G. B. PATTANAIK, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the appellant against a reversing judgment in a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and realisation of mesne profits. ( 2 ) THE suit land measures Ac. 2. 72 appertaining to plot No. 44, khata No. 14 of mauza Sitarampur in the district of Koraput the boundary of which has been given in the plaint. Plaintiffs' case in a nut-shell is that on 20-11-1958 under a registered sale deed (Ext. 2) plaintiff No. 1 purchased the suit land along with some other lands from defendant No. 2 and also obtained delivery of possession through her husband (plaintiff No. 2 ). and ever since then plaintiffs are in possession till the land was attached in a proceeding under S. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the further case that while describing the plot numbers in the sale deed plot Nos. 21 and 50 were wrongly mentioned whereas the boundary that was given was in respect of plot No. 44 and what was delivered to the plaintiffs was plot No. 44. The plaintiffs applied for mutation and defendant No. 1 set up a false claim of possession over plot No. 44 and also made a report before the police whereafter a proceeding under S. 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, was initiated and the suit land was attached. Ultimately, the proceeding under S. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was terminated in favour of defendant. No. 1 as per Ext. D and hence the plaintiffs filed the suit. ( 3 ) THE case of defendant No. 1 is that what was sold by defendant No. 2 to plaintiff No. 1 was the land covered by plot Nos. 21, 50 and 43 under khata No. 2 and plot No. 38 of Khata No. 1 and at no point of time plot No. 44 had been sold to said plaintiff No. 1. It is also alleged that plaintiffs have never been in possession of plot No. 44. On the other hand, defendant No. 1 purchased plot No. 44 on 28-7-1962 measuring an area of Ac. 2. 72 along with other plots in khata No. 14 under a registered sale deed (Ext. A) from defendant No. 2 and said defendant No. 2 delivered possession to defendant No. 1. On the other hand, defendant No. 1 purchased plot No. 44 on 28-7-1962 measuring an area of Ac. 2. 72 along with other plots in khata No. 14 under a registered sale deed (Ext. A) from defendant No. 2 and said defendant No. 2 delivered possession to defendant No. 1. Thus it is defendant No. 1 who continues to be in possession of the entire Ac. 10. 99 including the suit plot of AC. 2. 72 with effect from the execution of Ext. A. Further the said suit plot was mutated in favour of defendant No. 1 under Ext. Q and in the proceeding under S. 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, defendant No. 1 was found to be in possession of the same. It is the further case of defendant No. 1 that the suit land was a service tenure and had vested in the State prior to the alleged purchase by plaintiff No. 1 and, therefore, on the date defendant No. 2 sold the land to plaintiff No. 1 he had no saleable interest and thus plaintiff No. 1 did not acquire any right by virtue of the sale in her favour. Subsequently the land was settled with defendant No. 2 in 1962 and, therefore, defendant No. 1 got valid title by virtue of the sale in his favour under Ext. 4. ( 4 ) ON those pleadings the learned Trial Judge framed several issues and came to hold that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the suit land came within the boundary mentioned in the sale deed (Ext. 2) and, therefore, they had no right, title and interest over the suit land. It was also held that defendant No. 1 had acquired valid title under Ext. A. The learned Trial Judge further held that even if the suit plot came within the boundary mentioned in Ext. 2, but such a transfer could not confer any title on the plaintiffs as defendant No. 2 had no subsisting interest then the suit land having vested. The plaintiffs had carried an appeal which was registered as Title Appeal No. 22 of 1973. The lower appellate court set aside the judgment of the Trial Judge and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal with a direction that plaintiffs would be given an opportunity to take a survey-knowing commissioner for demarcation of the suit land. The plaintiffs had carried an appeal which was registered as Title Appeal No. 22 of 1973. The lower appellate court set aside the judgment of the Trial Judge and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal with a direction that plaintiffs would be given an opportunity to take a survey-knowing commissioner for demarcation of the suit land. After remand, the plaintiffs took a survey-knowing commissioner and his report was exhibited as Ext. C-2. The learned Trial Judge thereafter on consideration of the entire material on record including the report of the Survey-knowing Commissioner came to hold that the lands described in the sale deed of the plaintiff under Ext. 2 appertained to plot Nos. 43, 44, 45 and 46 while the lands described in Ext. A in favour of defendant No. 1 did not include any other plot except plot No. 44. He further held that the plaintiffs' claim that the land was sold by boundary and not by plot could not be accepted and, therefore, plaintiffs could not have acquired any title over plot No. 44. Ultimately he came to the conclusion that suit plot No. 44 had never been transferred in favour of plaintiff No. 1 under Ext. 2 and plaintiffs never acquired possession over the same. He also held that defendant No. 1 acquired title as well as possession over the suit plot under Ext. A and accordingly he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. ( 5 ) ON appeal, the lower appellate court has reversed the findings of the Trial Judge and has come to the following conclusions : - (A) The Commissioner's report that boundary given in defendant No. l's sale deed would not include any other plot except plot No. 44 is not correct; (B) The document (Ext. 2) is ambiguous as the boundary given in the sale deed does not tally with the plot numbers given in the body of the document and, therefore, intention of the parties has to be gathered on looking at the several circumstances; (C) On examining the several circumstances, the lower appellate court held that plot Nos. 45 and 46 could not have been included in Ext. 2 as those plots belong to the plaintiffs themselves; (D) The lower appellate court further came to hold that plot Nos. 21 and 50 mentioned in Ext. 45 and 46 could not have been included in Ext. 2 as those plots belong to the plaintiffs themselves; (D) The lower appellate court further came to hold that plot Nos. 21 and 50 mentioned in Ext. 2 was a mistake for plot No. 44 of holding No. 14 and what was conveyed to plaintiff No. 1 under Ext. 2 was plot No. 44. The lower appellate court further held that subsequent settlement of the land in favour of defendant No. 2 under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act would confer an equitable right on the plaintiffs by virtue of S. