Where there is a mistake in the survey number in a sale deed, the mistake will be treated as a misdescription and the identity of the property sold will be established by the boundaries given in the sale deed.

JUDGMENT :- The defendants are in appeal against the reversing decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska in a suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits for the three previous years to the suit.

2. According to the plaintiff, he purchased 70 cents of land in Survey No. 70/3, 18 cents of land in Survey No. 72, and 12 cents of land in Survey No. 72/3 from the defendants 1 and 2 and one Manguli, since deceased, by a registered sale deed dated 15th April, 1953 (Ext. 1) for Rs. 500/-. His vendors delivered possession of 18 cents out of Survey No. 72/2. The plaintiff did not obtain possession in respect of the other properties purchased by him. He, therefore, claimed recovery of possession on the footing of title in Ext. 1 and recovery of mesne profits.

3. The defendants 6 and 11 are the sons of the defendant No. 1 while the defendants 12 and 13 happen to be the sons of the second defendant. The defendants 3 and 4 are the sons and the defendant No. 5 is the wife of the deceased co-vendor Manguli. The defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have filed a joint written statement and admitted the sale deed, but contended that what was conveyed under Ext. 1 was 18 cents out of Survey No. 71/2, 12 cents out of Survey No. 72/2 and 61 cents out of Survey No. 73 all totalling 91 cents according to the record of rights and one acre by actual measurement. They contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to delivery of possession of Survey No. 70/3 as title therein was never conveyed under Ext. 1. A mistake, however, crept into the document and instead of Survey No. 73, Survey No. 70/3 was incorporated in the sale deed. The boundaries of what was actually intended to be sold have been properly given in the sale deed and delivery of possession in terms of the boundaries has also been given. Survey No. 70/3 having a total area of Ac. 3.54 decs. was purchased by the defendants from one E. Hadu Shorff and ever since then the defendants have been in continuous possession. Survey No. 73 is recorded in the revenue papers as Parityakta Bedakhali and the names of the defendants are not in the final record of rights. Apprehensive of his own title and possession over what was conveyed under Ext. 1, the plaintiff, instead of laying claim to Survey No. 73 has come to claim Survey No. 70/3 by virtue of mistaken incorporation of that survey number in the sale deed.

4. The defendants 4, 11, 12 and 13 who are all minors filed a separate written statement. While reiterating many of the contentions of the other defendants they contended that the disputed property was never sold to the plaintiff and the sale was for no consideration, or at any rate, the consideration money was not spent for the benefit of the minors and the claim in the litigation is barred by limitation.

5. The learned trial judge came to find that the plaintiff's claim was not sustainable. This conclusion was reached on the basis that when the dispute arose about identity of the lands, the boundaries prevailed and going by the boundaries the plaintiff has no claim.

6. The plaintiff appealed.

7. The learned Subordinate Judge in appeal came to find that Survey No. 73 did not belong to the plaintiff's vendor and as such the plaintiff, a bona fide purchaser for value, would certainly not have gone in for such a transaction by paying good money. The other reasoning which appealed to the lower appellate court was that in the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff it had been clearly stated that the disputed properties were acquired from E. Hadu Shorff and admittedly Survey No. 73 was not the property acquired from Shroff. Accordingly, the lower appellate court reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the plaintiff's suit along with the mesne profits as claimed.

8. The present appeal is by some of the defendants.

9. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the appellants raises a single contention, namely where there is a bona fide dispute about the identity of the land, whether to adopt the survey number or t