CHERUKUWADA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Vs. VELURI SITAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the decreeholder and petitioner in I.A.No.42/1999 in O.S.No.48/1992. She filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of an extent of Ac.0.32 cents situated in Survey No.155/1 against defendant Nos.1 to 5. One of the defendants, who has a share in the property, did not sign the agreement of sale though it was executed on behalf of all the persons. The lower Court, therefore, granted the decree to the extent of the shares of the persons, who signed on the agreement of sale on 17.04.1986. Subsequently, at the instance of the revision petitioner, a commissioner was appointed to localise and divide the property by way of excluding the share of the third defendant. The commissioner during the localisation, identified the property with the help of the surveyor, satisfied with the boundaries, the extent mentioned in the agreement of sale and the plaint. But, the commissioner in his report mentioned that the schedule land is situated partly in Survey No.155/1 and partly in Survey No.154/2. In view of the observation made by the Commissioner, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.42/1999 under sections 151 to 153 and Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure praying to pass suitable orders for correcting the plaint schedule and schedule attached to the decree dated 17.04.1986. The lower Court passed the impugned order on 08.11.2002 dismissing the petition. The revision petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, preferred this revision petition questioning its validity and legality. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that since there is no dispute regarding the extent and boundaries, there cannot be any objection for ordering correction of the survey number in the plaint schedule and schedule attached to the decree and requested to pass appropriate orders setting aside the order of the lower Court.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the respondents while conceding that the boundaries and extent of the land tallied with the boundaries, raised an objection that unless and until a correction is made in the agreement of sale, the corrections cannot be ordered in the plaint schedule and consequentially in the schedule of the decree.

(3.) The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of correction of the plaint schedule and the schedule attached to the decree as prayed for. It is an undisputed fact that the agreement of sale was executed for an extent of Ac.0.32 cents situated within fixed boundaries. The boundaries and the extent mentioned in the agreement of sale and in the plaint tallied with the boundaries and the extent on physical verification. In the agreement of sale, the survey number of the land was mentioned as 155/1 but the Commissioner noticed that the land situated within the boundaries, is partly in Survey No.155/1 and partly in Survey No.154/2.