Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed suit O.S. No. 56/88 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi, against the respondents herein for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property alleging as follows: He purchased the suit property of an extent of 54 cents out of. 2 acres 34 cents in S. No. 223/2 under Ex. A-1 on 8.8.1971 from one. Aravamudha Iyengar. In the same Survey Number, he bought a further extent of 1 acre 22 cents from one Ahamed Sultan Rowther under Ex. A--2 on 22.4.1979. Ever since the purchase, he had been in possession and enjoyment by cultivating them. There was a kanni vaikal (Channel) to the north of 54 cents may covered by Ex. A-1 and also 30 Palmyrah trees of the palmyrah trees, 20 were old trees and 10 were tender ones. After the purchase of the 54 cents, the appellants had been in possession of the palmyrah trees and also the channel. He had been using the channel for irrigating his lands covered by Exs. A-1 and A-2. Whileso, the second respondent, who was the owner of S. No. 224, and his father, the first respondent herein, due to enmity with the appellants husband started annexing the northern bund of the channel to the second respondents property. With a view to prevent further annexation, the appellant applied to the Revenue Department, had the property in S. No. 223/2 measured and got a new survey number in respect of 1 acre 76 cents under S. No. 223/2-B. Survey stones were also planted for the appellants property on 14.9.1992. Just prior to the planting of the survey stones the first respondent through his henchmen cut and, carried away 10 Palmyrah trees. In respect of this the appellant lodged a complaint with the police of Thiruthuraipoondi, but they did not take any action. Even after the planting of the survey-stones, the first respondent and his henchmen had been obstructing the enjoyment of the appellant of the channel and the 20 palmyrah trees. The appellant lodged a complaint with the Revenue Department several times and also to the police. But, no action was taken. On 24.10.1982, the appellant caused a lawyer notice to be issued to which the first respondent sent a reply through his lawyer on 19.1.1983. The appellant lodged a complaint with the Revenue Department several times and also to the police. But, no action was taken. On 24.10.1982, the appellant caused a lawyer notice to be issued to which the first respondent sent a reply through his lawyer on 19.1.1983. Thereafter, the appellants husband gave petitions to the Revenue Department and obtained an order stating that the channel on the northern side and the Palmyrah tress thereon were in S. No. 223/2-B belonged to the appellant. So far as the complaint given to the Police Department was concerned, the appellant was instructed to take civil proceedings. In view of the indifferent attitude of the Police and the Revenue Department, the appellant moved the Vacation Civil Court at Nagai by filing a suit in O.S. No. 222/84 and obtained an order of ex parte interim injunction on 24.5.1984. The appellant also filed a caveat before the Vacation Civil Court at Nagapattinam under Caveat Petition No. 4/84. The suit was transferred to the District Munsifs Court, Thiruthuraipoondi and renumbered as O.S. No. 236/84. The temporary injunction continued. The first respondent had stated that though S. Nos. 224/3, 6 and 7 belonged to the second respondent, only he was managing the property. This prompted the appellant to seek injunction in O.S. No. 236/84 against the first respondent alone. The first respondent contended that the suit had to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary party, viz, the second respondent. The appellant had filed the necessary application for impleading the second respondent as party in O.S. No. 236/34. So far as the respondents were concerned, they did not dispute the title of the appellant with regard to the lands, but disputed the title only in respect of the channel and the palyinrah trees claiming that they were in possession and enjoyment of the same for a long number of years. In view of the stand of the respondents that the channel on the north and the 20 palmyrah trees did not belong to the appellant, a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction had become necessary to be filed. Due to the formal defects in O.S. No. 236/84 the appellant withdrew the suit under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Due to the formal defects in O.S. No. 236/84 the appellant withdrew the suit under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The appellant was entitled to S. No. 223/2-B and he had obtained the plan and patta in respect of the said survey number. In that survey plan, the channel had been shown as the northern boundary. The suit had therefore been filed for declaration of ownership with regard to the northern channel and also the 20 palmyrah trees to the north of the channel. – 2. The respondents resisted the suit contending inter alia as follows: The appellant did not obtain permission while withdrawing the suit O.S. No. 236/84 to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The suit on the same cause of action by including the second respondent as a party, was not maintainable and it was liable to be dismissed in limine. The second respondent was adopted son of one K. