JUDGMENT(Oral) In this second appeal the following two questions have been formulated as substantial questions of law : (i) Whether the boundary as given in a deed of conveyance would prevail over the area mentioned in the deed ? (ii) Whether the boundaries as given in the sale certificate obtained through Court can be of lesser value than the boundary of a land given in a deed of conveyance ? . 2. Facts for the purpose of disposal of the appeal may be narrated as follows : There was a money decree obtained by the appellant. The decree was obtained exparte. Thereafter the money execution case was filed and this case was also proceeded exparte and in execution of the said decree a plot of land was attached and thereafter sale proclamation for sale of the said land was issued. After the sale proclamation, the land was sold in auction, the decree holder purchased the said land in auction and thereafter the authority issued a sale certificate (Ext 1) in favour of the appellant. As per the sale certificate an area of land included in various CS plots measuring more on less 5 (five) Kanis was sold in auction sale and on the basis of the auction purchase, the appellant became the owner of the land purchased. In the sale certificate the boundary of land was also shown. The area of land sold was 5 (five) Kanis more or less but the appellant occupied much larger area. According to the appellant the land occupied by him is about 20 Kanis. But Sarveyor found the land under the occupation of the appellant was about 8 Kanis and 5 Gandas. As the appellant did not get the settlement of more, then 5 Kanis which area was shown in the sale certificate, he filed the title suit for declaration of his right, title, interest and for confirmation of possession in respect of the entire land measuring 20 Kanis under his occupation and this 20 Kanis of land is within the boundary shown in the sale certificate. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant did not acquire right, title and interest on the basis of the sale certificate in respect of entire land measuring 20 Kanis or even 8 Kanis 5 Gandas as found by the Surveyor Commissioner even though it was within the boundary given in the sale certificate. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred on appeal before the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the trial Court holding that the appellants could not have derived right, title and interest in respect of the entire land as claimed. Hence the second appeal. The question to be seen here whether the appellant can acquire right, title and interest over the entire land within the boundary shown in the sale certificate or the actual area as mentioned in the sale certificate. Next whether the sale certificate obtained from the Court can be lesser value of the boundary given in the sale certificate. Under Order XXI, Rule 66 CPC where any property is ordered to be sold by public auction in execution of the decree, the Court shall cause a proclamation of the intended sale to be made in the language of such Court. (2) Such proclamation shall be drawn up after notice to the decree holder and the judgment debtor and shall state the time and place of sale, and specify as fairly and accurately as possible, (a) the property to be sold (or, where a part of the property would be sufficient to satisfy the decree, such part), (b) the revenue assessed upon the estate. The particulars of the land viz; area, location etc should also be shown in the sale proclamation. After the sale proclamation the sale is affected in accordance with the provision of Order XXI. So when an auction purchaser purchase a property it must be in accordance with the sale proclamation. The purpose of sale proclamation is that the intending buyers must know the specific area which he is going to buy and also the revenue and other particulars of the land in the auction sale. This is necessary because the purchaser and seller must know what property is going to be sold in auction sale. Therefore, the sale proclamation is the basis on which the bid is knocked down and the sale is made final. This is necessary because the purchaser and seller must know what property is going to be sold in auction sale. Therefore, the sale proclamation is the basis on which the bid is knocked down and the sale is made final. It is settled law that a sale certificate does not create any title but it merely evidence the title. By the said sale no doubt the right, title and interest over the property will stands transferred to and vested in the transferee and transferee cannot acquire more area than what it has transferred and such transfer is also gas got relation with the sale proclamation by which the property is intended to be sold in auction. Therefore, sale certificate itself is not a conclusive proof, it creates prima facie evidence of title relating to property sold. This Court definitely has power to look into that matter and when a property is sold the auction purchaser only acquire right, title and interest of such area of land which is actually intended to be sold. Boundary given in the sale certificate is mainly for the purpose of identification. If there is variance between the boundary and the area sold then it is the duty of the person who wants to claim that he actually purchased the area within the boundary shown in the sale certificate, has to prove by bringing evidence mainly the sale proclamation etc. 5. In this case no efforts was made to prove that actually the auction purchaser purchased the entire area within the boundary shown in the sale certificate. The sale certificate clearly indicates that it was only more or less 5 Kanis which means a little more or less than 5 Kanis, but that does not mean that it is 8 Kanis or 20 Kanis as claimed by the appellant. 6. In view of the above, in my opinion, the Courts below were right in dismissing the suit. I find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs all throughout.