had acquired more extent of property in R.S.No.10 other than the property comprised in Ex.A1 settlement deed, merely because, at the time of the inspection of the property by the Advocate Commissioner and the measurement of the same within the boundaries noted by the Advocate Commissioner, the old door No.109 and New door No.12 is also located, that by itself would not lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff's vendors had a valid title to the suit property and entitled to convey the same under Ex.A5 to the plaintiff. No doubt, within the property measured by the Advocate Commissioner, the property in the occupation of the defendants is also found to be located. But, as abovestated, it is the specific case of the defendants that the property in their possession and enjoyment, does not pertain to the property covered under Ex.A1 settlement deed. When under Ex.A1 settlement deed, only 800 sq.ft alone is conveyed or settled and on the other hand, when the sale deed Ex.A5 is found to be comprised of a larger extent and when there is no material placed by the plaintiff to evidence that as to how the vendors had acquired the larger extent of the property in the suit survey number i.e., R.S.No.10 and when it is seen that the Advocate Commissioner had not endeavored to measure the property with reference to the boundaries described in Ex.A1 and on the other hand, endeavored to measure the property only as per the boundaries described in Ex.A5, in such view of the difference in the extent of land in the abovesaid documents namely Ex.A1 and A5, as rightly put forth by the defendants' counsel, the concept that the boundaries would prevail when there is dispute regarding the extent, as such cannot be applied and in such view of the matter, it is found that the first appellate court is found to have totally erred in upholding the plaintiff's case based on the Commissioner's report and plan.
