1. This is defendants' second appeal under section 100, CPC The following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court by order dated 26.6.1998 at the time of admission of this appeal:

(1) Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in rejecting the applications made under order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code and also that made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code?

(2) Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession qua defendant is legal and proper?.

(3) Whether the finding of lower appellate Court that mistake occurred in mentioning the khasra number is borne out of the pleadings.

2. The facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred above are that Punna executed registered sale deed dated 15.2.1957 in favour of plaintiff Durgaprasad. In this sale deed, the land sold• has been described as Khasra No. 98 area 1.92 acres of village Banhat. There is a concurrent finding of fact of the trial Court and the first appellate Court that actually Khasra No. 93 was intended to be sold •and Khasra No. 98 was inserted in the sale deed on account of mutual