The boundaries given in a conveyance deed will prevail over the measurements given in the deed, if the measurements are given as approximations, to determine the subject matter of the grant.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed suit O.S. No. 56/88 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi, against the respondents herein for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property alleging as follows:

He purchased the suit property of an extent of 54 cents out of. 2 acres 34 cents in S. No. 223/2 under Ex. A-1 on 8.8.1971 from one. Aravamudha Iyengar. In the same Survey Number, he bought a further extent of 1 acre 22 cents from one Ahamed Sultan Rowther under Ex. A--2 on 22.4.1979. Ever since the purchase, he had been in possession and enjoyment by cultivating them. There was a kanni vaikal (Channel) to the north of 54 cents may covered by Ex. A-1 and also 30 Palmyrah trees of the palmyrah trees, 20 were old trees and 10 were tender ones. After the purchase of the 54 cents, the appellants had been in possession of the palmyrah trees and also the channel. He had been using the channel for irrigating his lands covered by Exs. A-1 and A-2. Whileso, the second respondent, who was the owner of S. No. 224, and his father, the first respondent herein, due to enmity with the appellants husband started annexing the northern bund of the channel to the second respondents property. With a view to prevent further annexation, the appellant applied to the Revenue Department, had the property in S. No. 223/2 measured and got a new survey number in respect of 1 acre 76 cents under S. No. 223/2-B. Survey stones were also planted for the appellants property on 14.9.1992. Just prior to the planting of the survey stones the first respondent through his henchmen cut and, carried away 10 Palmyrah trees. In respect of this the appellant lodged a complaint with the police of Thiruthuraipoondi, but they did not take any action. Even after the planting of the survey-stones, the first respondent and his henchmen had been obstructing the enjoyment of the appellant of the channel and the 20 palmyrah trees. The appellant lodged a complaint with the Revenue Department several times and also to the police. But, no action was taken.

On 24.10.1982, the appellant caused a lawyer notice to be issued to which the first respondent sent a reply through his lawyer on 19.1.1983. Thereafter, the appellants husband gave petitions to the Revenue Department and obtained an order stating that the channel on the northern side and the Palmyrah tress thereon were in S. No. 223/2-B belonged to the appellant. So far as the complaint given to the Police Department was concerned, the appellant was instructed to take civil proceedings. In view of the indifferent attitude of the Police and the Revenue Department, the appellant moved the Vacation Civil Court at Nagai by filing a suit in O.S. No. 222/84 and obtained an order of ex parte interim injunction on 24.5.1984. The appellant also filed a caveat before the Vacation Civil Court at Nagapattinam under Caveat Petition No. 4/84. The suit was transferred to the District Munsifs Court, Thiruthuraipoondi and renumbered as O.S. No. 236/84. The temporary injunction continued.

The first respondent had stated that though S. Nos. 224/3, 6 and 7 belonged to the second respondent, only he was managing the property. This prompted the appellant to seek injunction in O.S. No. 236/84 against the first respondent alone. The first respondent contended that the suit had to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary party, viz, the second respondent. The appellant had filed the necessary application for impleading the second respondent as party in O.S. No. 236/34. So far as the respondents were concerned, they did not dispute the title of the appellant with regard to the lands, but disputed the title only in respect of the channel and the palyinrah trees claiming that they were in possession and enjoyment of the same for a long number of years. In view of the stand of the respondents that the channel on the north and the 20 palmyrah trees did not belong to the