Skip to content


Sanyasi Chettiar Vs. Harigopalsami Udayar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1970)1MLJ246
AppellantSanyasi Chettiar
RespondentHarigopalsami Udayar
Cases ReferredIn Pethaperumal Ambalam v. Chidambaram Chettiar I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - the lower court having failed to exercise such jurisdiction, this civil revision petition having been entertained has to be allowed......to be comprised within survey no. 49/3-a when it ought to be survey no. 49/3-b. he obtained the sale certificate and at the time he sought for possession and registration of the sale certificate, it was brought to his notice that there was a discrepancy in the survey number. it was this which prompted him to apply to the court for a correction of the sale certificate under section 152 of the civil procedure code. this was opposed by the judgment-debtor on the ground that what was purchased by him being specific, he cannot now change over and seek amendment of the sale certificate from one survey number to another. this found favour with the learned district munsif of thiruvannamalai who was of the view that the petitioner purchased in court auction only survey nos. 49/3-a and not.....
Judgment:
ORDER

T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.

1. The transferee decree-holder auction-purchaser is the petitioner before me. He brought to sale certain properties which were admittedly attached in execution of a money decree and it is not disputed that in the earlier stages when successive proclamations of sale were drawn up, lot No. 1 was described as being comprised in Survey No. 49/3-B. But later at any rate in the proclamation of sale under which the sale fructified, this lot was described as being comprised in Survey No. 49/3-A. But the extent of the property remained the same throughout. The petitioner purchased the property in Court auction, an extent of 1-72 acres of land, said to be comprised within survey No. 49/3-A when it ought to be survey No. 49/3-B. He obtained the sale certificate and at the time he sought for possession and registration of the sale certificate, it was brought to his notice that there was a discrepancy in the survey number. It was this which prompted him to apply to the Court for a correction of the sale certificate under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code. This was opposed by the judgment-debtor on the ground that what was purchased by him being specific, he cannot now change over and seek amendment of the sale certificate from one survey number to another. This found favour with the learned District Munsif of Thiruvannamalai who was of the view that the petitioner purchased in Court auction only survey Nos. 49/3-A and not 49/3-B. As against this the present revision petition has been filed.

2. Mr. Sivamani, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court has inherent powers to cause an amendment of the kind sought for and the Court below erred in not having exercised its jurisdiction. Mr. Janakiraman, learned Counsel for the respondent, however, would state that in the public interest such an amendment ought not to be carried out as it would be virtually granting a different property to the auction-purchaser when it was not so intended under the sale certificate. In Pethaperumal Ambalam v. Chidambaram Chettiar I.L.R. (1954) Mad. 1206 : (1954) 1 M.L.J. 585 : (1954) M.W.N. 256, this Court has laid down that on the issue of a sale certificate to the purchaser, his title becomes perfected and completed. The question, however, is whether a mistake which has. crept in the sale certificate can be corrected by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 152 or 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. Generally, mistakes anterior to the suit cannot be corrected under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. But in the present case, the mistake is posterior to the filing of the suit and in fact long after it. The sale certificate conferring an unimpeachable title to the auction purchaser cannot be lightly whittled down and reduced to nothing if a clerical or an accidental mistake has crept into it by either the lach of the Court or the lach of the litigant. In the case before me, lot number 1 was correctly described as bearing survey No. 49/3-B and even the respondent ought to have understood that such was its survey number. In fact, after the sale the judgment-debtor never took objection to the sale of survey No. 49/3-A, for it is obvious he should have conceded at any rate subjectively that the subject matter of the auction sale was lot No. 1 being survey No. 49-3-B. One other factor in the instant case is that the proclamation of sale contained four items of which lot No. 4 was comprised in survey No. 49/3-A and which was of an extent of 3-42 acres. The auction purchaser obviously is not taking advantage of this and seeking for delivery of survey No. 49/ 3-A of an extent of 3-42 acres. On the other hand, he equitably requests that the accidental slip which has occurred in the sale certificate be corrected in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. An inherent jurisdiction is always exercised to meet the ends of justice. I think that this is a proper case in which such jurisdiction should be exercised to correct the mistake. The lower Court having failed to exercise such jurisdiction, this civil revision petition having been entertained has to be allowed. Accordingly, the application filed, by the petitioner for amending the sale certificate in the manner prayed for is allowed and the Court below directed to carry out the necessary correction. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.


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