(1.) SEVENTH defendant in O.S.No.112 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif's Court at Ariyalur, is the revision petitioner.
(2.) THE material facts which are necessary for the disposal of the revision could be summarised thus: O.S.No.112 of 1989 is a suit filed by the 1st respondent, claiming partition of 1/4th share in the plaint schedule properties. Item 1 of the plaint schedule is Survey No.237/21, having an extent of 43 cents, It is further said that they have obtained right as per document No.710/39 dated 20.6.1939. THE petitioner was the 7th defendant in that case. Before the institution of the suit, on behalf of the plaintiff a notice was issued on 24.7.1988, wherein also a claim for partition was made. First item in the notice is also Survey No.237/21. Over this Survey No, the defendant is not claiming any right. She claimed right only over Survey No.257/21.
(3.) ON the basis of delivery receipt, plaintiff moved an application before the Tahsildar, to include her name in the registers. Though the same was allowed by the Tahsildar initially, as per order dated 27.6.1992, Tahsildar found that the plaintiff is not entitled to patta for Survey No.257/21 since the decree is only 237/21. After getting such an order from the Tahsildar, which is dated 27.6.1992, plaintiff preferred an application I.A.No.14 of 1995 to have the decree corrected under O.6, Rules 17 and 18 read with Secs.151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is true that in the application for correction, she also wanted the plaint description also to be corrected and that is why, she included O.6, Rule 17 also.