JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1990 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bali whereby he has decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent no. 1 for possession and mesne profits. 2. The plaintiff respondent no. 1 filed a suit for possession of Thala' against the defendant appellant and defendant respondent no. 2. The plaintiff sought possession of the plot shown as A, B, E, F in the site plan annexed with the plaint and also mesne profits for six months at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month and further mesne profits on the ground that on 30th April, 1969 he purchased the disputed land from defendant respondent no. 2 Champalal. It is situated at Phalna Station, Sanderao Road for Rs. 1500/- for which defendant respondent no. 2 and one Tejmal executed a sale-deed on 20th May, 1969 and possession was handed over on 30th April, 1969. According to the plaintiff he was in peaceful possession of the property. The plot is 90 Feet long and 43 Feet wide and towards west of the plot 10 Feet land has been left for way, which was part of the Pattasud land. It was further averred that after the closure of the way, the plaintiff started using 10 Feet land and therefore he was in possession 90 Feet x 53 Feet, which was covered by boundary which was removed when houses of Chandanmal and Narsingh Panwar were made. It was further stated in the plaint that when the plot was sold, defendant Champalal and Tejmal had no land towards southern side of the plot and when he came to know about this mistake he asked defendant no. 2 Tejmal to rectify the mistake. Plaintiff further stated that he obtained permission for making construction over the plot on 21st January, 1976 which was granted on 22.2.1976. He started digging foundation and since he was transferred from that place he could not complete the construction. It was further stated that defendant no. 2 Champalal tried to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 with the connivance of the defendant appellant, without getting consideration, executed a sale deed in favour of defendant appellant for which he had no right to sell it. It was further stated that in the absence of plaintiff defendant no. 2 Champalal tried to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 with the connivance of the defendant appellant, without getting consideration, executed a sale deed in favour of defendant appellant for which he had no right to sell it. It was further stated that in the absence of plaintiff defendant no. 2 unauthorisedly took possession of the portion A B E F before 6-7 months from the date of filing the suit and defendant respondent no. 2 also put stone slabs and also made a room K E Kha Gha measuring 13.6 Feet x 10.3 Inches to remove the possession and since he failed to do so he filed a suit for possession for the portion of plot marked A B E F and also for mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. 3. The defendant appellant no. 1 filed written statement stating therein that there was no connivance with Shri Champalal, and Chhaganlal sold the property on 4.2.1982 for Rs. 14,000/- and gave possession to the defendant appellant thereafter he raised construction for making a room and plaintiff is not entitled to get any possession. It was further stated that the valuation of the property was at least Rs. 20,000/- when the suit was filed and since the suit has been filed after paying improper court fees, therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. The defendant respondent no. 2 Champalal also filed written statement and stated that he and Tejmal sold the property to plaintiff on 30th April, 1969, sale deed was not prepared by the plaintiff and their signatures were taken and it was presented for registration on 20th May, 1969. It was further stated that Shri Champalal and Tejmal sold the land measuring 45 x 43 Feet for Rs. 1500/- and in the sale deed wrong measurements were mentioned by the plaintiff. It was further stated that the plaintiff was given possession of land measuring 45 x 43 Feet and he sold the remaining portion of the plot on 4.2.1982 after taking Rs. 14,000/- from defendant appellant. It was further stated that Champalal was in possession over the disputed land for more than 12 years and before filing the suit, therefore, he was in adverse possession of the disputed land and he acquired the right of ownership. The plaintiff respondent no. 14,000/- from defendant appellant. It was further stated that Champalal was in possession over the disputed land for more than 12 years and before filing the suit, therefore, he was in adverse possession of the disputed land and he acquired the right of ownership. The plaintiff respondent no. 1 filed additional written statement and denied the allegations of the defendant respondent regarding adverse possession. 