Madras High Court
Upadrashta Latchayya vs Gudaparti Sitamma And Ors. on 19 October, 1926
Equivalent citations: AIR1927MAD1144, 103IND. CAS.384, AIR 1927 MADRAS 1144(1)
JUDGMENT Waller, J.
1. It is argued that even though the deed itself might be rectified, the decree passed upon it cannot be rectified. This contention cannot be upheld vide Bepin Krishna Ray v. Jogeshwar Ray A. I. R. 1921 Cal. 720 and Venkatarama Iyer v. Elumalai Naiker A. I. R. 1923 Mad. 442 The other argument, that there is no finding of mutual mistake is not supported by the judgments of the Courts below.
2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.