RIKHIRAM PYARELAL Vs. GHASIRAM DUKALU

JUDGEMENT

(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.