Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows courts to correct accidental slips or omissions without changing the substantive rights established in the original decree.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.147 of 1988, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Manjeri. The suit was for partition. The partible items are shown in two schedules, namely, schedule IIB and schedule IIC. The preliminary decree provides that the plaint IIB schedule property shall be divided into 22 shares and three shares out of the same shall be allotted to the plaintiff. The properties in plaint IIC schedule were directed to be divided into 20 shares and the plaintiff was allotted one share out of the 20 shares. It was also held that the plaintiff is entitled to get mesne profits. There was no appeal from the preliminary decree.

2. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.665 of 1990 to pass a final decree. A Commissioner was appointed, who submitted a report dated 13.7.1992. It would appear that another report dated 30.1.1995 (stated as report dated 1.2.1995 in the proceedings) was also submitted by the Commissioner. On the basis of the reports submitted by the Commissioner, the trial court passed the judgment and final decree.

3. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.241 of 1996 under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to correct the mistakes in the final decree. According to the plaintiff, three errors occurred in the final decree: (a) The plaintiff was not allotted 2.5 cents in plaint II B schedule property as shown by the Commissioner in his report; (b) There is a mistake in respect of the item number allotted to the plaintiff in plaint II C schedule property; (c) The date from which the plaintiff is entitled to get mesne profits is not mentioned in the final decree. The trial court allowed the application in respect of mistakes (b) and (c) mentioned above, but dismissed the application in respect of mistake (a) referred to above. The court below took the view that the Commissioner has not filed any plan locating 2.5 cents as now claimed by the plaintiff. In the absence of a plan identifying the extent, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim that an error was committed in the final decree. The court below also held that it was not an omission in the judgment which could be corrected by exercising power under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The extent in plaint IIB schedule is 17 cents. It is not disputed that the plaintiff is entitled to 3 out of 22 shares in plaint II B schedule. The Commissioner in his report stated that at the time of inspection, there was no dispute among the parties with regard to the identity of plaint schedule items. The Commissioner also stated in the report that he had measured the property. Only the Village plans were produced by the Commissioner. The account of equalisation of shares submitted by the Commissioner would show that plaint IIB schedule property has got a total value of Rs.21,340/-. The share value of the plaintiff was estimated at Rs.2,910/-. The Commissioner stated that he was allotting to the plaintiff 2 ½ cents on the eastern part of plaint IIB schedule property. That plot was bounded by road on the east and north. The survey numbers were shown in the report. The Commissioner has also stated the number of arecanut trees and jack trees standing in the property allotted to the plaintiff. The land value of 2 ½ cents was taken as Rs.2,000/-. The value of improvements was taken as Rs.1,600/-. Thus the total value of 3/22 shares allotted to the plaintiff in plaint IIB schedule property was assessed at Rs.3,600/-. The Commissioner also stated that for equalisation of shares, the plaintiff has to pay a sum of Rs.690/- to the defendants jointly. The Commissioner assessed the value of the items allotted to the plaintiff in plaint IIC schedule at Rs.17,118.50. The mesne profits was also assessed by the Commissioner. Going by the Commissioner's report, the owelty amount payable by the plaintiff to the other defendants would be Rs.690 + 17,118.50, the total being Rs.17,808.50.

5. The final decree does not show that any plot was allotted to the plaintiff in plain