GUDA SANJEEVA REDDY Vs. KODATHALA SUJATAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent filed O.S. No. 198 of 1991, for declaration of her title to and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the revision petitioner, describing the plaint schedule property as situate in Sangam Village of Sangam Mandal, though actually the plaint schedule property is situated in Buchireddypalem Village of Buchireddypalem Mandal. The contention of the respondent is that her Counsel in the trial Court, when the plaint was returned for compliance with certain objections by the Office, had made the necessary corrections in the plaint schedule by correcting the name of the Village and Mandal as Buchireddypalem by rounding of the words Sangam before Village and Mandal. Revision petitioner filed O.S.No.54 of 1994 against the respondent for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of the very same property. Both the suits were clubbed and tried together and the suit filed by the respondent was decreed and the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed. Questioning the decree passed against him in O.S.No.198 of 1991, revision petitioner preferred an appeal, and later withdrew the same. Thereafter respondent filed E.P. for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property, in which revision petitioner raised an objection that the decree is not executable inasmuch as the plaint schedule describes the property as situated in Sangam Village of Sangam Mandal, while the respondent is seeking delivery of possession of property situated in Buchireddypalem Village of Buchireddypalem Mandal. The Executing Court, after recording the evidence adduced by both sides overruled the objection of the respondent and ordered delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property by the order under revision. Hence, this revision by the judgment-debtor.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the amendments said to have been made in the plaint and plaint schedule etc., do not contain initials of either the respondent or her Counsel in the trial Court, it has to be presumed that those amendments were made subsequent to the numbering of the suit without seeking leave of the Court and since the E.P. schedule property is not the same as the plaint schedule, the Executing Court was in error in overruling the objections of the revision petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the Counsel for the respondent in the trial Court having found that there is a typographical error in the names of the Village and Mandal, had corrected the same, and the fact that those corrections were made even at the initial stage but not after passing of the decree, as is being contended by the revision petitioner, would be evident from the fact that certified copies of the decree obtained by the respondent in 1997 shows the name of the Village as Bucchireddypalem and since the Executing Court, by a well-reasoned order, held that the corrections were made even prior to the registration of the suit, revision petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

(3.) It is an admitted case that revision petitioner had withdrawn the appeal preferred by him inter alia questioning the location of the plaint schedule property and so the decree passed by the trial Court, has become final. The decree of the trial Court shows that the plaint schedule property is situated in Buchireddypalem Village.