The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a case of mis-description in a sale deed, the boundaries prevail over the field Gat number, and the party may be entitled to the relief of rectification under section 26 of the Specific Relief Act 1963.

JUDGMENT :

The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 6th January, 2005 passed by the learned Second Ad hoc District Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 251/2003, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 21st August, 2003 passed by learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola in Regular Civil Suit No. 350/2002, thereby the lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit for correction of sale deed and permanent injunction in favour of the respondent No. 1/plaintiffs.

2. The appellant is the original defendant No. 3 whereas the respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the original defendant No. 1 and 2 respectively.

3. The respondent No. 1 preferred a suit for correction of the sale-deed and permanent injunction vide Regular Civil Suit No. 351/2002.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 that he had executed two sale deeds each for land admeasuring 2 H 83 R, in favour of the respondent No. 2 and 3 on 11th May, 1999 and one sale deed for land admeasuring 1 H 21 R, in favour of appellant on 25th May, 1999, relating to a field Gat No. 278 owned by him, situated at Mouje Katyar, Tq and Distt. Akola.

5. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff further states that four boundaries mentioned in the said sale-deeds clearly demonstrate that the same are relating to the field Gat No. 278, however, in sale deeds it had wrongly been mentioned as field Gat No. 207.

6. On the other hand the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3, had also filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 350 of 2002, for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent No. 1, alleging that the respondent No. 1 had falsely mentioned the four boundaries in the sale-deeds in question and though they requested him to correct the same, he did not pay heed to their request.

7. The same was the defence taken by the appellant and respondent No. 2 and 3 in their written statement to Regular Civil Suit No. 351/2002 preferred by the respondent No. 1.

8. Learned trial Court decreed the Regular Civil Suit No. 350/2002, vide judgment and decree dated 21st August, 2003, thereby permanently restraining the respondent No. 1 Ghanshyamdas, from obstructing the peaceful possession of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, over the field bearing Gat No. 207 and directing the respondent No. 1 to correct the four boundaries in sale-deeds in question within two months. The Learned trial Court further dismissed Regular Civil Suit No. 351/2002, filed by respondent No. 1, Ghanshyamdas.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent No. 1, filed two separate appeals bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 255/03 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 256/03.

10. Learned lower appellate Court allowed both the appeals in favour of respondent No. 1/plaintiff Ghanshyamdas and consequently decreed the Regular Civil Suit No. 351/02 filed by respondent No. 1 and dismissed Regular Civil Suit No. 350/02 filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The present appeal is arising out of the said judgment and decree dated 6th January, 2005.

11. This Court while admitting the second appeal framed the following substantial questions of law.

“Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, without considering the evidence by the trial Court while recording the findings against theplaintiff as also the admission of the plaintiff in his cross-examination that he had sold the field gat No. 207 admeasuring 10H 83R to the appellant”.

12. Heard Shri S.V. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri S. C. Mehadia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Shri C. A. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

13. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that from the pleadings it will be revealed that correction of sale-deeds was sought on the ground that he had committed a mistake while mentioning Gat No. 207 in the sa