sale deed. As rightly pointed by the learned Senior Counsel, it is clear that the appellant purchased only a portion of the property covered under Ex.A.2 Will. I have also compared the boundaries in the above documents with the sketch produced by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents showing the 4 boundaries in Ex.A.1 partition deed as well as Ex.A.2 Will. It is clear from these schedules as well as the sketch, that the property, which has been purchased by the appellant, is only forming part of item 2 of the Will property and not as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant. The reason for confusion even arising in the first place with regard to the boundaries is because the schedule in the Will is as per 1961 partition deed and subsequently the description of the property has underwent a sea change and new door number and re-survey numbers have been assigned which is evidenced from Ex.B.3 sale deed. In fact, Ex.B.3 sale deed was just 7 months prior to the alleged Will and if really the Will had reflected the current lay of the property, then the description would have been on the lines of the properties described in Ex.B.3 sale deed and not in line with item 2 of the 1961 partition deed in Ex.A.1. Therefore, I am unable to countenance the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the
