Judgment Shambhu Prasad Singh, J. 1. This second appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for partition. 2. One Makhanlal Mandal had three sons, Kalipada, Dharanidhar (defendant No. 2) and Bholanath. Kalipada died leaving a son Devendra Nath (defendant No. 1). According to the plaintiffs case, defendants 1 and 2 and Bholanath had one-third share each in the properties in suit and it was, accordingly, recorded in the survey record of rights. The case of the plaintiffs further was that, in the year 1949, defendants 1 and 2 and Bholanath partitioned their properties by a registered deed of partition. The properties in suit, however, were not partitioned by metes and bounds; but, in the said deed of partition, it was merely stated that all the three brothers had equal shares in these properties. Thereafter, Bholanath died in the state of jointness with defendant No. 2, who inherited his share in the properties. On the 3rd August 1960, defendant No. 2 sold by registered deeds his two-third share in the properties to the plaintiffs. As defendant No. 1 did not agree to their request for immediate partition and, thereafter dishonestly misappropriated their share in the standing paddy crops and, subsequently refused to partition the properties by metes and bounds, they were obliged to institute the suit. 3. Defendant No. 2, in a written Statement, supported the case of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1, however, contested the suit and his case, inter alia, relevant for the purposes of the decision of this appeal was that the properties were not ancestral properties but were purchased by one Chandra Mandalini, who gave the same only to defendant No. 1; but. subsequently, it was agreed upon between the parties that defendant No. 1 would have one-half share in them and defendant No. 2 and Bholanath together would have other half. The entry in the survey record-of-rights was not correctly made. The shares of the parties with regard to the disputed properties were also not correctly shown in the registered deed of partition dated the 26th March 1949 by mistake and, subsequently, Bholanath, by an unregistered deed dated the 4th March 1953, admitted the mistake. 4. The entry in the survey record-of-rights was not correctly made. The shares of the parties with regard to the disputed properties were also not correctly shown in the registered deed of partition dated the 26th March 1949 by mistake and, subsequently, Bholanath, by an unregistered deed dated the 4th March 1953, admitted the mistake. 4. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit, holding that defendant No. 2 and Bholanath had two-third share in the lands in suit and the plaintiffs acquired this share by virtue of the sale in their favour. The Court of appeal below has held that the share of defendant No. 2 and Bholanath was only half and not two-third. It has, accordingly, modified the decree passed by the trial Court and passed a decree for partition in favour of the plaintiffs to the extent of one-half share only. It has found that the presumption of correctness arising out of the entry in the survey record-of-rights stood rebutted by the evidence on the record and the case of defendant No. 1 that he has one-half share is true. It has further found that the unregistered deed dated the 4th March 1953 was, in fact executed by Bholanath and was admissible in evidence under proviso 1 to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Relying on the said document, it has held that the share as stated in the registered deed of partition of the year 1949 in respect of the suit lands was not correct. 5. In my opinion, this appeal has to be allowed on the simple ground that the plaintiffs were not parties to the registered deed of partition of the year 1949 and the document cannot be reformed as against them on the ground of mistake as they did not share the error. They are entitled to rely upon the deed of partition as defining the rights of their predecessor-in-interest and defendant No. 2 is responsible for the reasonable consequences of his act. There is a presumption that purchases are made in good faith and for consideration. There is no material on the record to show that the purchase made by the plaintiffs from defendant No. 2 was not in good faith and not for consideration. There is a presumption that purchases are made in good faith and for consideration. There is no material on the record to show that the purchase made by the plaintiffs from defendant No. 2 was not in good faith and not for consideration. The survey record-of-rights as finally published showed that the share of defendant No. 1 was only one-third in it and that of defendant No. 2 and Bholanath together was two-third. The registered deed of partition of the year 1949 also indicated the same position. The deed of 1953 is unregistered. The plaintiffs cannot be supposed to have notice of it. 6. Wigmore in his famous book on Evidence, third edition. Volume 9, in Article 2418, states the law on the subject as follows:- - "The theory of reformation is to make the instrument state, objectively and in appearance to others, what it did subjectively state to the parties themselvea The one party is not bound to the other by the purporting tenor of the act, because the other party shared the error. But as against third persons, who are not sharers of the same supposition, and who are authorised by the substantive law to rely upon the instrument as defining the rights acquired by it the tenor of the instrument controls, as a necessary result of the general principle that the actor is responsible for the reasonable consequences of his act. In other words, an instrument may be re-formable as against one person, but not as against another; the only condition being, in the latter case, that the transaction is one by which subsequent transferees may acquire rights not wholly dependent on the title (i. e. the jural acts) of their transferors." In Kota China Mellayya V/s. Kannekanti Veeriah, AIR 1916 Mad 795 (1) a decision which was cited on behalf of the respondent (defendant No. 1) while holding that a mutual mistake made, in describing a piece of land in a registered mortgage deed can be proved by oral evidence and that when such a mistake is so established, the deed can be construed by the Courts as if the mistake had been rectified, it was observed that this was, however, subject to the condition that the rights of third persons acquired in good faith and for value should not be prejudiced thereby. Mr. Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha, appearing for the respondent (defendant No. 1), however, contended that this plea was not open to the plaintiff-appellants inasmuch as his client was in possession of the properties, as found by the Court of appeal below, which must be deemed to be a notice of his title to the appellants. The trial Court recorded a clear finding in favour of the appellants on the question of possession and disbelieved the witnesses examined on behalf of defendant No. 1. The Court of appeal below has not discarded the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses and believed the evidence of the defendants witnesses on the question of possession on their evidence itself but has held that, as the evidence of the defendants witnesses was supported by the statement made in the unregistered deed of the year 1953, that was to be preferred. According to that document even the share of defendant No. 2 and Bholanath was given to defendant No. 1 for cultivation. The defendants witnesses too have stated in their evidence that the entire disputed lands were in possession of defendant No. 1. In his written statement, defendant No. 1 did not plead that he was in possession of the entire lands; rather, his case was that he was in possession of his share. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the defendants witnesses on this ground. The lower appellate Court has erred in law in discarding the evidence of the plaintiffs* witnesses and accepting that of the defendants witnesses on the question of possession when the evidence of the defendants witnesses was against the pleadings, merely on the ground that it was supported by the statement in the unregistered deed of the year 1953. Therefore, the finding of possession recorded by the Court of appeal below cannot stand in the way of the appellants in getting a decree as claimed by them. 7. It was next contended by Mr. Sinha that, the appellants not having specifically pleaded that their purchase was in good faith and for consideration, they cannot be allowed to raise the plea. As observed earlier, in the circumstances of the case, there is a presumption in their favour that their purchase was in good faith and for consideration and it was for defendant No. 1 to plead that it was not in good faith and not for consideration. As observed earlier, in the circumstances of the case, there is a presumption in their favour that their purchase was in good faith and for consideration and it was for defendant No. 1 to plead that it was not in good faith and not for consideration. Therefore, there appears no substance in this contention of Mr. Sinha either. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs, the decree of the Court of appeal below is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. Anwar Ahmad, J. 9 I agree.