{"id":196999,"date":"2010-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-04-09T20:05:00","modified_gmt":"2015-04-09T14:35:00","slug":"sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sornalatha vs Ramadhas … 1St on 26 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Sornalatha vs Ramadhas … 1St on 26 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 26\/02\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nC.R.P.(NPD)No.422 of 2004\nC.R.P.(NPD)No.423 of 2004\nand\nCRP(PD)(MD)No.1925 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2004\n\n\nIn CRP(NPD)No.422 of 2004\n\n1.Sornalatha\n2.Velmurugan\n3.Uma\n4.Easwara Pillai          ...  Petitioners\/LRs of the\n                               3rd Defendant\n\nvs\n\n1.Ramadhas               ... 1st Respondent\/Plaintiff\n2.Arumugam Pillai (died)  ... 2nd Respondent\/1st Defendant\n3.Sree Easwaradhas        ... 3rd Respondent\/2nd Defendant\n4.Lakshmi:                ... 4th Respondent\/LR of R2\n  [R4 brought on record as\n  LR of the deceased R2,\n  vide order of the court\n  dated 06.01.2010\n  made in M.P.No.1 of 2009]\n\n\nPrayer in CRP No.422 of 2004: Civil Revision Petition filed under section\n115 of C.P.C, against the order and decretal order of the learned Subordinate\nJudge, Padmanabhapuram in I.A.No.1429 of 2002 in O.S.No.21 of 1996, dated\n14.10.2003.\n\n\nCRP(NPD)No.423 of 2004\n\n1.Sornalatha\n2.Velmurugan\n3.Uma\n4.Easwara Pillai            ... Petitioners\/LRs of the\n                                3rd Defendant\n\nvs\n\n1.Ramadhas                  ... 1st Respondent\/Plaintiff\n2.Arumugam Pillai (died)    ... 2nd Respondent\/1st Defendant\n3.Sree Easwaradhas          ... 3rd Respondent\/2nd Defendant\n4.Lakshmi                   ... 4th Respondent\/LR of R2\n  (R4 brought on record as\n  LR of the deceased R2\n  vide order made in\n  M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009\n  dated 06.01.2010)\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\tPrayer in CRP No.423 of 2004: Civil Revision Petition filed under section\n115 of C.P.C, against the order and decretal order of the learned Subordinate\nJudge, Padmanabhapuram in I.A.No.417 of 2003 in O.S.No.21 of 1996, dated\n14.10.2003.\n\n\n\nCRP(PD)(MD)No.1925 of 2009\n\n1.Swarnalatha\n2.Velmurugan\n3.Easwara Pillai            ... Petitioners\/D1 to 3\n\nvs\n\n1.A.Sree Eawaradhas         ... 1st Respondent\/Plaintiff\n2.Ramadhas                  ... 2nd respondent\/4th Defendant\n\n\t\t\t\nPrayer in CRP(PD)(MD)No.1925 of 2009: Civil Revision Petition filed under\nArticle 227 of the Constitution of India,to set aside the order decreetal order\npassed in I.A.No.231 of 2009 in O.S.No.33 of 2009, dated 26.10.2009, on the file\nof the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram.\n\n!For Petitioners  ... Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair\n^For Respondents  ... Mr.M.P.Senthil\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tHeard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.O.S.No.21 of 1996, on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
\nPadmanabhapuram, was filed by the first respondent herein against his father and
\ntwo brothers and his father Arumugam Pillai was the first defendant and his
\nbrother, Sree Easwaradhas was the 2nd defendant and Raghavadhas was the 3rd
\ndefendant in the suit. That suit was filed for partition of the first
\nrespondent’s 1\/4th share in the suit property and in that suit, a compromise was
\narrived at among the parties and as per the memo of compromise, the suit
\nschedule item No.19 in Survey No.390\/2, of an extent of 19.250 cents, with
\nbuilding thereon was allotted to the share of the 2nd defendant in the suit,
\nnamely Easwaradhas and the remaining extent of 65.750 cents in Survey No.390\/2
\nwas allotted to the share of Raghavadhas, the 3rd defendant in that suit. A plan
\nwas also attached to the memorandum of compromise and in that plan, 19.250 cents
\nin Survey No.390\/2 was marked as ‘A plot and an extent of 65.750 cents in Survey
\nNo.390\/2 was marked as ‘B C D E’ Plots.  But due to inadvertence, while writing
\nthe memo of compromise, it was stated that the property that was allowed to the
\nshare of A.Sree Easwara Dhas, the 2nd defendant, having 19.250 cents in Survey
\nNo.390\/2 was mentioned as ‘B’ Plot and an extent of 65.750 cents in Survey
\nNo.390\/2 was mentioned as ‘A’ plot. As stated supra in the plan, 19.250 cents
\nwas shown as ‘A’ part and 65.750 cents was shown as ‘B C D E’ and the total
\nextent in survey No.390\/2, after adding ‘A B C D E’ is equivalent to 84 cents.
\nBased on the memo of compromise with plan, a final decree was also passed on
\n15.04.1999. The parties were enjoying their respective extents as per the decree
\nand later the legal-heirs of Raghavadhas, the 3rd defendant, found that in the
\nplan annexed to the compromise memo, an area of 65.750 cents in Survey No.390\/2
\nwas marked as ‘B C D E’, but in the memo of compromise, it was descried as ‘A’
\nPlot and similarly, while describing the property allotted to Sree Easwara Dhas,
\nthe 2nd defendant, an extent of 19.250 cents in Survey No.390\/2 was mentioned as
\n‘A’ plot in the plan, but in the compromise memo it was mentioned as ‘B’ plot
\nand therefore, the decree has to be amended by substituting ‘B’ for ‘A’ and
\nsubstitute ‘A’ as ‘B C D E’ for the same relief. The two IAs viz., I.A.1429 of
\n2002 and 417 of 2003 were filed and these applications were dismissed by the
\nlower court and hence, the two revisions viz. CRP.Nos.422 and 423 of 2004 were
\nfiled by the revision petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.Mr.K.Sreekumaran Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the revision
\npetitioners submitted that a mistake has crept in the decree and also in the
\nmemorandum of compromise and while effecting partition and allotting the
\nproperties, the plaintiffs and the defendants in that suit, instead of
\nmentioning ‘A’ plot, having an extent of 19.250 cents, in Survey No.390\/2
\nallotted to Sree Easwaradhas, the 2nd defendant, it was mistakenly stated in the
\nmemo of compromise that an extent of 19.250 cents in Survey No.390\/2 is situate
\nin ‘B’ plot as per the plan annexed to the memorandum of compromise and
\nsimilarly, the remaining extent in Survey No.390\/2, of an extent of 65.750 cents
\nhas been mentioned in the compromise memo as ‘A’ Plot whereas the entire extent
\nof 65.750 cents is situate in the portion ‘B C D E’ in the plan attached to the
\ncompromise memo and therefore, as a result of that on the basis of the
\ncompromise decree, final decree was also passed incorporating the same terms and
\ninstead of mentioning ‘A’ plot, it was mentioned as ‘B’ plot in the property
\nallowed to Sree Easwaradhas and instead of mentioning ‘B C D E’ plots, it was
\nmentioned as ‘A’ plot, in respect of the properties allotted to Raghavadhas, the
\nfirst defendant and that mistake has to be rectified.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.He further submitted that the parties are enjoying the respective
\nextents, after the compromise and in the plan also, it has been stated that ‘A’
\nPlot is having an extent of 19.250 cents allotted to Sree Easwaradhas and ‘B C D
\nE’ Plots, of a total extent of 65.750 cents, were allotted to Raghavadhas, but
\nin the memorandum of compromise, it was wrongly mentioned as ‘B’ Plot for Sree
\nEaswaradhas and ‘A’ Plot for Ragavadhas.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.He further submitted that Survey No.390\/2 is having a total extent of 84
\ncents and the entire extent in survey No.390\/2 was allotted only to Sree
\nEaswaradhas and Raghavadhas and therefore, there is no dispute regarding the
\ntotal extent in Survey No.390\/2 and there is no dispute regarding the extent of
\nproperty allotted to Sree Easwaradhas and Raghavadhas as per the compromise and
\nhence, as per the plan, the property allotted to Sree Easwaradhas is in the
\nportion shown as ‘A’ and the property allotted to Raghavadhass is in the portion
\nshown as ‘B C D E’ and hence, as per the plan, a compromise decree has to be
\ncorrected and it is a clear case of clerical error and no prejudice would be
\ncaused by correcting the mistaking that has crept in, in the compromise decree.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.He further relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court
