Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Typing Mistakes in Survey Numbers - Minor typographical errors, such as omitting or mistyping survey numbers, are generally considered oversight or inadvertent mistakes and do not automatically render a document suspicious or invalid. Courts have recognized that such errors are often due to oversight, and with proper correction or amendment, the rights of the parties are preserved. For example, in multiple cases, mistakes like wrong survey numbers or missing subdivision details were treated as clerical errors that could be rectified (e.g., RANGANAYAGI vs MAYILSAMY - Madras, 2020 and C.M.P.No.14609 - Madras, ANNADURAI vs GANESAN - Madras).
Mistakes Related to Will Execution and Typographical Errors - Errors in survey numbers mentioned in wills or related documents, especially when admitted as mistakes or due to oversight, are not deemed suspicious if they are clarified and corrected. Courts have emphasized that discrepancies in survey numbers, when supported by boundary descriptions or corrected through amendments, do not necessarily raise suspicion about the validity of the will or document. For instance, in cases In The Goodsof Akhiles Kumr Sinha, Deceased And Sant Agarwal VS Rabi Sinha - Calcutta, Annadurai VS Ganesan - Madras, and ANNADURAI vs GANESAN - Madras, the courts acknowledged that typographical errors in survey numbers are rectifiable clerical mistakes and do not imply fraud or suspicion.
Mistakes in Official Reports and Documentation - Typographical errors made by officials, such as misreporting under the NDPS Act, are recognized as honest mistakes or inadvertent errors, especially when corrected later after realization. These errors, if acknowledged and rectified, do not imply suspicious conduct or fraud (e.g., Novafor Samuel Inoamaobi VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay).
Analysis and Conclusion:Courts across various cases have consistently held that minor typographical mistakes relating to survey numbers in wills, property documents, or official reports are clerical errors that do not automatically raise suspicion. When such mistakes are acknowledged, corrected through amendments, or explained as oversight, they do not undermine the validity of the document or indicate suspicious activity. Therefore, a typographical mistake concerning a survey number in a will or property record, if rectified or clarified, is generally not considered suspicious or indicative of fraud.
Imagine drafting a will to pass on your family property, only to discover a small typing error in the survey number later. Does this minor slip automatically cast suspicion on the entire document, suggesting fraud or invalidity? The question, Any Typing Mistake Relating to One of Survey Number in will does Not Make it Suspicious, is a common concern for property owners, heirs, and legal practitioners dealing with wills and land records.
In this post, we'll dive into the legal nuances, drawing from court judgments and principles on clerical errors. Generally, courts view such typos as correctable oversights rather than red flags, but boundaries exist—especially for substantial changes. This analysis provides general insights, not specific legal advice; consult a qualified attorney for your situation.
Typographical errors in survey numbers within legal documents like wills or survey reports are typically treated as clerical mistakes. These can be corrected without impacting parties' substantive rights, as long as the fix doesn't expand or alter the document's original scope. Corrections are allowed only for clear clerical or arithmetical errors—not for major shifts like adding or removing large land areas, which demand proper inquiry and verification. State Of Andhra Pradesh (Now State Of Telangana) VS A. P. State Wakf Board - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 132
For instance, the court in State Of Andhra Pradesh (Now State Of Telangana) VS A. P. State Wakf Board - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 132 clarified: Errata is a correction of a mistake. Hence, only arithmetical and clerical mistakes could be corrected and the scope of the notification could not be enlarged by virtue of an errata notification.
This principle extends to wills: a simple typing mistake in a survey number doesn't inherently make the will suspicious if it's demonstrably clerical.
Errata notifications are strictly for clerical tweaks, not overhauls. In State Of Andhra Pradesh (Now State Of Telangana) VS A. P. State Wakf Board - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 132, attempting to include vast land via errata was struck down: a large area of 1654 acres and 32 guntas of land could not be included under the guise of an errata notification as it is not a case of clerical or arithmetical mistake.
This logic applies to wills. A mistyped survey number, if minor and supported by boundaries or intent, won't trigger suspicion. Courts recognize human error: Komal Dhawan VS High Court of Delhi Through Its Registrar General - 2023 Supreme(Del) 136 - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 136 discusses typing provides as provide as a countable mistake under rules, but only half for singular/plural swaps—illustrating leniency for typos.
