1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1572 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. ANITHA W/O M.V. KANTHARAJ AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.E-9, NEW NO.28 MARAMMA TEMPLE STREET K G NAGAR, GAVIPURAM GUTTAHALLI BANGALORE-560019. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRIVATSA .S, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVAKUMAR .V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT. RAMAKKA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS A. MUKUND S/O LATE ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.2075 2ND STAGE 16TH C MAIN INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-560008. 2 2 . SMT. A. GEETHA D/O LATE RAMAKKA W/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.686/3, 16TH E MAIN HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-560008. 3 . SMT. ANASUYA W/O M. KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT NO.121, II CROSS K G NAGAR, BANGALORE-560019. 4 . SMT. PARVATHI W/O LATE SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT NO.798, 6TH CROSS 10TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-560038. 5 . SMT. SARVAMANGALA S/O SAVAL MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO.26/1, N T ROAD II CROSS, MARANAVAMI BAYALU J C NAGAR SHIMOGA. 6 . BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER CORPORATION BUILDING J C ROAD BANGALORE-560002. 7 . THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER KEMPEGOWDANAGAR RANGE 1ST FLOOR 3 CORPORATION BUILDING J.C. ROAD BENGALURU-560002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANTHA NARAYANA .B.N, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3, R1, R2 AND R4; SRI. ZAMEER PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. N.R. JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI. K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.06.2023 PASSED IN OS.NO.9097/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.06.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V. JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by defendant No.2 assailing the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court in O.S.No.9097/2013. The trial Court has declared the plaintiffs as the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and consequently, defendants Nos.1 and 2 are restrained from interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful 4 possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. A mandatory injunction is also issued directing defendant Nos.3 and 4 to register the plaintiffs name as kathedars of the suit schedule property by assigning a separate corporation number to the suit schedule property. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The subject matter of the suit is a vacant portion measuring East-West 24 feet and North-South 12 feet. This disputed property which is referred to as schedule property is part and parcel of property measuring East-West 42 feet + 40/2 feet and North-South 40 feet + 39/2 feet. Plaintiffs are the daughters of one late Patel Mariappa. Plaintiffs assert that the property was acquired by their father under registered partition deed dated 16.01.1933. The plaintiffs further claim that a portion of the property was sold to 5 Maistry Bathyappa under registered sale deed dated 29.07.1945. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that despite sale deed in favour of Maistry Bathyappa, a portion of the property measuring East-West 24 feet and North- South 12 feet which is referred as suit schedule property was retained by the father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs specifically assert that the said portion of the property was used as Srirama Bhajana Mandira. Plaintiffs have further contended that the portion that was sold to Maistry Bathyappa was numbered as No.65/28 who in-turn has gifted the property to his daughter Muniamma @ Motamma. Plaintiffs assert that defendant Nos.1 and 2 who have purchased the property that was sold to Maistry Bathyappa cannot lay a claim over suit schedule property that was retained by the father of defendant No.1. Plaintiffs submitted an application to BBMP to rename the property as Srirama Bhajana Mandira. Similar applications were tendered to the revenue officials to mutate plaintiffs 6 name. However, this application was countered by defendant No.1 by filing a similar application by asserting that she is the owner of the property. The plaintiffs therefore claim that the matter was referred to Legal cell and opinion was given that plaintiffs father Patel Mariappa had retained one room measuring 24ft X 12ft and an error was noticed wherein defendant No.1's name was wrongly entered in the revenue records. Plaintiffs therefore allege that defendant Nos.1 and 2 started asserting title over the disputed property though it belonged to the plaintiffs and tried to construct a compound