its terms are cl e ar and unambiguous, the same m ust prevail over any oral evid e nce. In such circum s tances, the learned 1st Appellat e Court has committed a grave e rror in reversing th e well-reasoned findings of the l earned trial Court on issue No.1 by holding that th e learned trial Court had misco n strued the matter in not consid e ring the boundaries of the property as depicted in the sale deed Ex.D2/1 and the site plan Ex.D3. T h e learned 1st Appellate Court h a s misdirected itself and misrea d the evidence on re c ord in concluding that, since a site plan describing the bound a ries of the property was appended to the sale dee d and the said boundaries have b een described in th e sale deed, they ought to be tre a ted as constituting the property sold by the father of the appellant-plaintiff to resp o ndent No.1-defendant No.1. E ven DW5, husband of respondent No.1-defendant N o.1 nowhere stated that respondent No.1-defendan t No.1 also purchased house N o .437 from father of the appel l antplaintiff; nor E x.P4 i.e. letter dated 21.03.1966 written by defendant No.1 t o the President, M.C . , Kalka talks about house No.4 3 7. 7. It w as further contended that both the learned Courts below have e rred in declaring th e respondent No.1-defendant N o .1 as owner of the suit propert y on the basis of a d verse possession. The defenda n ts cannot, in law, claim owne r ship simultaneously on the strength of the sale d e ed Ex.D2/1 as well as by wa y of adverse posses s ion from the same date i.e. 21.02.1966, as these pleas are inher e ntly inconsistent, m u tually destructive, and contrar y to the settled principles of la w . In support of hi s contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments pas s ed by the Delhi High Court i n Anu Gupta Vs. Vijay Gupta and others passed i n CS(OS) No.250/2020 on 08. 0 8.2022 and the judgment passe d by the Hon’ble Su p reme Court in Government of Kerala and another Vs. Joseph and others 2023 INSC 693.
