Judgment :- 1. The defendant is the second appellant. The suit as originally framed was for recovery of property on the basis of an oral lease. Subsequently plaintiff was permitted to convert the suit into one on title. The defendant denied the oral lease set up and the title of the plaintiff and pleaded that he has acquired title to the property by adverse possession. The trial Court repelled those contentions and on the findings that the oral lease set up by the plaintiff is true and that the title to the property vests in the plaintiff, gave a decree for recovery of the site with the buildings thereon with past and future rent on payment of the value of the building. 2. In appeal by the defendant the lower appellate court found that the oral lease alleged is not true. However on the basis of title which was found in favour of the plaintiff it confirmed the decree of the trial Court except to the extent of the claim for past and future rent. The defendant has come in appeal from the above decree and the plaintiff has filed a memorandum of objections in respect of the claim for rent that was disallowed and the finding regarding the oral lease. 3. The Courts below have concurrently found title in favour of the plaintiff. This is amply justified by the evidence in the case. The property originally belonged to P.W. 2. He mortgaged the property under Ext. A on 4.11.1102 to one Narayanan Namboothiripad and released the mortgage under Ext. B dated 20.1.1106. The property appears to have been mortgaged to the Bank of Cochin. The Bank sued for mortgage money and brought the property to sale and purchased it in Court auction. Ext. C is the sale sannad. Ext. D series are the copies of the delivery lists. The boundaries mentioned in these documents clearly show that the disputed plot is included therein. It is contended that the S. No. 229/2 is not mentioned in these documents and therefore that property was not included therein. The boundaries in the above documents are precise and clear. Ext. D series are the copies of the delivery lists. The boundaries mentioned in these documents clearly show that the disputed plot is included therein. It is contended that the S. No. 229/2 is not mentioned in these documents and therefore that property was not included therein. The boundaries in the above documents are precise and clear. "Where there is a description of land in a conveyance, lease or other documents such a description setting forth the boundaries, and then specifying the quantity, as so many acres, or bighas or the like, the maxim falsa demonstratio non nocet applies; it is considered to be a mere false description, if there is an error in the quantity, and the land within the boundaries passed by the conveyance or the lease, whether it be less or more than the quantity specified." (Vide 6 TLJ 22). No doubt as was held in 4 TLT 190 and 30 Cochin Law Reports 483 this is not an inflexible rule. But in the absence of circumstances indicating that application of the boundaries in determining the extent of the land that passed under the conveyance will lead to an error, usually in cases conflict between the area, survey number and the boundaries mentioned in the document the boundaries predominate and the rest is considered only as false or erroneous description. In this case there are no such circumstances and therefore we are clearly of the view that the disputed property is included in the documents mentioned above. It therefore follows that S. No. 229/2 was also sold in court auction and purchased by Cochin Bank and they obtained delivery under Ext. D series. The Cochin Bank executed Ext. G sale deed in favour of P.K. Verghese & Sons' Trust. In this document S. No. 229/1 was alone included and S. No. 229/2 the disputed plot was shown as the northern boundary. The case of the plaintiff is that S. No. 229/2 which went to the Cochin Bank under the court sale mentioned above was given over by the Bank to P.W. 2 the original owner and that P.W. 2 sold the property to P.K. Verghese & Sons' Trust under Ext. E dated 29.4.1120. The transfer to P.W. 2 by the Cochin Bank was not evidenced by any registered document. E dated 29.4.1120. The transfer to P.W. 2 by the Cochin Bank was not evidenced by any registered document. However it is abundantly clear from the evidence in the case that the Bank gave back the property to P.W. 2 and that it is by virtue of this right that he executed Ext. in favour of P.K. Verghese & Sons' Trust. It is contended that in as much as the transfer by the Bank of Cochin to P.W. 2 was not evidenced by any registered document it was inoperative. The plaintiff had produced in the lower appellate Court Ext. P. release which the Cochin Bank subsequently executed in his favour on 4.1.1125. This document clearly shows that the case set up in the plaint and also sworn to by P.W. 2 in respect of this matter is true. The defect if any on account of the absence of any registered document regarding the reconveyance of the property by the Bank of Cochin to P.W. 2 is we think amply cured by the subsequent execution of Ext. P registered release deed. Further there can hardly be any doubt that the Bank admitted P.W. 2 as the owner of the property and the plaintiff obtained Ext. E sale from P.W. 2 when to all intents and purposes he was considered as the owner of the property. In these circumstances we feel no doubt that the title to the disputed property passed to the plaintiff under the sale relied on by him. The case of the defendant that he obtained title to the property by adverse possession has been concurrently found against. The evidence of D.Ww.1 and 2, who speak to the possession of the defendant has not been believed by the lower court and we do not see any reason to come to a different conclusion. Admittedly the V.T.K. Estate is the jenmi of the property. The plaintiff has obtained Ext. H kanom from the V.T.K. Estate on 14.10.1121. It is contended that the documents produced by the plaintiff indicate that S. No. 229/2 was originally demised on kanom to one Valiya Veettil Kochunni Alias Kunhan Marakkar on 15.3.1078 and that in any event the defendants should be deemed to have prescribed against this kanom right. This case has not been put forward in the pleadings in the case. The documents Exts. This case has not been put forward in the pleadings in the case. The documents Exts. A to G clearly indicate that Kunhan Marakkar had no possession of the properties. Nor has he ever set up any title thereto. The V.T.K. Estate who are admittedly the Jenmies of the property have executed Ext. H in favour of the plaintiff. In these circumstances there is no substance in the contention that the defendant obtained the kanom right by prescribing against the alleged right of the Kunhan Marakkar in the property. It follows that the title to the disputed property vests in the plaintiff and that he is entitled to recover possession of the property on the basis of his subsisting title to it. 4. The oral lease pleaded by the plaintiff is found against by the lower appellate Court. We see no grounds to interfere with that finding. But the plaintiff can get recovery of the property on the basis of his title. 5. Objection is taken by the learned Advocate for the respondent in respect of the decree of the lower appellate court disallowing past and future rent. It is true that since the oral lease alleged was found against, the plaintiff cannot claim any amount by way of rent. But he has a right to get mesne profits. In the circumstances of this case we think that mesne profits may be fixed at Rs. 11/2 per mensem. We allow the plaintiff to recover past mesne profits for three years prior to the date of suit and also future profits, from date of suit at the above rate subject to the limitations imposed by O. XX, R.12 C.P.C. 6. With the above modification the decree of the lower appellate Court is confirmed. The second appeal is dismissed with costs. The memorandum of objections is allowed to the extent indicated above but without costs. Decree modified.