wall. Plaintiffs therefore assert that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no manner of right over the suit schedule property and hence, present suit is filed seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction as well as mandatory injunction. On receipt of suit summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have appeared and filed written statement. Defendants 7 have stoutly denied all averments made in the plaint. However, defendants admit the recitals in the sale deed. Plaintiffs and defendants to substantiate their respective claims led in oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court having examined the issues framed, and having assessed and appraised the oral and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and thereby declared plaintiffs as the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property. While answering issue No.2 in the affirmative, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs have succeeded in substantiating that there is interference by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and accordingly, injunction is granted thereby restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 from interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. A mandatory injunction is also issued directing the local authorities to issue katha and thereby restoring the name of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. 8 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.2 reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo has vehemently argued and contended that the description of suit schedule property is defective and therefore, he would point out that the decree granted by the trial Court declaring plaintiffs as the absolute owners suffers from perversity. Referring to the records, he would contend that the plaintiffs assertion that the disputed portion was used as Ram Bhajan mandir is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. He would further point out that even if plaintiffs claim is accepted, the pleadings and evidence led in by plaintiffs reveal that plaintiffs are seeking a declaration over the portion retained upto eastern road and this factual matrix also does not tally with the extent of measurement indicated in the latter part of sale deed. Therefore, the identification of the suit schedule property being in serious dispute, no decree could have been granted much less perpetual injunction against 9 the defendants. He has vehemently argued and contended that on date of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs were never in possession and therefore, he would contend that the findings recorded by the trial Court on issue Nos.1 and 2 suffers from perversity. 5. Referring to page No.157 of the paper book, he has further vehemently argued and contended that the recitals in sale deed clearly clinch the title of Maistry Bathyappa who purchased the entire extent from plaintiffs father Mariappa in 1945 vide Ex.P-2. While pointing out the intent of the seller and purchaser, he would contend that the former part of the document contains an unequivocal statement of the vendor disclosing his intent to sell the entire extent of the property while the latter part is a general statement. Therefore citing judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is contended that in the present case on hand there is conflict in recitals in earlier part and latter part of the sale deed. On reading both the recitals, it is 10 argued that intention of parties is found in the former part of the document where vendor has expressed his unequivocal intention of selling the entire extent and therefore, he would point that the former part of the recitals of the sale deed vide Ex.P-2 would prevail. 6. Referring to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, he would point out the fact that Maistry Bathyappa, the father of defendant No.1 was found paying tax to local authorities also pre-supposes that he was delivered the possession of entire extent. Therefore, he would suggest that there is sufficient oral evidence which meets the ingredients of proviso 2 and 6 of Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act. This oral evidence clearly explains the validity of former part of Ex.P-2 and this oral evidence is covered under proviso 2 and 6 of Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act and therefore, plaintiffs who are tracing their rights through their father Mariappa are estopped from laying a claim over the disputed suit schedule property. 11 7. Referring to the findings recorded by trial Court on issue Nos.1 and 2, he has submitted that effect of Section 92 is not properly appreciated by the trial Court. Reiterating the point that the suit schedule is defective, he would contend that the plaintiffs have failed to substantiate that plaintiffs father had retained the title over the suit schedule property and therefore, he would contend that the judgment and decree is liable to be reversed. 8. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs while countering the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel has persuaded this Court to examine the conflicting recitals of Ex.P-2. Referring to the latter part, he would contend that since latter part gives a clear description and measurements of the extent retained by the original owner, it is the latter that must prevail. 9. While countering judgments cited by defendants counsel, he would contend that document must be read as 12 a whole to gather the true intent. He would further point out that harmonious construction must be adopted. Referring to the latter part of the sale deed where there is a clear recital that the owner intended to retain a portion which is now referred to as the disputed property, he would contend that it is clear and unambiguous reservation at the hands of the original owner Mariappa who clearly intended to retain some portion of the property. Therefore, in the present context he would contend the retention of a portion of the property by the transferor is clearly established by the plaintiffs and this crucial aspect is dealt by the trial Court. Referring to clinching evidence adduced by plaintiffs, he would contend that the photographs which were confronted to DW-1 vide Ex.P-15 have clinched the entire controversy in regard to existence of Ram Bhajan Mandira. Referring to the photographs, he would contend that the photos which were confronted to the defendant examined as DW.1 has admitted in unequivocal terms the 13 existence of Ram Bhajan Mandira. Referring to Ex.P-9, he would contend that there is a clear finding at the hands of quasi-judicial authority with regard to the existence of retained portion. Reliance is placed on para 3 and 4 of said order marked at Ex.P-9. Despite finding recorded in Ex.P-9, he would point out that defendant No.1's name was mutated which is evidenced at Ex.P10. Therefore, he would contend that plaintiffs was compelled to file a suit. 10. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant No.2 and learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs, this Court has meticulously examined the pleadings of both the parties. This Court being a final fact finding authority has independently appraised the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and this Court has also given its anxious consideration to the judgments cited by the appellant. The following points would arise for consideration: 14 1) Whether the finding of trial Court on issue Nos.1 and 2 declaring plaintiffs as absolute owners of suit schedule property suffers from perversity and warrants interference at the hands of this Court? 2) Whether the latter recitals of sale deed vide Ex.P-2 that original owner Mariappa retained portion measuring East-West 24 feet and North- South 12 feet which is now referred to as suit schedule property would prevail over former part of the sale deed indicating that original owner Mariappa sold the entire extent of the property? Finding on Point Nos.1 and 2: 11. Though elaborate oral evidence is let in by plaintiffs and defendants, the dispute that has arisen for consideration in the present appeal has to be resolved strictly interpreting the recitals of the sale deed marked at Ex.P-2. Two conflicting recitals have to be taken into consideration to ascertain whether former part of the sale deed which contains a general statement that entire extent 15 of the property is being conveyed or the latter part would prevail since owner intended to retain a portion of the property. Whether it is expressly retained by the transferor either by way of exclusion from the schedule or by reservation of rights. Though Courts have consistently held that specific stipulations in the latter part shall prevail, the deed must be read as a whole and a harmonious construction must be adopted. However, when a clear and unambiguous reservation are exclusively made in the operative portion or schedule to the sale deed, such clause will override the general recitals made earlier. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to extract both parts of the conveyance which would have a bearing on the rights of the parties. The relevant portion of the former part is extracted which reads as under: "ದಣೆ : ಇದೆ ೇ ದ ಸಂದು ಮತು ಾಡರ ಮುಾಮಪನ ಮೆ ಸಾ ಈ ಮೆ ಪವ!ದ ಕ#ೆ ಉತರ ದಣ%ಾ& ನಲವತ( ಪ)*ಮ ಕ#ೆ ಮೂವ,ೊಂಭತು ಅ( ವ/ತರದ 16 ಕ#ೆ ಪವ! ಪ)*ಮ ನಲವ,ೆರಡು ಅ( ದಣ ಕ#ೆ ನಲವ,ೆರಡು ಅ( ಈ ೕ0 ಾಲು ಅಳ,ೆಯ34 5ೕಲಂಡ ೕತ ಕ67ರುವ 8)ಷ7 ಮೆಗಳ; ಇದೆ ೇ ದ ಅಂಗಳ ಬಚ*ಲು ಕಕಸು ಸಾ ಉಳ> ಪ?ಾ ಸ@ತು ಮತು ಇದರ ಪ)*ಮೆ ಾ3 ಇರುವ ಐದು BೋC ೕರುದೆ DಟDಗಳ ೊೆಗಳ;ಳ> ಪ?ಾ ಮೆ ಕFಯ Gಾ(ರು,ೇನ." 12. The latter part of the recitals in the conveyance vide Ex.P-2 where owner intended to retain a portion is also relevant. The same is extracted which reads as under: "ಈ ಪತFದ ಐದೇ ಪ/ಟದ ಇಪತೇ ಪಂ&ಯಯ34 ಮೂರು ಾ8ರ ಎಂಬ ಅಂDಗಳನುJ 0KLರುತBೆ. 