Boundary will prevail over any discrepancy in extent.

This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in O.S.No.229 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Mannargudi, who has won the case before the trial Court but lost it before the first appellate Court in A.S.No.316 of 1995 on the file of Principal District Court, Ngapattinam.

2. The suit is for an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

.3. The facts in brief are as follows:

The plaint schedule properties were conveyed by the defendants to the plaintiff by way of surrender deeds dated 16. 1990 and 26. 1990. The suit properties are situated at Vadakaru Vayal Village. Plaintiff is cultivating the suit lands and was paying land tax to the suit properties. Suit has been filed by the plaintiff, through his power of attorney agent. "Kuruvai"crop was raised by the plaintiff in the suit property during last year. Hence the plaintiff could not accede to the request made by the defendants to lease out the property again to them. On 24. 1994 when the plaintiff was indulged in minor work in the suit property, the defendants came there with their henchmen and obstructed the same. With the help of other agriculturists, the plaintiff thwarted the attempt made by the defendants, and were driven out from the suit property. Hence the suit.

.4. The defendants, in their written statement have contended as follows: Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. Defendants are cultivating the suit property. Defendants have not executed any surrender deed on 16. 1990. The allegation that from the date of surrender the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property is also not correct. The claim of the plaintiff that after getting a loan from the Co-operative Bank, he had raised "Kuruvai" crop in the plaint schedule property is not correct. Defendants are cultivating the suit lands in the capacity of tenants. Defendants father was also paying lease rent to the plaintiff, who is residing at Srirangam. Plaintiff was demanding arrears of rent from the father of the defendants. Power agent of the plaintiff is making all sorts of illegal methods to get possession of the suit properties from the defendants. During 1990, the defendants have borrowed Rs.11,000/-and created mortgage in respect of the suit lands, for three years. The defendants have signed in an unwritten papers towards receipt for the borrowed amount. The second defendant also signed in a blank document after receiving Rs.8,000/-. This defendant has also borrowed Rs.8,000/-from Mr.Viswanathan of Vadakarai Village and executed a deed of mortgage in respect of the suit properties. Viswanathan has repaid Rs.8,000/-to the power of Attorney holder and Rs.3,000/- to this defendant. In 1994, the defendants gave Rs.19,000/- to the power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff and asked to hand over possession of the suit properties. But the plaintiff refused to hand over possession but told that the said amount of Rs.19,000/- was not paid as a mortgage loan but only towards surrender of the lands. Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. Hence, plaint is liable to be dismissed.

5. On the above pleadings the trial Court had framed four issues and on the basis of the available evidence, both oral and documentary, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the findings of the trial Court, the defendants preferred A.S.NO.316 of 1995 before the District Court, which has allowed the appeal, setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial court. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.

6. The substantial questions of law involved in this appeal are

i) Whether the lower Appellate court erred in its interpretation of Exhibits A1 and A2 which would clearly establish the surrender of the suit property in favour of the appellant?

ii) Is the Court below right in holding that the transaction effected in the name of the Power of Attorney Agent and not in the name of