In case of a dispute between plot number and khata number and boundary, the khata number and boundary prevail, as established in the case of Sheodhyan Singh vs. Mostt. Sanichara Kuer, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1879.

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

1. The plaintiff-appellant-appellant has filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1996 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Aurangabad in Title Appeal No.1 of 1989/28 of 1994 dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 06.12.1988 passed by learned Additional Munsif III, Aurangabad in Title Suit No.75 of 1986/22 of 1988.

2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and/or recovery of possession over the suit property. The plaintiff’s case in short is that she has purchased the suit property i.e. plot no.2549 of khata no.454 which was recorded in the cadastral survey record of right in the name of Md. Zahiruddin. The said property by inheritance came to Tasrifan Nisa from whom the plaintiff purchased by registered sale deed dated 15.04.1986. There was dispute between the plaintiff and defendant and in 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding, the possession of the defendant was found. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit.

3. The defendant alleged that the said plot has already been purchased by Tahid in the year 1944 from Muna Bibi. Sheikh Zahiruddin had gifted the suit property to Muna Bibi. Son of Tahid namely Gulam Mustafa sold the suit property to the defendant no.1 by registered sale deed in the year 1982 by two registered sale deeds. On the basis of the said registered sale deeds, the defendant came in possession of the property. Since there was mis-description in the plot number i.e. in place of plot no.2549, in the sale deed, it has been written as plot no.2548. A correction deed was executed in the year 1986 and the plot number was corrected. On the basis of the purchase, the defendants are coming in possession of the property.

4. Both the courts below recorded the finding that the boundary and khata number is correct and there is no dispute to the fact that there is mis-description in the plot number and in fact, the boundary given in the sale deed is the boundary of plot no.2549. Both the courts below also found the defendants are in possession of the property. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed.

5. At the time of admission on 20.03.1997, the following substantial question of law was formulated:

“Whether the order of the Lower Appellate Court giving orders for correction of plot no.2549 and substitute by plot no.2548 after lapse of 38 years on the prayer of the vendor can be upheld in the eye of law?”

6. The learned counsel, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh submitted that in the sale deed of the year 1944, the plot has been mentioned as plot no.2548 and the purchaser sold this plot no.2548 in the year 1982 in favour of the defendant. The rectification deed has been executed and registered only after the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was executed in the month of April, 1986. When the description of the plot in registered sale deed of the year 1944 remains as it is i.e. plot no.2548, how the purchaser in the said sale deed of the year 1982 who is vendor of the defendants could have rectified the plot number while executing the sale deed in favour of the defendants after lapse of more than 30 years. The courts below have not considered this aspect of the matter. Therefore, the judgment and decree are liable to be set aside.

7. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that both the courts below concurrently found that the defendant is in possession of the property. The plot no.2548 is a Rasta, therefore, the property could not have been sold and moreover, there is no dispute regarding the boundary and the khata number. In view of these findings of both the courts below, in second appellate jurisdiction, the same cannot be interfered with.

8. From perusal of the judgment of both the courts below, it appears that both the courts below recorded the finding that in fact, the boundary in the sale deed of the year 1944 as well a