JUDGMENT A. Banerji, J. - The decision is this appeal will depend on whether the disputed land was sold by either of the two sale deeds Ext. 3 and 4. The two courts below have differed in their interpretation of these two deeds which are also title deeds of the plaintiff. The trial court held that the disputed land was not conveyed and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court had reversed that finding and decreed the suit. It, will therefore, be necessary to refer to these two sale deeds and to find out whether the decision of the court below is correct or not. 2. In Ex. 3, Sheikh Mohammad who was the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs sold the house which adjoins this disputed land. The sale deed recites the sale of a house along with sehan and a neem tree. The exact words used are :- "Makan mae sehan vo ek per neem becha aur bae katayi kiya". He described the boundaries of the house sold as follows :- "Chauhaddi makan mae sehan ek per neem waka Mauza Dubari Pargana Natthupur - Purab - Makan Mukteshwar Pachbim-Makan Musthariyan Uttar - Darwaza Vo, Sehan Badhu Khet Jhingur teli Dakkhin-Darwaza vo Sehan bandu Makan Mukteshwar." He also described the property sold by measurement which was noted in the following words : "Jiski lanbai purab pachhim 29 haath Uttar Dakkhin chaurai 44 haath." 3. It would, therefore, be evident that what was sold was a house (About which there is no dispute between the parties) and a sehan and a neem tree. The neem tree admittedly stands to the north of the house. It is admitted that the disputed land lies to the south of the house sold The disputed land has an approach from the house sold. The disputed land is surrounded on the east and the south by the house and ahata of the defendant, while on the north and in the east the disputed land is surrounded by the houses of the plaintiffs. There is another opening on the south of disputed land, but there is no opening from the houses or the ahata of the defendant into the disputed land. The disputed land is a very small area but lies, as stated above, between the properties of the plaintiff and the defendant. There is another opening on the south of disputed land, but there is no opening from the houses or the ahata of the defendant into the disputed land. The disputed land is a very small area but lies, as stated above, between the properties of the plaintiff and the defendant. The opening to the south from the disputed land ultimately goes to the property of the plaintiffs. 4. While giving the boundaries of the land sold it was stated that what was sold included a house along with a sehan and a neem tree and the boundaries to the south of the house has been described as "Darwaza vo sehan badhu makan Mukteshwar". The question would be whether this disputed land was the sehan that was sold under the sale deed Ex. 3. The further question would be whether the description of the boundary on the south of the house excludes the sehan. It will also be noted that the measurement of the land sold has also been mentioned in the sale deed. In Ex. 4, which is a subsequent sale deed. Jan Mohammad on his own behalf and on behalf of his brothers executed the sale deed in respect of the th share of theirs to the plaintiffs. The vendor stated that he and his brothers were the owners of a house along with Sehan indrauni and balroni situate in this village. What was sold by the vendor was described in the following words; "Barazamandi apne qite makan safala posh mae sehan androni waka mauza dubari mazkur...". He described the boundaries as follows :- "Tafseel Chauhaddi musallam makan jis men bakadar baq vo hissa bae karnal haza hai waka dubari mazkur Purab-Ahata Prera Shankar Vaghera Pachhim-Makan Raghuuath Prasad. Uttar-Sehan makan mubayya jis men per neem wake hai veh bhi bae hua Badhu makan Prem Shanker Vaghera." The area of the property sold was described in the following words : "Lambai musallan makan ki 44 haath uttar dakshin aur chaurayi musallam makan ki 29 haath purab pachhim hai." This sale deed sold the house along with a sehan and a neem tree-The boundaries that were described in the sale deed make it clear that what was sold on the south included a sehan also. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that according to Ex. 4 the owners had a house and 2 sehans one of which was indrauni. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that according to Ex. 4 the owners had a house and 2 sehans one of which was indrauni. The disputed land according to the learned counsel could not be described as the Indrauni sehan for it had to be a part of the house sold and had to be contained within the house itself. According to him the disputed land was not a part of the house and, therefore could not be described as the indrauni sehan. According to him even if the disputed land belonged to the vendors of Ex. 4 it was not conveyed by the sale deed. It is significant to note that there is no dispute between the parties as regards the sehan on the both where the neem tree stood. It is admitted to the parties that this Sehan and the Neem tree were conveyed to the plaintiffs by either of the sale deeds. The question, therefore, remains as to whether this disputed land formed part of the house and was a sehan of the house and whether it was transferred by means of either of the two sale deeds. Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that what is described as the boundary is never sold. What is sold is described in the deed itself and not in the description of the boundaries. Consequently, if there is a mention of a sehan in the boundary on the south it was not the subject-matter of the sale. