A mistake in the description of the property in a deed does not invalidate the conveyance of title, especially when the other descriptions match and the mistake is likely a clerical error. In such cases, the aggrieved party can seek rectification of the mistake under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

( 1 ) THE appeal : This appeal arises out of a suit for partition passed by the Assistant District Judge, Bankura in Title Suit No. 78 of 1993 on 10th August, 1994. The facts of this case are almost admitted. The scope of challenge by the Appellants :

( 2 ) MR. Roychowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, challenges the said judgment and decree only on one ground that the plaintiffs, who claimed title through Parulbala deriving title from Man Kumari, have acquired no interest in the property in view of the fact that the plot, which is numbered as 314, devolved upon Man Kumari, who, admittedly, bequeathed the same by way of gift in favour of Parulbala through a deed describing the same as plot No. 114. 2. 1 The plaintiffs purchased the land from Parulbala. In the deed executed by Parulbala, the mistake in the description of plot number was mentioned. But in the suit for partition, the plaintiffs did not take any step either to apply for rectifition of the said mistake in the deed, nor any deed of rectification was obtained by them from Parulbala nor from Man Kumari, as the case may be. No specific prayer for declaration of title was asked for in the suit. The prayer (a) related to preliminary decree for partition declaring 5 annas share in the property. Therefore, Mr. Roychowdhury contends that the plaintiffs have acquired no title to the property, since the deed, where there was a mistake in the description of the property, did not convey the title thereof to the plaintiffs. Unless there is any rectification, no title can be claimed by the plaintiffs. Submission of the Respondents :

( 3 ) MR. Mullick, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, pointed out that the defendants had also purchased three annas share of the same property from Parulbala. Therefore, they are estopped from disputing the title of Parulbala. He has also pointed out to the relevant portion of the judgment, which is at page 43 of the Paper Book. The learned counsel for the respondents has also pointed out that the learned trial Court had dealt with the said question and had found that this point has no foundation. Reply of the Appellants:

( 4 ) MR. Roychowdhury pointed out that the defendants/appellants had purchased three annas share of the said property in Plot No. 314 by a deed in which both Parulbala and Man Kumari were the vendors. So far as Man Kumari is concerned, there was no dispute with regard to the plot since in the deed, by virtue whereof Man Kumari acquired title, the plot number was correctly mentioned. Therefore, the mistake in the deed executed by Man Kumari in favour of Parulbala cannot be a ground either estopping the defendants from raising the question or from preventing them from acquiring title in view of the fact that Man Kumari was party to the document through which the defendants had acquired title. Therefore, the judgment so far as this question is concerned, cannot be sustained. Admitted facts :

( 5 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Both Mr. Roychowdhury and Mr. Mullick agree that the facts are admitted. Mr. Mullick has not disputed the facts as contended by Mr. Roychowdhury nor Mr. Roychowdhury has disputed the facts contended by Mr. Mullick. We also find that the facts are admitted. The relevant portion on which Mr. Mullick has relied upon, is as follows :-?on perusal of the deed executed by Man Kumari in favour of Parulbala, I find that excepting plot numbers, other particulars of the suit tank viz: area name of mouza were correctly written in the deed. In the subsequent deeds also, it has been mentioned in the recital thereof that there was mistake in the plot number of the suit tank in the previous deed executed by Man Kumari in favour of Parulbala. The most significant fact in this connection is that Baidyanath, the predecessor in interest of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 purchased some share from Parulbala i. e. , the transferee from Man Kumari. It is true that no d