The main legal point established in the judgment is that boundaries prevail over the extent in case of any discrepancy with measurements, and adverse possession can extinguish the right to the property.

The plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal, challenging the decree and judgment passed in A.S. No. 41 of 2010, dated 06.04.2011, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kovilpatti by confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No. 273 of 2008, dated 13.07.2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.

2. The appellant, as plaintiff, has filed a suit in O.S. No. 273 of 2008 for declaration of title and for consequential injunction in respect of S.NO. 7/2 in the plaint schedule property from one Muthammal on 03.02.1990. From that date onwards, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same, after making mutation of the revenue records. On 22.10.2008, the defendant, without any right over the property, attempted to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment. Hence, he was constrained to file a suit for the above said relief.

3. This respondent, as defendant, filed a detailed written statement stating that the suit property is his ancestral property. He sold the same in favour of one Muthammal on 28.05.1982 only 90 cents, out of 70 Ares. Hence, Muthammal has no right to sell the property, what she was not purchased under the sale deed dated 28.05.1982. The defendant alone is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, he prayed for dismissal.

4. The plaintiff filed a reply statement for the written statement filed by the defendant stating that the entire suit property comprised in S. No. 7/2A has been sold to him. From the date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and before this, his predecessor viz., Muthammal enjoyed the suit property with the stated boundaries. Therefore, the boundaries will prevail over the extent. Hence, he prayed for a decree.

5. The trial Court, after framing necessary issues, granted decree only in respect of Ex.B.1 and on appeal, that has been confirmed by the first Appellate Court.

6. Against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, the plaintiff filed this Second Appeal and raised the following Substantial Questions of Law:

"A) Whether the Courts below are right in law in restricting the relief with regard to 90 cents mechanically accepting the version of the respondent even without adverting the very recitals under Ex.B2 and there is no contra evidence adduced by the respondent overwhelming the documentary evidence produced by the appellant?

B) Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are vitiated in granting the decree as such without adverting the settled principles of law that boundary will prevail over extent in case of any discrepancy with measurements, especially under Exs.A1 and B1 there are two measurements, however the boundaries remains the same?”

7. Further, during the pendency of the Second Appeal, M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2012 has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reception of original document of Ex.B.1. Since the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has no objection for marking the original document, it was received and marked as Ex.A.19.

8. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the properties were owned by the defendant's father and the defendant sold the suit property under Ex.B.1/A.19 on 28.05.1982 to Muthammal, from whom under Ex.A.1, the plaintiff/ appellant herein purchased the property. After purchase by his vendor Muthammal, patta has been issued in her name. Then, after Ex.A.1 has been executed, patta has also been changed in the name of the plaintiff/appellant. Kist receipts have been marked as Ex.A.3, chitta has been marked as Ex.A.5 and to prove his possession, Adangal has been marked as Ex.A.6 to Ex.A.18. This factum was not considered by the trial Court.

9. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the boundary will prevail over the extent, if there is any discrepancy in the extent. It vests under the dictum of “the vendor has no right to