In wills, survey number typos are often deemed non-suspicious if corrected promptly. For example, Lalithammal (deceased) VS Rajalakshmi - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 2139 - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 2139 affirms: Even though the survey number given in the document is 865, it is only a mistake and the correct survey number is 866. Boundaries and context clarified the intent.
However, substitution of entirely different numbers isn't clerical: Palaniammal VS Sukumar - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 536 - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 536 holds, the Survey Number sought to be corrected is not a mere typographical error or clerical mistake; but a substitution of a new survey number. Similarly, Machi Poojarthi VS Assistant Commissioner, Kundapura, Udupi District - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 483 - 2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 483 warns: Correcting a bonafide or inadvertent mistake is one thing but replacing altogether different survey number in the place of the one applied is another.
Amendments in plaints or decrees for wrong survey numbers are allowed if oversight-based. 2020 and C.M.P.No.14609 - Madras permitted fixing a wrongly typed survey number in a plaint.
Substantial changes need formal steps:- Proper surveys or government-called reports.- Inquiry under relevant land laws.- Scrutiny for report tampering. Deputy Salt Commissioner, Madras VS Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar - 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 53 emphasizes verification for disputed entries.
Minor errors don't need this rigor. Sadanandan Nair VS Sree Perumanpura Devaswom - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 1512 - 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 1512 notes, If at all, there is any mistake in survey Number, it cannot be attributed to the original appellant, shifting burden to proof.
Not all errors are harmless:- Substantial Discrepancies: Including/excluding large areas without process. Rahul Trading Corporation VS Bernard Anthony Pereira - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 368 - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 368 allows description by survey number or boundaries, but mistakes in orders may need review.- No Reexamination Via Typo Claims: Punjab National Bank Chief Manager Samver Road Branch Shri Rajesh K Bajaj VS Additional District Magistrate Collector Dhar - 2024 Supreme(MP) 188 - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 188 rejects typo excuses if basic notices lack proper survey numbers: all the contentions... insofar as the same relate to typographical mistake or errors are not tenable.- Fraud Indicators: Unexplained substitutions or anomalous reports.
To avoid disputes:- Verify Early: Check survey numbers against records and boundaries before finalizing wills.- Document Corrections: Use formal amendments or errata for clerical fixes; initiate surveys for big changes.- Seek Court Amendments: File for plaint/decree corrections if needed, proving oversight. 2020 and C.M.P.No.14609 - Madras- Rely on Boundaries: They often trump minor survey mismatches. Kempamma, D/o. Late Rachegowda vs Deputy Commissioner - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 467 - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 467- Professional Review: Have lawyers and surveyors validate documents.
Authorities should probe reports for issues before approving fixes. Deputy Salt Commissioner, Madras VS Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar - 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 53
A typing mistake in a survey number in a will generally does not make it suspicious—courts treat it as a clerical error, correctable without invalidating the document, provided it's minor and doesn't alter scope. Principles from cases like State Of Andhra Pradesh (Now State Of Telangana) VS A. P. State Wakf Board - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 132Deputy Salt Commissioner, Madras VS Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar - 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 53 reinforce that errata fixes typos, not land grabs, while sources affirm leniency for oversights in property docs.
Key Takeaways:- Minor typos? Fix via errata—no suspicion.- Major changes? Survey and inquire.- Boundaries save the day.- Always document intent clearly.
This is general information based on precedents; outcomes vary by facts and jurisdiction. For personalized advice, contact a legal expert.
#PropertyLaw, #WillValidity, #LegalTips
He further stated that the mistake of the petitioner in typing “provides” as “provide” had been counted as one full mistake. According to him, as per serial no.9 of the rules, only ½ mistake could have been counted for typing singular for plural or vice-versa. ... He further stated that contrary to the assertions of the Petitioner, typing ‘Tripathi’s’ instead of ‘Tripat....
Soni’s statement, filed along with the probate application containing averment that the Will was executed at 48, Vivekananda Road does not make a dent in the case of the propounder of the Will. ... This is one of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. In member of decisions the Supreme Court of India held that this kind of circumstance raise suspicious surrounding execution of....
