Madaia Guruvardhani, Vs Kallun Ragamma

KALLUN RAGAMMA, W/O LATE CHINA SANKARAIAH, AGED 70 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, KONICA HIGH TIDE FRAME @ LAMINATION, SREENIVASA CENTER, BYE IRJA COMPANY, NIVOD, H. NO. 4, NANDYALA, NANDYALA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KURNOOL DISTRICT-- 518 501.

¶17

KALLURI VENKATESWARLU, S/O. LATE CHINA SANKARAIAH, / AGED 42 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, MARRIPUDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523 240.

¶18

GANDAVALLA VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O. KOTESWARA RAO, AGED 39 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, JAMGAMGUNTAL VILLAGE, CUMBUM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 5233 333.

¶19

UDDANDAM MALLESWARI, W/O. SRINU, AGED 42 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, RIO. KONICA HIGH TIDE FRAME @ LAMINATION, SREENIVASA CENTER, BYE IRJA COMPANY, NIVOD, H. NO. 4, NANDYALA, NANDYALA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KURNOOL

¶20

2

¶21

DISTRICT- 518 501.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toaggrieved by the Order dt. 27.02.2026 passed in I.A. No. 553 of 2025 in I.A. No.564 of 2017 in O.S. No.91 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, the above-named petitioner prefers this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶31

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1830 OF 2026

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2026 passed in I.A.No.553 of 2025 in I.A.No.564 of 2017 in O.S.No.91 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. As issuance of notices to the respondents is not necessary in this matter, hence notices to the respondents are hereby dispensed with.

¶35

The petitioner herein is plaintiff and the respondents herein are defendants in the suit. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred as arrayed in the suit.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff filed the suit i.e., O.S.No.91 of 2015 (O.S.No.1 of 2010) for partition in respect of the suit schedule property consisting of item Nos.1 to 11. The issue fell for consideration before this Court is item Nos.10 and 11. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree and after completion of the trial and the trial Court also passed a final decree. After passing the both decrees, the plaintiff choose to file an I.A. seeking to correct the Sy.No.130/1 instead of Sy.No.130/2 in item No.3 of Lodgment schedule. For which, the respondents also endorsed that

¶37

4

¶38

they have no objection for such correction/amendment of the survey number No.130/1 instead of Sy.No.130/2 in item No.3 of lodgment schedule.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that erroneously, the trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner by holding that if the correction/amendment was allowed it amounts to change of entire nature of property. He further submits that such an order of dismissal by the trial court is contrary to law, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Kalkonda Pandu Rangaiah v. Kalkonda Krishnaiah and Others¹ , wherein, this Court specifically held that typographical mistakes, correction of errors regarding survey numbers in the plaint schedule and decree schedules, should be permitted in the absence of any dispute regarding identity of the properties. But the trial Court erroneously, dismissed the application contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. The claim of the petitioner herein is only for correction of survey number against item No.3 of the lodgment schedule. The dispute fell for consideration before this Court is that such a correction/amendment in respect of survey number of item No.3 of the lodgment schedule can be allowed or not after passing preliminary as well as final decrees. The similar

¶42

1 C.M.P.No.10749 of 1972

¶43

5

¶44

issue fell for consideration before this Court in C.M.P.No.10749 of 1972,

¶45

wherein it is held as under:

¶46

“20. I may now refer to a recent decision by a Bench of this Court in Perraju v. Venkamma, AIR 1971 Andh Pra 74. Their Lordships preferred to follow the view of Madras High Court in (1931) 61 MLJ 805 : (AIR 1931 Mad 260) and a decision of Rajamannar C.J in Katam raju v. Paripurnanandam , (1948) 2 Mad LJ 301: (AIR 1949 Mad 282) and that of Krishnaswami Nayudu in Apart Krishna Poduval v. Lakshmi Nethiar , (1950) 1 Mad LJ 120: (AIR 1950 Mad 751). In both the above cases, it was held that where an application is filed for correction of errors as regards survey numbers, in the plaint schedule and decree schedules, and there is no dispute as regards identity of the property amendment may be allowed under Section 152 of the CPC. The fact that the deed anterior to the plaint also contained the similar mistake cannot disentitle the appellant to have the error set right. The above Bench have distinguished the decision in AIR 1948 Mad 13 on facts stating that it related to the rectification of the document itself.

¶47

21. It may also be mentioned here that a suit still continues even after the preliminary decree and it is only after passing of final decree the suit can be said to have terminated. It is certainly, therefore open to courts to amend a plaint and decree schedules at any stage before passing of final decree. (Vide Somireddi Burrayya v. Somireddy Atdhayyamma, (1958) 2 Andh WR 208 : (AIR 1959 Andh Pra 26); Basavayya v. Guravayya, AIR 1951 Mad 938 (FB) and Venkata Reddy v. P. Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 992.”

¶48

In view of the ratio laid down by this Court, the amendment petition for

¶49

rectifying errors regarding survey number in item No.3 of the lodgment

¶50

6

¶51

schedule can be permitted. Even in the case in hand, the claim of the petitioner is only for correction of survey number, since the same was occurred due to clerical mistake at the time of filing Suit. Mere correcting the survey number in item No.3 of the lodgment schedule may not change the nature of land and moreover in the absence of any dispute, the same can be allowed. Therefore, in the instant case, there is no dispute between the petitioner and the respondents and it was observed in the judgment itself by the trial court that the respondents have no objection for such correction.

¶52

In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above and in view of

¶53

the ratio laid down by this Court in C.M.P.No.10749 of 1972, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed, directing the trail Court to permit the correction/amendment as pleaded by the petitioner in I.A.No.553 of 2025 and issue preliminary and final decrees, after having such amendment at the earliest. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶55

_________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 03.07.2026 BSP/TPS Whether the order is :

¶56

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No

¶57

Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

¶58

7

¶59

43