SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. This second appeal preferred by the defendants has been admitted on following substantial question of law for determination:-

“1. Whether the first appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment & decree of the trial Court holding that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he is the owner of the suit land and entitled for possession overlooking oral and documentary evidence on record ?

2. Whether, in the facts of the case, the plaintiff’s suit for declaration of title and possession was maintainable in absence of suit for rectification of sale deed in view of the provisions contained in Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the oral evidence by the defendants is admissible under proviso (1) to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to prove mistake in expression of contract?”

[For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court]

(2) Essential facts required to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal are as under:-

(2.1) Original plaintiff - Mahadev filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the defendants stating inter alia that he is title-holder of the suit land bearing Khasra Nos. 273/1, 273/3 & 273/4, total area admeasuring 6.60 acres, situated at Village - Hadha, Tahsil - Janjgir Champa, District-Janjgir Champa now. It is the case of the plaintiff that four defendants forcibly took possession of the suit land and harvested the crops standing on the suit land on 7.11.1981 and also lodged a false complaint against him. It was further pleaded by him that revenue records (Exhibit P-9 & P-10) reflected the name of the plaintiff till the date of dispossession and thereafter, the defendants, in collusion with local revenue officials, got their names recorded in revenue records, as such, the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land.

(2.2) Defendants No. 1 & 2 filed joint written statement stating inter-alia that the plaintiff has sold the suit land to defendants No. 1 & 2 namely Baratram & Ajeetram and their brother Puranjan (now his legal representatives are impleaded as defendants No.3 and 4 before the trial Court in the plaint) on 19.4.1971 (Ex.D/4) for cash consideration of Rs.41,500/-, but due to typographical error, khasra number of suit land was not mentioned, but consideration amount has been paid to the plaintiff, and they are in possession of the suit land, as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed.

(2.3) The trial Court framed as many as four issues along with two additional issues and dismissed the suit vide judgment & decree dated 11.4.1997 on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has not sold the suit land to defendants No. 1 & 2 and their brother Puranjan and further failed to prove that the defendants are in illegal possession of the suit land.

(2.4) The plaintiff preferred first appeal before the first appellate Court under Section 96 of the CPC. During pendency of first appeal, the defendants amended their written statement on 9.7.89 inserting the plea that the plaintiff be directed for rectification of sale deeds and consequently, the plaintiff also amended his plaint and inserted para 5(A) that he has not transferred the suit land in favour of defendants No.1 & 2 and Puranjan. The first appellate Court, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.1.2001, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit, against which, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the defendants, in which substantial questions of law have been formulated, which have been catalogued in the opening paragraph of the judgment.

3. Shri Prafull Bharat, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, would submit as under:-

3.1 The plaintiff entered into an agreement to sale the suit land and other land on 26.2.71 (Ex.D/1) with Raghubar