ORDER
G. Yethirajulu, J.
1. This revision petition is filed by the decree holder and petitioner in IA No. 42/1999 in O.S. No. 48/1992. She filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of an extent of Ac.0.32 cents situated in Survey No. 155/1 against defendant Nos.1 to 5.
2. One of the defendants, who has a share in the property, did not sign the agreement of sale though it was executed on behalf of all the persons. The lower Court, therefore, granted the decree to the extent of the shares of the persons, who signed on the agreement of sale on 17.4.1986.
3. Subsequently, at the instance of the revision petitioner, a Commissioner was appointed to localise and divide the property by way of excluding the share of the third defendant. The Commissioner during the localisation, identified the property with the help of the surveyor, satisfied with the boundaries, the extent mentioned in the agreement of sale and the plaint. But, the Commissioner in his report mentioned that the schedule land is situated partly in Survey No. 155/1 and partly in Survey No. 154/2. In view of the observation made by the Commissioner, the revision petitioner filed IA No. 42/1999 under Sections 151 - 153 and Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure praying to pass suitable orders for correcting the plaint schedule and schedule attached to the decree dated 17.4.1986. The lower Court passed the impugned order on 8.11.2002 dismissing the petition. The revision petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, preferred this revision petition questioning its validity and legality.
4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that since there is no dispute regarding the extent and boundaries, there cannot be any objection for ordering correction of the survey number in the plaint schedule and schedule attached to the decree and requested to pass appropriate orders setting aside the order of the lower Court.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondents while conceding that the boundaries and extent of the land tallied with the boundaries, raised an objection that unless and until a correction is made in the agreement of sale, the corrections cannot be ordered in the plaint schedule and consequentially in the schedule of the decree.
6. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of correction of the plaint schedule and the schedule attached to the decree as prayed for.
7. It is an undisputed fact that the agreement of sale was executed for an extent of Ac.0.32 cents situated within fixed boundaries. The boundaries and the extent mentioned in the agreement of sale and in the plaint tallied with the boundaries and the extent on physical verification. In the agreement of sale, the survey number of the land was mentioned as 155/1 but the Commissioner noticed that the land situated within the boundaries, is partly in Survey No. 155/1 and partly in Survey No. 154/2.
8. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that unless and until the correction is ordered in the plaint and schedule of the decree, there is likelihood of the revision petitioner facing a problem at the time of delivery of the property and it is likely to cause hardship to him either due to denial of delivery or delay of sale. He further submitted that though only one survey number was mentioned in the agreement of sale, there is no bar for correction of the schedule of the plaint by adding another survey number so long as there is no dispute regarding identity of the land by its extent and boundaries.
9. The teamed Counsel for the revision petitioner relied on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this High Court in Mahendra C. Mehta and Ors. v. Kousalya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Hyderabad and Ors. , : 2001(5)ALD102 , wherein, the learned Single Judge observed that, 'it is well known that when boundaries of a land covered by a deed are specific and clear wrong mention of the survey number or door number etc., of the property covered by the deed is of no consequence, because boundaries prevail over the extent and survey number mentioned therein.' The learned Judge relied on a judgment of this Court in P. Udayani Devi v. V.V.Rajeswara Prasad, 1995 (2) ALT 2 (DN) and rendered a judgment by following a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sheodhyan Singh v. Mussamma Sanicharakver, : [1962]2SCR753 . The Supreme Court in the above decision held that, 'the mistake in the plot number must be treated as a mis-description and which did not effect the identity of the property sold when the identity of the property sold was well established through plot number.'
10. From the above legal position, it is made clear that when the identity of the property is not in dispute and when the boundaries and the extent are tallying with the mis-description of a particular survey number or plot number or non-mentioning of a survey number will not have any effect.
11. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Narkulla Venkayya and Anr. v. Noona Satyavarayana and another, : AIR1959AP360 , it is observed that 'a mistake committed by the plaintiffs in entering the correct acreage in relation to a particular survey number, which was incorrectly entered as different survey number due to sheer inadvertence of giving description of the survey number in the gift deed. When admittedly the executant was not in possession of other survey number, it can be treated only as a mistake,'
12. In the case covered by the above decision, the suit property was once in possession of a woman by name Nagamma and Survey Number 529 was in her possession. As a mistake in this behalf was crept into the plaint schedule, the same was mentioned in the judgment and decree. The Court observed that it was an accidental slip and a clerical mistake and this can be rectified under Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure. There is nothing which limits the power of the Court under Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure to correct such errors and mistakes, that arise in the suit. It was further observed by the Bench that in appropriate cases like this, where mistakes have arisen by reason of inadvertence in entering the number in the plaint, the Court has ample power under Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure to correct such mistakes.
13. Though the mistake is due to inadvertence of both parties in noticing that the schedule land is situated in two survey numbers and as they were under a bona fide impression that the entire land is situated in Survey No. 155/1, they mentioned the same to that effect. Therefore, there is no scope to draw any other interpretation regarding the intention of the parties in relation to the land involved in the transaction. The survey number, which was noticed by the Commissioner, could not be mentioned in the plaint schedule since it was not mentioned in the agreement of sale. Since it is an undisputed fact that the Survey No. 154/2 is also part of the schedule land, it can be safely concluded that the parties failed to mention the said number due to inadvertence. Therefore, the request of the revision petitioner can be considered favourably.
14. The learned Counsel for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to a judgment of Madras High Court in Ramakrishna Chettiar v. Radhakrishna Chettiar, AIR (35) 1948 Mad. 13, wherein, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court while considering the scope of Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure
observed as follows:
'Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure is for the purpose of correcting errors and directly involved in the proceedings themselves and not for correcting errors which are anterior to the proceedings particularly in documents upon which suits are brought. Hence, where there is a mutual mistake in the insertion of a wrong survey number in the mortgage deed and the error is repeated in the plaint and the decree, the Court cannot rectify the error under Section 152 as it is not a clerical or of arithmetical error or an accidental slip or omission. The remedy lies by way of suit under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act. It was also observed by the Madras High Court that Section 151 also cannot be invoked for correcting the mistake in the mortgage deed because Section 151 does not confer any jurisdiction upon the Court to merely declare that nothing shall limit or otherwise affect the Court's inherent power and the Court cannot be set to possess inherent power to make an order for rectification of a document when a remedy by way of suit under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, is provided.'
15. In the case covered by the above decision, the survey number of the and was wrongly mentioned, whereas in the case on hand, there was an inadvertent omission of including another survey number in respect of the same extent of land covered by the schedule of agreement of sale. Though, there is no dispute regarding the number laid down by the Madras High Court, a wrong survey number cannot be corrected when there is no sufficient material to show that the boundaries and the extents are correct. But, since there is no dispute regarding the boundaries and the extent of the land and as there was only an inadvertent omission of adding another survey number in schedule, this Court can permit the plaintiff to correct the schedule of the plaint by adding Survey No. 154/2. Consequentially to correct the schedule of the decree, the decision of the Madras High Court was distinguished through a judgment of the same High Court in Appat Krishna Poduval v. Lakshmi Nathiar and Ors., : AIR1950Mad751 , wherein the Madras High Court while distinguishing the number laid down by the same Court in the earlier decision held as follows:
'Where an application is filed for correction of an error as regards the survey numbers of an item of property in the plaint schedule and decree schedule and there is no dispute as regards the identity of the property or boundaries to it, the amendment may be allowed under Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure. The fact that the assignment deed of the property also has the same errors cannot disentitle the applicants to have the errors set right if they are entitled to it under the Code. So also, the amendment cannot be refused on the ground that the decree sought to be amended is barred by limitation.'
16. In the light of the above legal position, it is noticed that the lower Court went wrong in holding that the application is barred by limitation, when it was at the stage of final decree proceedings and when the E.P. was not filed for delivery of the property. The other observation of the lower Court was that the property was in possession of a third party, who purchased the schedule land, during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, the plaintiff has to file a separate suit to work out his rights, does not hold good.
17. In the light of the above discussion, I hold that the order of the lower Court cannot sustain and I find sufficient force in the grounds of revision. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. The lower Court is directed to permit the revision petitioner to amend the plaint and consequently the Court shall direct that the schedule of the decree be suitably amended. Each party do bear their own costs.