( 1 ) THIS second appeal is at the instance of the defendants against whom the claim of the respondent-plaintiff for possession and mesne profits has been decreed by both the Courts below.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 27-6-1960, defendant No. 1 rikhiram executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 300/ -. However, khasra No. 165/1 area 0. 20 acres was described as the land sold. The case of the plaintiff was that the aforesaid description was under a mistake. What was actually intended to be sold and was sold was the land measuring 0. 20 acres of khasra Nos. 81 and 82/2. According to the plaintiff, he was also placed in possession of these khasra numbers and not of khasra No. 165/1 as stated in the sale deed. After entering into possession, his name was also mutated on these khasra numbers and the defendant Rikhiram, despite notice, did not oppose the aforesaid mutation. Mutation had already taken place in December 1960. Thereafter, the plaintiff remained in peaceful possession of the aforesaid land for about 6 years. However, in November 1966, defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed in favour of defen