In interpreting a sale deed, where the boundaries are precise and the area is approximate, the boundaries should prevail in determining the extent of the property sold.

JUDGMENT :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagarcoil in A. S. No. 991 of 1957, which arose out of the decision of the District Munsif of Nagarcoil, in O. S. No. 60 of 1953. The facts, in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of the second appeal are briefly the following. The suit property is Survey No. 13911/A. 29 cents in extent, in the village of Needukara. On 22-1-1941, under the sale deed Ex. A. 1, first defendant purchased a property, the description of which is in the following terms :

"Out of 14-1/2 cents forming the western half of Survey No. 13911/A after excluding 7-1/2 cents acquired for Circar road, 7 cents which have not yet been sub-divided and which are situate to the west and east of the road."

It is common ground that actual measurements made during the trial of the suit by the Commissioner of the road which cut across the above survey number diagonally from north-east to south-west came to only 4-1/2 cents. Therefore, as against the 7 cents which, according to the calculation in the sale deed, Ex. 1, would remain after excluding the road portion, the actual portion which remains is 10 cents.

About 11 years later, the vendor of the first defendant executed another sale deed, Ex. C to the plaintiff wherein he described the property conveyed thus :

"I am conveying to you in the 14-1/2 cents in the western half of Survey No. 13911/A after excluding the portion covered by the road and after excluding the portion conveyed already, the remaining portion, which has not yet been sub-divided, which lies to the north and south of the road and which is 6-1/2 cents in extent." The dispute between the parties has arisen consequent on the fact that if under Ex. 1 sale deed the area should prevail instead of the boundaries, plaintiffs title would be restricted to 7 cents as recited in the schedule; but if the boundaries are to prevail, the area would be ten cents. Taking advantage of this discrepancy, the first defendants vendor seemed to have executed Ex. C sale deed to the plaintiff nearly 11 years later, in 1952. But, even in executing Ex. C, he overshot the mark and described the area which he could convey on the basis of differences in area as 6-1/2 cents instead of the actual difference of 3 cents. Both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court were called upon to construe the effect of these documents. Their finding was that the title of the first defendant under the earlier sale deed should prevail and plaintiffs later sale deed would give him no title to any portion of the western half of the survey number in question after excluding the portion covered by the road. The basis of their finding is that in the circumstances of the case the boundary should prevail and not the area, and the lower appellate Court also took into account the subsequent conduct of the parties to find out what was the property which was sold in fact. Oral evidence as to subsequent enjoyment was also considered by the Courts below in order to find out how the parties understood the tenor of the document. The finding on this aspect of the conduct of the parties and also on the evidence was in favour of the first defendant. The suit was dismissed and the appeal also was dismissed. The second appeal is filed by the plaintiff.

2. It is well established by several decisions of courts that where the boundaries in a document are vague and indefinite, the area should prevail, but where the boundaries are specific and definite the area must be taken as given only approximately vide Bholanath Chattopadhyaya v. Mrityunjay Chattopadhya, 153 Ind Cas 532 : (AIR 1934 Cal 851). A decision of our High Court in Subbaya Chakkaliyan v. M. Muthiah Gounden, 19 Mad LW 245 : (AIR 1924 Mad 493) of Krishnan and Waller, JJ. has also put the position thus :

"Ordinarily when a piece of land is sold with definite boundaries, unless it is very clear from the circumstances surrounding the sale that a