KARIYANNA Vs. ISTHURI SUBBIAHSETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, the petitioner who is the decree-holder has challenged the order dated 9-3-1979 of the, Munsiff, Chikballapur, on LA. No. III filed by the respondents judgment- debtors in execution case No. 170 of 1978. In the course of my order, I will refer to the petitioner as the decree-holder and the respondents as the judgment debtors.

(2.) The short and simple point that arises for determination in the case is whether an executing Court can correct its own mistake or not and if so, whether the circumstances justified the same or not. But, in order to appreciate the same and the validity of the order, I propose to set out only those essential facts in their sequence omitting the innumerable and almost Execution-Correction of mistake. interminable proceedings between the parties, at least from 1947, in a suit instituted by the decree-holder as early as on 3-2-1936.

(3.) A joint Hindu family consisting of the decree-holder and his father Gangappa (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 2) governed by Mithakshara School of Hindu Law inter alia owned 13 items of immovable properties in Gangasandra village, Kasba hobli, Gowribidanur taluk. Defendant No. 2 who was a member of a co-operative society called as "Saguna- halli Lakshminarasimha Co-operative Society" (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 1) had borrowed various amounts from it and defaulied in payment of the amounts due by him and, therefore, defendant No. 1 filed a dispute before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, Kolar Dn., and obtained an award decree against defendant No- 2. In execution of the said award, defendant No. 1 purchased 5 items of immovable properties owned by the joint family and was about to put the other properties also for sale. At that stage i.e., on 3-2-1936, the decree-holder who was then a minor, instituted OS No. 367 of 1935-36 in the Court of the Munsiff, Doddaballapur, which was then competent to entertain that suit, against defendants 1 and 2 for a declaration that the award made by the Deputy Registrar and the sales made thereto do not bind his hall share and for various other reliefs. Defendant No. 2 did not contest the said suit. But, defendant No. 1 contested the same. On 2-10-1939 the learned Munsiff decreed the said suit, as prayed for by the decree-holder and the decree made in the said suit which has become final, reads thus: