(JAVVADI CHINNA) VENKATARAMAYYA Vs. BANDI VEERASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek to set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur, in O.S. No. 26 of 1922, dated 20 February, 1923.

(2.) The petitioners and counter-petitioner both claimed to be alianees by reversioners to the same estate. The counter, petitioner filed with his plaint in O.S. No. 26 of 1922, a genealogy showing that Subbarayudu, the grand-father of his alienors, was son of Rajayya, under whom the petitioners claim through another branch. A year and more after filing his plaint the counter-petitioner put in an affidavit to the effect that Venkiah should be inserted between Rajayya and Subbarayudu: The word was omitted by mistake.

(3.) It was not a clerical error, for the plaint merely copied the recital in plaintiff's document, (judging from the affidavit of petitioner). But the petitioners (who are also suing on the strength of their conveyance by other reversioners) had made it plain that the grand-father of plaintiff's alienors was not Rajayya but Venkiah. It was to avoid this difficulty and not owing to any clerical error that plaintiff sought to amend his plaint. The Subordinate Judge, who dealt with the petition for amendment, I.A. No. 744 of 1922, has correctly appreciated the point. "The relationship" he states "of each was definitely given in the plaint" and in the written statements and because the defendants "have produced some documents to show the connection of the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title to be not true, the plaintiff wants to have it altered. I think this cannot be allowed now." He therefore rejected the application.