Recitals of boundaries in documents not inter partes are relevant and admissible under Ss. 157, 32(2), 13 and 11 of the Evidence Act, the particular circumstances of the case determining the particular section applicable to the facts of that case. The probative value to be attached will also equally depend upon the circumstances of each case and may vary all the way from zero to almost clinching evidence.

JUDGMENT :- This is a second appeal which has been preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in A.S. No. 50 of 1953, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Gobichettipalayam in O.S. No. 543 of 1950.

2. The facts are : The first plaintiff purchased the suit property, a vacant site with a Salai thereon, along with other properties from his sisters, who are the widows of one Madhae Goundan under Ex. A-1 dated 4-4-1934. The plaintiffs case is that after the purchase the disputed property remained vacant, that the first plaintiff put up a salai thereon in 1936 and after that his farm servants used to be housed therein.

The first defendant occupied the property in 1945 as one of the farm servants. Subsequently, he left the service of the first plaintiff. He did not vacate the salai and site. Therefore, this suit has been filed for a declaration, possession and mesne profits. The first plaintiff died pending suit and his legal representatives have been brought on record as plaintiffs 2 and 3 by order dated 9-4-1952.

3. On coming to court the contention raised by the defendants, who are now occupying the property, is that the first defendants father Sevuthi Mudali purchased the suit property from Sadhae Goundan under an oral sale several years prior, that Sevuthi Mudali put up a building and ever since Sevuthi Mudali and alter him the defendants have been living there.

The evidence in this case consisted of (a) two documents, Exs. B-1 and B-2 and (b) other documentary and oral evidence. Both the courts below came to the conclusion that the evidence on record did not make out the case for the plaintiffs, viz., that they were in possession of the property within 12 years prior to the filing of the suit and that on the other hand the defendants have shown that they prescribed their title by adverse possession and limitation for ever the statutory period. Hence this second appeal by the defeated plaintiffs.

4. The two points for consideration before me are (a) the relevancy and mode of proof and the probative value to be attached to Exs. B-1 and B-2 and (b) the conclusions to be drawn from the other evidence.

5. Point (a) : Ex. B-1 is a registration copy of a sale deed dated, 14-1-1933 executed by Sankaran Chetti in favour of Arumugham Pillai, P.W. 1, in respect of the house south of the suit property. In that document the northern boundary of the nowise sold is given as Sevuthi Mudalis house and the eastern boundary as the Government natham.

Ex. B-2 is a registration copy of the mortgage deed dated 11-5-1929 of the same property executed by Sankaran Chetti in favour of D.W. 1. This document also contains the same description as in the subsequent sale deed. In regard to these documents the question which arises first is whether they are relevant and admissible in evidence.

6. In regard to recitals of boundaries in documents, cases falling under this head may be divided into three classes :

(a) When the recital is in a document inter partes. In such a case the recital is a joint statement made by the parties to the document and, therefore, relevant against all of them as an admission.

(b) When the recital is in a document between a party and a stranger. In such a case, the recital is relevant against the party as an admission but is not admissible in his favour - Radha Krishna v. Sarabeswar, AIR. 1925 Cal 684 (2) (A); - Daulat Shah v. Bishan Das, AIR 1934 Lah 750 (A) - unless the fact recited is deposed to in court by the executant of the document, in which case the recital will become admissible under S. 157 of the Evidence Act to corroborate the evidence of the executant; - Ketabuddin v. Nafar, AIR 1927 Cal 230 (B) and see also - Ambicacharan v. Kumud Mohun, AIR 1928 Cal 893 (B) or under S. 155 of the Evidence Act to contradict such evidence : - Dasmal v. Sunder Singh, AIR 1937 Lah 480 (C).

(c) When the recital is in a document between strangers.

7. Now it is well