The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party can seek rectification of a deed without seeking the relief of declaration, and that the party is entitled to seek rectification even without impleading the competent authority or other legal heirs as necessary parties.

T. Ravindran, J.

In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2014 passed in A.S.No.56 of 2013 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Salem, reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2013 passed in O.S. No.859 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for rectification and Permanent injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that his father and mother purchased the property from the defendants of an extent of 0.09 cents of land equivalent to 3924 sq. ft. within the spefic boundaries, namely, east of Harur main road, south of Pappammal land, west and north of the land of the vendors by way of the registered sale deed dated 23.04.1986 registered as document No. 610/1986 on the file of the office of the Sub Registrar Office, Ayyothiyapattinam and has been enjoying the same as the absolute owners of the property and the said property has been described in the plaint A schedule. However, the survey number in the abovesaid sale deed has been wrongly noted as S.F.No.94/1 instead of S.F.No.95/1, however, the boundaries abovestated tally only with the property lying in S.F.No.95/1 and the mistake had crept in by inadvertence in the abovesaid sale deed. Later, the mistake was found by the plaintiff's father at the time of executing the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff's parents executed a settlement deed dated 13.10.2009 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the correct survey number 95/1 and after the settlement deed, the plaintiff applied for patta and the same was also changed in his name by the Tahsildhar concerned and since then, it is only the plaintiff, who has been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and accordingly as the original title deed bears the wrong survey number, the same requires to be rectified and accordingly, the plaintiff and his father had moved the defendants for the execution of the rectification deed and it is stated that the defendants do not own any property in survey number 94/1, but, with a view to extract money from the plaintiff and his father, the defendants refused to execute the rectification deed on one pretext or the other and on the other hand, they moved the police machinery as if the plaintiff and his father are attempting to grab the land belonging to them and the property to be described correctly in the sale deed dated 23.04.1986 has been detailed in the plaint B schedule and furthermore as the defendants had attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment, according to the plaintiff, he left with no other alternative, has been necessitated but to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that, the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the plaint schedule property is situated within the boundaries given in the plaint and in any event the sale deed dated 23.04.1986 had been executed 26 years ago and as the plaintiff has admitted that he and his parents have been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property for several years, in such view of the matter, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of rectification of the sale deed and it is false to state that survey number has been wrongly mentioned as 94/1 instead of 95/1 and it is false to state that the boundaries tally only for the property in survey number 95/1 and it is false to state that the mistake has crept in by inadvertence in the sale deed abovestated, it is false to state that the mistake had come to the knowledge of the plaintiff and his father only at the time of executing the settlement deed and when the plaintiff's parents had executed the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff giving the correct survey number 95/1, the plaintiff has no locus standi to lay the suit for the reliefs