Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : VISWANATHA SASTRY
Kalkonda Pandu Rangaiah - Appellant
Versus
Kalkonda Krishnaiah - Respondent
Decided On : 03-08-73
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTIONS 151, 152, 153 - AMENDMENT OF DECREE - CLERICAL OR ARITHMETICAL ERRORS - POWER OF COURT - EXTENT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for partition of joint family properties and obtained a preliminary decree in his favor. The defendants appealed, and the decree was confirmed except for past mesne profits. The petitioner then filed an application to amend the plaint schedules to correct clerical errors in the survey numbers and extents of the properties. The lower court dismissed the application, holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain it after the preliminary decree had been confirmed by the High Court. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the revision petition and held that the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The court found that the mistakes in the plaint schedules were clerical or arithmetical errors and that they could be corrected under Section 152, even after the preliminary decree had been confirmed. The court also held that the amendments did not affect the rights of third parties and that they were necessary to ensure that the final decree would be executable.
Issues: 1. Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain the application to amend the plaint schedules after the preliminary decree had been confirmed by the High Court? 2. Whether the mistakes in the plaint schedules were clerical or arithmetical errors that could be corrected under Section 152 of the CPC? 3. Whether the amendments affected the rights of third parties?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 152 of the CPC, even after the preliminary decree had been confirmed by the High Court. The court noted that Section 152 empowers the court to correct clerical or arithmetical errors in judgments, decrees, or orders at any time, either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. 2. The court found that the mistakes in the plaint schedules were clerical or arithmetical errors. The court noted that the survey numbers and extents of the properties had been incorrectly copied from the revenue records and that the errors were obvious. 3. The court held that the amendments did not affect the rights of third parties. The court noted that the properties in question were joint family properties and that the amendments were necessary to ensure that the final decree would be executable.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition and directed the lower court to allow the amendment of the plaint schedules.
( 1 ) THIS is an application for direction to amend the decree in A. S. No. 462 of 1963 arising out of O. S. 18 of 1957 in the following circumstances. The petitioner herein filed the suit O. S. No. 18 of 1957 on the file of the Sub Court. Mahaboobnagar for partition of joint family properties into two shares and for allotment of one such share to him. He appended to his plaint details of properties mentioned in A. B. and C. Schedules. On 23-4-1959 in preliminary decree was passed in his favour for half the suit properties and for past mesne profits for six years and an enquiry into future mesne profits was directed. Defendants 1 and 2 carried the matter in a appeal A. S. No. 257 of 1959. The said appeal was dismissed except to the extent of past mesne profits for six years and only future profits were granted in that appeal.
( 2 ) THEREAFTER the plaintiff filed an application I. A. No. 112 of 1963 in the lower Court for passing final decree. By that time it was discovered that some mistakes have crept into the schedule of lands appended to the plaint. Schedule. A comprises of 10 survey number. Item No. 5 therein was shown as survey No. 265 measuring Ac. 5-23 Guntas. Item No. 10 was also shown as survey No. 265 measuring Ac. 2-02 guntas. According to the petitioner item 5 related to survey No. 264 and not 265. Item No. 6 of A Schedule was mentioned as survey No. 277/1 measuring Ac. 6-15 guntas. In the B Schedule 9 survey numbers were shown. of a total extent of Ac. 40-11 guntas. The extent of each of the survey numbers was not separately mentioned.
( 3 ) THE petitioner-plaintiff filed I. A. 156/70 to amend the plaint schedules. That application appears to have been dismissed. Thereafter he filed I. A. 178 of 1971 to amend the plaint schedule to show the correct survey numbers in A Schedule and also a give the separate extent of each survey number in B. Schedule. On 19th August, 1971, I. A. 178 of 1971 was dismissed by the lower court holding that as the preliminary decree was confirmed in appeal by the High Court. the lower court had no jurisdiction to entertain that application. In the lower court a commissioner was appointed originally in I. A. 112/63 for dividing the suit items. The lower court asked the collector to partition the land as required by S. 54 and Order 20 Rule 18 C. P. C. An advocate Commissioner was appointed to partition the two houses and the sites attached therewith shown in the plaint C Schedule. The Commissioner filed his report about the same. The lower Court passed a decree on 5-8-1963 effecting the division of the Schedule C properties. Thereupon the defendants carried the matter in appeal in A. S. No. 462 of 1963 once again. The said appeal was allowed on 7-10-1968 holding that as the suit property is not situated in an estate, the lower Court was not justified in referring the matter to the Collector for partition, under Section 54 C. P. C. The matter was, therefore, remanded. Thereupon the lower Court appointed another advocate as commissioner to effect partition of the lands comprised in A and B Schedules and to submit a report. The Commissioner submitted his report and the respondents filed their objections. The lower court has by its order dated 19-1-1973 remitted back the report to the Commissioner for a fresh report. After re-partitioning the properties. excepting items 5, 6, 8 and 9 of A. Schedule. The lower Court directed a stay in regard to items 5 to 6 of A schedule in order to enable the plaintiff to get the decree suitably rectified.
( 4 ) PLAINTIFF, petitioner herein, has filed this application in A. S. 462 of 1963 on 8/12/1971 itself even before the lower court passed the order dated 19/01/1973. According to his affidavit in the schedules attached to the plaint. in the preliminary decree and in the final decree. , survey No. 265 has been mentioned twice due to over-sight. Item No. 5 of A schedule is mentioned as survey No. 265 as also item No. 10 to consist of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
