IMPORTANT POINT
The conflict between the description of area and boundaries, the interpretation of boundaries prevailing over area, and the application of the maxim 'falsa demonstratio non nocet' in property disputes.

1. This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 r/w Order XLII of CPC by the additional respondents 2 to 5 in A.S.127/2008 on the file of the District Court, Alappuzha, who are the legal representatives of the plaintiff in O.S.3/2001 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha, against the judgment dated 30.11.2013, allowing the above appeal and dismissing the above Suit. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are extracted below :

The plaintiff obtained 37.25 cents of landed property comprised in Survey No.335/4/11 of Paravur (old Punnapra) village as item No.1 in Ext.A1 gift deed No.424/75 of SRO, Alappuzha. As per Ext.A2 sale deed, he had sold 13 cents to the 1st defendant and as per Ext.A3, 14 cents was sold to the 2nd defendant from out of the above 37.250 cents. The remaining 10.250 cents is the plaint schedule property. Alleging that, because of some mistake in the re-survey records, the defendants are not permitting him to enjoy the plaint schedule property, he filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. The case of the defendants was that though the plaintiff obtained 37.250 cents as per Ext.A1 in the year 1975, portions of the same were utilized for widening the pathway on the southern side and National Highway on the western side, that the remaining property available with the plaintiff was only 27 cents and the above entire 27 cents was sold to defendants 1 and 2 as per Ext.A2 and A3 sale deeds.

3. The learned Munsiff, relying upon Ext.C1 and C1(b) Commission report and sketch declared the plaintiff's title over the plaint schedule property. The prayer for recovery of possession and injunction was also granted. However, the 1st Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the Suit. Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, the legal representatives of the plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal.

4. At the time of admission, after hearing both sides, this Court formulated the following substantial question of law.

“Did not the lower appellate court mis-apply the principle that in case of conflict between description of area and boundaries, the later will prevail to the facts situation of the case ?

5. Both sides were heard in detail, on the above question of law.

6. Admittedly, as per Ext.A1 gift deed, the plaintiff obtained 37.250 cents of property. While according to the plaintiff, from the above 37.250 cents, he had sold 13 cents to the 1st defendant (D1) as per Ext.A2 and 14 cents to the 2nd defendant (D2) as per Ext.A3 and as such he is entitled to get back the remaining 10.250 cents, the specific case of the defendants is that at the time when Exts.A2 and A3 sale deeds were executed by the plaintiff in their favour on 13.1.1989, the plaintiff was in possession of only 27 cents and the remaining property was gone for widening the pathway on the southern side as well as the National Highway on the western side.

7. In order to substantiate the above contention, the defendants relied upon the description of property in Exts.A2 and A3 documents. In Exts.A2 and A3, it is categorically stated that out of the 37.250 cents obtained as per Ext.A1, certain portion was utilized for the pathway on the southern side and National Highway on the western side and the remaining available property was only 27 cents, which is described within the four boundaries mentioned in Exts.A2 and A3. Out of the above 27 cents admittedly available with the plaintiff, 13 cents on the eastern side was sold to the 1st defendant as per Ext.A2 and the western 14 cents was sold to the 2nd defendant as per Ext.A3 sale deed. Therefore, going by the above description of the property in Exts.A2 and A3 documents executed by the plaintiff, at the time of executing those documents, he had only 27 cents of