Jagat Narayan, J.—This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur, dismissing a part of their claim in a suit brought under sec. 31 of the Specified Relief Act for (1) a rectification of the boundaries of the mortgaged property in mortgage-deed dated 1.4.46, (2) a rectification of the boundaries of the mortgaged property given in the plaint in mortgage suit No. 47/48*49 brought in the court of the District Judge, Jodhpur, on the basis of the mortgage-deed and (3) declaration that the preliminary and final decrees in suit No. 47/48-49 dated 30.11.49 and 13.3.50 respectively relate to the property described in para 1 of the plaint of the present suit and the plaintiffs have a right to get the house sold in execution of the decree. The mortgage-deed was executed by one Dhume Khan, who died before the suit was brought. Sattar Mohamed, defendant Nos. 1 is the son, Smt. Chanda and Smt. Hanifa, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the widows and Smt. Halima is the daughter of Dhume Khan deceased. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 contested the suit. The mortgage-deed was executed in favour of Smt. Bilam Kanwar wife of Kanmal who brought the present suit. She d during the pendency of it and her legal representatives, who were brought on record as plaintiffs, prosecuted the suit.

2. The facts which have given rise to the present case are these. Smt. Bilam Kanwar obtained a final decree for sale on the foot of the above mortgage-deed and put the mortgaged property to auction in execution. When the sale was being held by the Amin defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed an objection on 13.3.51 before the District Judge which was the executing court that the Amin was selling some property at the instance of the decree-holder in execution which was not mentioned in the decree. The executing court held an enquiry into the matter. The decree-holder admitted that the boundaries of the house which was being sold were different from the boundaries entered in the decree. Her contention however was that the property which was being auctioned was the one which the mortgagor intended to mortgage and that wrong boundaries were entered in the mortgage-deed by mutual mistake, which was repeated in the plaint and the decree. She accordingly prayed that she may be allowed to prove that property was intended to be mortgaged. After hearing the arguments of both parties the District Judge allowed the decree-holder to adduce evidence on the point. Against that order defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed D. B. Civil Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1/1952. It was held by this Court that in the case of a mutual mistake of the parties such as the one alleged to have been committed in the mortgage-deed in the present case, the remedy was by-way of suit and not by way of application in execution proceedings or an application under sec. 151 or 152 C.P.C. This case is reported ILR 1953. Rajasthan page 914.* (*Mst. Chanda vs. Billam Kanwar (1954 RLW 226). Smt. Bilam Kanwar then brought the present suit for the reliefs indicated above. It was contested by defendants Nos. 1 and 3. The learned Civil Judge held that by mutual mistake wrong boundaries were entered in the mortgage-deed dated 1.4.46, although it was the intention of the parties to mortgage the house described in para 1 of the plaint. He accordingly granted relief No. 1 to plaintiff. He was however of the opinion that reliefs No. 2 and 3 could not be granted in the present suit. He accordingly did not decree these reliefs in favour of the plaintiffs. Against this the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal claiming that they are entitled to reliefs Nos. 2 and 3 also. Smt. Hanifa filed a cross objection challenging the decree on the ground that the plaintiffs are not entitled even to relief No. 1 as there was no mutual mistake.

3. Taking up the cross objection first we find that there was a mutual mistake on account of which wrong boundaries were entered in the mortgage-deed dated 1.4.46. Azimkhan father of D

Click Here to Read the rest of this document