Boundaries given in the deed will prevail over measurement given in the deed.

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 1984, who is the defendant in O.S.No.92 of 1984, both on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikkal, is the appellant in both the second appeals.

2. He filed O.S.No.34 of 1984 for declaration and for recovery of possession against the defendants therein alleging that the suit property had been illegally occupied by them. The defendants in the said suit are the respondents in S.A.No.1826 of 1989. The other suit O.S.No.92 of 1984 was filed by the second respondent in S.A.No.1326 of 1989 against the appellant herein for recovery of possession of the suit property. The subject matter of both the suits is the same.

3. Wewill refer the parties by their names for the sake of convenience.

4. Ramaiya Asari, the plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 1984, has put forward the following case:

He purchased the suit property in Cadastre No.742/2 in Neravy village under a registered sale deed dated 5. 1969. Immediately to the north of the property, Ramakrishna Naicker (first defendant in O.S.No.34 of 1984) is having his property. The total extent of the property in Cadastre No.742/2 is 6A 30c. However, at the time of executing the sale deed, the extent was wrongly given as 40 kuzhies with “Kammi-Jasthi”. Ramakrishna Naicker encroached on the northern side of the suit property by extending his thatched shed and cattle shed. The property was measured through a surveyor of the revenue department and Ramaiya Asari obtained process verbal in respect of the property purchased by him. On this basis, he got the encroachment, removed through process of court and was in effective possession and enjoyment of the entirety of Cadastre No.742/2. While so, on 10. 1983 he received a notice from Ambigapathy saying that he had purchased 6 ¼ kuzhies of land on the northern portion of Cadastre No.742/2 from one Aysha Beevi and others. Since the entire property in Cadastre No.742/2 had been purchased by him as early as in 1969, Ambigapathys vendor could not have conveyed any title to him under the sale deed. Ramaiya Asari sent a reply notice on 10. 1983 giving the full details. In the meantime, Ambigapathy encroached on the property purchased by Ramaiya Asari by shifting his southern fence inspite of objections raised by Ramaiya Asari. subsequent encroachment was one meter on the western side and 3.60 metres on the eastern side and this was in the portion of 12 3/4 kuzhies of the property purchased by Ramaiya Asari. The suit was therefore necessitated.

5. Ambigapathy filed his written statement and the same was adopted by Ramakrishna Naicker.

6. Ramaiya Asari purchased only 40 kuzhies under the sale deed in Cadastre No.742/2. The total extent in Cadastre No.742/2, being 47 ¼ kuzhies, the northern 7 ¼ kuzhies were purchased by Ambigapathy from the owners of the property under a registered sale deed. Even in the earlier suit filed by Ramaiya Asari (O.S.No.49 of 1969) on the file of the District Munsif, Karaikkal, he had claimed that Ramakrishna Naicker had encroached upon the northern portion of 40 kuzhies of land only, and for removal of such encroachment Ramakrishna Naicker filed a counter suit in O.S.No.69 of 1969 against Ramaiya Ansari for a perpetual injunction to maintain his possession. The suit filed by Ramaiya Asari was decreed and the suit filed by Ramakrishna Naicker was dismissed. Still the finding of the court in the previous proceedings between the parties was that Ramaiya Asari purchased only 40 kuzhies of land and not the entirety of Cadastre 742/2. Ramakrishna Naicker had been in possession of 7 ¼ kuzhies from 1929 and in enjoyment of the same by annexing it to his brick built house in his own land. He had prescribed title by adverse possession by Ramakrishna Naicker being in possession for over 55 years. Ramaiya Asaris vendor had lost his rights and interest in the said 7 ¼ kuzhies on account of adverse possession. In order to convey marketable title in the form of a document, Ambigapathy purchased