JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri P.K.Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Satya Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.C. Varma, Advocate, alongwith Ms. Kamla Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. These two second appeals filed by the appellants under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure challenges the judgment and decree dated 21.5.2018 passed and drawn by Additional District Judge, Court No.14, Allahabad in Civil Appeal No.108 of 2014 arising out of Original Suit No.1004 of 1996 and Civil Appeal No.109 of 2014 arising out of Original Suit No.28 of 1997, as both the Original Suit Nos.1004 of 1996 and 28 of 1997 having been decided by judgment and decree dated 30.7.2014 wherein the Original Suit No.1004 of 1996 was dismissed while the Original Suit No.28 of 1997 filed by the respondent (1st Set) was decreed. 3. Against the judgment and decree dated 21.5.2018 passed by the lower Appellate Court, two second appeal No.849 of 2018 and 861 of 2018 having been filed before this Court. Vide order dated 27.02.2019 Second Appeal No.849 of 2018 was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the learned courts below have justified in ignoring the boundaries mentioned in the agreement to sale dated 15.4.1986 and in another agreement to sale dated 21.4.1986. It is firmly established from the judgment of both the courts below that there are discrepancies in the area in the alleged deed dated 21.4.1986 but the boundaries have been clearly mentioned in the said agreement to sake deed dated 21.4.1986, therefore, the boundaries mentioned in the agreement to sale dated 21.4.1986 will prevail over the area, therefore, the finding of both the courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law? (ii) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in placing the reliance on the documents produced by the storekeeper of the office of Sub-Registrar, Sadar District Allahabad, when admittedly the entire record of the learned trial court has been misplaced after the judgment passed by the learned trial court and the inquiry has been instituted by the learned District Judge. On the other hand, the record of the Sub-Registrar office regarding the original agreement to sale dated 15.4.1986 and the sale deed dated 24.8.1987 of the appellant were also missing and inquiry has been initiated regarding the missing record and the aforesaid document of the appellant. On the other hand, the record of the Sub-Registrar office regarding the original agreement to sale dated 15.4.1986 and the sale deed dated 24.8.1987 of the appellant were also missing and inquiry has been initiated regarding the missing record and the aforesaid document of the appellant. The learned District Judge has initiated the inquiry against the officials on whose pertext the record was lost? 4. While on the same day, i.e. 27.02.2019, Second Appeal No.861 of 2018 was also admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in Second Appeal No.849 of 2018, and both the appeal were connected. 5. Counsels for both the parties agree that both the appeals be heard and decided together. 6. The fact leading to the present dispute are that, premises No.72 (Old No.44), Vivekanand Marg, Allahabad was jointly owned by Laxman Das Agrawal, Anand Agrawal, Dhruv Agrawal and Sharad Agrawal. Both late Kamla Shankar Pandey, the plaintiff of Original Suit No.1004 of 1996 and Mahesh Kumar Bhargava, the plaintiff of Suit No.28 of 1997 were the tenant in different portion of the said premises. As the landlord intended to sell the premises, the plaintiff of Suit No.1004 of 1996 approached the landlord. A registered agreement to sell was executed between the landlord and Kamla Shankar Pandey on 15.4.1986. Under the agreement, it was agreed to sell the land measuring 128 Sq.Yard alongwith the superstructure of the double storeyed building alongwith walls completely in South and West and half of the wall in the east. The description of the boundary was given as : East Part of Premises No.74, 76 belonging to Ranbir Singh, Harminder Pal Singh, Mohan Ji Singh and Sarvajeet Singh; West Portion of House No.72 belonging to erstwhile owners; North Portion of House No.70; and South Madhav Singh Lane. 7. Thereafter, Mahesh Kumar Bhargava, plaintiff of Suit No.28 of 1997 also approached the landlord, who agreed to sell rest of the portion of the premises and a registered agreement to sell was executed on 21.4.1986 wherein the description of boundaries was given as, East Portion of House No.72, whose agreement for sale has been made in favour of Kamla Shankar Pandey; West House No.66; North Godown of U.P. Cycle and Rickshaw Company, and; South Madhav Singh Lane. 8. The part for which the agreement was executed included the first and second floor. 