The intention of the parties prevails in determining the extent of the land conveyed in a lease document, and the stability and certainty of the description of boundaries are crucial in interpreting the intention of the parties.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for a permanent injunction which was dismissed by the first court but decreed, on appeal, by the lower appellate court. Defendant 1 is the appellant. The case has been argued by both sides before me with reference to Ext. A2 plan and so I am also making use of that plan for stating the case. Plots A and B in Ext. A2 are comprised in survey No. 1411/1A and measure in all 23 cents. Plot A lies in the northwestern portion of this survey number and is bounded on the east and south by plot B. On the north plot A is bounded by a lane and the major portion of that plot is bounded on the west by a property belonging to one Kunhikutty Amma. South of Kunhikuttv Amma's property there is another property shown in the plan as Thankamma's kudiyiruppa and that property lies to the west of the southern portion of plot A and to the west of that part of plot B which lies south of plot A. The property to the south of plot B is a teak plantation which admittedly belongs to the plaintiffs. To the east of plot B lies survey No. 1411/1B which is shown as Koman Nayar's kudiyiruppa in Ext. A2. Koman Nayar purchased this plot, i. e., survey No,1411/IB, from one Chettiar, and till his purchase that property was known as Chettiarsthalam. On the north plot B is bounded by the same lane which runs along the northern boundary of plot A. The line MNP in Ext. A2 is the northern boundary line of plots A and B, the line MN being the portion forming the northern boundary of plot a and the line NP being the portion forming the northern boundary of plot B. Plaintiff 1 is admittedly the jenmi of plots A and B. In 1931 she gave a verumpattam lease, Ext. Al, in favour of one Lekshmi Amma, and the main dispute in the present case is the identity of the plot she leased thereunder. In the lease deed the boundaries of the leased plot were given as the lane on the north, Chettiarsthalam on the east, plaintiff's own land on the south and Kunhikutty Amma's property on the west, and the extent was given as 3 cents. The rent stipulated is Re. 1/- per year. The plaintiffs' case is that the lease under Ext. Al was for a kudiyiruppa for Lekshmi Amma and that only 3 cents of land forming the northern portion of plot A alone was leased thereunder. By successive assignments, defendant 1 has now obtained the rights of Lekshmi Amma under Ext. Al. His case is that what was leased under Ext. Al was the whole of survey No. 1411/1 A, i.e., both plots A and B, and not merely 3 cents, and in support of this case he relies upon the description of the property in some of the subsequent assignments, including the last assignment executed in his own favour by his immediate predecessor, defendant 2. In the assignments relied upon by him the extent of the property is mentioned as 23 cents and the boundaries are described in the same manner as in Ext. Al. Ext. BI dated 4-5-1949 is the assignment which defendant 2 got, and Ext. B2 dated 18-6-1951 is the assignment defendant 2 has executed in favour of defendant 1. Dw. 2 is defendant 1's father. Both sides admit that, at the time of the execution of Ext B2. there was a fence along the MNP line for preventing cattle from straying from the lane into the land on the south. Dw. 2 says that after taking Ext. B2 he pulled down the fence along the MNP line for repairing and putting up a new fence along the whole line. Alleging that, after taking Ext. B2, defendant 1 was attempting to take forcible possession of plot B which was in the possession of plaintiff 1 and he was interfering with the fence along the NP line in order to make out that plot B also belongs to him and is in his possession, plaintiff 1 and her son, plaintiff 2, brought the present suit for a permanent injunction to restrain defendants 1 and 2 from taking possession of plot B and interfering with the fence along the NP line. Defendants contended that plot B also was included in Ext. Al lease, that ever since the execution of Ext. A 1