Skip to content


Subbayya Chakiliyan Vs. Maniam Muttiah Goundan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in78Ind.Cas.414
AppellantSubbayya Chakiliyan
RespondentManiam Muttiah Goundan and anr.
Excerpt:
construction of document - sale of land with definite boundaries--sale-deed mentioning smaller area-rule of inter pretation. - .....not accurately given, the mistake being in the measurements alone. ordinarily, when a piece of land is sold with definite boundaries, unless it is very clear from the circumstances surrounding the sale that a smaller extent than what is covered by the boundaries was intended to be sold, the rule of interpretation is that boundaries must prevail as against the measurements. there is no reason to suppose that, when the judgment-debtor was putting up the property for sale in execution of his money decree, he was reserving any portion of the property to be left to his judgment-debtor and settling only a portion of the property belonging to him. the property is a single property forming one block on the wanasi road. we think that all the circumstances point to the whole of the property.....
Judgment:

1. The question that has been raised before us is what exactly is the land that was purchased in Court junction under Exhibit II, the Court sale certificate. This certificate describes the land in the following terms :

2. 'In Coimbatore District, Ganapathi Sub-District, Coimbatore Taluk, Annaparapalayam village, situate to the north of the east to west main road, west of Venkataswami Goundan's house, south of the temple and east of Kaliannan's land; lying within these and belonging to the defendant, measuring 12 cubits east to west and 24 cubits north to south, together with one thatched shed herein.' It was contended before the lower Appellate Court and that Court has given effect to that contention, that what was sold was only the extent mentioned in the land falling within the boundaries given and not the whole of the land within those boundaries. It is not pretended that the whole of the land within the boundaries mentioned did not belong to the judgment-debtor; but, because the measurements given are smaller than the measurements as taken now, it is claimed by the plaintiff's temple that all the land within the four boundaries mentioned in the above description over and above 12 cubits east to west, and 24 cubits north to south still belong to them and not to the 1st defendant who claims under the auction-purchaser. We are unable to agree with the construction put upon this sale certificate by the learned District Judge.

3. It seems to us to be quite clear that what was actually sold was the whole of the land within the boundaries and that the measurements were not accurately given, the mistake being in the measurements alone. Ordinarily, when a piece of land is sold with definite boundaries, unless it is very clear from the circumstances surrounding the sale that a smaller extent than what is covered by the boundaries was intended to be sold, the rule of interpretation is that boundaries must prevail as against the measurements. There is no reason to suppose that, when the judgment-debtor was putting up the property for sale in execution of his money decree, he was reserving any portion of the property to be left to his judgment-debtor and settling only a portion of the property belonging to him. The property is a single property forming one block on the wanasi road. We think that all the circumstances point to the whole of the property within the boundaries having been sold. We agree with the District Munsif in his construction of the sale certificate and set aside the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //