MANGIPUDI LAKSHMINARASIMHAM SANSKRUTA VEDA PATASALA AND CHALIVENDRAM Vs. MANGIPUDI VISWESWARA SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 152 CPC seeking amendment of the decree in AS No.1271 of 1990 dated 07-06-1996.

(2.) Petitioner a Charitable Trust filed O.S.No.6 of 1981 on the file of Court of Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram inter alia seeking eviction of the defendant from the properties specified in plaint A to C schedules of the plaint and for delivery of possession of those properties on the ground that they are the properties belonging to it and that the founder of the Trust and/or successors in interest alienated them and that those alienations are not binding on it, 10th defendant who purchased a part of the land covered by S.No.168 shown as item No.3 of paint A schedule in Court auction and so 81st defendant was brought on record as her legal representative. After trial the trial Court partly decreed the suit and dismissed a part of its claim including the claim for recovery of land in S.No.168. So petitioner being aggrieved by the dismissal of a part of its claim in respect of land in S.No.168 and other lands preferred AS No.1271 of 1990 to this Court and some of the defendants being aggrieved by the decree passed against them, filed separate appeals before this Court. All those appeals including AS No.1271 of 1990 filed by the petitioner were heard together and by a common judgment delivered on 07-06-1996 a learned Judge while allowing AS No.1271 of 1992 filed by the petitioner, dismissed the appeals preferred by the defendants. But due to an oversight or typographical error or otherwise S.No.168 is not mentioned in para 11 of the operative portion of the judgment, and also in the decree, though in the body of the judgment it was observed that petitioner is entitled to a decree in respect of Ac.26=00 covered by S.No.168. Therefore, petitioner filed this petition for correction of the decree by incorporating the land covered by S.No.168 also in the operative portion thereof to read "that the dispensation of property bearing S.Nos.54, 65/5, 73/1 and 168 in favour of the defendants is illegal and void."

(3.) During the pendency of this petition, respondents 72 and 73 filed ASMP No.1197 of 2005, seeking leave of the Court to come on record as respondents 72 and 73 in this petition, on the ground that they purchased a part of S.No.168 from the legal representatives of 81st defendant in the suit who was brought on record as legal representative of the deceased 10th defendant in the suit. That petition was allowed by me by the order dated 26-10-2006.