Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme court in the
case of P. Udayani Devi Vs. V.V. Rajeshwara Rao and another, AIR 1995 SC
1357 in support of the submission that certificate of sale or document of title
which ought not to be lightly regarded or loosely construed. Paragraph 7 of the said
judgment reads thus :
“7. We find considerable substance in this contention. The
position in law is well-settled that "certificates of sale are
documents of title which ought not to be lightly regarded or
loosely construed." [See : Rambhadra Naidu v. Kadiriyasami
Naicker . In Sheodhyan Singh and Ors. v. Musammat Sanichara
Kuer and Ors. MANU/SC/0283/1961: [1962]2SCR753 , in the
sale certificate the boundaries as well as the plot number were
mentioned but there was a mistake in mentioning the plot
number. It was held ;
“The matter may have been different if no boundaries had been
given in the final decree for sale as well as in the sale certificate
and only the plot number was mentioned. But where we have
both the boundaries and the plot number and the circumstances
are as in this case, the mistake in the plot number must be
treated as mere misdescription which does not affect the identity
of the property sold.””
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.186 OF 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ALONGWITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 407 OF 2012
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.186 OF 2012
DISTRICT : THANE
Mrs. Meera Unnikrishnan,
VERSUS
Aashutosh Dyeing Mills Pvt. Ltd.,
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.
PRONOUNCED ON : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2014
Citation; 2015(2)MHLJ 331
