Testator bequeathed entire survey number in the Will.

The first defendant in O.S.No.298 of 1975, having failed in the courts below, has preferred this second appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the two courts. The question turns upon the construction of Ex.A-1, the Will executed by one Rajalakshmi Ammal on 7. 1972. The plaintiff is the adopted son of Srinivasa Iyer, husband of Rajalakshmi Ammal. The first defendant is the son of Gopala Iyer, brother of Srinivasa Iyer. Though it is not really relevant, it may be mentioned that the plaintiff was the natural son of Gopala Iyer and he was taken in adoption by Gopala Iyer’s brother Srinivasa Iyer. Rajalakshmi Ammal died on 111. 1974 and the present suit was filed on 18. 1975 Though the plaint schedule originally described one item of property in Survey No. 145/2C, later, it was amended by introducing a second item in Survey No. 145/4. As regards the second item there is no dispute between the parties as the first defendant conceded the title of the plaintiff to the said item. It is only the first item which is in dispute.

2. In the Will, two items of properties were bequeathed in favour of the appellant herein. The first item bequeathed under the Will is not the subject-matter of dispute. It is only the second item, which is subject-matter of bequest that is in dispute in this appeal. The description of the said item in the Will is as follows:

3. According to the plaintiff, by the said bequest, what was given to the first defendant by the testatrix was only a land of extent of about 5 cents with some buildings including a water shed building. There is no dispute between the parties that the survey number is mentioned wrongly in the Will as 145/26 whereas the correct number is 145/2C. The extent is mentioned as 68 cents but according to the plaintiff, the total extent of the Survey Number is 73 cents and an extent of 5 cents was covered by the house site of one Ramaswamy, which is mentioned as the southern boundary in the description of the property. The case of the first defendant is, the entire extent of 68 cents in Survey No.l45-2C was bequeathed to him under the Will. The Courts below have accepted the case of the plaintiff and held that what was given to the appellant/ first defendant was only land of about an extent of 5 cents comprising certain buildings including the water shed building.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contents that the principle of false demonstratio non nocet’ will apply in this case. According to him, the property is clearly described by survey number and the extent thereof and the intention of the testatrix is very clear that she bequeathed the entire survey number of the said extent. It is contended that there is a mistake in the description of the boundaries and such mistake cannot be given any importance and it has to be ignored by applying the aforesaid doctrine. Reliance is also placed on the words. It is contended that the total extent of 68 cents in the said survey number has been bequeathed as evident on applying the aforesaid doctrine.

5. My attention is drawn by the senior counsel for the appellant to the following passages in Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 50.

“455. False demonstratio non nocet: It is a rule of construction, which applies to all written instruments and not to Wills alone, that if, of various terms used to describe a subject matter (whether a person or property) some are sufficient to ascertain the subject matter with certainty but others add a description which is not true, these other terms are not allowed to vitiate the gift. The rule in full is false demonstratio non nocet cum de corpore constat and the second part of this maxim is an essential part of it. The false description must merely be added into that which is otherwise clear, although it need not come at the end of the sentence. The characteristic of cases within the rule is that the description so far as it is false applies to no subject at all and so far as it is true ap