Judgment and Order (Oral) Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. D. R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal under Section 100 of the CPC arises from the judgment dated 05.04.2013 delivered in Title Appeal No.37 of 2010 by the District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur [as he then was]. For appreciating the challenge, as projected in this appeal against the concurrent finding of fact, the following substantial question of law was formulated by this court by the order dated 11.07.2013: “Whether the first appellate Court was correct by affirming the finding in the judgment dated 08.11.2010 delivered in Title Suit No.13 of 2007 by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Udaipur, South Tripura that irrespective of the undisputed boundaries as mentioned in the title deed the measurement of the land will determine the title of the purchased land? 3. The fact not in dispute is that the original plaintiff, the predecessor of the appellants instituted the suit being Title Suit No.13 of 2007 for declaration of title and for confirmation of the possession of the suit land measuring .48 acre comprised in Khatian No.54 corresponding RS Khatian No.328/2, CS Plot No.179(P) and RS Plot No.464 of MoujaDoodh Puskurini, Udaipur, South Tripura [now Gomati]. The suit land has been described separately and more fully in the schedule appended to the plaint. The original plaintiff claimed that he purchased the said suit land by virtue of the Sale Deed No.103 dated 10.01.1963 from his predecessor and he got the delivery of possession on the day of execution of the sale deed [Exbt.1]. The plaintiff himself has admitted that before institution of the suit, he sold out two kanis of land from the purchased land but the remaining part has been taken by the defendants under their possession by way of manoeuvring and forcefully dispossessing him from the said land. The defendants, however, clearly stated that the said land did not belong to the plaintiff and the land belongs to them and they have got that land recorded in the record of right following the due process of law. 4. The defendants, however, clearly stated that the said land did not belong to the plaintiff and the land belongs to them and they have got that land recorded in the record of right following the due process of law. 4. On the face of such resistance, after recording the evidence the trial court dismissed the suit by the judgment dated 08.11.2010 holding that: “Plaintiff neither produced any title deed nor succeed to exhibit any ROR in his favour to justify his claim, rather evidence of defendants are found more consistent then the evidence of plaintiff in support of record of right in favour of the predecessor of the defendants in interest. In such situation I am of the considered view that mixed question of law and facts are involved in this suit and the plaintiff failed to establish his claim either in law or facts for which I am of the considered view that the present suit is not maintainable in its present form and nature.” Based on the said finding, all other issues as framed for purpose of adjudication of the suit were decided against the original plaintiff. 5. Being aggrieved by that finding, the plaintiff filed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in the Court of the District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur [as he then was] and the District Judge by the impugned judgment of affirmance dismissed the appeal holding that: “By execution of sale deed (Exbt.1) plaintiff-appellant acquired right, title and interest over the 2 Kanis of land in the year 1963. In the record of right vide Khatian No.54, his title over excess land not clearly reflected. So, he remained title holder for the land measuring 2 Kanis land which he subsequently sold out to his mother. After sale of 2 Kanis of land to his mother, 0.48 acres was shown in the name of predecessor in interest of the defendant respondent, not in the name of the plaintiff-appellant. Admittedly, the petition for correction of Khatian made by the appellant failed. On the strength of the decree passed in T.S.22/1970 the appellant got the right to restore possession, but his title not established. Possession was never adverse. So, the appellant acquired no right, title and interest over the suit land which was shown recorded in the name of predecessor in interest of the defendant-respondent vide Khatian No.328/2. On the strength of the decree passed in T.S.22/1970 the appellant got the right to restore possession, but his title not established. Possession was never adverse. So, the appellant acquired no right, title and interest over the suit land which was shown recorded in the name of predecessor in interest of the defendant-respondent vide Khatian No.328/2. The revenue Court did not allow correction of the Khatian in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Thus, the plaintiff-appellant failed to establish his right, title and interest over the suit land and the appeal has no merit.” 6. Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has strenuously argued that the intention of the sale deed [Exbt.1] is to transfer the entire land covered by the boundaries mentioned therein. As such, the findings as returned by the courts below are perverse and those findings emanated from misconstruction of the sale instrument [Exbt.1]. The intention of the seller can be gathered from the said sale instrument, as it has been clearly stated that the land as described by the specific boundaries, mentioned in the sale deed has been transferred in favour of the original plaintiff. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has also submitted that the boundaries are the identifying factors for the land and when there is no ambiguity in the boundary, the instrument cannot be constructed differently. In support of his contention Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has relied on a decision of the Gauhati High Court in Holy Mother of Arabindo Ashram of Pondicherry vs. State of Meghalaya and others reported in 2000 (3) GLT 599 where it has been held that : “..........in a dispute with regard to area, the boundary of the land or the plot number of the instrument/document would be determinative of the issue. The State have nowhere alleged encroachment of any land by the writ petitioner or their predecessors-in-interest at any point of time. The possession of the excess land has not been disputed. The intention which is apparent from the recital of the lease also was to settle all that in Plot No.5 and not 2 acres in Plot No.5. The name of the writ petitioner has also been recorded in the Records of Rights as per orders passed in Mutation Case No.3/5556 of 1955. The intention which is apparent from the recital of the lease also was to settle all that in Plot No.5 and not 2 acres in Plot No.5. The name of the writ petitioner has also been recorded in the Records of Rights as per orders passed in Mutation Case No.3/5556 of 1955. The excess land being a part of the leasehold could not have been dealt with in the manner as has been done in the instant case beyond the provisions of the Regulation, 1886.” 7. The said judgment itself debases the foundation of the arguments as lodged by Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing the appellants. In the sale instrument [Exbt.1], not only the boundaries are referred but it has been clearly provided that from that land covered by those boundaries, only two kanis of land is sold out, but the case that has been referred there was only the plot number and there was no reference of the measurement of the land. So, this case is quite distinguishable by the contexts. 08. Having observed thus, this court does not find any infirmity in the judgment of affirmance as returned by the first appellate court and accordingly, this appeal is bound to fail. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Draw the decree accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.