The judgment establishes the importance of conveyance documents and subsequent transactions in determining title to property, the rejection of adverse possession claims based on evidence, and the entitlement to mesne profits despite the rejection of an oral lease claim.

1. The defendant is the second appellant. The suit as originally framed was for recovery of property on the basis of an oral lease. Subsequently plaintiff was permitted to convert the suit into one on title. The defendant denied the oral lease set up and the title of the plaintiff and pleaded that he has acquired title to the property by adverse possession. The trial Court repelled those contentions and on the findings that the oral lease set up by the plaintiff is true and that the title to the property vests in the plaintiff, gave a decree for recovery of the site with the buildings thereon with past and future rent on payment of the value of the building.

2. In appeal by the defendant the lower appellate court found that the oral lease alleged is not true. However on the basis of title which was found in favour of the plaintiff it confirmed the decree of the trial Court except to the extent of the claim for past and future rent. The defendant has come in appeal from the above decree and the plaintiff has filed a memorandum of objections in respect of the claim for rent that was disallowed and the finding regarding the oral lease.

3. The Courts below have concurrently found title in favour of the plaintiff. This is amply justified by the evidence in the case. The property originally belonged to P.W. 2. He mortgaged the property under Ext. A on 4.11.1102 to one Narayanan Namboothiripad and released the mortgage under Ext. B dated 20.1.1106. The property appears to have been mortgaged to the Bank of Cochin. The Bank sued for mortgage money and brought the property to sale and purchased it in Court auction. Ext. C is the sale sannad. Ext. D series are the copies of the delivery lists. The boundaries mentioned in these documents clearly show that the disputed plot is included therein. It is contended that the S. No. 229/2 is not mentioned in these documents and therefore that property was not included therein. The boundaries in the above documents are precise and clear. "Where there is a description of land in a conveyance, lease or other documents such a description setting forth the boundaries, and then specifying the quantity, as so many acres, or bighas or the like, the maxim falsa demonstratio non nocet applies; it is considered to be a mere false description, if there is an error in the quantity, and the land within the boundaries passed by

the conveyance or the lease, whether it be less or more than the quantity specified." (Vide 6 TLJ 22). No doubt as was held in 4 TLT 190 and 30 Cochin Law Reports 483 this is not an inflexible rule. But in the absence of circumstances indicating that application of the boundaries in determining the extent of the land that passed under the conveyance will lead to an error, usually in cases conflict between the area, survey number and the boundaries mentioned in the document the boundaries predominate and the rest is considered only as false or erroneous description. In this case there are no such circumstances and therefore we are clearly of the view that the disputed property is included in the documents mentioned above. It therefore follows that S. No. 229/2 was also sold in court auction and purchased by Cochin Bank and they obtained delivery under Ext. D series. The Cochin Bank executed Ext. G sale deed in favour of P.K. Verghese & Sons' Trust. In this document S. No. 229/1 was alone included and S. No. 229/2 the disputed plot was shown as the northern boundary. The case of the plaintiff is that S. No. 229/2 which went to the Cochin Bank under the court sale mentioned above was given over by the Bank to P.W. 2 the original owner and that P.W. 2 sold the property to P.K. Verghese & Sons' Trust under Ext. E dated 29.4.1120. The transfer to P.W. 2 by the Cochin Bank was not evidenced by any registered document. However it is abundantly clear from the evidence in the case that the Bank gave back the property to P.W. 2 and that it is by virtue of this right that he executed Ext.