SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Guj) 1014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
C.L. SONI, J.
MARY PAUL PUDICHERRY D/O PUDICHERRY PORONCHU PAUL
CHRISTIAN - APPELLANTS
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 73 of 2015
Decided On : 09-04-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR MURALIN DEVNANI

Important Point-Court can always exercise its inherent power under Section 151 of CPC to secure ends of justice.

Headnote:Succession Act, 1925-Section 261-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Sections 151 and 152-Grant of succession (heirship) certificate-As stated by applicants, on account of error committed by them, correct description and measurement of plot for which succession certificate was required could not be mentioned in original application-Though powers under Section 152 are not available for correction of mistake of litigant, however when correction in ultimate order is sought by the litigant on the basis of his mistake in mentioning clear description and measurement of property and when such litigant is not to get more benefit by correction if granted but in fact, is to get something less than what is granted to him, Court can always exercise its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code to secure ends of justice-However, before exercising such powers, Court should ensure that proper procedure is followed to avoid any future complication.

       Result-Civil Revision Application allowed.

       

JUDGMENT :

1. By the present revision application, the petitioners have prayed to grant prayers made in Civil Misc. Application No.376 of 2014 preferred by them before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot.

2. Prayer made in the said application is to correct/ amend/ alter the measurement of the land shown in heirship certificate at Exh.24 issued by the Court in Civil Misc. Application No.1262 of 2012 for area of land of 142.30 Sq. Mtrs. instead of 238.01 Sq. Mtrs.

3. It appears that the applicants had preferred Civil Misc. Application No.1262 of 2012 seeking grant of succession (heirship) certificate in respect of the property shown in Schedule-A attached with the said application.

4. As per the description of the property given in Schedule-A, succession certificate was asked for plot No.19/A of Revenue Survey No.83/1 admeasuring 284.60 Sq. Yds. (238.01 Sq. Mtrs.) situated at Raiya Village of Taluka Rajkot.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Jignesh Kapadia appearing for the petitioners submitted that on the application preferred by the petitioners, due procedure was followed, including inviting objection by public notice by the Court before grant of succession certificate and thereafter, the Court was pleased to allow the application by order dated 27.12.2012 and ordered to issue succession certificate in favour of the applicants in respect of the property shown in Schedule-A on applicants producing Court fee stamps on the value of property of Rs.6,93,522/- and the applicants were directed to produce necessary bond as prescribed under Indian Succession Act. Mr. Kapadia submitted that after the application for succession certificate was allowed, the petitioners realized that there was a bonafide mistake committed in showing actual measurement and description of the plot in the application on account of which succession certificate was granted to the petitioners for more area of land than actual holding of the petitioners. Mr. Kapadia submitted that since the petitioners did not want to take undue advantage and to avoid any complication in future, they preferred application seeking correction in the succession certificate, however, learned Judge rejected the application on the ground that neither Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor Section 261 of the Succession Act would empower the Court to entertain new facts to make correction in the order touching the merits of the case as the same would amount to re-deciding the matter on merits. Mr. Kapadia submitted that in fact, what was sought to be corrected was bonafide mistake which is permissible under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 261 of the Succession Act to meet ends of justice as the petitioners do not want succession certificate for more area of land than their entitlement.

6. In the present revision application, the petitioners have not joined any person as opponent because nobody opposed the application, being Civil Misc. Application No.1262 of 2012 preferred by the applicants for grant of succession certificate. In such view of the matter and having regard to the facts of the case, Court finds that for entertaining present revision application, no formal order of admission is required to be passed.

7. At the last hearing of the application, when the Court put to Mr. Kapadia as to how and on what basis, correction was sought in the succession certificate for mentioning the area of land of plot No.19/A-1 as 142.30 Sq. Mtrs. instead of 238.01 Sq. Mtrs., Mr. Kapadia drew attention of the Court to the averments made in para 5 of the application being Civil Misc. Application No.376 of 2014, and pointed out that plot No.19 was sub-divided after selling 95.83 Sq. Mtrs. of land which was given plot No.19/A-2 and land remained with the petitioners admeasuring 142.30 Sq. Mtrs. was given sub-plot No.19/A-1. The Court then asked Mr. Kapadia to place on record some documents reflecting the division of plot No.19 if recorded in





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top