5ೕಲಂಡ MೆಡೂN ಸ@0ನ ದಣ ಕ#ೆಯ ಪವ! KDOೆ ಪ)*ಮ ಕ#ೆ ಇಂದ ಪವ! ಪ)*ಮ ಇಪತ ಾಲು ಅ( ವ/ತರ ದಣ ಸಂದು ೇ ಹೆJರಡು ಅ(ವ/ಳ> ಪವ! ಾ&ಲು ಉಳ> ವಂದು ರೂಮು GಾತF ನನJ ಸ@ಂತೆ ವ/QRೊಂ(ರು,ೇೆ." 13. This Court deems it relevant to render a sketch in terms of the recitals furnished by the plaintiffs as it would be relevant to understand the exact location of the disputed portion. The same is as under: 17 14. Learned counsel for defendant No.2 has also placed a sketch before this Court and a claim is made that this sketch is prepared in terms of the recitals indicated in the sale deed, which is as under: W S N E suit schedule property 18 15. In the present case, although the introductory portion of the document at Ex.P-2 specifically refers to sale of entire extent, however, the latter part of the document specifically carves out and excludes a defined portion measuring 12 feet North-South and 24 feet East-West situated towards the Eastern side of the southern boundary. This categorical exclusion is not vague or incidental, but is a W 39' S 42' 42' N 40' E ROAD 10' 12' suit 24' schedule property 14' 19 deliberate reservation indicating the transverse intent to retain a distinct portion of the south eastern side of the property. 16. Firstly, the specific reservation clause found in the latter part of the sale deed is clear, unambiguous, and definitive. The latter part of the recital in the sale deed explicitly states that the vendor, Mariappa, has retained a portion measuring 24 feet × 12 feet on the southern side towards the eastern portion of the schedule property abutting the eastern road. 17. In interpreting a sale deed, when the former part of the document contains a general statement that the entire extent of the property is being conveyed, but the latter part reveals that a portion of the property is expressly retained by the transferor, either by way of exclusion from the schedule or by reservation of rights, the Courts have consistently held that the specific stipulations in the latter 20 part shall prevail. The deed must be read as a whole, and harmonious construction must be adopted. However, when a clear and unambiguous reservation or exclusion is made in the operative portion or schedule to the sale deed, such clause will override the general recitals made earlier. This principle ensures that the true intention of the parties, as gathered from the entire instrument and particularly the more precise provisions, is given effect. Thus, in the present context, the retention of a portion of the property by the transferor, if established in the schedule or operative clause of the deed, must be given due legal recognition notwithstanding any broader indication in the introductory part of the deed. 18. The legal principle that the specific overrides the general is well-settled. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Radha Sundar Dutta vs. Mohd. Jahadur Rahim1, authoritatively held that when there is a discrepancy between the earlier 1 1958 SCC Online 38 21 general recitals and the latter specific description or reservation in a deed, it is the latter which must prevail, as it manifests the true and deliberate intention of the parties. Similarly, this Court in Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia vs. State of Bihar2, reiterated that when operative clauses, boundary descriptions, or express exclusions are set out with clarity in the latter part of a document, they will override and control vague or sweeping statements made elsewhere. Thus, the reservation clause appearing in the latter part of Ex.P-2 must be accorded its full and natural effect. 19. The second limb of argument canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel is in respect of location of retained portion. According to him even if description of retained portion is accepted, he would submit that, retained portion is situated on south-western side. Reliance is placed on sketch furnished before this Court by interpreting the 2 (2024) 4 SCC 318 22 wordings found in the latter part of the recitals in the sale deed vide Ex.P-2. This Court before proceeding further, the conflicting description in the latter part of the sale deed needs to be extracted again, which reads as under: "ಈ ಪತFದ ಐದೇ ಪ/ಟದ ಇಪತೇ ಪಂ&ಯಯ34 ಮೂರು ಾ8ರ ಎಂಬ ಅಂDಗಳನುJ 0KLರುತBೆ. 5ೕಲಂಡ MೆಡೂN ಸ@0ನ ದಣ ಕ#ೆಯ ಪವ! KDOೆ ಪ)*ಮ ಕ#ೆ ಇಂದ ಪವ! ಪ)*ಮ ಇಪತ ಾಲು ಅ( ವ/ತರ ದಣ ಸಂದು ೇ ಹೆJರಡು ಅ(ವ/ಳ> ಪವ! ಾ&ಲು ಉಳ> ವಂದು ರೂಮು GಾತF ನನJ ಸ@ಂತೆ ವ/QRೊಂ(ರು,ೇೆ." (emphasis supplied) 20. This Court has noticed that there is a specific description that the property retained by Mariappa measuring North-south 24 feet should be measured from the western boundary. 