JUDGMENT : The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 6th January, 2005 passed by the learned Second Ad hoc District Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 251/2003, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 21st August, 2003 passed by learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola in Regular Civil Suit No. 350/2002, thereby the lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit for correction of sale deed and permanent injunction in favour of the respondent No. 1/plaintiffs. 2. The appellant is the original defendant No. 3 whereas the respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the original defendant No. 1 and 2 respectively. 3. The respondent No. 1 preferred a suit for correction of the sale-deed and permanent injunction vide Regular Civil Suit No. 351/2002. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 that he had executed two sale deeds each for land admeasuring 2 H 83 R, in favour of the respondent No. 2 and 3 on 11th May, 1999 and one sale deed for land admeasuring 1 H 21 R, in favour of appellant on 25th May, 1999, relating to a field Gat No. 278 owned by him, situated at Mouje Katyar, Tq and Distt. Akola. 5. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff further states that four boundaries mentioned in the said sale-deeds clearly demonstrate that the same are relating to the field Gat No. 278, however, in sale deeds it had wrongly been mentioned as field Gat No. 207. 6. On the other hand the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3, had also filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 350 of 2002, for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent No. 1, alleging that the respondent No. 1 had falsely mentioned the four boundaries in the sale-deeds in question and though they requested him to correct the same, he did not pay heed to their request. 7. The same was the defence taken by the appellant and respondent No. 2 and 3 in their written statement to Regular Civil Suit No. 351/2002 preferred by the respondent No. 1. 8. 7. The same was the defence taken by the appellant and respondent No. 2 and 3 in their written statement to Regular Civil Suit No. 351/2002 preferred by the respondent No. 1. 8. Learned trial Court decreed the Regular Civil Suit No. 350/2002, vide judgment and decree dated 21st August, 2003, thereby permanently restraining the respondent No. 1 Ghanshyamdas, from obstructing the peaceful possession of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, over the field bearing Gat No. 207 and directing the respondent No. 1 to correct the four boundaries in sale-deeds in question within two months. The Learned trial Court further dismissed Regular Civil Suit No. 351/2002, filed by respondent No. 1, Ghanshyamdas. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent No. 1, filed two separate appeals bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 255/03 and Regular Civil Appeal No. 256/03. 10. Learned lower appellate Court allowed both the appeals in favour of respondent No. 1/plaintiff Ghanshyamdas and consequently decreed the Regular Civil Suit No. 351/02 filed by respondent No. 1 and dismissed Regular Civil Suit No. 350/02 filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The present appeal is arising out of the said judgment and decree dated 6th January, 2005. 11. This Court while admitting the second appeal framed the following substantial questions of law. “Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, without considering the evidence by the trial Court while recording the findings against theplaintiff as also the admission of the plaintiff in his cross-examination that he had sold the field gat No. 207 admeasuring 10H 83R to the appellant”. 12. Heard Shri S.V. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri S. C. Mehadia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Shri C. A. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 13. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that from the pleadings it will be revealed that correction of sale-deeds was sought on the ground that he had committed a mistake while mentioning Gat No. 207 in the sale-deeds. He further argues that it is not the case of the respondent No. 1 that the said mistake was committed by both the parties to the sale deeds in question. He further argues that it is not the case of the respondent No. 1 that the said mistake was committed by both the parties to the sale deeds in question. Thus, he submits that as per section 22 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract is not voidable merely because it was caused by one of the parties to it being under a mistake as to a matter of fact. 14. He draws attention of this Court to section 20 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to submit that where both the parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void. Thus, he submits that in absence of any pleading to the effect that both the parties to the agreement have committed mistake as to matter of fact, the prayer made by the respondent No. 1, Ghanshyamdas in his suit, is not tenable. 15. He further argues that under section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, only in case of fraud or mutual mistake of the parties, contract or other instrument in writing, can rectify the instrument. He points out that in absence of pleadings relating to fraud or mutual mistake, allowing rectification of sale-deed would be contrary to the provision of section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 16. He submits that the trial Court has misplaced its reliance on the case of Sheodhyam Singh vs. Sanicharkaur reported in AIR 1963 SC 1879 . 17. Per contra, Shri S.C. Mehadia, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, submits that though in the sale-deed field Gat No. 207 was mentioned, in fact the boundaries mentioned in sale-deeds, are of Gat No. 278. Thus, the appellant, respondent No. 2 and 3 were well aware of the fact as related to the land which was actually sold and they have been put into possession. Hence while signing the sale-deeds description of boundaries were acceptable to both the parties and therefore, the mistake in mentioning the field Gat. number, cannot be treated as a mistake committed by one party and not by both the parties. He submits that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as regard to sections 20 and 22 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 and section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is not tenable. 18. number, cannot be treated as a mistake committed by one party and not by both the parties. He submits that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as regard to sections 20 and 22 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 and section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is not tenable. 18. Shri Mehadia learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, argues that in the present matter adverse inference should be drawn against the appellant as she did not enter into witness box, but, her husband who is the power of attorney holder of her, entered into witness box. He has further drawn my attention to the cross-examination of power of attorney the holder of the appellant, wherein he has deposed that six months after the sale-deed, the appellant first time got the knowledge about the wrong description of boundaries and further admits that for correction of boundaries, no notice was issued to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff. 19. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record and proceedings with the help of the learned counsel for the parties and perused judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. 