Jagat Narayan, J. - (1.)This is a revision application by the judgment-debtors against two orders of the execut-ing court one dated 16th August, 1960 amending the sale certificate and the other dated 20th August 1960 ordering delivery of possession over the property sold in execution of the decree.
(2.)The facts which have given rise to this application are these. Jethmal obtained a money decree against Sobla and Harjida judgment-debtors and put it into execution. In the execution application he prayed for the attachment and sale of the house of the judgment-debtors consisting of a Kholda, a Jhumpa and a Bara bounded as follows: North --Modia and Surta Bambi. West --Dhania s/o Suja Bambi. South --Door, Guzar, Dharma Bambi, and Shrimali Jata Shanker. East --Khalsa land. The estimated value of this property was shown as Rs. 400/- in this application. This very property was attached. It was fully described in the warrant of attachment in the same way as in the execution application. In the sale proclamation however the details of the property namely that it consisted of Kholda, Jhumpa and Bara were omitted. Ail that was mentioned was that the houses of the judgment-debtors bounded as shown in the execution application were to be sold. The property was sold in favour of the decree-holder who applied for delivery of possession under Order 21 Rule 95 C. P. C. The application was opposed by the minor sons of the judgment-debtors inter alia on the ground that there was no property of the judgment-debtors answering the description given in the sale proclamation. The decree-holder filed a reply saying that by mistake the northern boundary of the property was shown as southern boundary and the southern boundary as northern boundary and that the property sold was identifiable. The application of the decree-holder for possession was dismissed by the executing court by order dated 5-3-60 on the ground that there was no property answering the description given in the sale proclamation. The decree-holder thereupon filed an application for the amendment of the sale certificate under Section 151 C. P. C. On this application the executing court ordered the correction of the boundaries given in the sale certificate. Thereafter it ordered the delivery of possession to the decree-holder on the basis of the amended sale certificate.
(3.)I have perused the material on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The judgment-debtors executed a sale-deed of their house and the land attached thereto in favour of a third party after the auction sale had taken place. A comparison of the boundaries given in this sale-deed with the boundaries mentioned in the sale certificate goes to show that what was intended to be sold and was actually sold was the Kholda, Jhumpa and Bara belonging to the judgment-debtors and bounded as shown in the sale- deed. It appears that the property owned by Moodia and Surta Bambi was sold in favour of Modi Keshri-mal after the execution application had been filed. The first objection taken on behalf of the applicants is that this is not a case of misdescription. Reliance was placed on some observations made in Thakur Barmha v. Jiban Ram, 41 Ind App 38 (PC). In that case the property described in the warrant of attachment and the sale proclamation did exist on the spot. In the present case there is no property answering the description given in the execution application, the warrant of attachment and the sale proclamation. It is however clear that by mistake the property was misdescribed inasmuch as in place of the northern boundary the southern boundary was given and vice versa.
;