\nreported in 2001(6) SCC 688, in the case of Salkia Businessmen’s Association and
\nothers vs. Howrah Municipal Corporation and others<\/a>, 2001(4) SCC 181, in the case
\nof Jayalakshmi Coelho vs Oswald Joseph Coelho and<\/a> 2004(1) MLJ 61(SC) in the case
\nof State of Punjab vs. Darshan Singh.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
\t7.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
\nMr.M.P.Senthil, submitted that as per the memorandum of compromise, Plot ‘A’ was
\nallotted to Raghavadhas and ‘B’ plot was allotted to Sree Easwaradhas and as per
\nthe compromise, a decree was drafted and hence, there is no error or mistake in
\nthe decree and the decree cannot be amended by resorting to Section 152 CPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.He further submitted that without amending the compromise memo, the
\ndecree cannot be amended as the decree was passed only on the basis of memo of
\ncompromise and as per Order 23 Rule 3, the Court shall pass a decree in
\naccordance with the compromise and in this case, the decree was passed in
\naccordance with compromise and there is no error in the decree, it cannot be
\nrectified.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The point for consideration, in both the civil revision petitions, is:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Whether the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.21 of 1996 is to be
\namended, as there is a clerical mistake, while drafting the decree as alleged by
\nthe petitioners?\n<\/p>\n
\t10.In this case, it is not in dispute that there was a compromise entered
\ninto between the parties and as per the compromise, the properties were divided
\nand as per the terms of compromise and plan attached to that, a compromise
\ndecree was passed.  I.A.No.417 of 2003 was filed by the revision petitioners
\nagainst the plaintiff and the defendants in O.S.No.21 of 1996 and for the same
\nrelief, I.A.No.1429 of 2002 was also filed by the petitioners, which gave raise
\nto these revision petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.It is contended by the 3rd respondent, Sree Easwaradhas that as per the
\ncompromise, Item No.19 comprised in Survey No.390\/2 was divided into five plots
\nand numbered as ‘A’ to ‘E’ plots and ‘C D E’ were left un-allotted and as per
\nthe compromise, Plot ‘A’ was allotted to the 3rd defendant viz., Raghavadhas and
\nno building was allotted to him and the family building is situate in Plot ‘B’
\nand the same was allotted to him and he was given 19.250 cents in Plot ‘B’.  The
\nfather Arumugam Pillai, the 2nd respondent  herein, contended that Item No.19
\nviz., in Survey No.390\/2 was divided into five plots ‘A’ to ‘E’ and Sree
\nEaswaradhas, the 3rd  respondent in these revision petitions, was allotted ‘A’
\nplot in the plan having 19.250 cents and the building situate therein and plots
\n‘B C D E’ having an extent of 64.750 cents including the building No.11-38\/24
\nwas allotted to Raghava Dhas, who is predecessor in title of the petitioners and
\nbuilding No.11-38\/24 and in the compromise memo as well as in the decree, it was
\nmistakenly stated that ‘A’ Plot is having an extent of 64.750 cents and it was a
\nmistake and 64.750 cents is situate in Plot ‘B C D E’ and those extent of 64.750
\nalong with the main building was allotted to Raghava Dhas and Plot ‘A’, having
\nan extent of 19.250 cents was allotted to Sree Easwara Dhas and after the
\nallotment of properties, Sree Easwara Dhas, the 3rd respondent herein, shifted
\nhis residence to the portion marked as ‘A’ in the plan, of an extent of 19.250
\ncents and Raghava Dhas was also put up a compound wall on the western side of
\nthe Plot ‘B’ and he took possession and therefore, he supported the case of the
\npetitioners.  Therefore, from the counter filed by the parties, it is seen that
