The Predominance of Boundaries in Property Adjudication: An Analysis of Indian Jurisprudence

Introduction

The conveyance of immovable property is a cornerstone of legal transactions, and the precise identification of the subject matter of such conveyance is paramount to avoid ambiguity and future disputes. In Indian property law, as in many other jurisdictions, a fundamental principle of construction has evolved to address discrepancies that may arise in the description of property within deeds and other legal instruments. This principle, often succinctly stated as "boundaries shall prevail over extent (or area/measurements)," dictates that where a conflict exists between the description of land by its physical boundaries and its stated area or dimensions, the former is generally accorded precedence. This rule is rooted in the practical understanding that physical boundaries, being tangible and often visible demarcations, are less susceptible to errors of transcription or calculation than abstract figures of area or linear measurements.

This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of this legal maxim within the framework of Indian jurisprudence. It examines the foundational basis of the rule, its application by various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India, and the critical nuances, limitations, and exceptions that temper its application. Furthermore, the interplay between this common law principle and statutory provisions governing land surveys and records will be explored to provide a holistic understanding of how boundaries are determined and disputes resolved in the Indian legal context. The analysis draws heavily upon the provided reference materials, integrating key judicial pronouncements to illustrate the development and contemporary understanding of this enduring legal doctrine.

The General Principle: Boundaries as the Primary Determinant

The general rule that boundaries prevail over area or measurements in the event of a discrepancy in a conveyance deed is well entrenched in Indian law. This preference is often justified on the grounds that boundaries represent the parties' most direct and certain intention regarding the parcel of land being transacted. Measurements and area calculations, conversely, are more prone to human error, whether in initial survey, transcription, or subsequent interpretation.

The Madras High Court in Mahalingam v. A.S Narayanaswamy Iyer (1996 Madras HC) explicitly affirmed this principle, citing the Privy Council's decision in P.K.A.B Co-op. Society v. Govt. of Palestine (AIR 1945 PC 207). The Judicial Committee in the latter case held that "in construing the grant of land a description by fixed boundaries is to be preferred to a conflicting description by area and the statement as to area is to be rejected as falsa demonstratio." The Madras High Court, relying on this, reiterated in Dharmakanny Nadar Siviseshamuthy v. Gopalakrishna (AIR 1963 Madras 147) that where property is part of a definite survey number and exact boundaries are given, the description by boundaries should prevail over an approximate area mentioned.

Similarly, the Kerala High Court in Krishnamurthi Iyer v. Janaki Amma (1957 Kerala HC), referencing Ibrahim Koyakutty v. Varghese (1951 KLT 117), stated the rule as:

"in the absence of circumstances indicating that the application of the boundaries in determining the extent of the land that passed under the conveyance will lead to an error usually in cases of conflict between the area, Survey number and the boundaries mentioned in the documents the boundaries predominate and the rest is considered only as false or erroneous description."

The Supreme Court of India has also lent its authority to this principle. In Arsad Sk & Anr v. Bani Prosanna Kundu & Ors (2014 SC), the Apex Court held that "where there is a dispute between the area of the transferred land indicated in the deed and the boundaries mentioned in the deed, boundaries mentioned in the conveyance deed shall prevail." This position is further echoed by various High Courts. For instance, the Karnataka High Court in SRI. VADDAJJARA SHIVANNA v. SRI. DODDANNA (2022 Karnataka HC), citing the Supreme Court in Sheodhyan Singh v. Musammat Sanichara Kuer, affirmed that "when there is discrepancy in the boundaries and the measurement regarding a property mentioned in the registered document, the recitals regarding the boundaries shall prevail over the measurement." The Bombay High Court in MEHRUNBI WD/O SHEIKH ISMAIL AND 4 OTHERS Vs DIGAMBAR KASHIRAO KHADE (2023 Bombay HC) framed a substantial question of law directly on whether the lower court erred in ignoring this settled proposition. The Madras High Court in Sundaram v. Selvan Alias Selvam (2012 Madras HC) also framed a similar substantial question of law, underscoring the consistent judicial approach.

The maxim "Falsa demonstratio non nocet cum de corpore constat" (a false description does not vitiate if the thing itself is certain) is often invoked in this context, implying that if the property is clearly identified by its boundaries, an erroneous statement of area will not invalidate the grant or conveyance of the land within those boundaries. Furthermore, as noted in S.Syed Abubakkar (Died) v. Sardhar (2011 Madras HC), the principle "Id certum est quod certum reddi potest" (that is certain which can be made certain) supports the reliance on specified boundaries to ascertain the property.

