Judgment.-This second appeal concerns the proper construction of a deed of sale of an item of immovable property. The purchaser in this case was the Church of South India Trust Association. The seller was one Annathai Ambrose. The sale was effected on 3rd September, 1957 for a lumpsum consideration of Rs. 10,000. The subject of sale was a block of punja land in Goripalayam in Madurai Town. The land was in T.S. No. 157112. The whole of that survey number was of the extent of 1 acre and 21 cents. The whole of it belonged to the vendor, Annathai Ambrose. Under the conveyance, however, she sold to the Church Association only a part of T.S. No. 1571 j2 as therein described. The deed was drawn up in Tamil. It had a schedule which gave both the extent of the land and its boundaries. The extent, as mentioned in the sale deed, was 46 cents or about 20,000 square feet. The boundaries described in the schedule were with reference to the then existing landmarks. On the northern and eastern sides of the land in question there were other lands belonging to third parties, and they carried their own distinct survey numbers. In the schedule to the sale deed they were so described. The boundaries on the southern and western sides could not, however, be so described. For both these boundaries fell in Annathai Ambrose’s own land, bearing the same survey number, namely, T.S. No. 1571

2. No plan or sketch was attached to the sale deed to demarcate the boundaries, especially the southern and western boundaries.

2. At the time of the execution of this sale deed, a Town-Planning Scheme had already been prepared for Chinna Chokkikulam Extension and Bibikulam Extension in Madurai Town. Both the Schemes covered, inter alia, portions of T.S. No. 157112. According to the Schemes, provision had been made for laying two Scheme roads, one running east to west and the other running north to south. Portions of these roads were planned to be laid over T. S. No. 157112. Annathai Ambrose had already given, or promised to give, to the Town-Planning authority such part of her land in T.S. No. 157112 as would be necessary to lay those Scheme roads. When Annathai Ambrose effected her conveyance in favour of the Church Association, the Scheme roads had not actually came into being. But it was apparently agreed between the parties that the two proposed Scheme roads should constitute the southern and western boundaries of the land sold. The schedule attached to the sale deed accordingly described the two boundaries thus:

“On the south by that part of the land bearing T.S. No. 1571|2 given by the vendor for Chinna Chokkikulam Scheme Road, E-3 E-3 ; and on the west by the portion of the land given by the vendor for the Bibikulam Scheme Road, PP”.

3. The problem raised before me is whether the description contained in the sale deed fixing the southern and western boundaries in the manner aforesaid is definite and identifiable? A related question, which has also to be answered, is whether the extent stated in the sale deed should prevail over the boundaries, which were described, as aforesaid, in the sale deed?

4. These were also the two questions which had figured in the two Courts below. The questions arose because one Joshua claimed that a certain extent of land in the same T.S. No. 157112 belonged to him as a Pastor. He claimed title thereto under a gift deed made by the same Annathai Ambrose on 3rd May, 1917. This was nearly ten years after the purchase effected by the Church Association. On the strength of this gift deed in his favour Joshua had made excavations, dug a well and put up fences in what the Church Association claimed to be the southern part of their own land in the same survey number. Joshus, however, maintained that the plot of land gifted to him by Annathai Ambrose was different and did not form part of the land which the Church Association had purchased earlier. The upshot of this controversy was the filing of a suit by the Church Association against both Jo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document