AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 1879 ::1962 BLJR 273 ::1961 2 SCJ 540 ::1962 2 SCR 753 ::1962 SCD 102 ::ILR (41) Pat 402

Supreme Court Of India

(From Patna: AIR 1956 Pat 349)

Hon'ble Judge(s): P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo , JJ

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.21 R.94— Conflict between boundaries and Khata No and Plot No. - Khata No. and boundaries held prevailed. The final decree for sale and the sale certificate gave Khata number and the boundaries of the property sold and plot No. 160. The Khata number and the boundaries however all referred to Plot No. 1060. Held that it was a case of misdescription and the identity of the property sold was well established namely Plot No. 1060. The mistake in the plot number must be treated as a misdescription which did not affect the identity of the property sold: (B) Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882) , S.92— Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.1 R.10, O.34 R.1— Property mortgaged by A with B - Decree in mortgage suit and property purchased by B himself in auction sale-Sub. sequent private sale by B to C - A forcibly dispossessing C - Suit by C against A for possession-Plea by A that one D had right of subrogation over the proper - Held that A could not raise the question of subrogation on behalf of D - Further as the mortgage by A in favour of D said nothing about earlier mortgage in favour of B and that money was left with D to redeem the earlier mortgage in favour of B an agreement in the mortgage of D that he would be subrogated to the rights of B could not be inferred - ....