Judgment :- 1. This is a Second Appeal from conflicting decrees. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was for declaration of plaintiff's title to 5/8th of the plaint property and for recovery of this share and also to put up a boundary between the plots the plaintiff and the defendant are entitled to. The whole property is comprised in S. Nos. 137/1A and B and 137/2 and it belonged to Vattavilagom tarwad. It was mortgaged by the tarwad under Ext. A dated 3-6-1093 in favour of one Podiyan Nadar. The mortgage right was acquired by Gnanamuthu Nadar and others, and the equity of redemption devolved on one Padmanabha Pillai of Vattavilagom tarwad. The plaintiff and his brother purchased the equity of redemption from Padmanabha Pillai and the plaintiff later obtained his brother's interest under a Will executed by him. When the plaintiff sought to redeem the property the mortgagees who were living in the property requested that a portion of the property be given to them and that the rest alone be recovered. What they asked for and got was 3/8th of the property. The total extent of the property was wrongly described in the mortgage deed as 6 acres and 16 cents. At the time of release of the mortgage the extent was wrongly assumed to be 6 acres and 66 cents.. Thus in the release deed Ext. D executed by the plaintiff to the mortgagees, the 3/8th and 5/8th shares were described as 2 acres 4934 cents and 4 acres 16% cents, on the assumption that the total extent was 6 acres and 66 cents. The actual extent is only 4 acres and 50 cents and the plaintiff is entitled to 5/8th of the same. It was on these allegations that the plaintiff brought the suit. The defendant who has acquired the rights of the mortgagees contended that he was entitled to the extent of land described in Ext. E and not merely to 3/8th. The trial court upheld the defence contention and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the decree of the trial court was reversed and the plaintiff was given a decree for recovery of 5/8th of the property. The defendant has therefore preferred this Second Appeal. 2. Ext. E is the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the mortgagees. The trial court upheld the defence contention and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the decree of the trial court was reversed and the plaintiff was given a decree for recovery of 5/8th of the property. The defendant has therefore preferred this Second Appeal. 2. Ext. E is the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the mortgagees. This describes the property sold to the mortgagees as 32 cents in the western portion of S.No. 137/1B, 1 acre and 17 3/4 cents in the northern portion of the said survey number and 1 acre in the northern portion of S. No. 137/ IA. The total extent given to the mortgagees is thus described as 2 acres 4934 cents. On the strength of this, the defendants claim this area. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following passage in Umrao Bapu v. Ramakrishna Bapu and others (A. I. R.1938 Nag. 93): "The decided cases are relevant not for what they decided but the principle on which the decisions were founded. That principle is to be sought in the well known maxim falsa demonstratio non nocet. That rule means that if there be an adequate and sufficient description with convenient certainty of what was meant to pass, an erroneous addition to the description will not vitiate it. See (1849) 4 Ex 591. In Durga Prased Singh v. Rajendra Narain Bagchi (1910) 37 Cal. 293 at p. 308 the general principle enunciated in an American case was referred to and it was this that where there are two conflicting descriptions of the subject matter of a grant or two conflicting parts of the same description, that which is the more certain and stable and the least likely to have been mistaken or to have been inserted inadvertently must prevail if it sufficiently identifies the subject matter. Then follows the further proposition based on English and American authorities there cited that preference ought to be given to that element of the description of the subject-matter which is most consistent with the intention of the parties to be collected from other parts of the deed, illumined if necessary by the surrounding circumstances and subsequent conduct of the parties". 3. I am in respectful agreement with this view but the question remains how far the defendant is entitled to succeed on the application of this principle to the facts of this case. 3. I am in respectful agreement with this view but the question remains how far the defendant is entitled to succeed on the application of this principle to the facts of this case. According to this decision preference ought to be given unto that element of the description of the subject-matter which is most consistent with the intention of the parties to be collected from other parts of the deed. 4. Ext. E has to be construed along with Ext. D which is the deed under which the mortgage right was released. Exts. D and E were executed on the same day. It is stated in Ext. D that the mortgagees were living in the property and that they wanted 3/8th share of the property including the site of their house to be given to them. The plaintiff was willing to do this and Ext?. D and E were executed accordingly. The area of the property was stated to be 6 acres and 66 cents in Exts. D and E. It was further stated that the area was wrongly described as 6 acres and 16 cents in the mortgage deed. It is now admitted by both sides that the correct area is 4 acres and 50 cents and that the description of the area as 6 acres and 66 cents in Exts. P and E is incorrect. In Ext. E also it is clearly stated that the mortgagees are purchasing 3/8th of the property. In both Exts. D and E it is stated that the Mortgagees were releasing 5/8th of the property and retaining 3/8th of the property. After stating that the property, conveyed to the mortgagees is 3/8th, its extent is given as 2 acres 49% cents comprised in 3 plots. The area released to the plaintiff is also calculated on the basis that the total area is 6 acres and 66 cents. It is admitted that at the time of execution of Exts. D and E the whole property was not measured. The defendant put up mud walls only after the execution of Exts. D and E. The area released to the plaintiff is described in Ext. D as 4 acres 16% cents. Thus the mistake is in the extent of the areas which the plaintiff and the mortgagees were to get. D and E the whole property was not measured. The defendant put up mud walls only after the execution of Exts. D and E. The area released to the plaintiff is described in Ext. D as 4 acres 16% cents. Thus the mistake is in the extent of the areas which the plaintiff and the mortgagees were to get. It is unlikely that after settling the area that was to go to the defendant it was calculated as 3/8th of the whole. It is therefore clear from Exts. D and E that the intention was that mortgagees were to get only 3/8th of the property. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the fact that the plot of 32 cents in the west which was to go to the mortgagees was at that time outstanding on sub-mortgage shows that specific plots having specific extent were intended to be conveyed to the mortgagees. Even if the whole area sub-mortgaged by the mortgagees had been allotted to the mortgagees that would not have exhausted the 3/8th share due to them. The fact that the plaintiff did not correctly state the area in the original plaint is not material in view of the amended plaint. The boundaries put up by the mortgagees were only of a temporary nature and this suit having been filed within 12 years of the date of Ext. E the plaintiff's rights are not lost by the defendant's possession of plots having an area in excess of what he was entitled to. In these circumstances the decree passed by the lower appellate court has to be confirmed. 5. In the result the Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.