8. The part for which the agreement was executed included the first and second floor. A registered sale deed in favour of Mahesh Kumar Bhargava, plaintiff of Suit No.28 of 1997, was executed by the landlord on 19.2.1987, while sale deed in favour of plaintiff of Suit No.1004 of 1996 Kamla Shankar Pandey was executed on 18.8.1987. When the sale deed was executed, actual physical possession of the portion was not delivered but a symbolic possession was delivered due to the premises being occupied by tenant, and part of the share of Kamla Shankar Pandey as well as Mahesh Kumar Bhargava was under tenancy. A joint application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was moved by Kamla Shankar Pandey and Mahesh Kumar Bhargava for releasing the premises in favour of the applicants. 9. As the dispute arose between Kamla Shankar Pandey and Mahesh Kumar Bhargava in respect of portion vacated by the tenant on the ground floor as well as first floor, an Original Suit No.1004 of 1996 was filed by plaintiff Kamla Shankar Pandey against Mahesh Kumar Bhargava, the defendant in that suit for ejectment and vacation of part of the building No.72 on the first floor on the western side of the building. Another suit No.28 of 1997 was filed by Mahesh Kumar Bhargava in respect of portion situated on the ground floor against Kamla Shankar Pandey, who was arrayed as defendant in the said suit. Both the suits were tried together by the Trial Court and following issues were framed : 10. Issue No.1 in Suit No.1004 of 1996 was whether the plaintiff had purchased the disputed part on the first floor of premises No.72, while issue No.1 in Suit No.28 of 1997 was that whether the disputed part situated at the ground floor of premises No.72 was the part purchased by the plaintiff of that suit. The Trial Court tried and decided both the issues together and relying upon the agreement to sell as well as sale deed of both the parties, held that before 1995 there was no dispute between the parties and relying upon their sale deeds and the map attached with it, made construction and were in possession over the same. It was after the tenant Bhola Nath vacated the premises, the dispute arose. It was after the tenant Bhola Nath vacated the premises, the dispute arose. The Trial Court further held that Kamla Shankar Pandey, plaintiff of Suit No.1004 of 1996 had encroached upon the area on the ground floor which was vacated by the tenant for which the plaintiff of Suit No.28 of 1997 was entitled for relief while plaintiff of Suit No.1004 of 1996 could not prove his case which was in regard to first floor. Thus, the suit of Mahesh Kumar Bhargav was decreed while the suit of Kamla Shankar Pandey was dismissed. 11. Against the said judgment, two civil appeals being Civil Appeal No.108 of 2014 and 109 of 2014 was filed by the present appellant in which lower Appellate Court framed following point of determination: 12. The lower Appellate Court recorded a categorical finding that the boundaries given in the sale deed will prevail over the area and dismissed the appeal of the appellant hence the present appeals. 13. Sri P.K.Jain, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the lower Appellate Court wrongly disbelieved the boundaries, as given in the agreement to sell dated 15.4.1986 and 21.4.1986, and, there being discrepancy in area in the alleged agreement to sell dated 21.4.1986, the lower Appellate Court held that area will prevail over the boundaries. He then contended that lower Appellate Court had wrongly disbelieved the map filed by the plaintiff of Suit No.1004 of 1996 which was contradictory to the map placed by the Record Keeper of the Sub-Registrar office as the original map was misplaced and the enquiry was pending. According to him, once the enquiry was pending, no occasion arose for the lower Appellate Court to have disbelieved the map submitted by the plaintiff in holding that it was not the map, which was part of the agreement to sell executed on 15.4.1986. 14. According to him, once the enquiry was pending, no occasion arose for the lower Appellate Court to have disbelieved the map submitted by the plaintiff in holding that it was not the map, which was part of the agreement to sell executed on 15.4.1986. 