Judgment :- 1. This second appeal is by the 2nd defendant and the matter arises in execution. 2. The decree in the case was one for redemption of Ext. B sub-mortgage executed by the 3rd defendant in favour of her grandson the 1st defendant minor. The 2nd defendant is the father of the 1st defendant and also his guardian ad litem. The decree schedule property is described as the eastern 1 acre 19 cents out of a whole area of 2 acres 38 cents comprised in S. No. 602/4 and known as Kolethunirappel or Thrikkamattom Purayidom in Vaikom Taluk. The 2nd defendant had contested the suit on behalf of the 1st defendant on the basis that the sub-mortgage had not come into effect and he was not anyhow in possession of the property S. No. 602/4. He was in possession only of the eastern property S. No. 602/1 and that again by virtue of a lease Ext. I of 1119 from the common jenmi viz., Pazhoor Illom. In passing the decrees for redemption the court found that the sub-mortgage was really operative and 2nd defendant was bound to surrender the mortgage holding in his possession, but it took occasion also to say that the defendants 1 and 2 were not to be restrained from putting up building on S. No. 602/1 which belonged to them. In execution, however, the plaintiff took delivery of S. No. 602/1 as if that property and not S. No. 602/4 was covered by the decree for redemption. The application was therefore presented by the 2nd defendant for re-delivery. The courts below have now found that S. No. 602/1 was the property mortgaged under Ext. A of 1096 to the 3rd defendant and sub-mortgaged by her under Ext. B and that plaintiff had rightly obtained delivery thereof. The wrong description in the decree of the property as S. No. 602/4, did not on the whole, really matter. Hence this appeal by the 2nd defendant as abovesaid. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant - 2nd defendant urges that the court below had no jurisdiction in the circumstances to grant relief to the plaintiff-decree-holder in respect of S. No. 602/1 which was excepted specifically under the decree, alternatively that the courts below had not correctly identified the mortgage holding when they said it was S. No. 602/1 and not 602/4. Not it is well-settled that questions of identity of property covered by a decree are matters arising in execution and it falls within the jurisdiction of the executing court to ascertain the property with respect to which the decree is passed and grant reliefs as provided under the decree in regard thereto. See Krishna Kartha v. Pariathu 1955 KLT 647. It is no doubt true that S. No. 602/1 was mentioned in the decree as belonging to the 2nd defendant. But the plaintiff had nevertheless a decree for recovery of S. No. 602/4 and that from the hands of the 2nd defendant. If therefore it happened that the 2nd defendant was not in possession of S. No. 602/4 but only of S. No. 602/1, and further the boundaries of S. No. 602/4 as given in the decree took in S. No. 602/1 and not 602/4, he cannot escape execution by reason only of the mistake as to survey number in the decree, howsoever that mistake was brought about. As observed in Krishna Kartha v. Pariathu 1955 KLT 647, above referred to: "The evidence supplied by boundaries, extent survey numbers and lekhoms forms the determining factors when the identity of the property is put in issue. If all these factors harmonise there is little difficulty to identify the property in dispute. But when some of them are in conflict with the rest as when the extent and survey numbers do not agree with the boundaries usually the boundaries predominate and the rest is regarded as erroneous or inaccurate descriptions. This is not an inflexible rule and the guiding principle is to apply that test which is most unlikely to be vitiated by error". The executing court cannot therefore be said to have acted in excess of its jurisdiction in deciding upon the question as to what was the mortgage holding, whether S. No. 602/1 or 602/4. 4. The question still will be whether the courts below have properly ascertained the property to be S. No. 602/1 and not 602/4. The complaint of the appellant is that the identification has not been made with reference to the boundaries mentioned in the decree as it should have been done. There seems to be some force in this criticism and indeed learned counsel for the respondent is wiling to have the matter remitted to the executing court for purpose of fresh disposal. The complaint of the appellant is that the identification has not been made with reference to the boundaries mentioned in the decree as it should have been done. There seems to be some force in this criticism and indeed learned counsel for the respondent is wiling to have the matter remitted to the executing court for purpose of fresh disposal. This does not mean that the considerations referred to by the courts below are not relevant in respect of the present controversy but in view to the contention raised and also the concession made by the respondent's learned counsel, it seems to me only fair that the whole matter be remitted for de novo disposal. I, therefore, set aside the orders of the courts below and remand the case to the executing court for fresh disposal in the light of the above observations and according to law. The parties will have the right to lead fresh evidence if they want. Costs of these proceedings will abide the final result. Allowed.