Skip to content


Upadrashta Latchayya Vs. Gudaparti Sitamma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad1144; 103Ind.Cas.384
AppellantUpadrashta Latchayya
RespondentGudaparti Sitamma and ors.
Cases Referred and Venkatarama Iyer v. Elumalai Naiker A. I. R.
Excerpt:
- waller, j.1. it is argued that even though the deed itself might be rectified, the decree passed upon it cannot be rectified. this contention cannot be upheld vide bepin krishna ray v. jogeshwar ray a. i. r. 1921 cal. 720 and venkatarama iyer v. elumalai naiker a. i. r. 1923 mad. 442 the other argument, that there is no finding of mutual mistake is not supported by the judgments of the courts below.2. the second appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Waller, J.

1. It is argued that even though the deed itself might be rectified, the decree passed upon it cannot be rectified. This contention cannot be upheld vide Bepin Krishna Ray v. Jogeshwar Ray A. I. R. 1921 Cal. 720 and Venkatarama Iyer v. Elumalai Naiker A. I. R. 1923 Mad. 442 The other argument, that there is no finding of mutual mistake is not supported by the judgments of the Courts below.

2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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