21. Though learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant No.2 has sought to place emphasis on the earlier sentence of the latter part of sale culled at para 12 and 23 contends that the measurement of the retained portion, being 24 feet in East-West direction, should be reckoned from the western boundary, this Court is not persuaded to accept such a construction. The argument, though ingeniously advanced, cannot override the specific and pointed language used in the latter part of the deed. A plain and grammatical reading of the latter part of the sale deed reveals that the vendor has unequivocally retained a portion situated on the southern side towards the eastern portion. The phraseology used is not ambiguous or open to conflicting interpretations. On the contrary, it clearly identifies the physical location and dimension of the portion retained by the vendor. Therefore, the 24-foot East-West measurement must necessarily be reckoned from the eastern extremity and not from the western side as sought to be projected by defendant No.2. 22. While the learned Senior Counsel has strenuously argued that the suit is vitiated by a defective 24 property description and that the declaration granted by the Trial Court is perverse, such contention appears to rest entirely on a selective reading of the sale deed and an erroneous reliance on the counter-sketch. Even if the plaintiffs’ description is accepted, the argument that the disputed portion lies on the south-western side lacks legal and factual basis. The core recital in the sale deed, as explained above, places the retained portion explicitly on the south-eastern side of the property, and this forms the definitive basis for identifying the property in question. Mere discrepancies in directional references, without undermining the substantive intent or the clearly demarcated spatial allocation in the document, cannot defeat a suit for declaration and injunction, especially when the property is otherwise identifiable on the ground. 23. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant No.2 sought to rely upon the sketch furnished by his client to contend that the retained portion is situated on 25 the south-western side of the property, such a contention cannot be sustained upon a holistic reading of the latter part of sale deed culled out at para 12 supra. It is true that there is a reference in the recital to the retained portion measuring 12 feet in the East-West direction, and that such measurement is purportedly to be taken from the western boundary. However, this part of the recital appears to be marred by drafting inconsistencies and does not align with the dominant description found later in the document. The latter portion of the recital, which categorically states that Mariappa retained a portion measuring 24 feet by 12 feet on the south-eastern side abutting the eastern road, is more precise and spatially coherent. In the event of inconsistency, the Courts are bound to adopt the interpretation which upholds the intention of the parties as revealed from the document as a whole. Therefore, the initial clause referring to the western boundary, being vague and conflicting, must yield to the more definitive 26 description of the retained portion as being on the south- eastern side. 24. While the learned Senior Counsel has strenuously argued that the suit is vitiated by a defective property description and that the declaration granted by the trial Court is perverse, such contention appears to rest entirely on a selective reading of the sale deed and an erroneous reliance on the counter-sketch. Even if the plaintiffs’ description is accepted, the argument that the disputed portion lies on the south-western side lacks legal and factual basis. The core recital in the sale deed, as explained above, places the retained portion explicitly on the south-eastern side of the property, and this forms the definitive basis for identifying the property in question. Mere discrepancies in directional references, without undermining the substantive intent or the clearly demarcated spatial allocation in the document, cannot 27 defeat a suit for declaration and injunction, especially when the property is otherwise identifiable on the ground. 25. It is significant to note that the sketch annexed by the plaintiffs to the plaint corresponds accurately to the dimensions and spatial markers described in the latter part of the recital. The said sketch faithfully reflects the location and measurement of the retained portion as set out in the reservation clause. In contrast, the sketch relied upon by defendant No.2 placing the retained portion on the south- western corner is not only at variance with the recital but also appears to be a post-facto construct tailored to suit the convenience of a subsequent purchaser. Courts have consistently held that in case of conflict between a general and a specific description in a document, the latter must prevail. The specific clause which locates the retained portion on the south-eastern side, facing the eastern road, is both express and unambiguous and, therefore, must be given overriding effect. The Trial Court, in granting the 28 relief of declaration based on this coherent reading of the document and the supporting sketch, cannot be said to have committed any perversity or legal error. 