Skip to content


Thamballa Veeramma and ors. Vs. Thamballa Palur Subbamma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.119
AppellantThamballa Veeramma and ors.
RespondentThamballa Palur Subbamma and ors.
Cases ReferredJogeswar Atha v. Ganga Bishnu Ghattack
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), sections 13, 206 - decree not in accordance with judgment--clerical mistake--application to dying decree into conformity with judgment--dismissal of application--subsequent suit for declaration of the mistake whether maintainable. - - 473. it seems to us that case is clearly distinguishable, as there had been no previous adjudication on the question of alleged error or mistake......we assume to have been not in accordance with the judgment of the court.3. the question as to the alleged error or mistake was raised for decision before the high court on an application by way of revision to set aside an order of the district judge to bring the decree-into conformity with the judgment, and it was held by this court that there the case did not come within section 206 of the code of 1882, that is to say, it was held that there was no discrepancy between, the judgment and the decree.4. this is an adjudication on the very question which is raised in the present suit.5. it is not necessary for us to consider whether we should be prepared to follow jogeswar atha v. ganga bishnu ghattack 8 c.w.n. 473. it seems to us that case is clearly distinguishable, as there had been no.....
Judgment:

1. We are constrained to hold that the District Judge was right.

2. The plaintiff asks for a declaration that certain lands to which he alleged he was entitled are in possession of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on account of a clerical or an arithmetical error or by mistake. The error or mistake is alleged to be a mistake in the decree of the Court of first instance in a former suit in which the lands in question were in dispute and in which a decree was passed by the Court of first instance which, for the purpose of the point we have to decree, we assume to have been not in accordance with the judgment of the Court.

3. The question as to the alleged error or mistake was raised for decision before the High Court on an application by way of revision to set aside an order of the District Judge to bring the decree-into conformity with the judgment, and it was held by this Court that there the case did not come within Section 206 of the Code of 1882, that is to say, it was held that there was no discrepancy between, the judgment and the decree.

4. This is an adjudication on the very question which is raised in the present suit.

5. It is not necessary for us to consider whether we should be prepared to follow Jogeswar Atha v. Ganga Bishnu Ghattack 8 C.W.N. 473. It seems to us that case is clearly distinguishable, as there had been no previous adjudication on the question of alleged error or mistake.

6. We dismiss the second appeal, but in the circumstances, without costs.


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