N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) ). I find from what has been observed above by the learned appellate Judge that he is not conscious of the well-known principle recognised by series of judicial precedents right from the 1v Bombay law Reporter Page 87 upto 1948 Privy Council P. 207 The principle that is well entrenched is that if there is any conflict between the measurements and the boundaries the boundaries must prevail. In other words boundaries are decisive. The boundaries given in these two deeds clearly indicate that the open land in front of the plaintiffs house and upto the rear walls of the two houses on the north were treated by the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title as the open land belonging to them. Not only that but a part of that open land is also built up by the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title. The important circumstance is that the said land is of no use to anybody except the plaintiff. The title deeds clearly establish that the suit land at least from 1913 was treated by the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title as their property. We cannot by-pass these old title deeds by saying that the plaintiff had not made any attempt to get his property surveyed. The learned Judge obviously means to suggest that possibly the north -south of the property together with the disputed land might exceed 24 + 9 = 33. If the Government wanted to rely on this circumstance it could have got produced their measurement at the time of the City Survey. A possible divergence between measurements is sought to be given undeserving importance in the face of clean-cut description of boundaries. Appeal allowed. .