The main legal principle established in the judgment is the precedence of boundaries over extent in property conveyance, as determined by the surrounding circumstances and parties' intentions.

1. Challenge in this Second Appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 3.7.2012 passed in Appeal Suit No. 106 of 2011 by the Sub Court, Devakottai, wherein the judgment and decree dated 9.4.2011 passed in Original Suit No. 110 of 2008 by the District Munsif Court, Devakottai are reversed.

2. The appellants herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No. 110 of 2008 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants.

3. It is averred in the plaint that the first plaintiff is the wife of the deceased Sornam Chettiar. The plaintiffs 2 to 6 are their children. The adoptive father of Sornam Chettiar viz., SP. Nagappa Chettiar has passed away in the year 1975. The ancestral house of SP.Nagappa Chettiar is situate in old door Nos. 17 and 18 and the said house is facing towards eastern side. The said SP. Nagappa Chettiar has owned a tiled house bearing No. 18/2 and vacant site immediately on the northern side of the house bearing door Nos. 17 and 18. The said SP. Nagappa Chettiar has sold 1200 square feet under a registered sale deed dated 12.12.1974 in favour of SP. Nagammai Achi and he retained the suit property. The suit property is situate in between the house bearing door Nos. 17 and 18 and the property mentioned in the sale deed dated 12.12.1974. The purchaser under the sale deed dated 12.12.1974 by name SP.Nagammai Achi has executed a will in favour of her daughter-in-law by name Anusya who has been arrayed as first defendant. The said Anusya has executed a sale deed dated 22.1.1998 in favour of the defendants 2 and 3. Now the defendants 2 and 3 have made illegal claim over the suit property. The suit property is the absolute property of the plaintiffs. The suit property is an extent of 134.7 square feet. Since the defendants have denied title of the plaintiffs over the suit property, the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction.

4. The material averments made in the written statement filed on the side of the defendants 2 and 3 can be stated like thus:

It is false to say that the ancestral house of SP. Nagappa Chettiar is bearing door Nos. 17 and 18. It is also equally false to say that a tiled house bearing No. 18/2 is situate on the northern side. The original owner of the suit property by name SP. Nagappa Chettiar has executed a sale deed in favour of SP. Nagammai Achi on 12.12.1974, wherein clear four boundaries have been given. The said Nagammai Achi has executed a will dated 28.12.1988 in favour of the first defendant and the first defendant has sold the property covered under the will dated 28.12.1988 in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 by virtue of the sale deed dated 22.1.1998. It is false to say that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property. The defendants 2 and 3 are the owners of the suit property and its adjoining northern property. There is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence has decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants 2 and 3 as appellants have preferred Appeal Suit No. 106 of 2011 on the file of the first appellate Court.

6. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has allowed the Appeal and thereby set aside the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 110 of 2008 by the trial Court. Against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the present Second Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the plaintiffs as appellants.

7. As agreed by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the present Second Appeal is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission.

8. On the side of the appellants/plaintiffs, the