Judgment Writing for Civil Law-2

Question 1: Suit for Injunction Against Trespass (Inspired by Property Dispute with Encroachment Claims)

Writing of Judgment (Name of Court alone to be indicated. Other details in the cause title not required)

M owns a plot of land measuring 2 acres, inherited from his father. N, the adjacent landowner, allegedly encroached upon 0.5 acres of M's land by constructing a boundary wall in 2019. M sent a notice in 2020 demanding removal, but N refused. M filed a suit in 2021 for permanent injunction restraining N from trespassing and for mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment, under Sections 38 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, claiming possession since 2010, supported by revenue records.

Defendant N filed a written statement denying encroachment, contending that the disputed portion was part of his property based on a 2015 survey, and pleaded adverse possession for over 12 years. He claimed M's suit was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Issues were framed, and trial proceeded.

Plaintiff M examined himself as PW1, deposing possession and exhibiting title deed (Ext. P1), tax receipts (Ext. P2), and a commissioner's report (Ext. P3) showing encroachment. In cross-examination, he admitted no physical markers earlier but denied knowledge of N's possession.

PW2, a revenue official, confirmed M's records but had no survey knowledge.

Defendant N as DW1 deposed about his purchase and survey (Ext. D1), claiming continuous possession. In cross-examination, he admitted the survey was private, not government-approved.

Frame issues on the basis of the above pleadings and draft judgment.

Answer:
Framed Issues:
Based on the pleadings, the following issues are framed for adjudication:

1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the entire 2 acres, including the disputed 0.5 acres?

2. Whether the defendant has encroached upon the plaintiff's land by constructing the boundary wall?

3. Whether the defendant has acquired title by adverse possession?

4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent and mandatory injunction?

6. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

Draft Judgment:

In the Court of the Munsif
​Judgment:

1. Introduction and Facts of the Case:

   • This is a suit for permanent injunction against trespass and mandatory injunction for removal of encroachment on 0.5 acres of the plaintiff's 2-acre plot.

   • The plaintiff claims ownership and possession since 2010, alleging defendant's encroachment via boundary wall in 2019. Suit filed in 2021 after notice.

   • The defendant denies encroachment, claims the land as his own per 2015 survey, and pleads adverse possession and limitation bar.

2. Evidence Summary:

   • Plaintiff's Side:

     • PW1 (Plaintiff): Affirmed possession, exhibited Ext. P1 (title deed), Ext. P2 (tax receipts 2010-2020), Ext. P3 (commissioner's report confirming encroachment).

     • ​PW2: Revenue official, corroborated plaintiff's records; no contradiction in cross.

   • Defendant's Side:

     • DW1 (Defendant): Claimed possession since purchase, exhibited Ext. D1 (private survey). Admitted no official demarcation.

   • Commissioner's report (Ext. P3) accepted as unchallenged evidence.

3. Discussion on Issues:

   • Issue 1: Ownership and Possession of Plaintiff

     • Title deed (Ext. P1) and continuous tax payments (Ext. P2) establish plaintiff's prima facie title and possession.

     • Commissioner's report (Ext. P3) supports boundary as per revenue records. Defendant's private survey (Ext. D1) lacks official validity. Issue answered in affirmative.

   • Issue 2: Encroachment by Defendant

     • Ext. P3 clearly shows wall on plaintiff's side. Defendant's admission of construction without consent proves trespass. Issue answered affirmatively.

   • Issue 3: Adverse Possession by Defendant

     • Under Section 27 of Limitation Act, 1963, adverse possession requires open, hostile, continuous possession for 12 years (AIR 2008 SC 2176, Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Govt. of India).

     • Defendant's claim starts from 2015; insufficient period. No evidence of pre-2015 hostility. Issue answered in negative.

   • Issue 4: Limitation Bar

     • Suit for possession based on title under Article 65: 12 years from dispossession. Encroachment in 2019; suit in 2021 within time. No bar.

   • Issue 5: Entitlement to Injunction

     • Under Section 38, Specific Relief Act: Permanent injunction granted to prevent trespass where plaintiff proves possession.

