H. Naganna and others vs Marlinge Gowda by Lrs and others. Regular Second Appeal 2110/2010 decided on 6 November 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/348681/1/RSA2110-10-06-11-2020.pdf
Relevant pages (paragraphs are not numbered): 19. As early as in the year 1948, the Privy Council in THE PALESTINE KUPAT AM BANK CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.VS GOVERNMENT OF PALESTINE AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1948 PC 207 observed as follows: – “In construing a grant of land, a description by fixed boundaries is to be preferred to a conflicting description by area. The statement as to area is to be rejected as falsa demonstratio.”
Same view was taken referring to this decision by the High Court of Madras in DHARMAKANNY NADAR SIVISESHAMUTHU AND OTHERS VS MAHALINGAM NADAR GOPALAKRISHNA NADAR AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1963 MADRAS 147 and it is reproduced as under: “Where the property sold is part of a definite survey number and in the sale deed the exact boundaries of the part sold are given and the area mentioned is only approximate, the description by boundaries should prevail in ascertaining the actual property sold under the document”.
This Court in NARASIMHA SHASTRY VS MANGESHA DEVARU reported in ILR 1988 KAR 554 has held as under: – “Where the sale deed mentioned the boundaries specifically and clearly to identify the property, the actual extent of the land not being clear, the recitals as to boundaries should prevail.”
It seems to me to be quite clear that what was sold was the whole of the property with definite boundaries and that the measurements were not accurately given, the mistake being in the measurement alone. Therefore, there was no reason for Judges to restrict the ownership to a smaller extent. It is well established by several decisions of Courts that where the boundaries in a document are vague and indefinite, the area should prevail, but where the boundaries are specific and definite, the area must be taken as given only approximately.
This is, therefore, a clear case of precise and accurate description in a document of the property sold by its boundaries. The measurement by area should, therefore, be considered only approximate. I, therefore, come to the conclusion that the general principles laid down by the decisions cited above that the description by boundaries should prevail where the boundaries are exact and where the area is approximate should be applied in this case, ….
I repeat that it is not a case where the boundaries in a document are vague and indefinite, so that the area should prevail. It follows therefore, that if the boundaries are specific and definite, the area must be taken as has given only approximate.
As already observed above, it is well established by several decisions of Courts that where the boundaries in a document are vague and indefinite, the area should prevail, but where the boundaries are specific and definite, the area must be taken as given approximately. It is perhaps well to observe that if the description of a boundary is ambiguous, otherwise uncertain or in conflict with the occupation, Courts may settle the position of the disputed boundary.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 