The Petitioner filed I.A.No.511 of 2019 for amending the plaint for the reason that the Survey number had been wrongly typed in the plaint body and in the description of the property. This is only a typing mistake and is due to oversight and inadvertence. ... 5.It is seen from the details given in the amendment Petition that survey number of the Suit property has been omitted and wrongl....
(2006)5 SCC 466 and contended that, even if there was any discrepancies insofar as mentioning the survey number in the Sale Deed is concerned, the boundaries has to be looked into as the boundaries shall prevail in respect of the discrepancies in the survey number and accordingly ... number. ... The brief facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication that, petitioners have averred in the writ petitio....
The petitioner bank has not mentioned proper survey number of the subject property in the basic notice of demand and as such all the contentions, averments, excuses, reasons insofar as the same relate to typographical mistake or errors are not tenable. ... The application preferred before the respondent No.1 was not for reexamination or re-consideration of the its own judgment but it was....
It implies that the suit property can be described either with reference to the number in record of survey or by furnishing particulars of the boundaries. ... The property can be identifiable by boundaries or by number in a public record of settlement or survey. 30. ... On a second thought court may find that it may have committed a mistake in passing an order in certain terms but every such mis....
This is only a typing mistake and is due to oversight and inadvertence. ... 5.It is seen from the details given in the amendment Petition that survey number of the Suit property has been omitted and wrongly given. ... The Petitioner filed I.A.No.511 of 2019 for amending the plaint for the reason that the Survey number had been wrongly typed in the plaint....
Now, on cursory looking of the said mistake committed, it is apparent that the sub-division number alone has not been mentioned, in otherwise, the Survey Number pertains to the property, which is in favour of the plaintiff, is one and the same. ... In the Will dated 10.08.1998, there was some mistake in Survey Number in respect to the....
Now, on cursory looking of the said mistake committed, it is apparent that the sub-division number alone has not been mentioned, in otherwise, the Survey Number pertains to the property, which is in favour of the plaintiff, is one and the same. ... In the Will dated 10.08.1998, there was some mistake in Survey Number in respect to the....
PI, ATS, Thane, where he informed that while issuing the report, he had committed a mistake in submitting, that Exhibit-1 falls under NDPS Act, 1985. It is clarified that this was a typing mistake and he expressed his apology. ... After the expiry of more than one year, the Assistant Director realized the mistake committed by him while issuing his report dated 8/2/2021 and he addressed a communication to ....
The Will dated 10.08.1998 is a last Will and testament. Though the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the said house, the defendant did not response to the same. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for the recovery of possession of ABCD portion. In the Will dated 10.08.1998, there was some mistake in Survey Number in respect to the suit second item of the property.
Decree obtained for particular Survey Number can be corrected at the time of Execution...." Hence, the observations in the above decision cannot be applied to the case in hand. In the case in hand, the Survey Number sought to be corrected is not a mere typographical error or clerical mistake; but a substitution of a new survey number.
There is no provision under Section 77-A to seek such amendment to replace another survey number in place of the one mentioned in Form 7-A. Correcting a bonafide or inadvertent mistake is one thing but replacing altogether different survey number in the place of the one applied is another. It cannot be said that she was not aware of non-inclusion of the same because she was indeed granted occupancy rights in respect of one of the lands while rejecting the request in respect o....
The Land Tribunal initiated suo motu proceedings and a purchase was granted in their favour. If at all, there is any mistake in survey Number, it cannot be attributed to the original appellant. However, this contention may not help the appellants. It becomes incumbent on the appellants to establish that the revenue inspector's report was in respect of the plaint property and not in respect of a property in Resurvey No.173/1.
Even though the survey number given in the document is 865, it is only a mistake and the correct survey number is 866. Survey No.865 is not situate south of Anaikuppam road and the property situate within the stated boundary is only portion of T.S.No.866. In the said sale deed item No.1 is the suit property, which is situated south of Anaikuppam Road, East of Hanumantha Rao property (now owned by Selvaraj S/o.Kandasamy Padayachi) West of Kalyani Ammal's land (now owned by L.V....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