\nthe father, Arumugam Pillai, supported the case of the petitioners and he has
\naccepted that by mistake, in the memorandum of compromise, instead of stating
\n‘A’ plot allotted to Sree Easwara Dhas, it was wrongly mentioned as ‘B’ plot and
\ninstead of stating ‘B C D E’ plots to Raghava Dhas, it was wrongly mentioned as
\n‘A’ Plot. The 2nd respondent herein is the father of the revision petitioners
\nand the 1st and 3rd  respondents are his sons and the predecessor in-title of
\nthe petitioners viz., Raghava Dhas, was also one of his son.  The father,
\nArumugam Pillai, further stated in the counter that after the allotment of
\nproperties Sree Easwara Dhas shifted his residence to Plot ‘A’ mentioned, as per
\nthe plan and is in enjoyment of 19.250 cents and Raghava Dhas was in enjoyment
\nof 64.750 cents along with the building therein and he has also put up a
\ncompound wall. As stated supra, the total extent in Survey No.390\/2 is only 84
\ncents and 19.250 cents was allotted to Sree Easwara Dhas, the 3rd respondent
\nherein.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.It is evident from the plan attached in the compromise memo, the
\nportion shown as ‘A’ Plot is having an extent of 19.250 cents and that is also
\nthe western portion.  Therefore, as per the plan and as per the enjoyment of the
\nproperty by Sree Easwara Dhas, the property was shown as ‘A’ Plot in the plan
\nand was allotted to Sree Easwara Dhas, the 3rd respondent herein. Therefore, in
\nthe compromise memo, instead of mentioning ‘A’ plot in Survey No.390\/2, of an
\nextent of 19.250 cents, it was mentioned as ‘B’ Plot. Hence, according to me, it
\nis a mistake.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.Further, the contention of the 3rd respondent that Raghava Dhas was
\nallotted ‘B’ Plot of the suit property, that is having an extent of 47.250 cents
\nand Plot ‘C D E’ were not allotted to anybody.  The 3rd respondent and Raghava
\nDhas are the parties concerned in this dispute. The 3rd respondent accepts that
\nhe was allotted 19.250 cents. According to him, as per compromise, Plot ‘A’ was
\nallotted to Raghava Dhas. If Plot ‘A’ was allotted to Raghava Dhas, then Raghava
\nDhas would have been given only 19.250 cents.  But admittedly, Raghava Dhas was
\ngiven 64.750 cents.  Further, if ‘B’ Plot was allotted to Sree Easwaradhas, as
\nnow contended by him, he would have been allotted 47.250 cents. According to
\nhim, he was allotted only 19.250 cents.  Therefore, the contention of the 3rd
\nrespondent cannot be accepted and in my opinion, an extent of 19.250 falls
\nwithin ‘A’ marked portion and an extent of 64.750 falls within ‘B C D E’ marked
\nportion.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.It is also admitted that the parties are enjoying their respective
\nportions. Hence, taking into consideration of all these aspects, it is clear
\nthat plot ‘A’ was allotted to Sree Easwaradhas, the 3rd respondent herein and
\nPlot ‘B C D E’ were allotted to Raghava Dhas, whose legal-heirs are the
\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.Mr.M.K.Senthil, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent
\nsubmitted that in this case, there is no mistake or clerical error in the decree
\nand even in the compromise memo, it has been stated that Plot ‘B’ was allotted
\nto Easwara Dhas, of an extent of 19.250 cents and Plot ‘A’ of extent of 65.750
\ncents was allotted to Raghava Dhas.  The compromise decree was drafted in
\nconsonance with compromise memo filed by the parties and as per Order 23 Rule 1
\nCPC, compromise decree has to follow the compromise memo and hence, the same
\ncannot be amended.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners relied upon
\nthe judgments reported in 1999(3)SCC 500, in the case of Dwaraka Das vs. State
\nof M.P. and another, 2001(4) SCC 181, in the case of Jayalakshmi Coelho vs.
\nOswald Joseph Coelho,<\/a> 2001(6) SCC 683 in the case of Plasto Pack, Mumbai and
\nanother vs. Ratnakar Bank Ltd., 2001(6) SCC 688, in the case of Salkia
\nBusinessmen’s Association and other vs. Howrah Municipal Corporation & others
\nand 2004(1) MLJ 61(SC), in the case of State of Punjab vs. Darshan Singh.
\nRelying<\/a> upon those judgments, he submitted that it has been made clear by the
\nHonourable Supreme Court, mistakes resulting from arithmetical or clinical
\nerrors or accidental slip in judgment or decree, which may prejudice the cause
\nof any party, held, must be rectified, but rectification must be limited to
\nsomething originally intended to be included and which is erroneously left out
\nor something which has been included contrary to the original intention and
\npower under Section 152 C.P.C cannot be used to improve upon a case.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.As stated supra, as per the plan annexed to the Commissioner’s report,
\nPlot ‘A’ is having an extent of 19.250 cents and Plots ‘B,C,D,E’ are having a
\ntotal  extent of 64.750 cents and Easwara Dhas was allotted 19.250 cents and
\nRaghava Dhas was allotted 64.750 cents.  Therefore, if we go by extent, Plot ‘A’
\nwas allowed to Easwara Dhas and Plots ‘B,C,D,E’ were allotted to Ragava Dhas.
\nThe problem arises that in the compromise memo, it has been stated that Easwara
\nDhas was allotted Plot ‘B’ having an extent of 19.250 cents and Ragava Dhas  was
\nallotted 64.750 cents in Plot ‘A’.  Admittedly, Plot ‘A’ as per plan does not
\nhave more than 19.250 cents.  Of Course, from Plot ‘B’, 19.250 cents can be
\nculled out, having regard to the larger extent and the intention of the parties
\nwas spoken to by the Arumugam Pillai, the father and having regard to the
\nextent, Plot ‘A’ must have been allowed to Eawara Dhas and ‘B,C,D,E’ must have
\nbeen allowed to Ragava Dhas.  Therefore, a mistake has crept in, while drafting
\ncompromise memo, which was also followed in the compromise decree.  Hence, the
\nquestion now arise is whether that mistake can be rectified under section 151
\nand 152 of C.P.C.  Even though, Section, 151 & 152 CPC deals with mistake
\ncommitted in Court, in this case, a mistake has been committed by the party in
\ndrafting the compromise memo and that has been also carried out in the
\ncompromise decree. Therefore, in my opinion, Section 151 and 152 of C.P.C can be
\ninvoked in this case, as it is only a mistake committed by the parties in
\ndrafting the compromise memo.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.It has been held in 1999(3) SC 500, at page 504, in the case of Dwaraka
\nDas vs. State of M.P and another, the inherent power under Section 152,
\ncontemplates the correction of mistakes by the court of its ministerial actions
\nand does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders. The corrections
\ncontemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all
\nomissions and mistake which might have been committed by the court while passing
\nthe judgement, decree or order.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.It has been held in 2004(1) MLJ 61 (S.C), in the case of State of
\nPunjab vs. Darshan Singh,<\/a> that an arithmetical mistake is a mistake of
\ncalculation a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing whereas an
\nerror arising out of or occurring from accidental slip or omission is an error
\ndue careless mistake on the put of the court liable to be corrected.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.In the judgment reported in 2001(4) SCC 181 in the case of Jayalakshmi
\nCoelho vs. Oswald Joseph Coelho,<\/a> it has been held that “before exercise of such
\npower, the court must be legally satisfied and arrive at a valid finding that
\nthe order or the decree contains or omits something which was intended to be
\notherwise, that is to say, while passing the decree the court must have in its
\nmind that the order or the decree should be passed in a particular manner but
\nthat intention is not translated into the decree or order due to clerical,
\narithmetical error or accidental slip. The fact and circumstances may provide
\nclue to the fact as to what was intended by the court but unintentionally the
\nsame does not find mention in the order or the judgment or something which was
