G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. The brief facts of the case is as under:

2. On 06.06.1970, the plaintiff had purchased the suit property shown as Schedule A and B in the plaint from the defendant. As per the sale deed, the extent of the property is mentioned as "more or less" 11 cents, the boundaries are mentioned in the sale deed. Later the younger sister of the defendant Sulthana Rashia Begum filed a suit for partition against the defendant and others in O.S.No.166/77 in which she sought for 7/104 shares in the properties mentioned in her suit schedule which includes the property bearing S.No.137/1 in Adiakkamangalam. The said property is now in dispute because in the partition suit mentioned above preliminary decree was passed, and consequently in I.A.No.416/79 was filed and Commissioner measured the land at S.No.137/1. At that time, it was found that the actual extent on ground was 19 cents and not 11 cents, as it is mentioned in the sale deed of the plaintiff as well as in the other documents.

3. The allegation of the plaintiff is that after knowing that the actual extent of S.No.137/1 is 19 cents and not 11 cents as it was presumed, the defendant trespassed into the portion of the plaintiff's land and put up fence. The entire land purchased by the plaintiff is described under A Schedule and the encroached portion is described under B Schedule of the plaintiff.

4. The defendant as annexed the Well and Coconut Trees and put up a 36 feet length wall running North to South. Therefore, the suit for declaration in respect of A Schedule property and recovery of possession in respect of B Schedule property filed.

5. The defendant admits the execution of the sale deed dated 06.06.1970 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of S.No.137/1. According to him, it was only 11 cents sold to the plaintiff and the remaining 8 cents was retained and enjoyed by him. In the final decree proceedings passed in O.S.No.116/1977, he was allotted the 19 cents of land in S.No.137/1. Excluding 11 cents sold to the plaintiff, he is in the remaining 8 cents, fenced and enjoying it.

6. The plaintiff has removed the Coconut Trees and Well in his land and trying to claim 8 cents of land along with the Well and Coconut Trees in the defendant's land. The plaintiff is only entitled to 11 cents of land which was alienating to him under the sale deed and he cannot claim a larger extent more than what sold.

7. The trial Court after considering the evidence let in by the respective parties dismiss the suit. On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the finding of the Trial Court and allowed the suit. Aggrieved by the reversing judgment, the defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.

The following Substantial Question of Law has been formulated by this Court at the time of admission.

"(a) Whether boundaries will prevail over extents, when the intent of the parties indicates the specific extent mentioned in the documents?

(b) Whether the words "or thereabouts", used with reference to property, will include a discrepancy of 80%? and

(c) Whether burden of proof does not lie on the plaintiff with regard to relief of mandatory injunction?

8. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Lower Appellate Court erred in law holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 18 cents of land. While Ex.A-1 sale deed itself confers only 11 cents of land and the expression "more or less" 11 cents cannot be taken as it convey 19 cents of land under Ex.A-1. The difference in the document and on the field is nearly 80%. Therefore, the word "thereabouts" used with reference to property can only be for a small variation, but not a huge variation of 80%. The Lower Appellate Court ought to have considered the fact of the case and the recital in Ex.A-1 and ought to have held that the extent mentioned in the documents will prevail over the boundaries. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the meaning of the word "thereabouts" given