A mistake in a decree that is merely a mistake of description, where there is no ambiguity as to the identity of the subject matter, can be amended under Order 20, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Choudhary, J.

1. This application by the plaintiff-decree-holder Musammat Anupa Kuer is directed against the order of the first Additional Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1952, refusing to amend the decree as prayed for.

2. One Bhangi Jha had two sons, namely, Raghu Jha and Boudhu Jha. Boudhu Jha died leaving a widow, Musammat Phulbati Kuer, and a daughter, Musammat Anupa Kuer the petitioner. Raghu Jha died leaving three sons one of whom is Jogmdra Jha, opposite party No. 1. Boudhu Jha had a half share in the ancestral property consisting of seven plots, and it appears that his shares in those plots were from the southern direction. On 20-6-1941, Musammat Phulbati Kuer as guardian of the plaintiff Anupa Kuer executed a sale deed in favour of opposite party No. 1 with respect to the southern portions of those plots. After the death of Musammat Phulbati Kuer the petitioner Anupa Kuer filed Title suit No. 304 of 1947 in the court of the Munsif, 2nd Court, Muzaffarpur on the allegation that the sale deed in question was executed without any legal necessity and it was not binding on her and prayed for recovery of possession of the land purported to have been sold by the said sale deed.

Curiously enough, in the plaint it was omitted to mention as to from which direction the plain- tiff claimed recovery of possession over those plots, but throughout the plaint it was made very clear that the plaintiff was challenging the sale deed dated 20-6-1941 by which the southern portions of those plots were conveyed to opposite party No. 1 and that she wanted recovery of possession of the portions which had been sold by that sale deed. The suit was transferred to the court of the third Additional Munsif, Muzaffarpur, and it was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 30-8-1949. It was held that the sale deed in question was not binding on her and that the petitioner was entitled to get a decree for recovery of possession of the land conveyed by that sale deed. The decree having been drawn in accordance with the plaint also naturally omitted to mention as to from which direct on the delivery of possession was to be given to the plaintiff-decree-holder.

This decree was affirmed in appeal, being Title appeal No. 241/82 of 1949/1959, by the first Additional Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur on 24-1-1051. However, when the piaintiff-decree-holder applied for delivery of possession she was opposed by the defendants on the ground that there being no mention in the decree as to from which direction in the several plots the plaintiff-decree-holder was to got possession. She could not be given delivery of possession through Court. The prayer of the plaintiff-decree-holder for delivery of possession was, therefore, rejected.

Thereafter, she filed an application in the court Of the first Additional Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur which had affirmed the decree on appeal, for amendment of the decree. The court below took the view that there was ambiguity with regard to the identity of the property which was the subject matter of the suit, and, therefore, the amendment of the decree could not be allowed. Relying on a single Judge decision of the Calcutta High Court in -- Hamiduddin Ahmad V/s. Moyezuddin Mondal, A. I. R. 1946 Cal 335 (A) the court below rejected the application of the petitioner by its order dated 23-7-1952, and against that order the plaintiff-decree-holder has come up in revision before this Court.

3. Mr. A. C. Roy for the petitioner has contended that in the present case there was no ambiguity With regard to the identity of the subject matter of the suit. The impugned sale deed clearly mentioned that Musammat Phulbati Kuer had transferred the southern portion of the plots in question and the title suit was brought to get a declaration that the said sale deed was not binding on the plaintiff and that she was entitled to recover possession over the land so conveyed by her mother, Musammat Phulbati