( 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 defendant No. 2 purporting to sell 0. 29 acres out of khasra Nos. 81 and 82. Defendant No. 2, after obtaining a sale deed dispossessed the plaintiff in november, 1966, and therefore, the plaintiff brought the present suit for possession immediately within 4 months, i. e. in March 1967.

( 3 ) THE case of the defendant was that there was no mistake in the description. Sale of Khasra No. 165/1 itself was intended by the parties and the same was actually sold. The plaintiff was put in possession of the said khasra number and not of 81 and 82/2. Since the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff does not relate to the suit land, i. e. Khasra Nos. 81' and 82/2, his claim for possession cannot be decreed on the strength of the aforesaid sale deed. The story of dispossession was also denied. Both the parties leo evidence.

( 4 ) THE Courts below, after due appreciation of the evidence, arrived at the following findings of fact:-

(i) That the plaintiff was actually placed in possession of Khasra Nos. 81 and 82/2 area 0. 20 acres in pursuance of the sale deed executed in his favour on 27-6-1960. (ii) That the plaintiff remained in peaceful possession for 6 years till november, 1966 without any objection from his vendor, defendant no. 1. (iii) That mutation was accordingly done in respect of Khasra Nos. 81 and 82/2 and the plaintiff was shown as Bhumiswami of the same immediately after the sale in December, 1960 and the revenue records continue to be so even up to the date of the suit. (iv) That the defendant No. 1 did not raise any objection to the mutation as stated above despite being noticed by the Revenue officers. (v) That the mention of khasra No. 165/1 instead of 81 and 82/2 was by mistake. (vi) That the subsequent purchase of the same land by defendant No. 2 from defendant No. 1 in 1966 was not bona fide inasmuch as on the date of purchase by the defendant No. 2, the plaintiff was already in actual physical possession of the suit lands and that he was being shown as Bhumiswami 'holder of the same in revenue records for the last 5 years.

( 5 ) IN appeal before this Court following two points were pressed:- (1) It was contended that without getting the sale deed Ex. P-l rectified by filing a suit, as contemplated under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff could not bring a suit for possession on the basis of title claimed to have been derived from the sale deed, Ex. P-l, in which there was no mention of the khasra numbers of the suit land; (2) It was also urged that no evidence could be led or considered against the contents of the sale deed to show that something other than that stated in the sale deed was sold.

( 6 ) AS regards the first contention, it would suffice to observe that once it is established that there was a mistake as to the descript