certificates of sale are documents of title - mistake in the plot number must be treated as mere misdescription which does not affect the identity of the property sold.

P. Udayani Devi Vs. V.V. Rajeshwara Rao and another

, AIR 1995 SC 1357 

Equivalent citations: 

1995 AIR 1357, 

1995 SCC (3) 252

in support of the submission that certificate of sale or document of title Kvm FA186.12 which ought not to be lightly regarded or loosely construed. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment reads thus :

"7. We find considerable substance in this contention. The position in law is well-settled that "certificates of sale are documents of title which ought not to be lightly regarded or loosely construed." [See : Rambhadra Naidu v. Kadiriyasami Naicker . In Sheodhyan Singh and Ors. v. Musammat Sanichara Kuer and Ors. MANU/SC/0283/1961: [1962]2SCR753 , in the sale certificate the boundaries as well as the plot number were mentioned but there was a mistake in mentioning the plot number. It was held :

"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 mere misdescription which does not affect the identity of the property sold