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, plaintiffs acquired good title over the land in question and accordingly the suit must succeed. On these findings, the judgment of the learned Trial Judge having been set aside and appeal being allowed, defendant No. 1 has preferred this second appeal. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for defendant No. 1 appellant contends that in a sale deed where the plot number given do not tally with the boundary given then ordinarily the boundary prevails. But that cannot be said to be an abstract proposition of law. Since in the sale deed (Ext. 2) positive plot numbers have been given, the question of boundary prevailing over plot numbers does not arise. The lower appellate Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that plot No. 44 was transferred under Ext. 2 when plot No. 44 was not at all mentioned in the sale deed. The learned counsel further urges that the land in question being service jagir land and it having vested when Ext. 2 was executed, defendant No. 2 had no subsisting right so as to confer a valid title in favour of the plaintiffs under Ext. 2 and said Ext. 2 was, therefore, a void transaction and S. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act has no application. The learned counsel lastly urges that the judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated for non-consideration of some vital pieces of evidence like Exts. A/l, D, J. Q. T, V and V/1 which would support the defendant's case that plaintiffs purchased plot Nos. 2l and 50 and not plot No. 44. Though the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants prima facie appear attractive, but on a deeper scrutiny do not stand to reason. A/l, D, J. Q. T, V and V/1 which would support the defendant's case that plaintiffs purchased plot Nos. 2l and 50 and not plot No. 44. Though the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants prima facie appear attractive, but on a deeper scrutiny do not stand to reason. ( 7 ) THE first question for consideration is as to what was conveyed to plaintiff No. 1 under Ext. 2 which is the first registered sale deed executed by defendant No. 2. The position of law is clear that where a document is unambiguous, then no evidence can be led to find out the intention of the parties. But where a document is ambiguous then evidence can be looked into to find out the real intention of the parties. Approaching Ext. 2 from the aforesaid stand-point, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the two plots mentioned in Ext. 2, namely plot Nos. 45 and 46 could not have been purchased by the plaintiffs since those two plots belonged to the plaintiffs. Thereafter on consideration of the Commissioner's report in Ext. C-2, the lower appellate court further held that the said report could not be said to be valid and good reasons have been ascribed for the same. The lower appellate court on consideration of the evidence on record also came to a finding that defendant No. 1 never possessed plot No. 44 and on consideration of all the materials, finally came to hold that it was the suit plot No. 44 that was conveyed to plaintiff No. 1 under Ext. 2. This conclusion having been arrived at on a thorough consideration of the materials on record, particularly when boundary and plot numbers do not tally, I do not find any infirmity in the said conclusion so as to be interfered with by this Court in second appeal. The finding on the question that defendant No. 1 never possessed the suit plot No. 44 is a pure finding of fact and cannot be interfered with by this court. The learned counsel failed to point out any clinching material which would go against the conclusion of the lower appellate Court. In the premises, as aforesaid, agreeing with the lower appellate court I hold that what was conveyed to the plaintiff No. 1 under Ext. The learned counsel failed to point out any clinching material which would go against the conclusion of the lower appellate Court. In the premises, as aforesaid, agreeing with the lower appellate court I hold that what was conveyed to the plaintiff No. 1 under Ext. 2 was suit plot No. 44 and, therefore, plaintiffs have been able to establish their title as well as possession in respect of the suit land of 2. 72 acres appertaining to plot No. 44. The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is accordingly rejected. ( 8 ) COMING to the second question, it appears that the land, in question is a service tenure and it had vested on the date of execution of Ext. 2, but was settled with the vendor of the plaintiffs-defendant No. 2 in 1962. The question that arises for consideration is whether plaintiffs do not derive any title on the basis of Ext. 2 or whether S. 43 of Transfer of Property Act will come to aid. Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly states that where a person erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer certain immovable property and transfers the same for consideration and later on the transferor acquires good title over the land in question then the transferee who in good faith had paid the consideration without notice of absence of title of the transferor will acquire valid right. In other words, S. 43 protects a purchaser for value without notice. A transferee is entitled to the benefit of S. 43 If he believed in the representation made by the vendor and was not aware of the true interest of the vendor with reference to the property. The law on the subject has been fully stated in the case of Banwari Lal v. Sukhdarahan Dayal, AIR 1973 SC 814 . Applying the principles of S. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, I find that plaintiff No. 1 transferee is entitled to the benefit of the said provision, inasmuch as she was never aware that her vendor, defendant No. 2 had no interest in the property, the property having vested in the State of Orissa and she paid good consideration on the representation of the vendor-defendant No. 2 and obtained possession from him. In this view of the matter, the ultimate conclusion of the lower appellate court that S. 43 comes to protect the interest of the plaintiffs cannot be said to be illegal or invalid in any manner. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants accordingly fails. ( 9 ) THE only other point that survives for consideration is whether the judgment of the lower appellate court can be said to be vitiated for non-consideration of any relevant pieces of evidence. In this connection the learned counsel for the appellants took me through Exts. K, D. J, Q and T, but on consideration of the same, I am of the opinion that those documents have no application and relevance for deciding the point whether what was conveyed under Ext. 2 was plot No. 44 or not. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that no material piece of evidence has been kept out of consideration while coming to the conclusion that it is the suit plot No. 44 that was conveyed under Ext. 2. The last submission of the learned counsel for the appellants accordingly fails. ( 10 ) ALL the contentions having failed, this second appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.