JUDGMENT

1. After hearing the learned Counsel in this ease we think the appeal must fail and the judgment of the Court below must be affirmed.

2. The question now before us is a question of fact and there is a definite finding by the lower Appellate Court.

3. The plaintiffs brought a suit on a mortgage and asked for sale of certain properties specified in the deed. With regard to one item of property the plaintiffs' plea was that the description of it in the mortgage deed was wrong.

4. The mortgage-deed purports to show that' one of the items of the mortgaged property was Khawat No. 3 in Mahal Jafar Beg. The plaintiffs' case was that this description was a mistake and that what was mortgaged and what was intended to be mortgaged was Khata No. 3 in Mahal Ismail Beg.

5. It was alleged, and the fact is admitted. that the mortgagor Abdul Halim Khan, who is the appellant here, has no interest in Khata No. 3 in MahalJafar Beg; on the other hand it is proved that he had an interest in Khata No. 3 in Mahal Ismail Beg and that this interest is now, by reason of partition, included in the Mahal called Mahal Abdul Hakim.

6. The First Court held that there was no proof of mistake. The lower Appellat