JUDGMENT

Sanjay K Agrawal, J. - This second appeal preferred by the plaintiff was admitted on the following substantial question of law: -

"Whether both the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for correction of sale deed dated 25/01/1985 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff ignoring Ex.P/2 and other admissible evidence on record by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to the record?"

(For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.)

2. The plaintiff filed suit for rectification of sale deed dated 25-1-1985 (Ex.P-1) stating inter alia that she has purchased suit land bearing Khasra No.2411/1, area 0.24 acre, but a typographical error has been crept-in in executing the sale deed and Khasra number has been mentioned as 3930, area 0.24 acre, therefore, she is entitled for rectification of the sale deed and consequently, permanent injunction.

3. Defendant No.1 was ex parte before the trial Court and neither filed written statement nor adduced any evidence in support of his case.

4. The plaintiff examined herself and witnesses and brought Exs.P-1 & P2 and other documents on record to establish her case, but the trial Court and the first appellate Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit land bearing Khasra No.2411/1 is also recorded in the name of Tulsiram and apart from Tulsiram there are other co-owners of the said land, but they have not been impleaded and declined to grant decree in favour of the plaintiff against which this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the CPC in which substantial question of law has been framed which has been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

5. Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein / plaintiff, would submit that both the Courts below have concurrently erred in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for correction of sale deed ignoring that vide Ex.P-2 Tulsi Ram - defendant No.1 had already agreed and given his consent to correct the Khasra number, but on that basis, mutation was sought which was rejected by the competent authority on the ground that it is not a registered document and appeal there-against was also dismissed which led the plaintiff to file suit for rectification of the mistake. The two courts below dismissed the claim simply on the ground that other co-owners of the suit property bearing Khasra No.2411/1 have not been impleaded as party defendants though they are dead as duly pleaded in the plaint, as such, judgments & decrees of both the Courts below deserve to be set aside and the second appeal deserves to be allowed by answering the substantial question of law in negative.

6. Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 herein / defendant No.1, would oppose the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff and would submit that both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, as, apart from defendant No.1, other co-owners of the suit land are already there, neither they have been impleaded nor their legal representatives have been impleaded as party defendants on record and therefore no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

8. It is the case of the plaintiff that she purchased the land bearing Khasra No.3930, area 0.24 acre, but while executing sale deed dated 25-1- 1985 (Ex.P-1), typographical error crept-in and Khasra No.2411/1, area 0.24 acre, came to be mentioned for which a correction deed had also been executed by Tulsiram on 15-5-2003, but the Revenue Court declined to accept it on the ground that it is not a registered document an