Skip to content


Gujjalapadi Subba Naidu and ors. Vs. Gujjalapadi Vencatasubba Naidu Minor by Mother and Guardian Chellamma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in13Ind.Cas.113
AppellantGujjalapadi Subba Naidu and ors.
RespondentGujjalapadi Vencatasubba Naidu Minor by Mother and Guardian Chellamma
Excerpt:
decree, amendment of - application to correct decree to bring it into accordance with judgment--obvious slip or mistake. - .....in the judgment that there shall be a decree for the plaintiff for 1/5th share in all the family lands except certain houses is not in accordance with the rest of the judgment but that the lands which stand in the name of the fourth defendant, namely, those mentioned in the third issue should have been excluded, inasmuch as it has been found that there had been a partition of cash, outstandings, moveables, etc., and it is not proved by the plaintiff that the lands in question were bought with the income of such family property as was left undivided. but this is not a case of an obvious mistake or slip which could be corrected at this stage. it is found in clear terms, that the decision of the lower court on the third issue is correct. it may be that the conclusion on this point.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. In this appeal which was originally heard by one of us and Mr. Justice Krishnasawmi Iyer and was pronounced by him as judgment of the Court on the 12th January 1911, at the time he pronounced judgment, the learned Vakil for the appellants objected to certain conclusions apparently on the ground that they were not in accordance with the rest of the judgment.

2. Mr. Justice Krishnasawmi Iyer noted the objection and ordered the case to be sent down for being spoken to when we would next sit together. The matter was not brought up before the same Bench before Krishnasawami Iyer, J., ceased to exercise the office of Judge of this Court.

3. The objection taken is that the direction in the judgment that there shall be a decree for the plaintiff for 1/5th share in all the family lands except certain houses is not in accordance with the rest of the judgment but that the lands which stand in the name of the fourth defendant, namely, those mentioned in the third issue should have been excluded, inasmuch as it has been found that there had been a partition of cash, outstandings, moveables, etc., and it is not proved by the plaintiff that the lands in question were bought with the income of such family property as was left undivided. But this is not a case of an obvious mistake or slip which could be corrected at this stage. It is found in clear terms, that the decision of the lower Court on the third issue is correct. It may be that the conclusion on this point is wrong but even if it be so, we do not see how it can be corrected in the present application. The decree must be drawn up in accordance with the judgment.


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