1998 Supreme(Ker) 407
Judges : S.SANKARASUBBAN
Pradeep Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Bank of Travancore - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P.No.579 of 1997
Decided On : 09/22/1998
Advocates Appeared :
P. Sukumaran Nair (Sr. Advocate), Thottalhil B. Radhakrishnan & G. Unnikrishnan For Petitioner V.R. Venkitakrishnan, P.N.K. Achan, T.A. Ramadasan, K.M. Mohanakannan & A.P. Chandrasekharan For Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court has the inherent power to correct mistakes in sale documents under S.151 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, ensuring justice and preventing unnecessary expense and inconvenience to parties.
Headnote:
Mistake in Sale Proclamation - S.151 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Correction of Sale Proclamation, Sale Certificate and Delivery Account
Fact of the Case:
The Civil Revision Petitions arise from a common order regarding the amendment of sale proclamation, sale certificate, and delivery account for two decree schedule items. The properties were sold in execution of a money decree, and the auction purchasers sought to correct the mistakes in the sale documents.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the properties intended for sale were misdescribed in the sale documents, but the entire extent of the properties as described in the decree was sold in auction. The Court held that the mistake in the sale proclamation, sale certificate, and delivery account could be corrected under S.151 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court had the power to correct the mistakes in the sale documents under S.151 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on various precedents to establish that the power of the Court to correct decrees and orders is not limited to errors in the plaint or subsequent documents in Court. It held that the Court has inherent power over its own records and can set right any mistake in them.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were allowed, and the Court directed the lower court to make the required corrections in the sale proclamation, sale certificate, and delivery account.
S. Sankarasubban, J..
Both these Civil Revision Petitions arise from a common order and hence they are being disposed of together. C.R.P. No. 579 of 1997 is filed against the order in E.A. No. 181/96 in E.P. No. 160/91 in O.S. No. 91/81 of the Sub Court, Thalassery while C.R.P. No. 898/97 is filed against the order in E. A. No. 180/96 in the same proceedings. C.R.P. No. 579/97
2. First respondent Bank is the decree holder. The suit was filed against respondents 2 and 3 for recovery of amount on the basis of mortgage. In this Civil Revision Petition, we are concerned with one item of property. That item is decree schedule item 3. Decree schedule item 3 belongs to the second defendant. Item 3 described in the decree as follows:
"Item No. 3:-District Sub-District Taluk
Amsoin Desom Survey Re-Survey Extent
sq. metres)
Cannanore
- Tellicherry
Tellicherry
Thiruvangad
- Vayalalani
- 4/4A3
- 8/1 '
- 2 Acres 65 cents (i hector 07 areas 24
Description: -Jamayil ParachaKandathitte Vadakke Chirayum KelUnnuThazheKayippadu EnnaPerayaparappillottaKaiicfcunNilavimiNila]hihiinnuKihdiuyarUiiUndiikkiyaNadakallum, Nadakkal,Qiirakkal,HliukalilKizhikoorukalum, Velu'kanani Muthalaya Sarvathum.
Thack-1. Boundaries:
East - MooliNilamand2ndThackNilam.
South - MooliNilam
West - ChirakkaraThazhani Nilam.
North - Nadavaramba.
Thack No. 2- Boundaries:
East - 3rdThackandMooliNilam.
South - MooliNilam
West - 1st Thack
North - Nadavaramba.
ThackNo. 3-Boundaries:
East - Thodu
South - M(x>liNilain
West - Mooli and 2nd Thack
North - Nadavaramba."
The above item was included in the proclamation schedule as item 2. The entire area of this item is 2 acres and 65 cents in R.S. No. 8/1 of Thalassery Sub-District, Kannur District. The extent of 2 acres and 65 cents lies in three thacks and the decree schedule gives the boundaries of all the three thacks. In the proclamation schedule, the area of this item was given. But by a mistake only the boundaries of thack 1 were given. The Boundaries of thack 2 and 3 were omitted. Under R.330 of the Civil Rules of Practice, an affidavit was filed by the decree holder stating that this property belongs to the second respondent and its value was Rs. l lakh. The above property was sold on 3.6.1993 and the same was purchased by the present revision petitioner. The sale was confirmed on 20.9.1993 and the 2 acres and 65 cents were delivered to the petitioner on 2.12.1993. Later it was found that since the sale certificate gives the description of only one thack, the petitioner filed the present application, viz., E. A. No. 181/96 for amending the sale proclamation, certificate of sale and the delivery account by incorporating part of the details relating to item No.1 in the decree schedule, which was omitted in those documents. The second judgment debtor filed objections to the application. The trial court after considering the objections, dismissed the application.
C.R.P. No. 898/97
3. An application was filed by the petitioner to amend the proclamation schedule, sale certificate and the delivery account with regard to decree schedule item 1. The decree schedule item 1 actually belongs to the first defendant. The decree states that: In the proclamation it was stated that the property belongs to the second defendant. The property was sold and the same was purchased by the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 898/96. This property has got an extent of 2 acres and 52 cents. After the petitioner took possession of the property, the first judgment debtor tiled O.S. No. 51/94 for a declaration that his right, title and interest over decree schedule item 1 was not passed by the Court sale. It was then that he realised that there was a mistake in the sale certificate. Hence E.A. No. 180/96 was filed under S.153 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amending the proclamation schedule, sale certificate and delivery account by substituting the words' 'instead of 'rasneoo injarilThe first judgment debtor filed objections to this and after hearing the parties, the court below d