The main legal point established in the judgment is the precedence of boundaries over measurements in determining the subject matter of the grant, as well as the legal evidence of adverse possession and the application of the rule of estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act.

Having lost in both the Courts below, the plaintiff has filed the above second appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:-

The plaintiff's father Alagiriswami Naidu and his brother Ayyaswami Naidu partitioned the properties on 10.10.1934. Under the said partition, the share of 5 acres 62 cents of garden lands in S.No.217/1 of Valukkuparai Village devolved upon the plaintiff's father. Out of the said land, the plaintiff's father sold 2 acres to Nanjama Naidu on 15.3.1940. After the death of the said Nanjama Naidu, his sons sold the said property to the defendant on 17.6.1982. A further partition was held among the brothers. By virtue of the same, the plaintiff got the share of the land measuring 1.81 cents in the garden land at the northern side to the property of 2 acres belonging to the defendant. Since then, the land measuring 1.81 cents has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and 2 acres has been in possession of the defendant. After the sub division, it came to be known that the defendant was in possession of 2.25 acres instead of 2 acres. Even without the knowledge of the plaintiff, the defendant occupied 25 cents belonging to the plaintiff in course of time. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of 25 cents.

3. The case of the defendant is as follows:-

The measurements in the partition deed had not been correctly given. Similarly, the sale deed dated 15.3.1940 executed in favour of Nanjama Naidu did not contain the correct particulars. The defendant and his father purchased 2.25 acres 25 years back and they have been in possession of the same since then. Since the entire property comprised in S.No.217/1C is in possession and enjoyment of the defendant, it is not correct to contend that 25 cents have been illegally occupied by the defendant. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, necessary issues have been framed. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as Pw1 and Exs.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. On the side of the defendant, DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B14 were marked. The documents C1 and C2 viz., Advocate Commissioner's Report and sketch were marked as Court documents.

5. The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence adduced by both parties, would come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as sought for as the measurements mentioned in the sale deed executed on 17.6.1982 are only approximate and since the boundaries would prevail over the measurements, the defendant would be entitled to the possession of the suit property and consequently, the decree for recovery of possession cannot be granted. Aggrieved by that, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first Appellate Court, which in turn, dismissed the same and confirmed the trial Court's judgment. Hence the second appeal.

6. Mr. Shanmugam, learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the judgment impugned, would contend that both the Courts committed grave wrong in not referring to the evidence adduced by the appellant/plaintiff, which would establish that the defendant illegally occupied 25 cents which belongs to him and as such, the matter has to be remanded back to the trial Court for proper appraisal.

7. At the time of the admission, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated:-

(1) Whether the finding as to adverse possession by the lower Court is based on legal evidence?

(2)Whether the rule of estoppel under Section 116 Evidence Act does not apply to the defendant to deny the title of the Vendee or Vendor under Ex.A2 from whom defendant and his father got possession?

(3) Whether the Courts below are right in ignoring the admission of the defendant in his evidence that he purchased only 2 acres vide Ex.B2 and paid consideration only for 2 acres while holding that the defendant has purchased 2 acres 25 cents vide the said deed particularly where the title deeds Exs.A1 and A2 show th