Kulwant Sahay, J.(His Lordship stated facts as set out above and proceeded.) In second appeal it is contended that the construction put upon the sale certificate is erroneous. It has further been contended that the suit was barred by Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As regards the first contention, on referring to the sale certificate, it appears that Plot No. 6234 was described by boundaries; and admittedly, as found by the Munsif, the boundaries given cover the entire Plot No. 6234, and are not confined to only 14 dhurs out of Plot No. 6234. The area given in the sale certificate is no doubt only 14 dhurs. There is a further description of this plot by giving the number of trees standing thereon. The learned Munsif has held that the trees which are given in the sale certificate as standing on Plot No. 6234 and which were sold and purchased by the auction-purchasers were not confined to the 14 dhurs but were scattered upon the entire Plot No. 6234. Where a land conveyed is described by boundaries as well as by areas, if there is a difference between the boundaries and the area, it is settled law that the land actually comprised within the boundaries will be treated to have been conveyed. In the case of Gossain Das Kundu v. Mrittunjoy Aqnan Sardar [1913] 18 C.L.J. 541, the sale certificate under which the parties had purchased gave boundaries of parcels sold as well as the area of each plot. There was a difference between the areas and the boundaries and it was held that the purchaser took plots as defined by the boundaries and if within those boundaries there was more or less land than that stated in the sale certificate, he obtained a title to whatever was contained within those boundaries. This case is exactly applicable to the facts of the present case. Here also the sale certificate gives the area of the Plot No. 6234 as well as the boundaries. The area given does not tally with the boundaries. The boundaries cover a larger area than what is shown in the certificate. Therefore the entire area included within the boundaries must be considered to have been sold. Over and above the boundaries we have got a description of the trees which have been found to stand scattered over the whole Plot No. 6234. I am, therefore, of opinion that the learned District Judge was right in holding that what was sold and purchased by the auction purchasers was the entire Plot No. 6234 and not only 14 dhurs out of this plot. No doubt it is admitted that some of the other plots included in the sale certificate cover an area less than the old holding of Bhagwat Lal, but in the case of those plots the description given is, "minjumla" that is, not the entire plot, but only a portion thereof. In the case of Plot No. 6234 there is no such description.

2. As regards the second contention of the learned vakil for the appellant that the suit is barred by Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is enough to say that having regard to the fact that the Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 disclaimed their title under the purchase and admitted the title of the plaintiffs. Section 66 of the Code does not operate as a bar to the present suit. This question does not appear to have been raised in appeal before the learned Judge.

3. This appeal must be dismissed with costs.