The sufficiency of property description for registration under the Registration Act is determined by Section 21(1) and Section 22(1), along with relevant rules such as Rule 17, Ch. VI.

Ramesam, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for enforcing the registration of a portion of a certain document. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. The District Judge decreed it. The defendants appeal.

2. The document in question is a partition-deed between the plaintiff and the first defendant who are brothers. The whole document except paragraph 8 was registered. The suit relates only to paragraph 8. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant. Paragraph 8 of the, document runs thus:

Since we have allowed our aunt, Kuppanni to enjoy for her maintenance 41 acres 31 cents of land purchased by our natural guardian and grandmother Muthanni in her name in Singalanthi, Pandi and other villages in the Thiruthuraipundi Taluk, we shall divide the said property between ourselves in moieties after her death.

3. Before I discuss the question of law I will clear up the further facts necessary for deciding this case. The plaint after alleging that the grandmother of the parties purchased certain lands, Has got a schedule annexed to it in which the lands are specifically described. In the schedule, survey numbers are given, the villages are mentioned and they are Singalanthi and Pandi and no other, and the total extent is given which slightly differs from the extent in the partition deed and the extent in the sale-deeds. But whatever variation there may be in the extent, this amounts to an allegation on the part of the plaintiff that the lands purchased by the grandmother and described as 41 acres 37 cents in the partition-deed are the lands which are given in the schedule to the plaint though described as a slightly different area and no other. The defendants in their written statement do not allege that the grandmother purchased lands in other villages than Singalanthi and Pandi nor do they plead that there are other lands besides the lands mentioned in the plaint schedule so purchased by her. We must take it therefore that the defendants admit that the lands mentioned in the plaint schedule are the lands purchased by their grandmother. It would appear that the sale deeds taken by the grandmother were filed in the first Court but were not formally exhibited. This is what the District Judge says about them:

The documents under which the lands were purchased were filed in the Lower Court. But as there was no dispute about it the documents were not formally exhibited. They were also produced in this Court though no special petition was put in to exhibit them in the case here. As even in this Court there is no dispute about the documents I do not exhibit them.

4. The statement of the District judge that there was no dispute about the purchase either in the first Court or in the Appellate Court has not been contradicted before me by affidavit and I must take it that there is really no dispute that these are the three documents under which the grandmother purchased the properties. The three documents which were looked into by the District Judge are now formally exhibited by me as Exs. B, B-1 and B-2. A reference to these three sale-deeds supports all the statements made by the District Judge, that is, they show that the lands purchased were all situate in Singalanthi and Pandi and no other. Their extent omitting one number (201-e). as given in the sale-deed is 39 acres 54 cents. The extent of the Survey No. 201 (e) was not given in the sale-deed, It is a thrashing floor. The parties possess only certain rights in it along with others. Its extent is now given in the plaint as I acre and 17 cents. The total would then be 40 acres 71 cents, but in respect of one of the plots there is a discrepancy between the extent given in the plaint schedule and that extent given in the sale-deeds, i.e., 201 (e), whereas Ex. B (1) gives it as 4 acres 27 cents, the plaint gives it as 4 acres 97 cents. Adding this difference of 70 cents the extent as given in the plaint schedule comes to 41 acres 41 cents, the variation as compared w