14. According to senior counsel, in the agreement to sell entered between the landlord and Mahesh Kumar Bhargava on 21.4.1986 and the sale deed dated 19.2.1987, only boundaries were mentioned and no area was mentioned, while Courts below had wrongly upheld the area purchased, shown as C,E,F,D. He next contended that in the agreement to sell executed on 15.4.1986, proper description of the area as well as boundary was given while in the later agreement to sell, executed on 21.4.1986 only boundaries have been mentioned, which was later in time, but, the Courts below have misread the evidence. According to him, Mahesh Kumar Bhargava had purchased the eastern portion after the agreement was entered into between the landlord and Kamla Shankar Pandey and both the Courts below had not considered the area, which the plaintiff had purchased through agreement to sell and the sale deed executed on 15.4.1986 and 24.8.1987 in regard to the ground and the first floor. He next contended that the report and the map of the Advocate Commissioner was contradictory to the map of the agreement to sell dated 15.4.1986 and the sale deed dated 24.8.1987, but, both the courts below held otherwise. 15. Lastly attention of the Court has been drawn to the second supplementary affidavit filed on 24.10.2018 wherein the order sheet of Suit No.1004 of 1996 has been brought on record wherein photocopy of the agreement to sell and sale deeds were brought on record which were kept in sealed cover. He invited the attention of the Court to the orders dated 03.10.2012, 18.10.2012, 09.11.2012, 20.11.2012, 19.01.2017, 17.08.2017, 28.8.2017, 09.01.2018, 12.01.2018 and 24.04.2018. Through these orders, it was tried to argue that without completing the inquiry as to the change in the map, which was part of the agreement to sell, the Courts below have proceeded. 16. Sri S.C.Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (1st Set) submitted that both the agreement to sell and sale deeds executed by the erstwhile owner/landlord in favour of plaintiff of Suit No. 1004 of 1996 and 28 of 1997 clearly mention the boundaries and the area sold to the respective parties. 16. Sri S.C.Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (1st Set) submitted that both the agreement to sell and sale deeds executed by the erstwhile owner/landlord in favour of plaintiff of Suit No. 1004 of 1996 and 28 of 1997 clearly mention the boundaries and the area sold to the respective parties. On 15.4.1986, when an agreement to sell was executed in favour of Kamla Shankar Pandey, the boundaries alongwith the area was specifically mentioned while when the agreement to sell as well as the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff of Suit No.28 of 1997 was executed, the same provided in categorical terms the boundaries and the areas which remains of premises No.72 sold to the defendant respondent (1st Set). He then contended that after the tenant Bhola Nath had vacated his portion, the dispute started. The portion vacated by the tenant was occupied by Kamla Shankar Pandey, which should have been divided and the share of the defendant (1st Set) was not handed over, thus Suit No.28 of 1997 was filed. According to him, once the suit was decreed, the relief to the extent sought by the appellant for the first floor becomes redundant because the property was to be divided vertically as both the parties had purchased the land alongwith superstructure, which included the first and the second floor. According to him, the sale deeds did not mention any area on the first and second floor and the same included the area sold on the ground floor, which was identifiable by the boundaries. 17. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the material on record, I find that both the Courts below have not only relied upon the agreement to sell dated 15.4.1986 and 21.4.1986 executed by the erstwhile owner/landlord in favour of Kamla Shankar Pandey and Mahesh Kumar Bhargava but also sale deeds dated 24.8.1987 and 19.2.1987. Both the documents conveying the property from the owner to the transferee have categorically described the property by mentioning the boundaries. 18. The agreement to sell executed on 15.4.1986 in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants not only mentions the description of boundaries but also the area which is 128 Sq. yards while the sale deed executed in favour of Mahesh Kumar Bhargava on 19.2.1987 clearly mentions that part of House No.72, Vivekanand Marg, which comprise of ground floor, first floor was sold. 18. The agreement to sell executed on 15.4.1986 in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants not only mentions the description of boundaries but also the area which is 128 Sq. yards while the sale deed executed in favour of Mahesh Kumar Bhargava on 19.2.1987 clearly mentions that part of House No.72, Vivekanand Marg, which comprise of ground floor, first floor was sold. On the eastern side was part of House No.72 Vivekanand Marg while on the Western side, House No.66, Northern side is the godown of U.P. Cycle and Rickshaw Company and on the southern side Madhav Singh lane. The sale deed also takes note of the fact that description has been shown in the map annexed with the registered agreement to sell dated 21.4.1986. It is thus clear that the part of House No.72 sold to the defendant (1st Set) was described in the map of agreement to sell dated 21.4.1986. 19. Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act defines ‘sale’, according to which sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange of price paid or promised or part paid or part promised, while contract for sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. Section 54 of the Act, 1882 is extracted hereas under : “54. “Sale” defined.—‘‘Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale.—A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.” 20. Contract for sale.—A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.” 20. From the reading of aforesaid provision, it is clear that contract for sale of immoveable property by itself does not create any interest or charge in the property. The property in the land gets conveyed only by registered sale deed therefore unless there is a registered document of sale in favour of transferee, the title in the land does not get divested from the vendor and would remain in his ownership. 21. Thus, reliance placed upon agreement to sale by the appellant dated 15.4.1986 and 21.4.1986 lost its relevance after the sale deed was executed by the vendor in favour of the vendee on 19.2.1987 and 24.8.1987. Both the deeds gave complete description of the boundaries of the property sold to the respective vendees. The area, though mentioned in the sale deed dated 24.8.1987 (Kamla Shankar Pandey) also provided for the boundaries of the land sold. 22. Both the Courts below had specifically recorded finding as to the boundary of the property sold by the vendor through registered sale deed in the year 1987, and held that in a case of a dispute as to the area, it was the boundaries which was to prevail. 23. As early as in the year 1948, Privy Council in The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. Government of Palestine and Ors. AIR 1948 PC 207 held that it was the boundary which was toprevail over the area. Similarly, in M/s Roy and Co. and another vs. Sm. Nani Bala Dey and Others AIR 1979 Calcutta 50 the Court held that in case of conflict between the area and the boundary, the description of boundary will prevail. Relevant para 6 of the judgment is extracted hereas under : “Reference may be made to the cases of Gossain Das in (1913) 18 Cal LJ 541, 59 Cal LJ 532 at p. 534 : (AIR 1934 Cal 851 at p. 852) and 52 Cal WN 719 at p. 722 : ( AIR 1948 PC 207 at p. 209) to show that in case of conflict between the area and the boundary, the description of the boundary will prevail. It will be pertinent to point that the Bench decision of our Court in (1909) 10 Cal LJ 570 was set aside by the Judicial Committee in the case in (1913) 40 Ind App 223 (PC) on a different point and not on the question of conflict between the area and the boundary. So this branch of the appellant’s arguments is not accepted.” 24. In the case of The Holy Mother of Aurobindo Ashram of Pondicherry vs. State of Meghalaya and Ors. AIR 2001 Gau.65, the Court held that in a dispute with regard to area, the boundary of the land or the plot number of the instrument/document, it is the boundary that shall be determinative factor. 25. In Arsad Sk. and Ors. vs. Bani Prosanna Kundu and Ors. (2014) 15 SCC 405 , the Apex Court had considered that it is the description of boundary that would prevail. 26. In Sheodhyan Singh and Ors. vs. Sanichara Kuer and Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1879 Supreme Court while considering a case where there was misdescription of area of land sold, which was described by boundaries and area. The Court held that the boundaries were to prevail. 27. A Division Bench of this Court in Government and Public Sector Employees Welfare Housing Organization vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2008 (6) ADJ 426 held that in case of discrepancy in the area as described in the deed and the boundaries mentioned therein, it will be the boundaries, which will prevail. 28. In Jagdish Prasaid and Anr. vs. Mahendra Pratap 1998 (89) RD 128, a coordinate Bench of this Court held that in case of conflict between the area and the boundary, the boundary will prevail. 