SORNALATHA Vs. RAMADHAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) O.S. No. 21 of 1996, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, was filed by the first respondent herein against his father and two brothers and his father Arumugam Pillai was the first defendant and his brother, Sree Easwaradhas was the 2nd defendant and Raghavadhas was the 3rd defendant in the suit. That suit was filed for partition of the first respondent's 1/4th share in the suit property and in that suit, a compromise was arrived at among the parties and as per the memo of compromise, the suit schedule item No. 19 in Survey No. 390/2, of an extent of 19.250 cents, with building thereon was allotted to the share of the 2nd defendant in the suit, namely Easwaradhas and the remaining extent of 65.750 cents in Survey No. 390/2 was allotted to the share of Raghavadhas, the 3rd defendant in that suit. A plan was also attached to the memorandum of compromise and in that plan, 19.250 cents in Survey No. 390/2 was marked as 'A plot and an extent of 65.750 cents in Survey No. 390/2 was marked as 'B C D E' Plots. But due to inadvertence, while writing the memo of compromise, it was stated that the property that was allowed to the share of A. Sree Easwara Dhas, the 2nd defendant, having 19.250 cents in Survey No. 390/2 was mentioned as 'B' Plot and an extent of 65.750 cents in Survey No. 390/2 was mentioned as 'A' plot. As stated supra in the plan, 19.250 cents was shown as 'A' part and 65.750 cents was shown as 'B C D E' and the total extent in survey No. 390/2, after adding 'A B C D E' is equivalent to 84 cents. Based on the memo of compromise with plan, a final decree was also passed on 15.04.1999. The parties were enjoying their respective extents as per the decree and later the legal-heirs of Raghavadhas, the 3rd defendant, found that in the plan annexed to the compromise memo, an area of 65.750 cents in Survey No. 390/2 was marked as 'B C D E', but in the memo of compromise, it was descried as 'A' Plot and similarly, while describing the property allotted to Sree Easwara Dhas, the 2nd defendant, an extent of 19.250 cents in Survey No. 390/2 was mentioned as 'A' plot in the plan, but in the compromise memo it was mentioned as 'B' plot and therefore, the decree has to be amended by substituting 'B' for 'A' and substitute 'A' as 'B C D E' for the same relief. The two IAs viz., I.A. 1429 of 2002 and 417 of 2003 were filed and these applications were dismissed by the lower court and hence, the two revisions viz. CRP. Nos. 422 and 423 of 2004 were filed by the revision petitioners.

(3.) Mr. K. Sreekumaran Nair, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that a mistake has crept in the decree and also in the memorandum of compromise and while effecting partition and allotting the properties, the plaintiffs and the defendants in that suit, instead of mentioning 'A' plot, having an extent of 19.250 cents, in Survey No. 390/2 allotted to Sree Easwaradhas, the 2nd defendant, it was mistakenly stated in the memo of compromise that an extent of 19.250 cents in Survey No. 390/2 is situate in 'B' plot as per the plan annexed to the memorandum of compromise and similarly, the remaining extent in Survey No. 390/2, of an extent of 65.750 cents has been mentioned in the compromise memo as 'A' Plot whereas the entire extent of 65.750 cents is situate in the portion 'B C D E' in the plan attached to the compromise memo and therefore, as a result of that on the basis of the compromise decree, final decree was also passed incorporating the same terms and instead of mentioning 'A' plot, it was mentioned as 'B' plot in the property allowed to Sree Easwaradhas and instead of mentioning 'B C D E' plots, it was mentioned as 'A' plot, in respect of the properties allotted to Raghavadhas, the first defendant and that mistake has to be rectified.