Maharajan, J.- This Letters Patent Appeal which is directed against the second appellate judgment of V. Ramaswami, J., arises under the following circumstances:

Survey No. 60/1, which is the subject-matter of this appeal, and certain other properties originally belonged to two brothers, Viswanatha Chettiar and Palani-andi Chettiar. Viswanatha Chettiar died on 18th February, 1918. Sometime before his death, he executed a partition deed and a will, whereby he bequeathed the suit property and other properties to his wife, Gomathi Ammal. After his death, disputes arose between Gomathi Ammal and Palaniandi Chettiar. Thereupon, Gomathi Ammal instituted two suits in the District Munsif’s Court, Tirunelveli for enforcement of the partition deed and the will and for direction to register the same. On 6th November, 1920 under Exhibit A-1 both the suits were compromised by the parties, and a decree was granted, in terms thereof. Under the terms of the decree, Gomathi Ammal was to enjoy the suit property and certain other properties for life and after her death, these properties were to go to Palaniandi Chettiar and his heirs. One Velayutham Pillai and Ramiah Pillai obtained a decree against Palaniandi Chettiar in S.C. No. 564 of 1934 and in execution thereof brought to sale the vested remainder that Palaniandi Chettiar had in the suit property, purchased the same and obtained symbolic delivery of possession. The plaintiff purchased this right from the Court-auction purchaser on 29th November, 1954. Gomathi Ammal herself died on 8th August, 1964. According to the plaintiff, on her death, he, as the holder of the vested remainder, became entitled to the suit property. The plaintiff’s case was that by some arrangement with Gomathi Ammal, the father of defendants 1 to 12 got possession of item 1 (Survey No. 60/1) and was in enjoyment of the same till his death, and after his death, his heirs (defendants 1 to 12) have been in possession of item 1. Defendants 1 to 12, when called upon by the plaintiffs to surrender possession, refused to do so. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession.

2. Defendants 1 to 12, who were the children of Mohammad Hanifa Tharaganar, contended that as per the compromise decree, Gomathi Ammal was given Survey No. 30/3 and S. No. 70/6, that she was in enjoyment of those items, but by mistake the survey number of item 1 was wrongly mentioned in the compromise decree as Survey No. 60/1 instead of as Survey No. 30/3 and this mistake was reiterated in the subsequent documents. Likewise, what was sold in execution of the decree against Palaniandi Chettiar was also wrongly described as Survey No. 60/1 and therefore, the plaintiff had no right in respect of item 1 of the plaint schedule. These defendants also pleaded that they had been in possession of Survey No. 60/1 and that in any case they have prescribed title to the property by adverse possession,

3. The trial Court held that the survey number had been wrongly given in the compromise decree as Survey No. 60/1 instead of as Survey No. 30/3, that Palaniandi Chettiar sold Survey No. 60/1 to the predecessar-in-interest of the defendants and that, therfore, the plaintiff was disentitled to recover possession of item 1. Consequently it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in respect of item 1.

4. On appeal by the plaintiff , the Subordinate Judge,Tirunelveli, held that there was no mistake in the description of the survey number in the compromise decree or in the subsequent documents, and on this view, decreed the suit as prayed for in respect of item 1 as well.

5. Against this judgment, the third defendant preferred second Appeal No. 215 of 1968. The learned Judge confirmed the finding of the first appellate Court that there was no mistake in respect of item 1 in the compromise decree and the subsequent documents. This is a finding of fact, which is binding upon us. The learned Judge also held upon a construction of the compromise decree that Gomathi A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document