submitted that Ext.C3(a) plan is styled as a field
measurement sketch (FM Sketch). An FM Sketch shall contain 'F - line', 'G - line',
'Check - line' and 'Offset' measurements. The 'G - line' measurements, 'Check -
line' measurements and 'Offset' are entered in the 'Ladder' in the FM sheet. In
addition, the direction of adjoining field boundaries and adjoining survey numbers
are entered on the sides of the field. 'Ladder' is necessary to plot the field and
verify the area of the field. It is impossible to plot and calculate the area or refix
the field with the aid of boundary measurements (F - lines) only. To re - fix the
field 'G - lines', 'Check - lines', 'F - lines' and 'Offsets' are required. A survey plan
becomes complete and self explanatory only when it contains the requirements
mentioned above.
18. Ext.C3(a) plan contains only 'F - lines', which cannot be used to find the area
of any of the properties described therein and to identify the boundaries of the
properties. Ext.C3(a) plan relied on by the Courts below has not been prepared
following the requirements mentioned above. It is impossible to ascertain how 'C'
schedule property was identified as 617 sq.links by the surveyor from Ext.C3(a)
Survey Plan. 'G - line', 'F - line', and 'Sub-Divisional Lines' are necessary for
plotting and re - fixing the boundary of a property and 'Check - line' and 'Ladder'
are necessary for computing the area of the property surveyed. Ext.C3(a) plan,
which is made part of the decree is not useful to find the area of the property
----------------------------------------------------------
03/04/2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
depicted therein and to fix the boundaries of the property.

19. It is pertinent to note that the appellant had questioned the veracity of
Ext.C3(a) plan in the Trial Court itself. A specific objection was raised, stating that
the plan was incomplete. In the objection to the Commission Report and plan, the
appellant contended that the area of the property could not be tabulated from the
plan and boundaries cannot be fixed due to the lack of diagonal lines. The Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court lost sight of those vital aspects while
decreeing the suit. Ext.C3(a) is insufficient to identify the properties in dispute.
The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ignored the fact that Ext. C3(a) plan
was incomplete, even when the appellant raised such a contention in the Trial
Court itself.
20. The Trial Court identified 'C' schedule property based on Ext.C3(a) plan
which is incomplete and declared the respondents' title over it. The Trial Court
granted recovery of possession in respect of 'C' schedule property based on
Ext.C3(a) plan. Considering the nature of the disputes, identification of the plaint
schedule properties was the most vital aspect for which both the Courts relied on
Ext.C3(a) plan, which is proved to be incomplete. The default or carelessness of
the parties does not absolve the Trial Court of its obligation to satisfy that the
property ordered to be recovered is identifiable. The resultant conclusion is that
there had not been effectual adjudication of the disputes in the Courts below
insofar as the identification of plaint 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties is
concerned.
21. The respondents (plaintiffs in O.S.No.32 of 2009) had prayed for a
permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant (defendant in
O.S.No.32/2009) from preventing the user of plaint 'D' schedule pathway and
causing any hindrance to the respondents to use 'D' schedule pathway. The Trial
Court held that the respondents are entitled to a prohibitory injunction regarding
'D' schedule pathway. Plaint 'D' schedule pathway is not dealt with in Ext.C3(a)
plan. The finding of this Court that properties are not identifiable based on
Ext.C3(a) plan is confined to 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties in O.S.No.32 of
2009 and the plaint 'A' schedule property in O.S.No.9/2008. There is no
challenge on the identity of 'D' schedule pathway. The First Appellate Court
confirmed the finding of the Trial Court that the respondents are entitled to
permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of 'D' schedule pathway against the
----------------------------------------------------------
03/04/2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
appellant. This Court finds no reason to interfere with that finding.

In the result, these Regular Second Appeals are partly allowed. The decree and
judgment, insofar as they relate to plant 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties in
O.S.No.32 of 2009 and 'A' schedule property in O.S.No.9 of 2008 are set aside.
The finding of the Trial Court, and the First Appellate Court that the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.32 of 2009 are entitled to permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of
'D' schedule pathway is confirmed. The Original Suits are remanded to the Trial
Court for adjudication afresh in respect of the dispute relating to the subject
matter of the suits excluding 'D' schedule pathway in O.S.No.32 of 2009. The
parties shall appear before the Munsiff's Court, Kolencherry on 18/03/2022. The
Trial Court shall dispose of the suits as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within six months from the date scheduled for the appearance of the parties. The
parties are at liberty to lead further evidence if any. They are directed to bear their
respective costs.
----------------------------------------------------------
03/04/2023

Sabu V Sasi Preparation of Survey Plan Explained

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sabu V Sasi Preparation of Survey Plan Explained

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

----------------------------------------------------------

CaseSearch 2023 (Full Text) Copyright © Em Tee En Publications

2022 (2) KHC 435

Facts of the case

Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 -- Survey Map -- Components of

Survey map -- G line, Check line, Offset etc., explained

Referred: P. Chandrasekharan and Others v. S. Kanakarajan and Others, 2007

P. Thomas Geeverghese; Tony Thomas Inchiparambil; For Appellant

depicted therein and to fix the boundaries of the property.

appellant. This Court finds no reason to interfere with that finding.

You might also like