IMPORTANT POINT
When the suit as to immovable property has been decreed and the property is not definitely identified, the defect in the Court record caused by overlooking of provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 3 and Order 20 Rule 3 of CPC 1908 is capable of being cured by resort to Sections 152 or 47 of the CPC depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 142-Directions to do complete C.P.C. 1908-Order 7 Rule 3 r/w Order 20 Rule 3-Order 21 Rule 32 r/w Order 21 Rule 34, Order 41 Rule 6-Sections 152 and 47-Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property-Error in definite identification in property-Not noticed-Suit decreed (see para 14)-Draft sale deed accompanied by notice requiring objections to be made by ID not caused to by served by Court (see para 15)-These errors can be corrected by recourse to sections 152 or 47 or CPC (see para 16)-Directions issued to resolve the above two errors-(See para 19) security amount deposited under Order 41 Rule 6 by JD cannot be withdraw by D.H. (see para 17)-Appeals disposed of accordingly to complete its full expection and satisfaction by suitable directions under Article 142 of the Constitution (see para 3).

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

When a suit involving immovable property has been decreed but the property has not been definitively identified, errors related to the description of the property can be corrected by resorting to Sections 152 or 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), depending on the circumstances (!) (!) .
The defect in the court record caused by overlooking procedural requirements, such as the failure to file a proper map or description of the property, does not necessarily prevent the execution of the decree. Such errors are capable of being rectified to ensure the decree's full execution and satisfaction (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property should be enforced in a manner that ensures the decree-holder receives the property as described in the decree, and the judgment-debtors are not compelled to part with any property not intended for sale (!) (!) .
It is essential that the description of the property in the plaint complies with procedural requirements, including providing sufficient details to identify the property, such as boundaries or survey numbers. Failure to do so can lead to errors that may be corrected later (!) .
During execution proceedings, the draft sale deed and accompanying maps must accurately reflect the property to be transferred. Any discrepancies or errors in the map or property description should be addressed and rectified by the executing court to prevent disputes and ensure proper transfer of title (!) (!) .
The court has the authority to rectify errors in the property description, including errors in maps or boundary descriptions, using the appropriate provisions of the CPC, with Section 47 being particularly suitable for correcting errors that do not affect the substantive rights of the parties (!) (!) .
The security deposit made during the course of litigation or appeal should be handled carefully. If the order does not specify otherwise, the deposited amount should be returned to the depositor, and not appropriated by the opposing party, especially when the order for security was interim or conditional (!) .
The Court directed that the executing court should verify the correctness of the map filed during the execution proceedings. If the map is found to be incorrect or requires rectification, it should be rectified and incorporated into the sale deed to ensure proper identification and transfer of the property (!) .
The Court emphasized the importance of expediting the execution process, including fixing a timeline for completing the sale and possession transfer, to prevent unnecessary delays and to ensure that the decree is fully executed within a reasonable period (!) (!) .
Each party is responsible for fulfilling their obligations independently, and the Court clarified that compliance with procedural directions should not be made a condition for other obligations to be fulfilled, promoting a fair and efficient execution process (!) .
The Court highlighted that errors or omissions that do not affect the substantive rights of the parties, such as minor discrepancies in property description or map inaccuracies, can be corrected without defeating the decree, provided proper procedural steps are followed (!) (!) .
The Court directed that the appeal proceedings be expedited, and the execution should be concluded within a specified timeframe to avoid further delay, ensuring justice and finality in the matter (!) .

Please let me know if you need any further analysis or assistance regarding this case.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Failure on the part of plaintiffs to give correct, specific and exact description of the immovable property forming subject-matter of suit, added by omission on the part of the trial Court to insist on compliance by the draftsman of the plaint with the rules of pleadings, has resulted in a decree which is yet to witness its full execution and satisfaction though the litigation has by this time stretched over two decades.

3. The parties are appearing in person and we have heard them at length. We propose to make an order which would finally bury - to the extent we can - the hatchets so far wielded by the parties. The directions which we propose to make, after briefly setting out the facts, are partly in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on this Court by Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice in the ifs before us.

4. Smt. Pratibha Singh, the appellant no.1 is the wife of Shri Madhusudan Prasad Singh, the appellant no.2. The appellant no.2 is power of attorney holder for appellant no.1. Smt. Shanti Devi Prasad, the respondent no.1 is the wife of Shri.Lakshmi Kant Singh, respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 is also power of attorney holder for respondent no.1. The agreement to sell forming subject-matter of decree for specific performance thereof was entered into between Smt. Pratibha Singh as vendor and Smt. Shanti Devi Prasad as vendee. However, it appears that the suit for specific performance was filed by Smt. Shanti Devi Prasad and Shri Lakshmi Kant Singh, arrayed as plaintiffs against Smt. Pratibha Singh and Shri Madhusudan Prasad Singh arrayed as defendants. For the sake of convenience the former two will be referred to as the plaintiff-decree holders while the latter two will referred as the defendant judgment-doctors.

5. The suit property is a piece of land admeasuring 8 kathas situated in village Hinoo of P.S. Doranda in District Ranchi. It is part of Revenue Survey No.595 which has a larger area. Vide registered deed of sale dated 21st June, 1975, the defendant judgment-debtors had purchased a piece and parcel of land measuring 9 decimals (0.09 acres) out of Revenue Survey plot No.595 which was designated as sub-plot no.595/11 out of Khata No.9, Khewat No.8 of P.S. Ranchi, P.S. No.225. A map of the property so purchased was annexed with the Deed of Sale. By yet another registered Deed of Sale dated 11th June, 1976, the defendant judgment-debtors purchased another piece and parcel of Sand measuring 11 kathas 3 Chattacks out of Revenue Survey plot No.535 which was described as sub-plot No.595/1 out of Khata No.9 Khewat NO.8 P.S. Ranchi, P.S. No.225. The boundaries of the and covered by the respective sale deeds were stated in the deeds of sale and map describing the location of land was each annexed therewith. It is clear that two pieces of land so purchased by the defendant judgment-debtors though described in the deeds of sale as survey nos. 595/11 and 595/1 were not so designated as sub-plots in the revenue records -either the record of rights or in the revenue survey map.

6. The defendant judgment-debtors entered into an agreement to sell sub-plot No.595/1 area 6 kathas and 595/11 area 2 Kathas total area 8 kathas (equivalent to 2.44 acres) in favour of the plaintiff-decree holders. It is not disputed that 8 kathas of land forming subject-matter of agreement to sale is out of the same land as the defendant judgment-debtors had purchased through the two sale deeds dated 21.6.1975 and 11.6.1976 referred to hereinabove. The plaintiff-decree holders filed a suit for specific performance. In the plaint the suit property was described as under :

"SCHEDULE OF THE SUIT LANP

All that piece and parcel of land measuring 8 (eight) Kathas out of total area of 17 Katha, 4 chatak as mentioned below:-

Khata-No. Plot No. Sub Plot No. Area

9 595 595/1 6 Kathas

" 595 595/II 2 Kathas

situated at Village Hinoo, P.S. Ran

Click Here to Read the rest of this document