Judgment : 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 1984, who is the defendant in O.S.No.92 of 1984, both on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikkal, is the appellant in both the second appeals. 2. He filed O.S.No.34 of 1984 for declaration and for recovery of possession against the defendants therein alleging that the suit property had been illegally occupied by them. The defendants in the said suit are the respondents in S.A.No.1826 of 1989. The other suit O.S.No.92 of 1984 was filed by the second respondent in S.A.No.1326 of 1989 against the appellant herein for recovery of possession of the suit property. The subject matter of both the suits is the same. 3. Wewill refer the parties by their names for the sake of convenience. 4. Ramaiya Asari, the plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 1984, has put forward the following case: He purchased the suit property in Cadastre No.742/2 in Neravy village under a registered sale deed dated 5. 1969. Immediately to the north of the property, Ramakrishna Naicker (first defendant in O.S.No.34 of 1984) is having his property. The total extent of the property in Cadastre No.742/2 is 6A 30c. However, at the time of executing the sale deed, the extent was wrongly given as 40 kuzhies with “Kammi-Jasthi”. Ramakrishna Naicker encroached on the northern side of the suit property by extending his thatched shed and cattle shed. The property was measured through a surveyor of the revenue department and Ramaiya Asari obtained process verbal in respect of the property purchased by him. On this basis, he got the encroachment, removed through process of court and was in effective possession and enjoyment of the entirety of Cadastre No.742/2. While so, on 10. 1983 he received a notice from Ambigapathy saying that he had purchased 6 ¼ kuzhies of land on the northern portion of Cadastre No.742/2 from one Aysha Beevi and others. Since the entire property in Cadastre No.742/2 had been purchased by him as early as in 1969, Ambigapathys vendor could not have conveyed any title to him under the sale deed. Ramaiya Asari sent a reply notice on 10. 1983 giving the full details. In the meantime, Ambigapathy encroached on the property purchased by Ramaiya Asari by shifting his southern fence inspite of objections raised by Ramaiya Asari. Ramaiya Asari sent a reply notice on 10. 1983 giving the full details. In the meantime, Ambigapathy encroached on the property purchased by Ramaiya Asari by shifting his southern fence inspite of objections raised by Ramaiya Asari. subsequent encroachment was one meter on the western side and 3.60 metres on the eastern side and this was in the portion of 12 3/4 kuzhies of the property purchased by Ramaiya Asari. The suit was therefore necessitated. 5. Ambigapathy filed his written statement and the same was adopted by Ramakrishna Naicker. 6. Ramaiya Asari purchased only 40 kuzhies under the sale deed in Cadastre No.742/2. The total extent in Cadastre No.742/2, being 47 ¼ kuzhies, the northern 7 ¼ kuzhies were purchased by Ambigapathy from the owners of the property under a registered sale deed. Even in the earlier suit filed by Ramaiya Asari (O.S.No.49 of 1969) on the file of the District Munsif, Karaikkal, he had claimed that Ramakrishna Naicker had encroached upon the northern portion of 40 kuzhies of land only, and for removal of such encroachment Ramakrishna Naicker filed a counter suit in O.S.No.69 of 1969 against Ramaiya Ansari for a perpetual injunction to maintain his possession. The suit filed by Ramaiya Asari was decreed and the suit filed by Ramakrishna Naicker was dismissed. Still the finding of the court in the previous proceedings between the parties was that Ramaiya Asari purchased only 40 kuzhies of land and not the entirety of Cadastre 742/2. Ramakrishna Naicker had been in possession of 7 ¼ kuzhies from 1929 and in enjoyment of the same by annexing it to his brick built house in his own land. He had prescribed title by adverse possession by Ramakrishna Naicker being in possession for over 55 years. Ramaiya Asaris vendor had lost his rights and interest in the said 7 ¼ kuzhies on account of adverse possession. In order to convey marketable title in the form of a document, Ambigapathy purchased the said 7 ¼ kuzhies of land in the northern side of Cadastre No.742/2 from Aysha Beevi and others under a registered sale deed dated 18. 1988 for valid consideration. After the disposal of the earlier suits. Ramaiya Asari unlawfully trespassed into 5 kuzhiees in the said 7 ¼ kuzhies covered by the sale deed in his favour. 1988 for valid consideration. After the disposal of the earlier suits. Ramaiya Asari unlawfully trespassed into 5 kuzhiees in the said 7 ¼ kuzhies covered by the sale deed in his favour. Since the objection by the defendants did not have any effect, a notice was issued calling upon Ramaiya Asari to remove the trespass caused by him in an extent of 5 kuzhies which provoked a reply with untenable term. Ramaiya Asari was not the owner of the suit property as alleged by him. There was no trespass by Ambigapathy. 7. Thelearned District Munsif, Karaikkal, framed the necessary issues on the pleadings of the parties and held that Ramaiya Asari is the absolute owner of 7 ¼ kuzhies in the northern portion of Cadastre No.742/2, that he is entitled to recover possession of the same, and that Mr.Ramakrishna Naicker and Ambigapathy have committed trespass in the suit property. So holding, by a common judgment dated 21. 