have been shown as a boundary in any one of the directions in Ex.A-15. In fact, it is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the property on the north, wherein the church building stood, also belonged to the family and the plaintiffs restricted their claim in respect of the vacant site, surrounding the church building. However, in Ex.A-15, while describing the four boundaries, the property retained by the first plaintiff's husband had not been shown as a boundary. If the property on the north was retained by settler, then, certainly, the same should have been found place in the boundary description. Therefore, from the boundary description found in Ex.A-15, we can safely come to the conclusion that the property on the north belonged to the church even in the year 1956. If Ex.A-15 is read along with FMB, marked as Ex.B-6, it would reveal that the entire property covered by Ex.A-15 with north-south measurement of 35 human feet, included in subdivision No.26, belongs to the plaintiffs. The north-south measurement of S.No.387/26 on the western side is 9 metres; and on the eastern side is 8.4 metres. 9 metres is roughly equivalent to 35 human feet, as mentioned in Ex.A-15. Therefore, the entire property covered under Ex.A-15 has been measured and given sub-division No.387/26. The property on the north belonging to the church is given sub-division No.387/6. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that a strip of vacant site
