ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 05.08.1997 passed in I.A.No.1978/96 in O.S.No.96/83 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aruppukkottai.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the, petitioner / 3rd defendant before the trial Court. The first respondent is the first respondent / plaintiff before the trial Court. The respondents 2 and 3 herein are the respondents 2 and 3 / defendants 1 and 2 before the Court below.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that there was a suit against him for the relief of partition, and that the Judgment was passed on 14.08.1986 dividing the suit property. However, the decree was not drafted in consonance with the Judgment. Therefore, prayed to amend the decree under Section 152 C.P.C., in consonance with the Judgment.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court in respect of the various findings of the Court below and would submit that when the Courts below arrived at conclusion that there was no division of property, the clause containing in the decree allotment of western side of the property, become redundant and therefore, would pray to allow this revision petition.

5. However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents / plaintiffs strongly objected the said argument, and would submit that the decree was drafted in consonance with the Judgment. Therefore, he would submit that the finding of the Court below does not call for any interference.

6. The sum and substances of contention putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that, the decree is not in-consonance with the Judgment. In order to understand the whole gamut of issue this Court deem it appropriate to extract the issues framed in the suit. The same is find a place in Para No.6 of the Judgment of the suit in O.S.No.96 of 1983. The same is reads as follows:

“1. jhth 'v” nrl;a+y; nrhj;J thjpf;F ghj;jpa mDgtKs;sjh?

2. jhth 'v” nrl;a+y; nrhj;J thjpf;F ghj;jpakhdJ ,y;iy vdW; $wpdhy; thjpf;F jhth 'gp” nrl;a+y; nrhj;jpy; thjp Nfhhpa ghfg; ghpfhuk; fpilf;ff; $bajh?

3. gpujpthjpfs; vjph; tof;Fiuapy;

fz;lgb jhth nrhj;J KOtijANk 2k; gpujpthjpf;Fk; mth; fzth; Jiur;rhkp nul;bahUf;Fk; ,dhkhf tplg;gl;lJ vd;gJ cz;ikahdjh? mJ rl;lg;gb nry;yj;jf;fjh?

4.gpujpthjpfSf;F jhth nrhj;jpy; mDgt ghj;jpak; Vw;gl;lbUf;fpwjh?

5. ,t;tof;fpy; thjpf;F vd;d ghpfhuk;

nfhLf;fg;glf;$baJ?

$Ljy; tpdh 1. ,t;tof;F Ntr;rd; mz;L mf;fpa+rd;]; vd;w Njhrj;jpdhy;

ghjpf;fgg; Lfpwjh?

2. ,t;tof;F mtrpakhd fl;rpf;fhuh;fis Nrh;f;ftpy;iy vd;w Njhrj;jhy;

ghjpf;fgg; l;Ls;sjh?

4. 1> 3 gpujpthjpfs; ey;nyz;zj;Jld; fpuak;

thq;fpAs;shh;fsh? mJ nry;yj;jf;fjh?

7. While answering those issues, the Court below in para No.

27 has held as follows:

“27. jhth nrhj;J “V”nrl;a+ypd; Nky; gFjp thjpf;F ghj;jpakhdJ vd;gij ep&gpf;f Kbatpy;iy. Nky; gFjpapy; 3 k; gpujpthjp fl;blk; fl;bf ; nfhz;bUg;gjhy; thjpahy; Nky; gFjp mtUf;F ghj;jpak; vd;gij ep&gpf;f Kbatpy;iy. mJ khhpak;khSf;F xJf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gjw;F Mjhuk; VJk; fpilahJ. Mdhy; “gp” nrl;A+y; nrhj;jpy; thjp NfhhpAs;s ghf ghpfhuk; mtUf;Ff; fpilf;ff; $baJ jhd;. Mdhy; mNj Neuj;jpy; 2k; gpujpthjp khhpak;khSf;Fk;> mtUila fzth; Jiurhkp nul;bahUf;Fk; “gp” nrl;a+y; nrhj;J KOtJk; ,dhkhf nfhLf;fgg; l;Ls;sJ vd;gJ ep&gpf;fg;gltpy;iy. ,jdhy; gpujpthjpfSf;F jhth nrhj;jpy; mDgt ghj;jpak; Vw;gltpy;iy. “gp” nrl;A +y; nrhj;J KOtJk; gphpf;fg;glhky; nghJthf jhd; cs;sJ vd;gJ ,e;j tof;fpy; njspthf ep&gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. vdNt tpdh 1 thjpf;F vjpuhfTk;> gpujpthjpfSf;F MjuthfTk;> tpdh 2 thjpf;F MjuthfTk;> gpujpthjpfSf;F vjpuhfTk;> tpdhf;fs; 3> 4 $Ljy; tpdhf;fs; 1> 3 gpujpthjpfSf;F vjpuhfTk;>

thjpf;F MjuthfTk; tpil mspf;fg;gLfpwJ.”

8. As per the above finding, the Court below has granted a relief in respect of the issue No.2 in favour of the plaintiff. According to issue No.2, the relief sought for is an allotment of western portion of the “B” schedule property. The same was allowed in favour of the plaintiff and granted as prayed for. As such, w