T.S. SOMANNA Vs. T.B. NANJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed O.S. No. 82/1995 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Madikere against the petitioner to pass a decree of declaration and possession in respect of following three items of properties.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed Ex. case No. 101/2000, to which, statement of objections was filed inter alia contending that suit schedule item Nos. 1 and 2 are not situated in Hoddur Village of Madikeri Taluk and the said items being not in existence in Hoddur Village, delivering of possession of the same does not arise. Decree Holder deposed and marked as Exs.P1 to P4 and Judgment Debtor deposed and marked as Exs.R1 to R4. The Execution Court noticing that the RTCs of suit properties of item Nos. 1 and 2 disclose that they are within the limits of Kumbaladalu Village and a mistake has crept in description of the said items of properties in the schedule of the plaint, allowed the execution petition in part and decree holder was held entitled to get possession of item No. 3 of the suit properties and in so far as item Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, decree holder was set at liberty to seek rectification or amendment of the decree with regard to the situation of those properties at Kumbaladalu Village, instead of Hoddur Village.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner contended that, (a) Learned Trial Judge has committed a serious error in passing the impugned order on account of his failure to take into consideration that I.A. Nos. 7 and 8 being not maintainable after passing of the judgment and decree in the suit and, (b) Although, an application for amendment of a plaint after a decree is passed may be permissible in law, if they were to be any arithmetical and clerical mistakes, but there cannot be any substitution of properties. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of State of Punjab vs. Darshan Singh, AIR 2003 SC 4179 and it was contended that the impugned order being illegal may be quashed.