Madras HC Directs Brother To Correct 1998 Release Deed’s T.S. No. 209 To 269, With Plaintiffs To Pay Him ₹50,000 On Execution

In brief

The question

Whether the release deed should be rectified by replacing T.S. No. 209 with T.S. No. 269, despite the defendant’s objections concerning delay and responsibility for the error.

The court held

The second appeal was disposed of with directions that the defendant execute a rectification deed within six weeks of receiving the order.

It also directed

If he did not do so, the plaintiffs could seek the deed through the Executing Court, which was directed to dispose of the matter within four weeks.

The plaintiffs were directed to pay the defendant Rs. 50,000 on execution of the rectification deed.

01Facts

The plaintiffs and defendant are brothers. In a release deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs on 8 December 1998, the suit property’s town survey number was stated as T.S. No. 209 instead of T.S. No. 269. The parties did not dispute the property’s identity, boundaries, or possession; the dispute concerned the survey number.

¶ 8–9

After a survey inspection and certificate in 2020 identified the discrepancy, the plaintiffs sought correction. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court dismissed the defendant’s appeal.

¶ 2–4, 7–8

In the second appeal, the defendant argued, among other things, that the claim was delayed and that mandatory injunction had not been pleaded.

¶ 5–7

02Issues

i.Whether the release deed should be rectified by replacing T.S. No. 209 with T.S. No. 269, despite the defendant’s objections concerning delay and responsibility for the error.

¶ 5–11

ii.Whether the defendant should be directed to execute the rectification deed, with the plaintiffs bearing costs in view of the delay and the deed’s preparation.

¶ 6, 11–12

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

prayer

The judgment cites no further statutory provision or precedent and does not set out a separate legal test for rectification or for interference in a second appeal. It proceeds on the case-specific basis that the deed’s property description should be corrected where the property’s identity and boundaries are undisputed and the survey record establishes that the stated number is erroneous.

¶ 8–11

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the survey number in the release deed was mistaken: the property was T.S. No. 269, while the deed stated T.S. No. 209, and the survey certificate and related records supported the correction.

¶ 7–9

Because the property’s identity, boundaries, and possession were not disputed, the error did not undermine identification of the property; nevertheless, the deed required correction.

¶ 9, 11

The Court also took account of the plaintiffs’ delay and their role in the deed’s preparation, addressing those circumstances through a costs order rather than refusing rectification.

¶ 12