The validity of the amendment to the plaint schedule boundaries and the rectification deed was upheld, establishing the plaintiff's title to the disputed property despite the misdescription in the document.

JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal is by the legal representatives of the deceased defendant.

2. Sri.Puttaswamy Gowda, the original plaintiff, instituted a suit initially seeking for a decree of declaration and for injunction. The suit property was originally described as the land bearing Sy.No.655/C, measuring an extent of 1 acre 80 cents out of total extent of 4 acres 10 guntas bounded on the East by Canal; West by the land of Devaraju Gowda; North by Canal and his property; and South by the land of Kariyappa.

3. Subsequently, an application to amend the plaint was made but the same was rejected by the Trial Court. The plaintiff thereafter approached this Court in W.P. No.2186/2014 and this Court allowed the said writ petition and thereby the plea for amendment. By the said amended plea, it was stated that he was dispossessed after the interim order was vacated and hence, was entitled for a decree of possession.

4. The plaintiff also got the schedule of the plaint amended. Instead of 4 acres 10 guntas, the total measurement of Sy.No.655/C was stated to be 3 acres 40 guntas. The boundaries were also changed to state that it was bounded on the East by the land of Gurusiddanayak; West by the land of Timmirangegowda; North by the land of Puttaswamy Gowda bin Singari Gowda; and South by Hebballa.

5. It was the case of the plaintiff that he had purchased the suit property from Smt.Chikkatayamma, who was the wife of Puttaswamy Gowda, under the registered sale deed dtd. 22/4/1980 and he was put in possession of the said property. It was stated that the revenue entries were also changed in his favour and he was in lawful possession and as the defendant sought to interfere with his possession he was constrained to file the suit seeking for a decree of declaration.

6. The suit was contested by the defendant stating that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property. It was stated that the defendant had purchased the suit property under a sale deed dtd. 20/12/1978 and under the said sale deed, an extent of 1.87 acres had been conveyed. It was stated in the said sale deed, the survey number was wrongly mentioned as Sy.No.654/B, though the boundaries had been correctly stated.

7. It was stated that the defendant did not notice the said mistake until recently and the defendant was therefore, seeking for a counter-claim by way of a declaration that he was the owner in possession of the property bearing Sy.No.655/C measuring 1.87 acres by rectifying Sy.No.654/B as 655/C in the sale deed dtd. 20/12/1978. The defendant in his counter-claim also sought for a decree of injunction.

8. The Trial Court, on considering the evidence adduced before it, concluded that the plaintiff had proved that he was the owner of the suit property and that there was interference with his possession. The Trial Court held that the defendant had failed to prove that he was the owner in possession of Sy.No.655/C measuring 1.87 Acres and his claim for rectification of Sy.No.654/B as 655/C in his sale deed dtd. 20/12/1978 could not be granted. The Trial Court also concluded that the plaintiff had proved that the defendant had obtained possession of the suit schedule property, after the interim order had been vacated. The Trial Court accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and dismissed the counter-claim of the defendant. The defendants were also directed to vacate and deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of the judgment.

9. Being aggrieved, the legal representatives of the defendant preferred an appeal.

10. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that there was no error committed by the Trial Court in decreeing the suit and in dismissing the counter-claim of the defendant. The Appellate Court accordingly dismissed the appeal.

11. It is against these concurrent findings, the present second appeal has been preferred.

12. The learned counsel for the appellants, S