5. In rejoinder, the plaintiff denied that the sale-deed was prepared and typed by him and stated that encroachment on his plot has been done in June-July, 1982 before that he had complete possession of the plot. 6. Upon the pleadings, the learned trial court framed eight issues as under:- (1) Whether defendant no. 2 and Tejmal Nihalchand Ji on 30.4.1969 sold and handed-over possession to the plaintiff plot of an area 90 Feet x 43 Feet marked as A, B, C, D?...Plaintiff (2) Whether the sale-deed executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 for the plot as mentioned in site-plan marked as A, B, E, F is illegal and void ineffective to the rights vested in favour of the plaintiff as against right and title vested with the plaintiff?...Plaintiff (3) Whether defendant no. 1 encroached illegally on the plot 6-7 months earlier to the filing of the suit without authorization in the area marked as A, B, E, F and also erected 'pattie' on part marked as A to F and also constructed a room marked as K, E, Kha and Ga?...Plaintiff (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs. 50/- per month mesne profit from defendant from the date of encroachment?...Plaintiff (5) Whether the disputed plot marked as A, B, E, F is of valuation Rs. 20,000/- and that the court-fees in the suit has been paid less and whether the suit is liable to be rejected on that count?...defendant (6) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?...defendant (7) Whether the defendant no. 1 has acquired title on the disputed plot by way of adverse possession?...defendant (8) Relief? 7. The parties led their evidence and after hearing, the learned trial Judge decided issues no. 1, 2, 3, 4 in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no. 5 was decided on 16.1.87. Issue no. 6 was decided against the defendant as the same was not pressed. Issue no. 7 was decided against the defendant. 7. The parties led their evidence and after hearing, the learned trial Judge decided issues no. 1, 2, 3, 4 in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no. 5 was decided on 16.1.87. Issue no. 6 was decided against the defendant as the same was not pressed. Issue no. 7 was decided against the defendant. Consequently, the learned Additional District Judge, Bali vide his judgment and decree dated 24.7.1990 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 8. The plaintiff got himself examined and other five witnesses in support of his case; while the defendant got himself examined and other four witnesses. Sale-deed dated 20.5.1969 (Exh. 1) and 04.2.1982 (Exh. 3). The disputed property was exhibited as Exhibit-4; while sanction for construction issued by Gram Panchayat dated 22.2.1969 was exhibited as Exhibit-2. Report of Chaprasi Asulal, Panchayat Board, Falna dated 20.8.1978 was marked as Exhibit-5, wherein Sarpanch has directed from A to B to issue notice for illegal construction and the proceedings dated 24.10.1978 whereby the proceedings were closed. The permission by Gram Panchayat for construction is Exhibit-7 dated 22.8.1982. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assails the judgment stating that as there was plea of adverse possession, no title was required to be proved; while the trial court has ousted the appellant on the ground that Champa Lal has not been able to show title on the land which has been sold to Ramzan. Learned counsel submits from original registry (Exhibit-1) the boundaries of plot which was sold to plaintiff by Tejmal and Champa Lal clearly mentions in the South of plot in their ownership; while in North plot of Chandan Mal is residing; East there is a 15 Feet way from land and in West there is a 10 Feet way. While mentioning length and width of plot, however, a typographical error has occurred and instead of mentioning 43 Feet x 45 Feet, it was erroneously mentioned as 43 Feet from East to West and 90 Feet from North to South. 10. Learned counsel submits that this error can also be seen to have been committed as another plot of 43 Feet x 90 Feet sold to Chandan Mal Ji was for a total cost of Rs. 3,000/-, while for the plot sold to plaintiff is of only Rs. 1,500/-. Thus, he submits that the original plot while mentioning the width and length, the measurement was wrongly mentioned. 3,000/-, while for the plot sold to plaintiff is of only Rs. 1,500/-. Thus, he submits that the original plot while mentioning the width and length, the measurement was wrongly mentioned. Actually possession was only given for an area of 43 Feet x 45 Feet and Champa Lal continue to have possession on the remaining plot of 43 Feet x 45 Feet which was sold to Ramzan (the appellant) subsequently. 11. Learned counsel submits that the trial court erred in holding that the possession of the disputed plot was taken by the defendant-appellant only before 6-7 months before filing of suit and submits that the evidence clearly show that Champa Lal was having possession over the plot for last more than 12 years. It is submitted that issue no. 7 was wrongly decided against the defendant and it was fully proved that Champa Lal has become owner by way of adverse possession and he has rightly sold the property to the defendant-appellant. 12. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon M/s. Roy and Co. & Anr. Vs. Sm. Nani Bala Dey & Ors., reported in AIR 1979 Calcutta page 50 to submit that if there is a conflict between the area and boundary described in a sale-deed, the description of boundaries will prevail. 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff submits that sale-deed has been executed on 20.5.1969 and possession was handed-over to the plaintiff on 30.5.1969 which has been admitted in written statement that Champa Lal and Tejmal jointly owned possession and Champa Lal could not have sold to Ramzan. Such a sale was, therefore, void ab initio apart from the fact that the sale-deed executed in favour of plaintiff the measurements have specifically been mentioned of North to South as 90 Feet and East to West as 43 Feet. He submits that the same was increased to 53 Feet as 10 Feet way was closed and become a part of the boundary and submits that boundary wall has already been constructed and permission was granted by the Panchayat after having given notice for construction without permission. It is further submitted that plot size was never amended and no