\nnot intended to be there stands added to it. The power of rectification of
\nclerical, arithmetical errors or accidents slip does not empower the court to
\nhave a second thought over the matter and to find that a better order or decree
\ncould or should be passed. There should not be reconsideration of merits of the
\nmatter to come to a conclusion that it would have been better and in the fitness
\nof things to have passed an order as sought to be passed on rectification.  On a
\nsecond thought the court may find that it may have committed a mistake in
\npassing an order in certain terms but every such mistake does not permit its
\nrectification in exercise of the court’s inherent powers as contained under
\nSection 152 CPC.  It is to be confined to something initially intended but left
\nout or added against such intention.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, the above judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court makes it clear
\nthat what the parties have intended to be drawn up in the decree, which was
\naccepted by the court can be rectified if the decree is otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.As matter of fact, the judgment reported in AIR 1959 Madras 194, in the
\ncase of Ramaya Pillai vs. Ratnaswami Pillai and others<\/a>, it has been held that
\nSection 152 Civil Procedure Code is wide enough to include a compromise decree.
\nIt does not restrict itself to decrees passed other than compromise decrees.
\nEven in compromise decrees, if there are clerical or arithmetical mistakes,
\ncertainly they can be rectified.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.Further, it is contented by Eawara Dhas that Plots C,D,E’ were not
\ndivided so far and ‘A’ Plot was allotted to Ragava Dhas and ‘B’ Plot was
\nallotted to him. If the contention of Eawara Dhas is accepted, then ‘C,D,E’ are
\nto be partitioned.  Admittedly, till date the parties have not applied for
\npartition of Plots ‘C,D,E’.  Therefore, it is accepted by the parties by their
\nconduct that ‘A’ Plot was allotted to Easwara Dhas and Plots ‘B,C,D,E’ were
\nallotted to Ragava Dhas and that was the reason for not filing any partition
\nsuit by the parties for dividing ‘B,C,D,E’ Plots.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.In this case, as stated supra admittedly, Easwara Dhas is enjoying Plot
\n‘A’, having an extent of 19.250 cents as shown in the plan and the legal-heirs
\nof the Ragava Dhas are enjoying Plot ‘B,C,D,E’ of an extent of 65.750 cents as
\nshown in the plan and therefore, it is only a mistake that has been crept in, in
\nthe compromise decree and hence, the court can use its inherent power under
\nSection 151 and 155 CPC, to rectify the mistake.   The lower court has not
\nproperly appreciated the aforesaid provisions and therefore, the order of the
\nlower court is set aside and accordingly, C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.422 & 423 of 2004 are
\nallowed.  Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.CRP(PD)(MD)NO.1925 of 2009:  This civil revision petition is filed by
\nthe legal-heirs of Ragava Dhas.  Easwara Dhas, the first respondent, in this
\ncivil revision, filed O.S.33 of 2009, on the file of the Sub Court,
\nPadmanabhapuram, for injunction restraining the defendants therein from putting
\nup any new boundaries, buildings or cutting or removing trees or from
\ninterfering with his joint possession of the properties mentioned therein. The
\nschedule of properties mentioned in the suit are the properties covered under
\nschedule ‘C,D,E’ in O.S.No.21 of 1996 and in the plaint, he has submitted that
\nin the suit O.S.No.21 of 1996, he was allotted Plot ‘B’ and the Plot ‘A’ was
\nallotted to Ragava Dhas and ‘C,D,E’ were not allotted to anybody.  Plot
\n‘B,C,D,E’ mentioned in the plan annexed to the compromise memo in O.S.No.21 of
\n1996 are the subject matter of the suit O.S.No.33 of 2009 and it is alleged that
\nthey are enjoyed in common by him and his brother and the coconut trees were
\ngrown and the legal-heirs of Raghava Dhas are attempting to put up boundaries
\nand constructions in those properties and for the purpose, he filed the suit. In
\nthat suit, the revision petitioners herein filed a written statement stating
\nthat there was a mistake in the compromise memo filed therein and the same was
\ncarried out in the compromise decree and it has been wrongly stated that Plot
