1. Two questions have been argued. First it is contended that parol evidence was wrongly admitted to show that the upstair house described in Exh. G (item 2) was the house in reference to which the present dispute has arisen.
2. It is clear from Exh. G that the intention was to convey an upstair house and that house is described as included in, i.e., standing on, a certain site which is also described and conveyed. When the document is applied to the facts existing at the date of the sale, it is found that the vendor had no upstair house on that site, but had one on the opposite side of the same street and no other in that town or elsewhere. Evidence has been admitted to show that he intended to convey that house. We think the evidence was admissible and that the words, in the document which indicated that the house sold stood upon the site described must be regarded as mere misdescription to be omitted from consideration. The second contention is that the Tamil word Kalan' in the covenant on which the plaintiff relies is to be interpreted as meaning any dispute about the title, and not, as the lower courts have held, as referring to a defect in the title. On this point we think we must accept the interpretation of the District Munsif from which the District Judge has not dissented.
3. This second appeal is dismissed with costs.