supplementary sale-deed was executed by Champa Lal and Tejmal. It is further submitted that plot size was never amended and no supplementary sale-deed was executed by Champa Lal and Tejmal. As regards price, he submits that the plaintiff was a doctor and he had very good reputation in village and, therefore, was offered plot at a much lower price by Tejmal and Champa Lal and a presumption cannot be drawn with regard to area mentioned in registered sale-deed be reduced. It is submitted that mentioning of neighbourhoods in relation to the boundaries was actually erroneous and in this regard the plaintiff has specifically come out to mention that he had asked Champa Lal to make correction with regard to boundary neighbourhoods including mentioning that a plot adjacent to the sold plot belonged to him. However, merely by mentioning of there being a plot next to the plot of the plaintiff would not create a right to reduce plot area as mentioned in the sale-deed. 14. I have considered the submissions, perused the record and the statements recorded before the trial court and find that the plaintiff has been able to prove from the sale-deed exhibited and marked as Exhibit-1 that the area of the plot was 43 Feet from East to West and 90 Feet from North to South. From the original sale-deed, it is also noticed that the typist had first mentioned length of the plot as 80 and thereafter typed 90 over the same, thus, there is no room for doubting the length and width of the plot being 90 Feet x 43 Feet from Exhibit-1. 15. Length and width of a plot gives an area, while boundaries are mentioned only for identifying the plot position i.e. to know where the plot is situated. If for any reason while mentioning boundaries and neighborhood erroneously someone else name is mentioned, a right is not created on count of such erroneous mentioning of the person whose name may be mentioned to be having plot next to the plot concerned. 16. Champa Lal (DW-1) in his evidence states that he has sold to Dr. Chhaganraj plaintiff a plot measuring 45 Feet x 43 Feet and further submits that he never discussed this aspect of wrongfully mentioning of length and width of the plot with the plaintiff doctor Sahab, however, he states that he discussed the same with one Chandan Mal, who was brother-in-law of the plaintiff. Chhaganraj plaintiff a plot measuring 45 Feet x 43 Feet and further submits that he never discussed this aspect of wrongfully mentioning of length and width of the plot with the plaintiff doctor Sahab, however, he states that he discussed the same with one Chandan Mal, who was brother-in-law of the plaintiff. Chandan Mal has also come in witness-box as PW-6, who states the plot sizes 45 x 90 and he had purchased plot admeasuring 45 x 90 from Champa Lal and Tejmal and Dr. Chhaganraj was offered to purchase the plot on a lower price on account of good relations between Chhaganraj, Tejmal and Champa Lal. Doctor Sahab plaintiff was transferred to Jaipur and the registry documents were prepared by Champa Lal and Tejmal whereafter he called the plaintiff from Jaipur for getting the sale-deed registered. Thus, he does not support in any manner the contentions of the appellant. Tejmal was treated by plaintiff doctor and, therefore, there was a relation of patient and doctor and, therefore, the plot was sold at a lower price. 17. It is also noticed that appellant in his statement nowhere claims acquisition of title on the plot on the basis of adverse possession. In chief he does mention that he is in possession of plot from 1970 before he sold to Ramzan but in cross-examination he admits that he did not mention of their being construction on the plot in the sale-deed executed in favour of Ramzan. He also feigned ignorance of their being any construction when he allegedly gave plot on rent to one Narendra Singh. At the same time he claims to be the owner of the plot in-question even before he sold plot to plaintiff. Thus, from the statements which have come on record and from the perusal of contents of the sale-deed executed by DW-1 Champa Lal in favour of the appellant, it does not show that Champa Lal was having adverse possession for 12 years or more on the plot; on the other hand it is proved that the plot sold to the plaintiff was of an area of 90 Feet x 43 Feet, on which he had constructed boundary after due permission from the Panchayat and the same was encroached upon and part of the plot was sold wrongfully by Champa Lal to the appellant. The plaintiff is found to be having continuous possession on the plot 7-8 months before filing of the suit for possession. The statement of other defence witnesses i.e. Goma Ram and Moti Lal also do not reflect of peaceful possession of the appellant predecessor, namely, Champa Lal on the part of land of the plaintiff. Thus, examining from all angles this Court is satisfied that the appellant has not been able to prove transfer of undisputed title and undisputed possession of the land by way of the sale-deed executed in appellant's favour by Champa Lal. This Court also accepts the contentions of learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that Champa Lal could not have alone sold the property as originally joint owners of the property were Champa Lal and Tejmal, who had actually sold the entire plot admeasuring 43 Feet x 90 Feet to the plaintiff. Champa Lal could not be allowed to travel on two boats at the same time while he claims that he was owner of plot measuring 45 x 43 Feet and did not sell it to plaintiff and at the same time he claims adverse possession. Such contrary pleas cannot be entertained. 