1. The matter arises in execution of a decree for recovery of property which had been usufructuarily mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff and taken back on lease by the defendant mortgagor. The decree-holder discovered when he applied for delivery in execution that there was a misdescription of the property in the decree as regards survey numbers and extent and filed a schedule before the executing court showing the correct survey numbers and area of the property for purpose of delivery. The executing court took evidence in respect of the matter by issue of a commission and eventually granted recovery of the properties as per the schedule filed by the decree-holder. The learned Second Judge in appeal by the defendant judgment-debtor, found that the court below had exceeded its jurisdiction in launching into an elaborate enquiry as to identity of the property and therefore dismissed the application of the decree-holder. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff.

2. The property involved consists of six items. In respect of the 6th item there is no dispute. Items 1 to 5 are described as situate within a single boundary and consist of various sub-divisions of one or two mai