1987, the learned District Munsif decreed O.S.No.34 of 1984 filed by Ramaiya Asari and dismissed the suit O.S.No.92 of 1984 filed by Ambigapathy. 8. There were two appeals filed in A.S.No.12 of 1987 against O.S.No.34 of 1984 and A.S.No.18 of 1987 against O.S.No.92 of 1984 before the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal. The learned Additional District Judge differed from the finding reached by the trial court, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit O.S.No.92 of 1984 filed by Ambigapathy and dismissed the suit O.S.No.84 of 1984 filed by Ramaiya Asari by judgment dated 1. 1989. Aggrieved, the present second appeals have been filed. 9. At the timeof admission, the following substantial questions of law were raised: In S.A.No.400 of 1989: 1. Whether the court below erred with regard to the extent as described in Ex.A-1 without considering the boundaries whether the cCourt below is correct in ignoring the expressions in Ex.A-1 with regard to excess or shortage as having no relevant measuring and whether the court below erred in appreciating properly the document, Ex.A-1, with reference to Ex.B-3e 2. Whether the court below was right in holding that the vendor of Ex.A-1 can convey 7 ¼ kuzhies on the northern side of Cadastre No.742/2 without obtaining a decree for partition and possession, even though in Ex.A-1, the location of the 40 kuzhies sold, within the boundary described, was not mentionede In S.A.No.1326 of 1989: 1. Whether the court below was right in holding that the vendor of Ex.A-1 can convey 7 ¼ kuzhies on the northern side of Cadastre No.742/2 without obtaining a decree for partition and possession, even though in Ex.A-1, the location of the 40 kuzhies sold, within the boundary described, was not mentionede In S.A.No.1326 of 1989: 1. Whether the court below was right in holding that the extent mentioned in Ex.A-1 shall prevail over riding the boundariese 2. Whether the court below was right in holding that the expression Excess or Shortage appended to the extent in Ex.A-1 has no relevance or meaning while interpreting Ex.A-1 recitalse 3. Whether the court below was right in ignoring the specific mention of the northern side boundary of the property conveyed under Ex.A-1 sale deed, as “South of Ramakrishna Naicker manai” (viz., the respondents property) while holding that under Ex.B-3, sale deed 7. ¼ kuzhies on the northern side within the boundary described under Ex.A-1 sale deed, was validly conveyed in favour of the respondente 4. Whether the court below was right in holding that the vendor of Ex.A-1 can convey 7 ¼ kuzhies on the northern side of the Cadastre No.742/2 without obtaining a decree for partition and possession, even though, in Ex.A-1, the location of the 40 kuzhies sold, within the boundary described, was not mentionede 5. Whether the court below was right in disregarding the entire oral evidence on recorde 10. Mr.Karunakaran, learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals, vehemently submitted that the respondents by purchasing the property in 1983 had purchased only litigation, that as per the terms of the sale deed in favour of Ramaiya Asari the entire extent in Cadastre 742/2 was included, that even in the year 1969 Ramaiya Asari had filed the suit and he had got the property sans encroachment from the defendants. The learned counsel further submitted that the boundaries given in the sale deed in favour of Ramaiya Asari would clearly show that the vendor of Ramaiya Asari had not retained any balance extent in Cadastre No.742/2. The learned counsel further submitted that the boundaries given in the sale deed in favour of Ramaiya Asari would clearly show that the vendor of Ramaiya Asari had not retained any balance extent in Cadastre No.742/2. According to the learned counsel “Kammi Jasthi” mentioned in the sale deed will take in the entire extent in the said Cadastre and in case of doubt with regard to extent, the boundaries would prevail and in support of his submissions, he relied on the decision in The Church of South India Trust Association through its power of Attorney Agents Rev. C.E. Soundiraraj v. Raja Ambrose (died) and another The Church of South India Trust Association through its power of Attorney Agents Rev. C.E. Soundiraraj v. Raja Ambrose (died) and another The Church of South India Trust Association through its power of Attorney Agents Rev. C.E. Soundiraraj v. Raja Ambrose (died) and another , (1978)2 MLJ. 620 and also the decision of the Privy Council in P.K.A.B. Co-operative Society v. Government of Palestine P.K.A.B. Co¬operative Society v. Government of Palestine P.K.A.B. Co-operative Society v. Government of Palestine , A.I.R. 1948 P.C. 207. The learned counsel further submitted that under Ex.B-3, 7 ¼ kuzhies on the northern side without proper description of boundaries could not have been sold in favour of the respondents. In any event, when the vendor of Ramaiya Asari had not retained any portion in Cadastre 742/2, there was really nothing left for the vendor or his legal representatives to sell to Ambigapathy. 11. Per contra, Mr.Thirugnanam, learned counsel for the second respondent in both the appeals submitted that the earlier proceedings between the parties did not decide the question relating to the present appeals. The earlier proceedings were essentially concerned as to whether there was encroachment in 40 kuzhies purchased by Ramaiya Asari on the northern side, and were not concerned with 7 ¼ kuzhies, subject matter of purchase by Ambigapathy. The learned counsel also submitted that Ramaiya Asari is barred by the principles of O.2, Rule 2, C.P.C. 12. Under Ex.A-1 sale deed dated 5. 