\n‘B’ consisting of 19.250 cents was allotted to Easwara Dhas and it is only Plot
\n‘A’ of an extent of 19.250 cents allotted to Easwara Das and instead of stating
\n‘B’ of an extent of 65.750 cents, it has been wrongly stated as ‘A’ Plot
\nconsisting of 65.750 cents and it was only a mistake and the mistake has been
\nrectified by filing application before this court and therefore, the first
\nrespondent has no right or title to the schedule property and he is not entitled
\nto decree as prayed for. Along with the suit, the first respondent filed E.A.231
\nof 2009 in O.S.No.33 of 2009 for the appointment of a Advocate Commissioner to
\npluck the coconuts from the trees and that was also ordered by the lower court
\nand against the same, this civil revision is filed by the revision petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.I have already held in CRP(NPD)(MD)Nos.422 & 423 of 2004 that 19.250
\ncents in Plot ‘A’ was allotted to Easwara Dhas and 65.750 cents in Plots
\n‘B,C,D,E’ were allotted to Ragava Dhas and in the compromise memo and in the
\ndecree instead of stating ‘A’ plot, it was stated as ‘B’ plot and instead of
\nstating ‘B,C,D,E’ Plots, it has been stated as Plot ‘A’ and therefore, the
\ndecree has to be amended and the decree was also amended as per the order in
\nCRP.No.422 and 423 of 2004 and hence, as per the amended decree, the first
\nrespondent herein, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.33 of 2009 has no right or
\ntitle over the Plots ‘B,C,D,E’ and the revision petitioners, who are the legal-
\nheirs of the Ragava Dhas, are entitled to pluck coconuts.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.Hence, the order of the lower court cannot be sustained, as there is no
\nneed to appoint a commissioner in the said suit. Accordingly, CRP(PD)(MD)No.1925
\nof 2009 is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
To,<\/p>\n
The Subordinate Judge,
\nPadmanabhapuram.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Sornalatha vs Ramadhas … 1St on 26 February, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26\/02\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN C.R.P.(NPD)No.422 of 2004 C.R.P.(NPD)No.423 of 2004 and CRP(PD)(MD)No.1925 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2004 In CRP(NPD)No.422 of 2004 1.Sornalatha 2.Velmurugan 3.Uma 4.Easwara Pillai … Petitioners\/LRs of the 3rd […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-196999","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSornalatha vs Ramadhas ... 1St on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sornalatha vs Ramadhas ... 1St on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-09T14:35:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sornalatha vs Ramadhas … 1St on 26 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-09T14:35:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3876,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Sornalatha vs Ramadhas ... 1St on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-09T14:35:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sornalatha vs Ramadhas … 1St on 26 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sornalatha vs Ramadhas ... 1St on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sornalatha vs Ramadhas ... 1St on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-09T14:35:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sornalatha vs Ramadhas … 1St on 26 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-09T14:35:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010"},"wordCount":3876,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010","name":"Sornalatha vs Ramadhas ... 1St on 26 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-09T14:35:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sornalatha-vs-ramadhas-1st-on-26-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sornalatha vs Ramadhas … 1St on 26 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196999","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=196999"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196999\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196999"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196999"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196999"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}