When Police Search Both The Bag And The Body, Section 50 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed: Supreme Court Settles The Boundaries Of A Critical Safeguard Police Cannot Offer A Third Option During NDPS Search: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In 11 Kg Charas Case, Holds Section 50 Violation Vitiates Entire Trial Supreme Court Holds Employer Group Insurance Has No Connection With Accidental Death, Cannot Be Set Off Against Motor Accident Compensation Graduating Shouldn't Be A Punishment: Supreme Court Restores Rights Of Anganwadi Workers Denied Supervisor Posts For Being Over-Qualified Trustee Who Diverts Sale Proceeds of Charitable Trust Is an 'Agent' Under Section 409 IPC, Not Exempt From Criminal Breach of Trust: Bombay High Court AFGIS Is 'State' Under Article 12: Supreme Court Reverses Delhi High Court, Restores Writ Petitions of Air Force Insurance Society Employees Delhi High Court Issues Landmark Directions Against Repeated Summoning of Child Victims, Insistence on Presence During Bail Hearings In POCSO 'Accidental Injury' in Hospital Records, All Eye-Witnesses Hostile: Gujarat High Court Acquits Men Convicted for Culpable Homicide After 35 Years Medical Condition Alone Cannot Dilute the Statutory Embargo Under Section 37 NDPS Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Pre-emption Cannot Wait for Registration When Possession Has Already Changed Hands: Punjab & Haryana High Court Strikes Down Time-Barred Claim Listing a Case for Evidence Is Not Commencement of Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Allows Amendment of Plaint in Insurance Dispute Forgery Accused Cannot Be Declared 'Proclaimed Offender': Punjab and Haryana High Court Draws Critical Distinction Between 'Proclaimed Person' and 'Proclaimed Offender' A Two-Line Ex Parte Judgment Is No Judgment In The Eye Of Law: Madras High Court Declares Decree Inexecutable What Was Not Claimed Then Cannot Be Claimed Now: Calcutta High Court Applies Constructive Res Judicata to Bar Second Partition Suit Unregistered Family Settlement Creates No Rights in Immovable Property: Delhi High Court Rejects Brother's Ownership Claim Police Must Protect Lawful Possession When Civil Court Decree Is Defied: Kerala High Court Upholds Purchase Certificate Holder’s Rights Over Alleged Temple Claim One Mark Short, No Right to Appointment: Patna High Court Dismisses Engineer's Claim to Vacancies Left by Non-Joining Candidates Bombay High Court Binds MCA to Arbitration as "Veritable Party" in T20 League Dispute Silence in the Witness Box Can Sink Your Case: ‘Non-Examination Leads to Presumption Against Party’ — Andhra Pradesh High Court Sale Deed Holder With Registered Title Prevails Over Claimant Under Mere Agreement To Sell: Karnataka High Court Candidate With 'Third Child' Disqualification Cannot Escape Consequence By Avoiding Cross-Examination: Supreme Court

An Act of the Court Shall Prejudice No Man: Calcutta High Court Rectifies Clerical Error in Land Measurement in Partition Decree

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court today corrected a clerical error concerning land measurement in a partition suit under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The error which depicted property size as 0.08 decimal instead of the actual 8 decimals led to a substantial misrepresentation in the trial court's decree.

The original suit, led by Smt. Minati Ghosh, claimed a 2/3rd share of a property but incorrectly listed it as 0.08 decimal in size in the suit schedule. This discrepancy arose despite evidence to the contrary, including a purchase deed and a commissioner's report that verified the property size as approximately 8 decimals.

Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee emphasized that Section 152 CPC is intended to correct "accidental omissions and clerical errors" to ensure that court decrees reflect true intentions and factual accuracy. "An act of the court shall prejudice no man," Justice Mukherjee observed, reinforcing the principle that judicial records must accurately represent the facts to prevent any prejudice.

Detailed scrutiny of the case revealed that the error stemmed not from the claimants but from an oversight in the decree documentation process. The High Court found that the error constituted a clerical mistake, necessitating amendment of the judgment to align it with the factual and legal submissions laid out during the trial.

Decision: The court directed the trial court to amend the decree to state the land measurement as 8 decimals, thereby correcting the previously recorded 0.08 decimal. "This correction is not merely clerical but pivotal in ensuring that justice is served in light of the true dimensions of the property involved," stated Justice Mukherjee.

Date of Decision: April 30, 2024

Smt. Minati Ghosh & Ors. vs. Chameli Mondal & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News