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the sale deeds conveyed the land on the south of the house to the plaintiffs and it was a part, of the sale transaction. It was further contended that where the measurements are given it is an additional circumstance to be taken into consideration and the court below has given a finding that the measurement of 44 Cubits x 29 Cubits completely engulfed the house as well as the disputed land. He further contended that where in the boundaries it was made clear as to what was sold then there was no scope for arguing that what was described in the boundaries was never sold. 6. Having considered the respective view points and examined the recitals in the sale deeds Ex. He further contended that where in the boundaries it was made clear as to what was sold then there was no scope for arguing that what was described in the boundaries was never sold. 6. Having considered the respective view points and examined the recitals in the sale deeds Ex. 3 and 4, I come to the conclusion that the disputed land was conveyed to the plaintiffs by the sale deeds. In my opinion, there are three definite indications to clinch the decision in favour of the plaintiffs. Firstly, the description of the disputed land as sehan and the sale deed Ex. 4. Clearly stated the sale of the sehan leaves no doubt that the disputed land was sold in favour of the plaintiffs. The words used "Sehan makan mubayya" make it clear that the land was sold. It is no body's case that even though this land belonged to the vendors of Ex. 4 it was retained by them and not transferred. If it formed a part of the land of the vendors of Ex. 4 or Ex.3 it was conveyed for there is nothing in Ex. 3 and 4 to how that the vendors had kept to themselves this piece of land. 7. The second reason, in my opinion, is that the disputed land has no opening to the houses and Ahata of the defendant. A perusal of the sale deeds would show the absence of a mention of any door towards the defendant's houses and ahata on the south and the east of the disputed land. A perusal of the site plan makes the position clearer. There exists do passage to the disputed land to the defendant's houses and ahata and the only passage on the south ultimately leads to a rasta and before it reaches the rasta there is a chabutra of the defendant. The plea of the defendant that this passage connected his house to the disputed land appears to be laboured one. If the disputed land was a part and parcel of the defendant's land there would have existed a direct opening from his house and ahata on the south and the east. 8. The third reason is the measurements of the land sold given in the two deeds. The land which was sold along with the house and sehan measured 44 cubits x 29 cubits. 8. The third reason is the measurements of the land sold given in the two deeds. The land which was sold along with the house and sehan measured 44 cubits x 29 cubits. The court below has recorded a finding that the measurements tallied from the date collected by the commissioner who was sent for local investigation. The finding of the court below further is that this measurement of 44 cubits x 29 cubits includes the disputed land. I see no reason to differ with the finding of the court below on the question of measurements. Where the boundaries as well as the measurements are both given it helps in removing the doubts. 9. Although in this case a controversy arose as to what was conveyed by the sale deeds yet the perusal of the sale deeds and the circumstances mentioned above leaves no doubt in my mind that the land in dispute was a part of the land which was conveyed to the plaintiffs and the decision of the lower appellate court is correct and is upheld. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further sought to argue on the basis of a judgment of the court of Second Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh dated the 29th November 1958 which was between Prem Shankar Lal brother of the appellant and Raghunath Kalwar father of the plaintiffs in the present case. The judgment decided the controversy with regard to the land near the chabutra which existed towards the south of the disputed land. There is a recital in the judgment which was relied upon by the counsel for the appellant to contend that there was "an enclosure of the plaintiff in the north of this house." The plaintiff in that case was Prem Shankar Lal. This judgment was Ex. A-3, and learned counsel sought to argue that in the above suit it was held that the present disputed land was an enclosure of Prem Shankar Lal. I am unable to agree. Firstly, this was a dispute not between the parties in the present suit. Secondly, the enclosure in the suit was not the subject-matter of dispute in that suit, and thirdly, the plaintiff had chosen to describe the land as such and the learned Civil Judge had merely stated it was the case of the plaintiff of that case. This judgment Ex. Secondly, the enclosure in the suit was not the subject-matter of dispute in that suit, and thirdly, the plaintiff had chosen to describe the land as such and the learned Civil Judge had merely stated it was the case of the plaintiff of that case. This judgment Ex. A-3 is, therefore, of no assistance in the present case and as a matter of fact not relevant at all. 11. In the result, therefore, the appeal fails and dismissed with costs.