DAVE, J.—This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor against the order of the District Judge, Jodhpur, dated the 4th of October, 1951.

2. The respondent decree-holder Mst. Billam Kunwar obtained against the judgment-debtor appellant a preliminary decree on the 13th November, 1949, and the final decree on the 13th March, 1950, for sale of the mortgaged property. The decree-holder then presented an application for execution of the decree". The sale proclamation was first made on 25th November, 1950. The property was auctioned for several days in the month of January, 1951 but the sale could not be finalised. It was again put to auction on the 10th, 11th and 12th March, 1951. On the 13th March, 1951, the judgment-debtor presented an application to the effect that the property which was mentioned in the sale proclamation was different from the one stated in the mortgage-deed, that instead of selling the property as described in the mortgage-deed the Amin of the court was, at the instance of the decree-holder, selling away another house of a totally different description which was in the possession of the judgment-debtor and, therefore, he should be directed not to sell that house. The executing court made an enquiry into this application. The decree-holder admitted in that court that the boundaries of the house as mentioned in the sale-proclamation, the decree, the plaint, and the patta, were not correct, that the original mistake started from the patta and it crept into the mortgage-deed, the plaint and the decree, that the mortgage-deed contains description of the inside of the house, that the mortgage in fact related to the very house which was in the possession of the judgment-debtor and which was being auctioned, and since the judgment-debtor was only delaying the execution of the decree on the ground of a technical mistake, he should not be permitted to do so. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the District Judge allowed the decree-holder to prove what property was actually mortgaged.

3. The appellants learned advocate contends that the executing court could only execute the decree as it stood and that it had committed an error in allowing the decree-holder to lead parole evidence about the mortgaged property. It was argued that the court had no jurisdiction to go behind the decree and change the boundaries of the mortgaged property mentioned in the mortgage-deed and the patta.

4. The respondents learned advocate on the other hand argued that the decree-holder did not mean to substitute another property for the one which was mortgaged with him, that it was only a matter of misdescription of the property, and that the lower court had ample powers to correct an error which was due to the mistake of both the parties.

5. Learned advocates for both parties have led us into the description of the house as given in the patta, mortgage-deed, plaint, execution petition, sale proclamation of 25th November, 1950, the judgment-debtors application, dated 13th March, 1951, and the decree-holders application, dated 24th October, 1951, for permitting him to substitute the new boundaries as suggested therein. It appears that the boundaries on the western side as mentioned in the mortgage-deed do not agree with the boundaries mentioned in the patta, plaint, execution petition and sale proclamation. The boundaries on the east, north and south, mentioned in the patta, mortgage-deed, plaint, execution petition and sale-proclamation are the same, but it is admitted by the decree-holder that this description is wrong. He wants an auction of the property whose description he has given in his application dated 24th October, 1951. This description is entirely different on all the four sides. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was only an accidental slip, omission or clerical error in the decree which is being executed.

6. The point for determination in this case is whether a mistake about the description of the mortgaged prop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document