Nuances and Limitations to the Rule

While the general predominance of boundaries is well-established, it is not an immutable rule and is subject to several important qualifications and limitations. It is fundamentally a rule of construction, aimed at discerning the true intention of the parties to the instrument.

1. Intention of the Parties

The primary goal of interpreting any deed is to ascertain the intention of the parties. The rule preferring boundaries is a means to this end. If there is clear evidence from the surrounding circumstances or the deed itself that the parties intended the area or measurement to be the defining factor, or that a smaller extent than that covered by the boundaries was intended to be sold, courts may deviate from the general rule. The Madras High Court in Mahalingam v. A.S Narayanaswamy Iyer (1996 Madras HC) acknowledged this by stating the rule applies "unless it is clear from the circumstances surrounding the sale that a smaller extent than what is covered by the boundaries was intended to be sold."

2. Significant Discrepancies versus Marginal Adjustments

A crucial limitation arises when the discrepancy between the area specified and the area encompassed by the boundaries is excessively large. The rule is generally understood to apply to minor discrepancies or "marginal adjustments," not to situations where its application would lead to an absurd or unjust enrichment or confer an undue advantage.

The Karnataka High Court in Smt. N. Savithramma And Others v. Dr. B.N Sheshadri (1998 Karnataka HC) critically examined this aspect. The court questioned "whether under the guise of the Dictum that ‘Boundaries shall prevail over the Measurements’, the plaintiff is entitled to claim larger extent than what is sold." It opined that the theory should be applied only for "MARGINAL ADJUSTMENTS" and not to confer undue advantage, illustrating with a hypothetical: "if the land purchased under a Deed is only 100 square feet, can 1000 square feet be claimed on the ground that boundaries given in the Sale Deed Cover an area of 1000 square feet? Clearly, the claim that boundaries shall prevail should not be mis interpreted to confer a larger area of entire 1000 square feet as against the entitlement of area of 100 square feet."

This perspective was reiterated by the Kerala High Court in P.N. Prema Gangadharan Nair v. Kottara Balan Nair (2017 Kerala HC), which cited Smt. N. Savithramma and also referred to Chitturi Perraju v. Yednapudi Venkamma (AIR 1971 A.P. 74). The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chitturi Perraju noted that boundaries prevail even if there is "some discrepancy" about the actual extent, emphasizing the word "some" to imply minor variations.

3. Vendor's Title

The principle that boundaries prevail cannot operate to convey title to land that the vendor does not own. If the boundaries described in a sale deed encompass land beyond the vendor's ownership, the purchaser cannot claim title to such excess land merely by invoking this rule. The court in Smt. N. Savithramma (1998 Karnataka HC) implicitly touched upon this when considering the vendor's actual entitlement versus the area described by boundaries. The primary consideration remains what the vendor had the right to convey.

4. Certainty of Boundaries

The application of the rule presupposes that the boundaries themselves are clear, fixed, and ascertainable. If the description of boundaries is vague, ambiguous, or itself a subject of dispute, the rule loses much of its force. In S.Syed Abubakkar (Died) v. Sardhar (2011 Madras HC), the court applied the rule noting that "the boundaries are specific." If boundaries are not specific, other elements of description, including area or survey numbers, may gain more significance.

5. Agricultural Lands – A Divergent View?

An interesting and potentially divergent perspective was offered by the Allahabad High Court in Abdul Salam v. Mohd.Yasean (2005 Allahabad HC), particularly concerning agricultural land. In this case, the sale deed mentioned a specific area (5-6-0), but the plaintiff claimed a larger area (9-6-0) based on the boundaries mentioned. The court rejected this claim, stating:

"I do not agree with the contention of the respondents that they have inherited rights over an area 9-6-0 on the basis of boundaries mentioned in the sale deed because in the sale deed it has been clearly mentioned that the area is being transferred is 5-6-0 then the respondents have claim and an area 5-6-0 only. It is occasionally seen that in order to avoid stamp duty the boundaries are not correctly mentioned though the area is mentioned correctly. If it is assume that whenever there is discrepancy between the area and the boundaries then the boundaries shall prevail, I strongly believe that it will lead to total chaos. In my view, whenever there is a difference between area and the boundaries, then in variably the area should be taken into account and not the boundary."