20. In the case of Sheodhyam Singh vs. Sanicharkaur (Supra), the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India, has observed thus : “7. We are of opinion that the present case is analogous to a case of mis-description. As already pointed out the area, the khata number and the boundaries all refer to Plot No. 1060 and what has happened is that in writing the plot number, one zero has been missed and 1060 has become 160. It is also important to remember that there is no plot bearing No. 160 in Khata No. 97. In these circumstances we are of opinion that the High Court was right in holding that this is a case of mis-description only and that the identity of the property sold is well established, namely, that it is Plot No. 1060. The matter may have been different if no boundaries had been given in the final decree for sale as well as in the sale certificate and only the plot number was mentioned. The matter may have been different if no boundaries had been given in the final decree for sale as well as in the sale certificate and only the plot number was mentioned. But where we have both the boundaries and the plot number and the circumstances are as in this case, the mistake in the plot number must be treated as a mere mis-description which does not affect the identity of the property sold. The contention of the appellants therefore with respect to this plot must fail.” 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case of Subhaga vs. Shobha, (2006) 5 SCC 466 , has observed thus : “That a property can be identified either by boundary or by any other specific description is well established. Here the attempt had been to identify the suit property with reference to the boundaries and the Commissioner has identified that property with reference to such boundaries. Even if there was any discrepancy, normally, the boundaries should prevail.” 22. In the present matter the power of attorney of the appellant, Dadarao in his cross-examination, has deposed that the appellant got the knowledge after six months of execution of sale deeds, about wrong description of boundaries in the sale-deed. He further admits that no notice for correction of boundaries has been issued to the respondent No. 1. 23. Thus, the appellant is admitting that the field which is in her possession, is having the same boundaries as are mentioned in the sale-deed and the description of boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds do not match with the boundaries of field Gat No. 207. At the same time the appellant is not disputing that the boundaries mentioned in the sale-deeds in question, are of the field Gat No. 278. 24. The above referred admitted facts speak for themselves that at the time of executing sale-deeds and while taking possession of the field in question, the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, did not raise any dispute pertaining to the boundaries, having found that the same matched with the land they have been put into possession. Thus it is clear that with complete clarity as regards which land they have purchased, the possession had been taken by them without any demur. 25. 2 and 3, did not raise any dispute pertaining to the boundaries, having found that the same matched with the land they have been put into possession. Thus it is clear that with complete clarity as regards which land they have purchased, the possession had been taken by them without any demur. 25. In light of above facts this is a case of mis-description and not a case of mistaken identity as there is no doubt as to the identity of the field purchased by the appellant but there is only mis-description of field Gat number, that could be treated as a mere irregularity and in a case of mis-description of the field Gat number and the boundaries, the boundaries would prevail over field Gat number. 26. The Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in case of Puran Ram vs. Bhaguram, (2008) 4 SCC 102 , has observed thus : “13. A reading of these two conditions made under section 26 of the Act would amply show that either party may institute a suit to have the instrument rectified or a party who has already filed a suit in which any right arising under the instrument is in issue may claim in his pleading that the instrument be rectified. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it cannot be doubted that the main issue in the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale was relating to the agreement for sale in which a part of the description of the suit property was wrongly given by mutual mistake and therefore, needed to be amended. 14. Section 26, of course, says that it would be open to a party to institute a suit for correcting the description of the suit property, but the proviso to section 26 clearly permits that where a party has not claimed any such relief in his pleading, the Court shall at any stage of the proceeding allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including such claim. From a plain reading of the provisions under section 26 of the Act, there is no reason why the prayer for amendment of the agreement to correct a part of the description of the suit property from Chak No. 3 SSM to Chak No. 3 SLM, later on converted to Chak No. 3 SWM could not be granted. From a plain reading of the provisions under section 26 of the Act, there is no reason why the prayer for amendment of the agreement to correct a part of the description of the suit property from Chak No. 3 SSM to Chak No. 3 SLM, later on converted to Chak No. 3 SWM could not be granted. In our view, it is only a correction or rectification of a part of the description of the suit property, which cannot involve either the question of limitation or the change of nature of suit. In our view, the suit shall remain a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale and a separate independent suit is not needed to be filed when the proviso to section 26 itself clearly permits either party to correct or rectify the description of the suit property not only in the plaint but also in the agreement itself….” 27. In every sale transaction of land, to avoid further litigation or any dispute, it is expected that the vendee should verify the title deeds before entering into the agreement, visit the site and finally after satisfying all the materials prepare draft sale deed. Therefore, it is not the only duty of vendor but it is the duty of both the parties to the contract for sale of land, to take care while mentioning description of properties in the sale-deed. Thus if there is any mistake in description of properties or boundaries in sale deed the same cannot be said to be a mistake of one party and not of both the parties to such contract. 28. In light of conclusion arrived at by this Court that this is a case of mis-description and not a case of mistaken identity and in a case of mis-description of the field Gat number and the boundaries, the boundaries would prevail over field Gat number, it cannot be said that the mistake in the present case is in respect of a matter which is essential to the agreement, therefore, sections 20 of Act 1872, would not apply to the present case. 29. 29. Similarly as observed above that if there is any mistake in description of properties or boundaries in sale deed the same cannot be said to be or considered to be a mistake of one party and not of both the parties to such contract, therefore, sections 22 of Act 1872, would also not apply to the present case. 30. A reading of section 26 of the Act would amply show that either party may institute a suit to have the instrument rectified and it would be open to a party to institute a suit for correcting the description of the suit property. In view of above settled law position I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, is entitled for relief of rectification of Gat number mentioned in the sale deeds in question as sought for in the suit, under section 26 of Act, 1963. 31. In the above backdrop I hold that the learned lower appellate Court has not committed any error of law in allowing both the appeals filed by the respondent No. 1. Hence I do not find any merit in the present matter or any substantial question of law involved. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.