Mambally Moyin vs Kayalum Vakath Ubaidullah
2021 Latest Caselaw 1098 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

    TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942

                       OP(C).No.3036 OF 2015(O)

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 175/2010 DATED 31-08-2015 OF SUB
                          COURT, TIRUR


PETITIONER:

               MAMBALLY MOYIN
               AGED 64 YEARS
               S/O. MABALLY KUNHALAVI,
               PERINTHAL MANNA TALUK, MANKADA VILLAGE, KOOTTIL
               DESOM, MALAPPURAM, REP.
               BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RASHEED ALI.M.P.,
               S/O. MOHAMMED ALI.M.P.,
               MAYINKANAKATH HOUSE, MANGALAM AMSOM DESOM,
               TIRUR TALUK,
               MALAPPURAM,
               KERALA.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.NIRMAL. S
               SMT.VEENA HARI

RESPONDENTS:

               KAYALUM VAKATH UBAIDULLAH
               AGED 42 YEARS
               S/O. VEERAN HAJI, PERIATHALMANNA TALUK,
               ANGADIPURAM AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM.

               R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.NIJOY

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.01.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C).No.3036 OF 2015                2




                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of January 2021

Petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order by which his

application for rectification of description of property as to the

extent and survey number was dismissed by the Subordinate

Judge, Thrissur.

2. The suit was filed for specific performance of

contract of sale which was decreed. In execution of the decree, the

court executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Later, it came

to be noticed that the plaint description itself was erroneous as to

the extent of property mentioned and also resurvey number. These

corrections were sought to be rectified by filing I.A. No.

2412/2014. The respondent/defendant also conceded that these

were inadvertent mistakes and were liable to be corrected. It is

seen that the court on the request made by the plaintiff allowed

the correction to the plaint and decree. What then remained was

only a correction to be carried out in the deed of assignment

executed by the court.

3. As a matter of fact, there remained nothing for a

serious opposition but the court below strangely enough took the

view the remedy open to the plaintiff was to file a suit invoking

Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act.

4. In the counter submitted by the respondent also,

the view taken by the court below does not find support. In fact,

they have no objection to this original petition. What is, on the

other hand, pointed out is that the rectification deed ought to be

executed and registered in accordance with law of registration.

That alone is possible also. A rectification deed approved and

executed by the court will have to be registered also.

In the result the O.P. is allowed and the impugned

order dated 9-8-2015 is set aside. I.A. No. 2412/2014 on the file of

the court below is allowed.

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE SMF/12.01

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF I.A. 2410/14 AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING IN O.S. NO. 175/10 DATED 10-12-2014 SUB COURT TIRUR.

EXHIBIT P2 EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A. 2410/2014 DATED 1-10- 2015.

EXHIBIT P3 EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. 2411/14 DATED 12-2-2014.

EXHIBIT P4 EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVITG IN I.A. 2411/14 DATED 1-01- 2015.

EXHIBIT P5 EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. 2412/14 DATED 10-12-2014.

EXHIBIT P6 EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A. 2412/14 DATED 1-01- 2015.

EXHIBIT P7 EXT.P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-

8-2015 IN I.A. 2412/2014 IN O.S. 175/2010.

//TRUE COPY// P A TO JUDGE