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar and still the appellant had deliberately shown the second respondent as the son of the first respondent. This had been done with some ulterior motive. The Channel referred to did not belong to the appellant at all. All the northern and other southern owners were using the channel for irrigating their lands. This had been suppressed by the appellant. It was not true to say that the channel was situate in the appellants property. In the sale deed Ex. A-1 dated 8.8.1971 it was clearly stated that the property was situate to the south of the channel. Even the parent deed of the appellant showed only that. The predecessor in title of the appellant did not claim any right or title in either the channel or the trees on the northern boundary. Aravamudha Iyengar did not sell the channel or the trees to the north to the appellant. He did not have possession. The channel irrigated lands in several survey numbers. The lands in S. Nos. 224/3, 6 and 7 were originally owned by one Thiyagaraja Mudaliar and his son T.V. Ramalingam from whom the second respondents adoptive father Krishnaswamy Mudaliar purchased them under three sale deeds Exs. A-7 to A- 9, all dated 30.9.1959 along with the palmyrah trees. The channel irrigated lands in several survey numbers. The lands in S. Nos. 224/3, 6 and 7 were originally owned by one Thiyagaraja Mudaliar and his son T.V. Ramalingam from whom the second respondents adoptive father Krishnaswamy Mudaliar purchased them under three sale deeds Exs. A-7 to A- 9, all dated 30.9.1959 along with the palmyrah trees. In a family partition on 6.4.1970 those lands were allotted to the second respondent and ever since the second respondent was in possession and enjoyment. All the trees to the north of the channel belonged to the second respondent and his predecessors-in-title and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. The appellant did not enjoy either the palmyrah tree or the channel at any time. Even conceding without admitting that the northern bund and the trees thereon belonged to the appellant, the second respondent and his predecessors-in-title had been in possession and enjoyment of the same for well over the statutory period and had prescribed for title by adverse possession. The title claimed by the appellant was barred by limitation. The suit properties did not belong to the appellant nor were they in his possession. The appellant could not maintain the suit. The respondents were not aware of the alleged sub division and the planting of the survey stones. They did not have notice of any such proceedings. The surveyor could not have measured the effected sub division and planted the trees. The respondents were not bound by the same. It was not correct to say that the respondents cut ten Palmyrah trees. The trees which caused obstruction for cultivation were cut by the second respondent. The appellant had given false complaint to the Police Department and false information to the Revenue Department. The Revenue proceedings were subsequent to the earlier suit. There was no cause of action for the suit. The first respondent was an unnecessary party. The suit was liable to be dismissed. 3. The trial Court framed the necessary issues and held as follows: The appellant had cause of action. There was no mis-joinder of the first respondent. The suit was maintainable. The suit channel was not in the appellants property nor was he in possession. The appellant had not enjoyed the palmyrah trees on the north of the channel. The respondents were in possession and enjoyment. There was no mis-joinder of the first respondent. The suit was maintainable. The suit channel was not in the appellants property nor was he in possession. The appellant had not enjoyed the palmyrah trees on the north of the channel. The respondents were in possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff was not entitled to any relief, so holding, by his judtment and decree dated 9.8.1995 the learned District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi, dismissed the suit with exemplary costs of Rs. 1000/-. Aggrieved the appellant filed an appeal in A.S. No. 125/96 before the Principal Subordinate Judges Court, Nagapattinam, and the learned Subordinate Judge by her judgment and decree dated 5.12.1996 confirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved the present Second Appeal has been filed. 4. Notice of motion was ordered and the respondents appeared through Counsel and the main Second Appeal itself was taken up. 5. The following substantial questions of law are framed for decision in the Second Appeal: (1) When the Commissioners report and, the issue of patta by the Deputy Tahsildar, Thiruthuraipoondi, clearly show that the suit channel is situate within the plaintiffs S. No. 223/2-B, Whether the lower Appellate Court erred in dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction of the plaintiff? and (2) In view of the extent of the property being specified and the measurement is also clearly stated, will not the description of the area prevail over the boundary description? Disclaimer: The text is computer generated. The user must verify the authenticity of the extracted portion with the certified copy of the judgment. This extract is taken from Meenakshisundaram v. Gopalarathna Mudaliar, (2000) 1 LW 264 , at page 267 : 6. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. K. Chandramouli for Mr. A. Muthukumar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioners report and the Surveyors plan clearly showed the suit property as the property of the appellant and the courts below erred in finding against the appellant. The learned Senior Counsel referred to the appellants document Ex. B.-2, which is only a registration copy of the sale deed by one Arumughapadayach in favour of the appellants vendor Aravamudha Iyengar. In the said document, the learned Senior Counsel referred to the description which runs as follows: Tamil From this the learned Senior Counsel wants the Court to infer that the channel is also part of the property conveyed under Ex. B-2. In the said document, the learned Senior Counsel referred to the description which runs as follows: Tamil From this the learned Senior Counsel wants the Court to infer that the channel is also part of the property conveyed under Ex. B-2. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in Mahalingam v. A.S. Narayanaswamy Iyer and others (1996-I L.W. 443) in support of his argument. He further submitted that the suit channel and the trees on the north of it were acquired in S. No. 223/2-B belonging to the appellant and that therefore she was entitled to the relief prayed for in the suit. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the respondents did not claim any right in the suit channel, but only contended that they were entitled to the trees on the northern bank of the channel. It is his contention that under Ex. B-2, the land having been described as one situate on the south of the channel and in the enjoyment of the vendor, it would clearly show that the appellants predecessors-in-title were entitled to the channel and consequently the appellant would be entitled to the same. According to the learned Senior Counsel, all that the appellant prayed for was only a declaration that the suit channel belonged to her, though at the same time she did not dispute that the suit channel also irrigated the lands of the respondents and other land owners. The learned Senior Counsel placed great stress on the resurvey which clearly showed that the channel was in the appellants property. 7. As against these contentions, Mr. T.P. Manoharan, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted as follows: The surveyors report also showed the channel only as Government channel and once the document relied on by the appellant showed the channel as Government channel, it was not open to the appellant to claim independent title to the same. The learned Counsel also submitted that there was a clear misreading of the boundaries in the documents by the appellant. 8. Let us now first see whether the suit channel was also covered by the appellants sale deed. The sale deed Ex. A-1 shows the channel as the northern boundary. The channel is not the subject matter of sale. The learned Counsel also submitted that there was a clear misreading of the boundaries in the documents by the appellant. 8. Let us now first see whether the suit channel was also covered by the appellants sale deed. The sale deed Ex. A-1 shows the channel as the northern boundary. The channel is not the subject matter of sale. It is also pertinent to note that the earlier document under which the appellants vendor claimed title was filed only on the side of the respondents and marked as Ex. B-2. We should draw a line after the words (Tamil) and then read the boundaries as given. It starts by saying (Tamil) What the document says as in the enjoyment of the vendor is what is contained within the stated boundaries and the northern boundaries is the channel. It is not possible to read the document as saying that the kanni was in the exclusive enjoyment of the vendor of the appellant. In my view, that is only the logical reading of the document. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the kanni is described as Government kanni in the Commissioners report. That apart, the appellants sale deed does not refer to any palmyrah tree. No palmyrah trees to the north of the kanni are mentioned in the sale deed. The title of the appellants predecessor to the channel and the palmyrah trees has not been established. The lower Appellate Court has also not accepted the Commissioners report on the ground that the newly planted stones did not bear any revenue mark and that it was very unsafe to rely on them and that measurement had also not been properly taken. The appellant files a suit, withdrawn it and then gets stones planted. Therefore a new suit is filed. The Advocate Commissioner and the surveyer go there and take measurement as per the newly planted stones. The Courts below have rightly rejected the case of the appellant on this aspect. 9. The decision of this Court in Mahalingam v. A.S. Narayanaswamy Iyer and others (1996-1-L.W. 443) relied on by the learned Senior the appellant cannot be taken as supporting the appellants case. The Courts below have rightly rejected the case of the appellant on this aspect. 9. The decision of this Court in Mahalingam v. A.S. Narayanaswamy Iyer and others (1996-1-L.W. 443) relied on by the learned Senior the appellant cannot be taken as supporting the appellants case. In that decision, the learned Judge Srinivasan, J. as he then was, referred to the earlier decision of this Court in The Church of South India Trust Association v. Raja Ambrose (1978 — II MLT 620). In that earlier decision, Justice V. Balasubrahmanyan observed as follows: “The subject matter of the grant would depend on the intention of the parties as expressed in the relevant conveyance deed. Where the deed set out the extent and measurements correctly, there can be no difficulty in determining the subject matter of the grant. But where no measurement was given or the extent mentioned in the deed in order to fix the identity of the property which is the subject of the grant if the deed in question sets out the boundaries of the property conveyed, then these boundaries will have to be accepted as a clear reflection of the intention of the grantor and they will conclude not only the exact positioning of the property conveyed, but also its true extent. The boundaries given in the deed will also, in such cases, prevail over the measurements given in the deed, if these are given as approximations.” 10. As observed by the learned judge, the question depends upon the intention of the parties as expressed in the relevant conveyance deed. In the instant case, it is not possible to hold that the property subject matter of the sale in favour of the appellant included the channel on the north and palmyrah trees on the northern bund of the channel. Thus, from the stated boundaries themselves, it is clear that the appellant did not purchase and could not have purchased the northern kanni and the palmyrah trees on the northern bund of the channel. 11. In as much as it has been clearly found that the property covered by the sale deed in favour of the appellant did not include the channel on the north and the palmyrah trees further north, the appellant is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for by her in the suit. The decision of the courts below is therefore unassailable. In as much as it has been clearly found that the property covered by the sale deed in favour of the appellant did not include the channel on the north and the palmyrah trees further north, the appellant is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for by her in the suit. The decision of the courts below is therefore unassailable. The substantial questions of law raised are answered against the appellant and the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the injunction petition C.M.P. No. 5553/97 is also dismissed.