G MARY SUSEELA Vs. MICHEAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 7.2.2003 made in I.A.No.601 of 1997 in O.S.No.31 of 1997 by the Court of Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.

(2.) On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the petitioner herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.31 of 1997 before the Court below for declaration of her title over the plaint 'A' schedule less 'B' schedule property and an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession over plaint 'A' schedule property and for recovery of possession of plaint 'B' schedule property from the first defendant on removal of trespass and of the basement put up therein at his cost.

(3.) Pending the said suit, the plaintiff filed a petition in I.A.No.601 of 1997 under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC praying to amend the plaint. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that she got title and possession over plaint 'A' schedule property, as per the gift deed dated 29.8.1986 executed in her favour by her father late Gabriel Nadar, who purchased the same under a sale deed dated 21.7.1112 ME for which the old survey number is 42 of Nattalam village; that after re-survey, the suit property within the specified boundaries and location actually fell within R.S.No.790/8, but, in the gift deed dated 29.8.1986, the re-survey number is mistakenly stated as 790/7 instead of 790/8 and when she paid the tax, she was issued the tax receipt for R.S.No.790/7 based on the gift deed, but the property which is in her possession, as per the gift deed and for which she is paying the tax, is R.S.No.790/8; that R.S.No.790/7 lies West of the suit property, which belongs to Mary, D/o.Annammal Nadachi; that the mistake was found only when the Advocate-Commissioner measured the suit property; that the boundary and other descriptions are correct; that the gift deed authorises the donee to rectify the mistakes, if any, in survey number area etc.; that after the suit and after the first visit of the Advocate-Commissioner, the defendants forcibly trespassed on the entire plaint 'A' schedule property and on 14.5.1997, the defendants put up a new compound wall on the Northern side and therefore it has become necessary for the plaintiff to pray for recovery of possession of plaint 'A' schedule property which requires an amendment of the plaint since being an event after the suit.