The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments to correct clerical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or orders may be allowed to ensure justice and prevent injustice to the parties involved.

A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA, J.-The respondent filed O.S. No. 82/1995 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Madikere against the petitioner to pass a decree of declaration and possession in respect of following three items of properties.

(i) 0.60 acres (20 battis) of privileged Jamma Bane wet lands in sy. No. 251 of Patta No. 15, bounded on the east by Sy. No. 250/3, west by Sy. No. 249/6, north by Sy. No. 265 and south by Sy. No. 241/4; with an assessment of Rs. 4.70.

(ii) 1.09 acres of sagu wet lands (shown as 1.16 acres in the Jamabandi) in Sy. No. 265/2 of Patta No. 39,bounded on the east by Kadanga, west by Kadanga and Sy. No. 252; north by Kadanga and Sy. No. 264, and south by Sy. No. 251 with an assessment of Rs. 13-11.

(iii) 5.00 acres of Paradana lands in Sy. No. 48/1 of Patta No. 63, bounded on the east by village boundary, west by Kadanga and Sy. No. 46/1, north by village boundary and south by Sy. No. 49/2, 49/1 and 53/9 with an assessment of Rs. 141.90.

All situated in Hoddur Village, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District. Petitioner who was the defendant filed written statement. Suit claim was contested. It was contended that T.U. Balakrishna agreed to sell the entire suit property, he paid sale consideration amount and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, even in the absence of a registered sale deed, having acquired right by adverse possession. The description and situation of the suit property was disputed and it was stated that there is no property as described in item Nos. 1 and 2 of the schedule, situated in Hoddur Village. The Trial Court raised the following issues :-

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the legally wedded wife of T.U. Balakrishna?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that she has become absolute owner of the suit schedule properties?

(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that her husband had entrusted the suit properties for better management to the defendant and the defendant was rendering accounts to her and all of a sudden stopped rendering accounts and paying profits out of the income from the property?

(4) Whether the defendant proves that he had purchased the property from T.U. Balakrishna as became owner thereof?

OR

In the alternative he has perfected his title over the suit schedule properties by adverse possession?

(5) What order or decree?

Plaintiff deposed as PW.1 and examined PW.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. The defendant got himself examined as DW1. Learned Trial Judge answered issues Nos. 1 to 3 in the affirmative and issue No. 4 in the negative and on 10.12.1999, decreed the suit and directed the defendants to hand over possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff and render account of income and expenditure of the suit properties, since the year 1981.

2. Plaintiff filed Ex. case No. 101/2000, to which, statement of objections was filed inter alia contending that suit schedule item Nos. 1 and 2 are not situated in Hoddur Village of Madikeri Taluk and the said items being not in existence in Hoddur Village, delivering of possession of the same does not arise. Decree Holder deposed and marked as Exs.P1 to P4 and Judgment Debtor deposed and marked as Exs.R1 to R4. The Execution Court noticing that the RTCs of suit properties of item Nos. 1 and 2 disclose that they are within the limits of Kumbaladalu Village and a mistake has crept in description of the said items of properties in the schedule of the plaint, allowed the execution petition in part and decree holder was held entitled to get possession of item No. 3 of the suit properties and in so far as item Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, decree holder was set at liberty to seek rectification or amendment of the decree with regard to the situation of those properties at Kumbaladalu Village, instead of Hoddur Village.

3. The plaintiff thereafter filed I.A.7 under Order 6, Rule 17 read with 151 of CPC in O.S. No. 82/1995 to grant permission to amend the schedule by deleting the word 'all' and for substituting 'item