The rule of interpretation that boundaries must prevail as against the measurements, unless it is clear from the circumstances that a smaller extent was intended to be sold.

Krishnan, J.

1. The question that has been raised before us is what exactly is the land that was purchased in Court-auction under Ex. II, the Court sale certificate. This certificate describes the land in the following terms:

In Coimbatore district, Ganapathi Sub-District, Coimbatore Taluq, Annuparapalayam village, situate to the north of the east to west main road, west of Venkataswami Goundans House, south of the temple and east of Kahannans land; lying within these and belonging to the defendant measuring 12 cubits east to west and 24 cubits north to south, together with 1 thatched shed herein ". It was contended before the lower appellate Court and that Court has given effect to that contention, that what was sold was only the extent mentioned in the land falling within the boundaries given and not the whole of the land within those boundaries. It is not pretended that the whole of the land within the boundaries mentioned did not belong to the judgment-debtor; but, because the measurements given are smaller than the measurements as taken now it is claimed by the plaintiffs temple that all the land within the four boundaries mentioned in the above description over and above 12 cubits cast to west and 24 cubits north to south still belong to them and not to the 1st defendant who claims under the auction-purchaser. We are unable to agree with the construction put upon this sale certificate by the learned District Judge.

2. It seems to us to be quite clear that what was actually sold was the whole of the land within the boundaries and that the measurements were not accurately given, the mistake being in the measurements alone. Ordinarily when a piece of land is sold with definite boundaries, unless it is very clear from the circumstances surrounding the sale that a smaller extent than what is covered by the boundaries was intended to be sold, the rule of interpretation is that boundaries must prevail as against the measurements. There is no reason to suppose that, when the judgment-debtor was putting up the property for sale in execution of his money decree, he was reserving any portion of the property to be left to his judgment-debtor and settling only a portion of the property belonging to him. The property is a single property forming one block on the Avanasi Road. We think that all the circumstances point to the whole of the property within the boundaries having been sold. We agree with the District Munsif in his construction of the sale certificate and set aside the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and in the lower appellate Court.