“ In the present case, the description of boundaries is clear from the title deed. The boundaries were clearly found by the Commissioner on inspection of the property. The property of the plaintiff is nilam. However, coconut trees have been planted in a portion of the land. The property of the defendant is admittedly lying on a higher level and it is a 'purayidam'. Admittedly, a pathway (really a wide ridge) passes through the southern side of the plaintiff's property. The Commissioner found that ridge and fixed the southern boundary. There is no dispute regarding the location of that ridge in the Commissioner's plan. The description of boundaries are certain, identifiable and capable of fixing the boundary without any dispute. In such circumstances, the extent as shown in the title deed and as found in the re-survey is not very material in fixing the boundary between the property of the plaintiff and the property of the defendant. Even if a person was found to be having more extent of land than that shown in his title deed, however, within the four boundaries shown in the title deed, his neighbour cannot aspire for getting that excess land, unless the latter has title to that excess extent.”
