- (1.)The appeal was posted before us today for being spoken to as it was felt by one of us, Ramakrishnan, J., that there is an inadvertent mistake in Para.50 of the majority judgment in the appeal where the conclusions reached have been summarised.
(2.)Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that there is a mistake in conclusion No. 3 formulated in para.50 of the majority judgement. The detailed discussion contained in the body of the judgment would clearly show that conclusion No.3 should be as indicated below and not as stated at present in the judgment.
"3. We approve the discussion of the learned single Judge in Saraswathy Amma v. Radhamma ( 1990 (2) KLT 183 ) and overrule the observations in Madhavi Amma v. Kalliani Amma ( 1988 (2) KLT 964 ) and Bhaskaran v. Kalliani ( 1990 (2) KLT 749 ) to the extent they are contrary to what has been laid down in this judgment".

Accordingly, the conclusion numbered as 3 in Para.50 of the majority judgement will stand review and substituted by the following sentence.

"We approve the decision of the learned single Judge in Saraswathy Amma v. Radhamma (1990 (2) KLT183) and overrule the observations in Madhavi Amma v. Kalliani Amma (1988 (2) KLT 964) and Bhaskaran v. Kalliani (1990 (2) KLT 749) to the extent they are contrary to what has been laid down in this judgment."

;