     • Section 39: Mandatory injunction for removal if encroachment wrongful. Balance of convenience favors plaintiff; irreparable injury if denied.

   • Issue 6: Relief

     • Suit decreed for injunctions.

4. Decree:

   • Permanent injunction decreed restraining defendant from trespassing on disputed 0.5 acres.

   • Mandatory injunction directing defendant to remove boundary wall within 3 months, failing which plaintiff may execute via court.

   • Costs awarded to plaintiff.

   • If non-compliance, executable under Order XXI CPC.

Pronounced in open court this day.
Sd/-
Munsif

Question 2: Suit for Recovery of Possession and Mesne Profits (Inspired by Landlord-Tenant Dispute with Eviction)

Writing of Judgment (Name of Court alone to be indicated. Other details in the cause title not required)

P leased his commercial shop to D for 5 years from 01.01.2017 at Rs. 10,000 monthly rent. Lease expired on 31.12.2021, but D continued possession without renewal. P served notice in January 2022 demanding vacation and arrears. D refused, claiming oral extension. P filed suit in March 2022 for recovery of possession, arrears of rent Rs. 50,000, and mesne profits at Rs. 15,000 per month from January 2022, under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Order XX Rule 12 CPC.

Defendant D filed written statement admitting lease but claiming valid oral renewal for 3 years and payment of rent till date. He pleaded no arrears and suit premature. Issues framed, trial held.

Plaintiff P as PW1 deposed about lease (Ext. P1), notice (Ext. P2), and non-payment post-expiry. In cross, denied oral extension.

PW2, a neighbor, confirmed D's continued occupation without new agreement.

Defendant D as DW1 deposed oral agreement for extension, but no evidence produced. Admitted no written renewal.

Frame issues on the basis of the above pleadings and draft judgment.

Answer:
Framed Issues:
Based on the pleadings, the following issues are framed for adjudication:

1. Whether the lease expired on 31.12.2021 without renewal?

2. Whether there was a valid oral extension of the lease?

3. Whether the defendant is liable for arrears of rent and mesne profits?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession?

5. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

Draft Judgment:

In the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division)
​Judgment:

1. Introduction and Facts of the Case:

   • Suit for eviction, recovery of possession, arrears of rent Rs. 50,000, and mesne profits from expired lease of commercial shop.

   • Lease from 2017-2021; notice served post-expiry. Suit filed March 2022.

   • Defendant claims oral renewal; denies liability.

2. Evidence Summary:

   • Plaintiff's Side:

     • PW1 (Plaintiff): Exhibited Ext. P1 (lease deed), Ext. P2 (notice). Denied extension; proved non-payment.

     • PW2: Corroborated continued holdover without agreement.

   • Defendant's Side:

     • DW1 (Defendant): Alleged oral extension; no proof like rent receipts post-2021.

3. Discussion on Issues:

   • Issue 1: Expiry of Lease

     • Lease deed (Ext. P1) specifies 5-year term ending 31.12.2021. No written renewal. Expiry established.

   • Issue 2: Validity of Oral Extension

     • Under Section 107, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, leases over 1 year require registration; oral invalid (AIR 1988 SC 1845, Ram Kumar Das vs. Jagdish Chandra).

     • No evidence; self-serving testimony rejected. Issue negative.

   • Issue 3: Liability for Arrears and Mesne Profits

     • Arrears Rs. 50,000 unchallenged. Mesne profits under Section 2(12) CPC: Damages for wrongful possession. Rate Rs. 15,000 reasonable per market evidence. Liable from January 2022.

   • Issue 4: Recovery of Possession

     • Tenant at sufferance post-expiry; ejectable via suit (Section 111(a), TP Act). Entitled.

   • Issue 5: Relief

     • Suit decreed.

4. Decree:

   • Defendant directed to vacate and hand over possession within 2 months.

   • Decree for Rs. 50,000 arrears + mesne profits at Rs. 15,000/month from January 2022 till handover, with 6% interest.

   • Costs to plaintiff.

   • Executable under Order XXI CPC.

Pronounced in open court this day.
Sd/-
Civil Judge (Junior Division)