Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought through the court to cancel the state registration and title documents for the defendants’ land plots, which partially overlapped with his inherited land share (paj), with the aim of returning these plots to communal ownership.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the choice of the method of protection must correspond to the nature of the violated right, and the path chosen by the plaintiff (a claim for the cancellation of registration and the return of lands to communal ownership) is ineffective.
– The Court highlighted that in cases of overlapping boundaries of land plots, the proper method of protection is a vindicatory claim — that is, a demand to reclaim specifically the part of the plot that overlaps with the plaintiff’s land.
– Satisfying demands to cancel the registration of the defendant’s entire property, when only a part is in dispute, constitutes a disproportionate interference with the right to property, as it deprives the defendants of their rights to the part of the land that is not in dispute.
– The Court indicated that to reclaim a portion of a plot, it is not necessary to invalidate the orders of public authorities or state deeds, as the assessment of the legality of these documents is provided by the court within the scope of considering a vindicatory claim.
– Since the plaintiff did not file a claim to reclaim specific parts of the land plots and chose an improper method of protection, the claim in this part is not subject to satisfaction.
– **Legal precedent:** In its decision, the Court relied on the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court set forth in the resolution of January 22, 2025, in case No. 446/478/19, confirming the consistency of practice regarding the application of vindication in disputes over overlapping land plot boundaries.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decision of the appellate court in the part concerning the satisfaction of the claim, and rendered a new decision refusing to satisfy the claims of PERSON_1 regarding the cancellation of the state registration of the defendants’ land plots.