18. In P. Periasami (Dead) by LRs Vs. P. Periathambi & Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 523 ; Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- 6. With regard to the accreted property, there is a reference in the judgment under appeal relating to some accounting; after recording the finding that the defendants have failed to prove that that property was in their adverse possession. This is a finding of fact which need not be disturbed, as it has been sought to, in the cross appeal. Whenever the plea of adverse possession is projected, inherent in the plea is that someone else was the owner of the property. The failure of the plea has obvious results. If the parties herein were co-owners of that property and the said property had been purchased from the income derived from joint property, then obviously the same has to be accounted for as joint property and not as joint Hindu family property. It was like property jointly purchased by co-owners without attracting the rule of succession by way of survivorship. If the parties herein were co-owners of that property and the said property had been purchased from the income derived from joint property, then obviously the same has to be accounted for as joint property and not as joint Hindu family property. It was like property jointly purchased by co-owners without attracting the rule of succession by way of survivorship. On this clarification, the judgment of the High Court is cleansed of the little vagueness about this particular which accidentally seems to have crept in while dealing with this aspect of the case. Thus, once the plea of adverse possession fails, the appellant claim stands unsubstantiated by concrete evidence. 19. In Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India & Ors., reported in (2004) 10 SCC 779 Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- 11. In the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of true owner. It is a well- settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See :S M Karim v. Bibi Sakinal, Parsinni v. Sukhi and D N Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka.). Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus posited to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus posited to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession.[Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr.) v. Raj Kumari Sharma.] The appellant has, however, failed to show his adverse possession. 20. In M/s. Roy and Co. & Anr. Vs. Sm. Nani Bala Dey & Ors. (supra) the Pleader Commissioner was directed to submit a report, however, in his report he submitted that the boundaries of the plot but wrongly mentioned the area and it was pleaded that the boundaries should be considered and the area mentioned world not prevail. High Court relied upon its earlier judgment passed in Durga Prasad Vs. Rajendra Naraian in (1909) 10 Ca LJ 570. 21. This Court notices that the Calcutta High Court relied upon its judgment which was also reversed by the Privy Council in (1913) 40 Ind App 223 (PC) inspite of noticing that the judgment has been over-ruled High Court states that because of reversal of the judgment was on a different point and not on the question of conflict between the area and the boundary, therefore, it would rely upon its own judgment. 22. In my considered view such an approach is faulty. Once a judgment has been reversed; the entire judgment goes and part of judgment cannot be taken into consideration as a presidential law. This Court holds that in a site-plan, the most important part of a plot is its area, which is measured by length and width. The entire calculation of cost of a property is based upon the area. Once a judgment has been reversed; the entire judgment goes and part of judgment cannot be taken into consideration as a presidential law. This Court holds that in a site-plan, the most important part of a plot is its area, which is measured by length and width. The entire calculation of cost of a property is based upon the area. If a seller intentionally or un-intentionally mentions wrong boundaries i.e. wrong neighbourhood; the only problem which can arise is with regard to location of the plot, however, if the location of the plot is not the issue, no right would be created for any person whose plot is erroneously mentioned to be in the neighbourhood. Thus, viewed, the claim of Champa Lal having a plot next to the plot of plaintiff only on the basis of mentioning of his plot next to the plot sold to the plaintiff is wholly erroneous. 23. Accordingly, this Court finds that the plaintiff has been able to prove his wrongful dispossession and wrongful act of Champa Lal in selling the property on which he neither had the title nor had the possession after he had sold the property to plaintiff plot admeasuring 43 Feet x 90 Feet. This Court also holds that the defendant no. 2, who has claimed himself to be the owner in the sale-deed executed in favour of the appellant, cannot be said to be having adverse possession for 12 years or more on the property and, thus, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for. 24. In view of the findings above, the issues no. 3 & 4 regarding mesne profits which has not been challenged in the present appeal by the counsel during the arguments also is answered in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The relief granted by the trial court, therefore, is upheld. This appeal is dismissed and the judgment dated 29.7.1990 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge, Bali in Civil Original Suit No. 18/85 (169/84) is confirmed. Decree accordingly.