[S. 152 CPC] Plaintiff May Be Allowed To Correct 'Khasra' Number When There's No Dispute About Identity Of Land: Madhya Pradesh High Court

In a recent decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that when there is no dispute about the identity of the land, correction of the Khasra Number (unique identification number assigned to parcels of land) can be effected in the plaint, judgment, and decrees accordingly.

A single-judge bench of Justice Hirdesh allowed the S.152 CPC application preferred by the plaintiffs/applicants before the trial court based on the finding that Khasra Numbers were mistakenly mentioned on account of an accidental slip.

The bench sitting at Jabalpur also took note of the fact that the alleged mistake was not even taken note of by the defendants/ respondents while contesting the suit before the trial court or the lower appellate court.

“…in present case due to mistake occurred on account of accidental slip it has been mentioned in plaint as Khasra No.265 in place of Khasra No.165 and the same was not even taken note of by the defendants while contesting the suit…It has been established in various decisions referred to above that if there is no dispute of identity of land, then correction of Khasra number can be effected”, the court observed in the order.

Section 152 of CPC provides the scope for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, orders and decrees arising out of an accidental slip or omission.

While setting aside the lower appellate court's decision not to allow the S.152 application, the High Court instructed that those necessary amendments be carried out in the plaint, judgments and decrees of both courts below.

Justice Hirdesh, while adjudicating this civil revision petition, also pointed out that Khasra No. 165 is rightly mentioned, instead of Khasra No. 265 measuring merely 0.3 Hectares, in various exhibits placed before the lower courts as evidence.

Considering the documents placed before the single-judge bench, the court held that there was no dispute about the identity of the land involved. Appropriate corrections must be made in plaint, decree and judgments as per Section 152 application, the court added.

The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of certain schedule properties by the applicants who were daughters of one Late Mr. Saddu Goud. The Defendant/ respondent was the son of the Late Saddu Goud.

The trial court, in its 2017 order, had held that each applicant is entitled to one-third of the share in their father's property. The first appeal before the District Judge was filed by the son, but to no avail. The trial court's judgment and decree were affirmed by the lower appellate court in 2022.

In the plaint, it was submitted that the Khasra numbers were wrongly mentioned. The application filed by the plaintiff to rectify this error was dismissed by the trial court and as a result, the current civil revision petition was filed.

Before the High Court, the applicants' counsel argued that the correct Khasra number had already been mentioned in the judgments of lower courts. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent took the stand that the application made under Section 152 CPC was barred by Order II Rule II CPC.

While setting aside the impugned order by the District Court, the single-judge bench relied on the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in Mohinder Singh & Ors. v. Teja Singh & Ors. (1978). In this case, it was held that any errors, including an accidental slip or omission traceable to the conduct of the parties themselves, can be rectified through an application under Section 152 of CPC.

“….No doubt the Court cannot go into the disputed questions regarding the principle in dispute, but if the mistake is so palpable that nobody can possibly have any doubt as to what the parties meant or what the Court meant when it passed the judgment, decree or order, such a correction can be made even under section 152 of the Code”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur reiterated the findings in Mohinder Singh.

Advocate Kratika Indurakhiya represented the applicants. Advocate Durgesh Singrore appeared for the respondents.

Case Title: Butto Bai & Anr v. Dumri & Ors.

Case No: Civil Revision No. 256 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 33

Click Here To Read/ Download Order