Sanyasi Chettiar vs Harigopalsami Udayar

T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.—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 u/s 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.

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 ILR (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 u/s 152 or 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. Generally, mistakes anterior to the suit cannot be corrected u/s 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 loch of the Court or the loch 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.