A suit for correction of a typographical error in a sale deed is not barred by limitation if filed within three years from the date of knowledge of such error. Such suit falls within the jurisdiction of civil court and not revenue court.

J.K. Ranka, J.

1. This is defendants' second appeal under S. 100 CPC, against ex-parte judgment and decree dt. 17.3.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, in favour of the plaintiff respondent in Civil Regular Appeal No. 50/2005 filed against judgment and decree dt. 26.8.2005 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Nadbai, District Bharatpur in Civil Suit No. 135/2003, whereby the appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the judgment of the learned trial court.

2. Brief facts, giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit for correction of the entry of khasra No. 467 in place of 437 which according to the plaintiff was wrongly written in the registered sale deed. The registered sale deed was executed on 27.10.1989 between the appellant, seller and respondent, purchaser. Respondent is in possession of the land in dispute. However, the mistake or typographical error, of which correction is sought for, in the registered sale deed came to the notice of the purchaser on 29.7.2000, and therefore the respondent requested the appellant seller to get necessary correction done in the registered sale deed, the appellant denied for the same. Thereafter the respondent plaintiff filed a suit with prayer that the Sub-Registrar, Nadbai, may be directed to make necessary correction in the registered sale deed dt. 27.10.1989 to allow the suit with cost to be paid by defendant appellant to the plaintiff.

3. The defendant-appellant filed written-statement in the suit wherein he denied having executed sale deed in respect of the disputed land in favour of the plaintiff respondent and that he is in possession of the same on which he does farming, and that the plaintiff has filed the suit only to harass the defendant.

4. The trial court framed four issues, including the issue of relief, on the basis of pleadings of the parties. Plaintiff, including herself, produced four witnesses and four documentary evidences, whereas defendant, including his own, produced three witnesses, and after recording evidence and hearing the parties, vide judgment and decree dt. 26.8.2005 dismissed the suit with cost. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of learned trial court, plaintiff filed appeal before the appellate court, who after taking into consideration oral as well as documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to get necessary entry corrected in the registered sale deed and reversed the judgment and decree of trial court, and directed to issue decree accordingly.

5. On 3.3.2015 this court decided that the appeal shall be finally heard on the following substantial questions of law:-

"i. Whether the suit was barred by the Limitation?

ii. If the suit could not have been filed in the civil court in respect of declaration of agriculture land.?

Question No. 1

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation as correction was sought in a sale deed dt. 27.10.1989 by instituting a suit on 19.8.2000 whereas the maximum limitation was three years from the date of registration of sale deed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that as far as the question of limitation is concerned, both the courts have returned a concurrent finding on issue No. 2 regarding limitation which cannot be said to be perverse or illegal and further that the suit could be laid within three years from the knowledge of such typographical mistake in the sale deed, and as such the suit was well within limitation.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration on the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions raised at the Bar, I am of the firm opinion that the suit was not barred by limitation, and both the courts rightly concluded that the suit was laid well within the prescribed limitation. The suit as laid, is just for correction of the typographical error in the sale