26. The documentary evidence is further corroborated by the photographs marked as Ex.P-15, which visually demonstrate that the retained portion is situated on the eastern side abutting the road. This photographic evidence supports the case of the plaintiffs and disproves the claim of defendant No.2 that the entire extent of the property was delivered to his predecessor-in-title. The factual situation on the ground clearly reflects that the transferor, Mariappa, had retained a built-up portion or a defined segment on the south-eastern portion of the property. Hence, the assertion by defendant No.2, who steps into the shoes of defendant No.1, that the entire schedule property was delivered and conveyed, is palpably incorrect. 29 27. In the backdrop of these findings, this Court holds that the specific reservation found in the latter part of the sale deed is conclusive, enforceable, and must be given full legal effect. The mere presence of a broad recital in the former part of the deed indicating conveyance of the entire extent cannot nullify or dilute the effect of a subsequent, clearly defined reservation clause. The rule of construction mandates that express exclusions and specific provisions be given primacy over generalized or introductory recitals. Therefore, the retained portion stands validly excluded from the scope of sale, and any interpretation to the contrary would render the express reservation nugatory. In light of this legal and factual analysis, the findings of the trial Court are liable to be affirmed. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Negative and point No.2 is answered in the Affirmative. 30 Conclusions: 28. This Court, upon a comprehensive analysis of the pleadings, evidence, and legal principles governing interpretation of documents, records its findings : (i) Firstly, the specific reservation clause found in the latter part of the sale deed is clear, unambiguous, and definitive. The law is well-settled that in case of inconsistency between general recitals appearing earlier in a deed and a specific clause or reservation found subsequently, it is the specific and later clause which must prevail, as it reflects the true and deliberate intention of the parties. The latter part of the recital in the sale deed explicitly states that the vendor, Mariappa, has retained a portion measuring 24 feet × 12 feet on the southern side towards the eastern portion of the schedule property abutting the eastern road. 31 (ii) Secondly, the contention advanced on behalf of defendant No.2 that the 24-foot East–West measurement should be reckoned from the western boundary, relying upon the earlier part of the recital, cannot be accepted. The earlier sentence in latter portion of the sale deed suffers from vagueness and drafting inconsistency and cannot override the precise and location-specific language . The identification of the retained portion as being situated on the south-eastern side is not only factually established on the ground, but also aligns with the well-settled legal principles of document construction, which require that specific, operative, and unambiguous clauses be given primacy. Consequently, the description locating the retained portion on the south-eastern portion of the property must prevail. The introductory sentence in the latter part of the recital, which mentions a 24-foot East–West measurement from the western boundary, appears inconsistent and must yield to the clearer and more definitive reservation 32 clause that follows. Any interpretation to the contrary would defeat the express intent manifested in the latter part of the deed. (iii) Lastly, the contention of defendant No.2 that even if the latter part of the recital is accepted as prevailing, the suit is still liable to be dismissed for want of correct description is wholly untenable. Once the latter part of the recital is held to be the governing clause, clearly identifying the retained portion as measuring 24 feet by 12 feet on the south-eastern side abutting the eastern road, the property becomes sufficiently identifiable both on paper and on the ground. The plaintiffs have also furnished a photograph marked at Ex.P-15, that accurately reflects this portion, thereby curing any ambiguity that might arise from earlier parts of the recital. Courts have repeatedly held that minor inconsistencies or clerical errors in description are not fatal to the maintainability of a suit when the identity of the property is otherwise ascertainable with reasonable 33 certainty. Therefore, the plea of defective description raised by defendant No.2 is without merit and appears to be a desperate attempt to obfuscate the true nature of the dispute. 29. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA