BANTA SINGH BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. SHAMA JAIMAL
LAWS(P&H)-1954-4-16
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on April 05,1954

Banta Singh Bhagwan Singh Appellant
VERSUS
Shama Jaimal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is an application under Ss. 151 and 152, Civil P.C. for a correction to be made in our judgment and decree passed in the opposite party's appeal No. 95 of 1950, decided on 25 -2 -53. Sharma non -applicant's suit for declaration that a sale of agricultural land made by his collateral Ram Singh would not affect his reversionary rights as the land was ancestral and the alienation without consideration and necessity, was dismissed by the trial Court as well as on appeal by the District Judge on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he and the alienor were governed by custom. On other points the Courts below held that a part of the suit land was ancestral and that out of the sale consideration only the amount of previous mortgage (Rs. 500/ - ) was for necessity. The concurrent finding of the Courts regarding the nature of property and necessity for sale consideration were not disputed before us. On the question of the law by which the plaintiff and the alienor were governed, we reversed the finding of the Courts below and consequently partly accepted the plaintiff's appeal. As a result thereof we granted the plaintiff, a decree for declaration that the sale so far as it related to khasra numbers 2 and 14, measuring 30 kanals 9 Marias, the land proved to be ancestral, would not affect the reversionary rights of the plaintiff. With respect to the rest of the land the plaintiff's suit remained dismissed.
(2.) ON behalf of Banta Singh vendee -applicant, it is urged that since the alienor died during the pendency of the suit and his widow also died thereafter, the successful plaintiff became entitled to possession of the land and he had in fact filed a suit for that purpose praying for possession without any payment. The contention is that since, while decreeing the plaintiff's suit no condition was laid as to payment of the amount found for necessity, the decree was susceptible of the interpretation that the plaintiff was entitled to obtain possession of the land without any payment whatsoever. This, however, is totally against what was actually decided. The fact is that out of the sale consideration the amount for which the land was previously mortgaged, was held for necessity. Mortgage was not challenged in the suit and it was, therefore, not touched. The dispute related to the sale of the property and that was held to be invalid. The obvious result was that the mortgage stood revived and the plaintiff could not get possession without paying off the charge. This is the reason why no mention of the amount that was held for necessity and was, therefore, payable by the decree -holder before obtaining possession, was made in the judgment delivered by us. The so -called omission is neither a clerical or arithmetical mistake nor is it an error arising from any accidental slip. Under the circumstances, S. 152, Civil P.C, would not be strictly Applicable to the case.
(3.) THE final decree prepared in this Court read in the light of the judgment would leave no doubt as to the decision arrived at in the case. But the decree standing by itself may be susceptible of an interpretation adverse to the applicant, and that interpretation is being tried to be placed on it by the non -applicant. As no mention of the part of sale consideration held for necessity is made in the decree it can possibly be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff, when the right accrues, will be entitled to get possession of the land without paying off the previous mortgage as well. Where a decree is liable to be misinterpreted, because it does not, with all possible clarity, express what was actually intended and decided by the Court, the Court has an inherent power, to amend the judgment and so also the decree so as to carry out its own meaning. The Court may exercise this power to obviate the possibility of misinterpretation of its order and the consequent injustice to either party. An order even when passed and entered, may be amended by the Court so as to carry out the intention and clearly express the meaning of the Court at the time when the order was made. In the present, case, the amendment prayed for is one which would expressly lay down what was actually held and was meant by the decision, and this would, not result in any injustice to the opposite party. We would, therefore, allow this application and in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court direct the judgment to be amended so as to add the condition that the plaintiff would be entitled to possession of the land found to be ancestral only on payment of the amount held for necessity viz., Rs. 500/ - Consequent amendment shall also be made in the decree. The respondent has not appeared to oppose the application no order as to costs is, therefore made.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.