Skip to content


Sukhdeo Rai and ors. Vs. Ram NaraIn Rai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Limitation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930All387
AppellantSukhdeo Rai and ors.
RespondentRam NaraIn Rai and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....ought to have gone further and made inquiry whether the plaintiffs were entitled to succeed in a suit for possession. the plaintiffs sued for the rectification of a sale dead alleging that by mistake instead of a certain area a lesser area was entered in the sale deed. the lower appellate court held that the suit for rectification was time barred under article 96, lim. act. i agree with that finding. there was, however, a prayer (c) for possession of the property which was lefts out from being altered in the sale deed through a clerical mistake. as pointed out by iqbal ahmad,j. in kesho singh v. roopan a.i.r. 1927, all. 355 a mistake may be proved under section 92, prov. (1), evidence act. the plaintiffs have come to recover possession within twelve years of the transfer, so their suit.....
Judgment:

Dalal, J.

1. In my opinion the lower appellate Court ought to have gone further and made inquiry whether the plaintiffs were entitled to succeed in a suit for possession. The plaintiffs sued for the rectification of a sale dead alleging that by mistake instead of a certain area a lesser area was entered in the sale deed. The lower appellate Court held that the suit for rectification was time barred under Article 96, Lim. Act. I agree with that finding. There was, however, a prayer (c) for possession of the property which was lefts out from being altered in the sale deed through a clerical mistake. As pointed out by Iqbal Ahmad,J. in Kesho Singh v. Roopan A.I.R. 1927, All. 355 a mistake may be proved under Section 92, Prov. (1), Evidence Act. The plaintiffs have come to recover possession within twelve years of the transfer, so their suit for possession is not time barred. What they mean in effect is that for instance, '1' is a mistake for 2', and that in consequence they should be given possession over '2' and not over '1' only.

2. Only on behalf of the respondents Mr Gaur argued that there could be no possession until there was rectification of the document. Their contention for the dismissal of the suit for possession would be correct if the proposition put forward by him were accepted. I do not think that the proposition is sound What the plaintiffs want is to be put in possession of what they actually purchased and they can prove the mistake made in the document of sale. It is not necessary that the mistake should be corrected in the document within the period of limitation allowed for such correction before they could be permitted to take possession of the property actually sold to them.

3. I set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court, which dismissed the plaintiffs' suit completely. I confirm the decree dismissing the suit for the rectification of the document, and whatever the result of the remand may be, the plaintiffs shall pay to the defendants costs of that portion of the claim. The rest of the appeal is remanded under Order 41, Rule 23, to arrive at further decisions whether there was a mistake as alleged by the plaintiffs and whether in case of such a mistake the plaintiffs could obtain possession of property left out of the sale-deed through a mistake. As regards that portion of the claim, the lower appellate Court shall pass orders as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //