Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing Aliyar vs Raju V.Vayalat on 29 August, 2014

J.Kumar vs T.Selvaraj on 8 December, 2023

12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would rely on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Aliyar Vs. Raju V. Vayalat reported in 2016 (1) Ker L.J. 799, wherein, it has been specifically held that pleading and proof of fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties are mandatory requirements for obtaining a relief of rectification of an instrument and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pinki Devi vs Parveen on 31 August, 2023

41. The Plaintiff has further gone on to be cross examined by Defendant no. 2 wherein he disclosed that he did not know that Kh. No. 241/2 was falling between 241/1 and 240. Therefore, this is the clear admission that the Plaintiff and Defendant no. 1 never contemplated the sale of Kh. No. 241/2 since it is the Plaintiff's own case that he was not even aware about the existence of any such Khasra number at the time when the sale deed was executed. Therefore, the present is not a case of any misdescription of the property or a case of 'mutual mistake.' The Plaintiff has failed to prove that there was any agreement between him and Defendant no. 1 for the sale of Kh. 241/2. As explained by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala Suits no. 17285/16 and 17284/16 Parveen Kumar Vs. Anoop Rastogi and Anr. and Pinki Devi Vs. Parveen 31 in Aliyar (supra), it is essential that the party claiming rectification prove the completed agreement before the written agreement was executed. The Plaintiff himself admits that the Kh. No. 241/2 was not in contemplation of the parties and therefore, there was no antecedent agreement as to the sale of land falling in Kh. No. 241/2.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parveen Kumar vs Anoop Rastogi And Anr on 31 August, 2023

41. The Plaintiff has further gone on to be cross examined by Defendant no. 2 wherein he disclosed that he did not know that Kh. No. 241/2 was falling between 241/1 and 240. Therefore, this is the clear admission that the Plaintiff and Defendant no. 1 never contemplated the sale of Kh. No. 241/2 since it is the Plaintiff's own case that he was not even aware about the existence of any such Khasra number at the time when the sale deed was executed. Therefore, the present is not a case of any misdescription of the property or a case of 'mutual mistake.' The Plaintiff has failed to prove that there was any agreement between him and Defendant no. 1 for the sale of Kh. 241/2. As explained by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala Suits no. 17285/16 and 17284/16 Parveen Kumar Vs. Anoop Rastogi and Anr. and Pinki Devi Vs. Parveen 31 in Aliyar (supra), it is essential that the party claiming rectification prove the completed agreement before the written agreement was executed. The Plaintiff himself admits that the Kh. No. 241/2 was not in contemplation of the parties and therefore, there was no antecedent agreement as to the sale of land falling in Kh. No. 241/2.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ayyappan Kesavan (Died Lrs Impleaded) vs Karthyayani, (Died Lhrs Impleaded) on 24 September, 2025

11. It is pertinent to note in this regard that, the declaration of title and possession over the plaint schedule properties was sought by the plaintiff based on Ext.A1 title deed. Therefore, the question that arises here, is, when the description of properties in the title deed varies from that of the plaint schedule, can a decree for declaration be granted in favour of the plaintiff, based on such title deed. The learned counsel for the appellants places reliance upon the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Aliyar v. Raju V. Vayalat [2016(1) KHC 763(DB)], wherein, this issue was considered, after referring to section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. After elaborately considering the statutory provisions and the decisions in this regard, it was held that, when there is mistakes in 2025:KER:70384 RSA No.497 OF 2003 12 extent, survey number, boundaries and details of anterior title deeds, the deed will have to be rectified before claiming any relief for declaration and injunction. Thus, as observed above, if there are patent errors in the deed with regard to the identification of the property, the declaration of the plaintiff's title over the property or the building cannot be granted.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jom.C.Michael vs P.M.Joseph on 6 October, 2025

Further, relying on the judgment of this Court in Aliyar v. Raju v. Vayalat [2016 (1) KHC 763], the learned 2025:KER:72974 R.F.A. No.343 of 2017 -: 6 :- senior counsel argued that, when even according to the plaintiff there is mistake in the boundary descriptions in his title deed, without rectification of the same, the relief of declaration of title could not be granted.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Ninan - Full Document
1