The court reasoned that for agricultural lands, settlement records and khatunis showing specific areas are available, and allowing boundaries to prevail over clearly stated areas could lead to chaos and facilitate stamp duty evasion. This judgment presents a significant counter-argument to the universal application of the "boundaries prevail" maxim, especially for agricultural lands where official records often emphasize area. Whether this view represents a broader trend or an exception specific to certain contexts or jurisdictions requires further judicial clarification.

6. Context of the Dispute

The applicability of the rule can also depend on the specific nature of the dispute. As seen in JOTHIBAI KANNAN, v. S.MURALI SUNDARAM (2021 Madras HC), the court distinguished the applicability of the principle (citing S.Syed Abubakkar) when the core issue was the existence of a public road rather than a dispute over the extent of private property between two parties based on conflicting descriptions in a deed.

Statutory Framework and Boundary Determination

The common law principle of boundaries prevailing is supplemented and sometimes guided by statutory provisions related to land survey, settlement, and record-keeping. Acts like the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, or the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, play a crucial role in the official determination and recording of land boundaries.

The Madras High Court in Rukkaiah Natchiar v. P.m.s. Mohamed Aamina Beevi And Others (2020 Madras HC) discussed provisions of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. Sections like 9 and 10 deal with the power of the survey officer to determine and record undisputed and disputed boundaries, respectively. Section 13 of this Act provides for the conclusiveness of the survey, making the record of boundaries determined under the Act final, subject to any modification by a decree of a civil court in a suit instituted under Section 14 by an aggrieved party within three years. This statutory framework provides a mechanism for formal boundary determination, and the records created (Record of Rights) can be significant evidence in property disputes. The case of State Of Orissa And Others v. Commissioner Of Land Records & Settlement, Cuttack And Others (1998 SC 7 162) also highlights the importance of the Record of Rights maintained under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, in managing land records, which inherently involves boundary details.

Despite these statutory mechanisms, the ultimate authority to adjudicate boundary disputes, especially those involving interpretation of private conveyances, often rests with civil courts. The Supreme Court in E. Achuthan Nair v. P. Narayanan Nair And Another (1987 SC) unequivocally held that a dispute regarding the identification of a boundary between two adjacent landowners is a dispute of a civil nature, cognizable by a civil court under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The court emphasized that Indian courts are not bound by the historical peculiarities of English law requiring equitable considerations for such suits. This affirms the civil court's primary role in resolving such disputes, where principles like "boundaries prevail" are applied.

Analogous Principles in Boundary Fixation

While primarily dealing with international boundaries, the principles discussed in the Berubari Union (I), Re V. (1960 SC) and President Of India v. Berubari Union Exchange Of Enclaves (1959 SC) cases offer some analogous insights. These cases referred to the Australian High Court decision in State of South Australia v. State of Victoria (12 CLR 667), where the fixation of a boundary line, marked on the ground and accepted, was considered "in the nature of an award or judgment in rem binding upon them and all persons claiming under them." The Privy Council, in the same dispute, noted that the power to do acts necessary for permanently fixing boundaries was implicit. This underscores the significance of ascertained and accepted boundaries, whether at an international or private property level, in bringing finality to their location.

Conclusion

The legal principle that "boundaries shall prevail over extent" is a significant and widely recognized rule of construction in Indian property law. It serves as a practical guide for courts in resolving discrepancies in property descriptions within legal instruments, aiming to uphold the most reliable indicator of the parties' intentions – the physical demarcations of the land. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently affirmed this rule, supported by related maxims like falsa demonstratio non nocet.

However, this principle is not absolute. Its application is tempered by crucial considerations such as the clear contrary intention of the parties, the magnitude of the discrepancy (with the rule being more applicable to "marginal adjustments"), the extent of the vendor's title, and the certainty of the boundaries themselves. The divergent view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Abdul Salam v. Mohd.Yasean (2005 Allahabad HC) concerning agricultural lands suggests that context and the nature of available records can influence the rule's applicability, potentially prioritizing recorded area in specific circumstances to prevent misuse.

Statutory frameworks for survey and settlement provide formal mechanisms for boundary determination, and the records generated play an evidentiary role. Nonetheless, the civil courts retain ultimate jurisdiction to adjudicate boundary disputes, applying established principles of interpretation. The maxim "boundaries shall prevail" remains a vital tool in this adjudicatory process, promoting certainty in property transactions, but its application demands a careful, context-sensitive approach to ensure that it serves, rather than subverts, the cause of justice and the true intent of the transacting parties.