8.Resisting the same, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, the first defendant and his brother namely, Venkatasami Reddy who is the father of the second defendant purchased the suit property from one Desugan on 17.08.1967 vide Ex.B1/sale deed, which came into existence much before the vendor of the plaintiff namely, Bangarammal purchased the property. In the oral partition, the southern portion has been allotted to the first defendant and northern portion has been allotted to the brother of first defendant and that they are in possession of the suit property, so the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. It is further submitted that Desugan is having only 56 ½ cents and he sold the same to the defendants. Even though the first appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the extent is 62 cents, boundaries will prevail over the extent. Further, identity of the suit property is not disputed. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 2000 (3) MLJ 327 (Ramaiya Asari v. Ramakrishna Naicker alias Kollimalai Naicker and another) and submits that boundaries given in the deed will prevail over the extent.