1969 the total extent is mentioned as 50 kuzhies “more or less” (Kammi-Jasthi). The boundaries given are Ramakrishna Naicker Manai on the north, Kasim Naicker manai on the east, Gopal Naicker Manai on the south, and Municipal Road on the west. In Ex.B-3, sale deed, which is dated 18. Under Ex.A-1 sale deed dated 5. 1969 the total extent is mentioned as 50 kuzhies “more or less” (Kammi-Jasthi). The boundaries given are Ramakrishna Naicker Manai on the north, Kasim Naicker manai on the east, Gopal Naicker Manai on the south, and Municipal Road on the west. In Ex.B-3, sale deed, which is dated 18. 1983, the southern boundary is shown as Ramaiya Asaris land. The eastern portion is given as Mohammed Yahya Maricars heir Theenul Hutha Ammal Manai, the northern boundary is shown as Ramakrishna Naicker Manai and the western boundary as Nadu Street. .13. The question is whether the vendor of the appellant Ramaiya Asari retained any portion in the said Cadastre. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this “Kammi-Jasthi” would take 7 ¼ kuzhies also. I can understand if it is “Kammi-Jasthi” by half kuzhi or one kuzhi not such a large extent as 7 ¼ kuzhies. It should also be noticed that Ramaiya Asari paid his vendor at the rate of Rs.70 per kuzhi only, for 40 kuzhies. It should be further noticed that Ramaiya Asari in the earlier proceedings had said that there was encroachment in the 40 kuzhies purchased by him. This would be evident from the judgment in A.S.No.11 of 1972 marked as Ex.B-2. In the said judgment it is mentioned that the claim was for 40 kuzhies and the Court held that Ramaiya Asari had proved his title with regard to 40 kuzhies purchased by him. Only when there is dispute with regard to the extent, the boundaries can be taken into consideration. When Ramaiya Asari had purchased only 40 kuzhies on the basis of the sale deed in his favour, he cannot ask for anything more. The mere fact that the northern boundary had not been correctly described, would not show that he had purchased the additional 7 ¼ kuzhies also. One other aspect to be mentioned is that Ramaiya Asari has spoken to the fact that before he purchased the property he had the land measured by a Surveyor, that the Surveyor had given a report Ex.A-3 that Ramakrishna Naicker, father of Ambigapathy, had encroached part of Cadastre No.742/2 on the northern side and that he was in possession of the same, but the vendor of Ramaiya Asari had not taken any steps to evict Ramakrishna Naicker from the encroachment. Thus, Ramaiya Asari was aware that the extent that was available for sale and actually sold and given possession of, was only 40 kuzhies. The lower appellate court has adverted to this aspect and held that Ramaiya Asari cannot claim anything more than 40 kuzhies. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel, in my view, have no application to the facts of the present case. 14. In The Palestine Kupat am Bank Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Government of Palestine The Palestine Kupat am Bank Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Government of Palestine The Palestine Kupat am Bank Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Government of Palestine , A.I.R. 1948 P.C. 207: 62 L.W. 21, it has been held that where in the case of a grant of land there is a conflict between the description by boundaries and the area mentioned in the grant, the principle of preferring the description by fixed boundaries to the conflicting description by area should be applied in the construction of the grant, and the statement as to area should be rejected as false demonstration. 15. The same principle has been enunciated in The Church of South India Trust Association through its power of Attorney Agents Rev. C.E. Soundiraraj v. Raja Ambrose The Church of South India Trust Association through its power of Attorney Agents Rev. C.E. Soundiraraj v. Raja Ambrose The Church of South India Trust Association through its power of Attorney Agents Rev. C.E. Soundiraraj v. Raja Ambrose , (1978)2 MLJ. 620 . In the second of the decisions it is stated that the subject-matter of the grant would depend on the intention of the parties as expressed in the relevant conveyance deed. Where the deed sets out the extent and measurements correctly, there can be no difficulty in determining the subject-matter of the grant. But where no measurements are given or the extent mentioned in the deed is either vague or is only a rough and ready approximation, one has to look to other indications 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. 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 measurement given in the deed, if these are given as approximations. 16. In my considered view, the present case is not one such case where there is any confusion with regard to the area sold. The decisions do not apply to the facts of the present case. The intention of the parties as expressed in the sale deed is clear that what was intended to be conveyed was only 40 kuzhies. As already noticed “Kammi-Jasthi” cannot take in such a large area as 7 ¼ kuzhies. 17. Consequently, I hold that there is no case made out for interference in the second appeals and the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant in both the appeals. 18. In the result, these appeals are dismissed, No costs.