to convey only the extent of 7989 sq.ft to the defendant by way of Ex.B2 sale transaction and not more than that. Adding 9871 sq.ft with 7989 sq.ft, the total would come to 17,860 sq ft. As above noted, one cent is equivalent to 435.60 sq.ft. The total extent of the property lying in the suit survey number is found to be only 17,860 sq.ft and if the same is divided by 435.60, it is seen that the total extent would only come to 41 cents. As above pointed out, the parties are not in dispute that the total extent available in the suit survey number is only 41 cents. As rightly put forth by the plaintiff's counsel the surveyor and the Commissioner who had been appointed to measure the properties belonging to the parties had proceeded on the presumption that the defendant has acquired an extent of 18 ½ cents in the suit survey number under Ex.B2 sale transaction legally. However, when it is found that the defendant 's vendor Saroja would be competent to only alienate 18 1/3 cents and not more than that, as above noted, at the most, she would be entitled to convey only an extent of 7989 sq ft and on the other hand, on a perusal of Ex.B2 sale transaction, the same is described as comprising of an extent of 8066 sq ft and taking advantage of the same, it is evident that the defendant had encroached into the portion belonging to the plaintiff, particularly in the 8 ft lane portion lying to the northern wall of the house property of the plaintiff and extended the fence by encroaching into the suit property measuring 2 ft x 70 ft and if the actual entitlement of the defendant in the suit survey number is calculated as above, it is found that she is in the possession of more extent of land than what she is actually entitled to and therefore it is found that the excess of land noted to be in the possession of the defendant by the surveyor is incorrect and if the extent of the property belonging to the defendant is measured as only 18 1/3 cents i.e., 7989 sq.ft, it is obvious and clear that the defendant had encroached into the plaintiff's portion as putforth by the plaintiff and in such view of the matter, the trial court is fully justified in granting the relief of the recovery of the possession in favour of the plaintiff as regards the suit property. The first appellate court has failed to consider the abovesaid aspects of the matter by assessing the materials placed on record in the right perceptive and on the premise that the excess of 165 links found to be in the possession of the defendant, not being equivalent to the suit property, on that basis, proceeded to disturb the well considered reasonings and conclusions of the trial court for upholding the plaintiff's case. If the abovesaid factors are take into account by the first appellate court, the truth would have been divulged, it is thus found that the defendant had in fact encroached into the more portion of the plaintiff's property and in such view of the matter, the
