1920. Present : Bertram C.J. and Shaw J,

BULNER v. SHOCKMAN.

405-D. C. Colombo, 53,649.

Falsa demonstratio non nocet-Sale under the Civil Procedure Code- Inaccuracies in notice as to extent, boundaries, and ward number.

Certain premises were advertised for sale, and sold in pursuance of the Civil Procedure Code as being the property of the plaintiff. They were described with reference to their boundaries, their extent, and their ward numbers, but none of these descriptions was quite accurate.

Held, as no one could make a mistake as to what property was intended to be referred to in the notice, the inaccuracies in regard to orientation, extent, and ward number were not fatal to the validity of the notice.

THE facts appear from the judgment of the District Judge (P. E. Pieris, Esq.) :-

On two Fiscal's transfers of July, 1914, the plaintiff purchased two adjoining blocks of land at Galkapanawatta. The first block is described in the transfer P 4 as " that part of low ground now used as a ferry, bearing Municipal assessment No. 50." Its extent is given, with reference to the old plan P 5, as of 1 rood 12 1/2 square perches. The boundary is given as being on the north-east the road leading to Urugodawatta. As a matter of fact, that road, though on P 5, it might be mistaken for the north-east, and in reality is the northern boundary, is not the north-east. As a town plan (P 2) shows, there has been a deviation of the road since P 5 was prepared in 1869. The second transfer P 6 describes the land as formerly bearing assessment No. 54, now 51, and gives the area as 3 roods 39 96/100 perches. It refers to a plan (P 7) of 1839, and, once again, misdescribes the directions of the boundaries.

It seems a pity that these modern transfers are not supported by more recent surveys. The total acreage as shown in the old surveys is just about 5 roods and 12 perches. The price paid by the plaintiff was only Rs. 140, and the two blocks were subject to a mortgage of Rs. 10,000. In 1918 the present defendant, who held a judgment against the plaintiff, issued writ and caused these premises to be seized. Admittedly, the notices of seizure were posted on those premises. The plaintiff has no other land at Galkapanawatta. Certain boundaries appear in the notice, a copy of which is marked P 1. Reading these with the plan D 2, it will be seen that these boundaries err in the same manner as those given in P 4 and P 6. The explanation is quite simple. The boundaries do not run in the direction of the cardinal points. What runs from north-west to south-east is described as the eastern boundary. Then must follow the southern boundary, and so a boundary is named as being on the south, when, as a mattes of fact, it is the eastern boundary. This is a common error, but the four boundaries, are correct in the description, though not in the direction. The notice further described the land as being in extent about 3 roods. That is, and is meant to be, merely approximate.

Further, the notice said that the premises bore the assessment No. 1110/53. The first of these numbers represents what is called the ward number. These ward numbers were introduced in 1908, and appear not to have been changed since. The second number is the street number, which is subject to revision from time to time. There can hardly be a doubt in view of the evidence of the inspector, Mr. de Soyza, that the numbers shown in the notice are correctly applicable, not to the premises seized, but to a small lot two doors off. The premises seized should correctly bear two sets of numbers, namely, 1112/50 and 1113/51. It may even be that four years ago there were such numbers actually fixed on the premises seized, but the inspector has no knowledge in respect of the last four years.

The Fiscal's clerk who conducted the sale says that he verified the number at the sale, and that it was as it appeared in the notice. I do not k