LAWS(MAD)-1970-10-8

KARUPPA GOUNDAR Vs. CHINNA ANGAPPA GOUNDAR

Decided On October 30, 1970
Karuppa Goundar Appellant
V/S
Chinna Angappa Goundar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the second defendant in O.S No. 235 of 1947 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif Tiruppur. The respondent Chinna Angappa Gounder filed I.A. No. 1809 of 1966 in the said suit as the representative -in -interest of the first defendant in the suit under Sections 146 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to amend the compromise decree and it is against the order allowing the amendment, the petitioner -second defendant has come forward with this Civil Revision petition.

(2.) UNFORTUNATELY , the compromise entered into between the parties in the suit was not made part of the decree. On account of this defect, the decree drafted in the suit referred to the common cart track as proceeding also to the south of survey field No. 295 which is not mentioned in the compromise. The learned District Munsif in allowing the amendment has merely brought the decree in accordance with the compromise in the suit. Sri K. Ramaswami appearing for the petitioner is not able to show how this is wrong.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in Jugulkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co., Ltd. : [1955] 1 SCR 1369 , has discussed the precise scope and ambit of Section 146 and Order 21, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code. The Supreme Court has pointed out that a person may become entitled to the benefits of a decree without being a transferee of the decree by assignment in writing or by operation of law in which case he falls within the scope of Order 21, Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, and if he is not such a transferee, he may avail himself of the provision under Section 146, if all the conditions are fulfilled. Kailasam, J., has referred to this observation of the Supreme Court that the transferees who do not fall under Order 21, Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code may avail themselves of the provisions of Section 146, Civil Procedure Code. But as already pointed out, Jagadisan, J., took a different view on the ground that the Supreme Court did not hold that after the passing of the decree any transfer, though not in the form of transfer of the decree, would yet enable the transferee, to proceed under Section 146.