29. In the present case, the lower Appellate Court relying upon the finding recorded by the Trial Court on the basis of the certified copy of the map produced by the Registry office, recorded a finding that in case area mentioned in the sale deed defers from the length and breath and boundaries of the property in dispute, then it is the boundaries, which will prevail over the area. 30. 30. The argument of appellant’s counsel has no merit to the extent that lower Appellate Court had ignored the boundary as given in the description / detail of the property mentioned in the agreement to sell and the sale deeds and had dismissed the appeal relying upon the area, so mentioned. Both the Courts below have categorically recorded findings to the effect that boundaries matches with the length and breath, as mentioned, which may defer from the area mentioned in the agreement to sell executed on 15.4.1986, but, relying upon the boundary, had decreed the Original Suit No.28 of 1997 and dismissed the Original Suit 1004 of 1996 and the appeals filed by the appellants. Both the Courts below have recorded categorical findings of fact to this effect. 31. Thus, substantial question of law (i), framed above, stands answered that boundaries mentioned in the agreement to sell as well as sale deed will prevail over the area mentioned in agreement to sell dated 15.4.1986. The question stands answered in favour of defendant-respondent (1st Set) and against the plaintiff-appellants. 32. So far as substantial question of law (ii) is concerned, much emphasis has been given by the appellants’ counsel upon the agreement to sell dated 15.4.1986 and sale deed dated 24.8.1987 while the records related to the said agreement and sale deed were missing and inquiry was initiated. 33. It is not in dispute to either of the parties that sale deed dated 19.02.1987 was executed in favour of Mahesh Kumar Bhargava, while on 24.8.1987 it was executed by the landlord in favour of Kamla Shankar Pandey. Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act clearly defines “Sale” which is a transfer of ownership in exchange of a price paid or promised or part-paid and part promised. While “agreement to sell” finds its reference to the contract for the sale in the aforesaid section. 34. The agreement to sell lost its relevant once the sale deed was executed on 24.8.1987 and clearly mention the boundaries of the premises purchased by the appellants. While “agreement to sell” finds its reference to the contract for the sale in the aforesaid section. 34. The agreement to sell lost its relevant once the sale deed was executed on 24.8.1987 and clearly mention the boundaries of the premises purchased by the appellants. The lower Appellate Court on 15.5.2018 while disposing of application moved by the appellants for comparing the signatures of Kamla Shankar Pandey as also for waiting for the enquiry report in the said matter, dismissed the application 31Ga of the appellants and no adverse inference would be drawn in case of inquiry not having been completed against the officials of the Sub-Registrar Office. The emphasis placed upon the agreement to sell dated 15.4.1986 lost its relevance after execution of the sale deed and both the Courts below having recorded categorical finding on the basis of the sale deed dated 19.02.1987 and 24.8.1987 which was never disputed by either of the parties, found that the area of the ground floor, which was in occupancy of the earlier tenant Bhola Nath, after his vacation, was not divided and the area, which fell in the share of Mahesh Kumar Bhargav, was not handed over by the appellants and thus rightly decreed the Original Suit No.28 of 1997. The findings recorded by both the Courts below warrant no interference by this Court. 35. The issue of non completion of the enquiry would not affect the judgment of the lower Appellate Court as the entire findings have been recorded on the basis of the sale deed, which is not disputed by either of the parties and the suit has been decreed solely on the basis of the boundaries, as mentioned in the sale deed. 36. Thus substantial question of law (ii), as framed, stands answered against the appellant and in favour of defendant-respondents (1st Set). 37. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that as both the substantial questions of law, as framed, having been answered against the appellants and in favour of defendant-respondents (1st Set), no interference is called for in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 38. In the result, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. 39. Office is directed to remit the lower court record.