The main legal point established in the judgment is that the boundary prevails over the extent and survey number, and the decree holder cannot unilaterally alter the details in the decree and seek enforcement.

The revision petitioner is the decree holder in the suit for specific performance based on the sale agreement dated 22.04.1983 with the defendant.

2. The suit is in respect of 4 items of properties. The Trial Court in O.S.No.778/84 as well the first appellate court in A.S. No. 105/93 have held in favour of the revision petitioner. Consequent to the decree of specific performance, sale deed has been executed by the Additional District Munsif, Dindigul in E.P.No.10/98 on 19.04.2001. Thereafter, the revision petitioner has filed execution petition for delivery of possession in E.P. No. 268/2002.

3. Delivery of items 1 to 3 were recorded on 18.03.2008. In respect of 4th item of property, execution petition was closed since the survey number of the property was not in consonance with the four boundaries. The revision petitioner has filed the subsequent execution petition in E.P.No.77/2012, wherein the description of the property, he has stated that the property to be delivered is 40 cents of land in S.No.524/13 in Periyakottai Village bounded by the punja lands of Nagammal-South, Rengasamy-West, Ayyarmalar-North and Paraipatti Road-East. As a note, he has stated that though in the decree, the extent of the land is mentioned as 64 cents it is only 40 cents and though the survey number in the decree is mentioned as 525/2 it is in fact S.No.524/13. The four boundaries are same. Since boundaries prevail over the extent and survey number, the property shown in the schedule of the petitioner has to be delivered.

4. After notice to the judgment debtor, the court below dismissed the Execution Petition. It accepted the principle, boundary will prevail over the extent and survey number, and pointed out that the execution court is only to execute what is found in the decree and if in any discrepancies found in the survey number or extent, it is for the decree holder to get the decree amended by the Court which passed the decree. Therefore, for the said reason, the court below dismissed the execution petition.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the execution court dismissing the E.P. for the reasons stated above, the revision petition is filed on the following grounds:-

(1) Wrong mentioning of S.No.525/2 instead of 524/13 is a curable error and it can be corrected at any time.

(2) The Amin failed to discharge his duty in this case correctly. If he has found out mentioning of S.No.525/5 is wrong and belongs to somebody else, with the help of VAO, he should have located the four boundaries mentioned in the decree and executed the decree. He committed a mistake in his duty.

(3) The District Munsif should have directed the Amin to locate the property by boundary more particularly when the E.P mentioned the correct S.No.524/13. The District Munsif need not act on S.No.524/13 but he should certainly act on the four boundaries given in the decree and E.P.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner citing the judgments of Pricy Council, Supreme Court and High Court of Madras emphasised that when there is a dispute in survey number and extent, the property should be identified by the four boundaries. The Trial Court has erred in not exercising judicial discipline while considering the E.P.

7. The fallacy in the above submission of the revision petitioner is two fold.

First, the Trial Court has not disagreed with the proposition of law put forth by the decree holder. The Trial Court has rightly pointed out that when there is discrepancy in survey number and extent, it is for the decree holder to get it amended and then proceed with execution.

8. Secondly, it is contended that the wrong mentioning of survey number is curable defect and it can be corrected at any time. There is no error in such submission, but who has to cure the defect and how it has to be corrected is the real point for consideration. The error in the decree is to be cured by judicial intervention and not by the decree holder at his will.

9. For the question, can the decree holder correct