1 nms3704-09.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3704 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.3006 OF 2007 Mrs.Anna Isabella Rane & Nancy Rena .. Plaintiffs Versus Anthony George D'Souza and Ors. .. Defendants Mr.Birendra Saraf i/b. Sita Kapadia & Associates for plaintiffs Mr.M.J.Jamdar for defendant Nos.1 and 2 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd November 2011. P.C.: 1] Mr.Saraf, learned Counsel appearing for plaintiff on instructions makes a statement that the plaintiff is not seeking any other reliefs in terms of prayer clauses of notice of motion at this stage but she would be satisfied if this Court were to issue directions so as to correct an obvious error in the documents that have been placed before the Registration Authorities. 2] My attention is invited to the statements made in para 13 of the affidavit in reply filed to this notice of motion by defendant Nos. 1 and 2, wherein a statement is made that defendant No.2 has purchased ground floor structure and garage as mentioned 2 nms3704-09.doc and detailed in the deed of conveyance and in the agreement of sale and these defendants have not purchased the upper floors. But, there is a mistake in describing the property in the schedule. Yet, there cannot be a fraud attributed to any of these defendants. The mistake has been innocently committed through over-sight. It is further stated in this para that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were ready and willing to execute the deed of rectification but there is adamancy on the part of the plaintiff. 3] My attention is also invited to para 14 of this affidavit. That para refers to the stand of these defendants as reflected in an earlier affidavit in reply filed on 12th November 2008 in Notice of Motion No.4052 of 2007. It is stated that through over-sight the entire property is described as being purchased by the defendants and, therefore, to that extent correction in the schedule is required. 4] From a perusal of these paras I am satisfied that the parties have agreed to this limited extent and when the plaintiff is not seeking any other reliefs in terms of notice of motion but is 3 nms3704-09.doc confining the case and request as made to the extent of this correction, then, there is no impediment in granting the same. More so, in the light of the stand taken by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on the affidavit before this Court. 5] It is in such circumstances that this motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (d). It is clarified that this will not be a decree as claimed in the prayers. The authorities concerned and particularly defendant Nos. 3 and 4 shall take necessary steps so that the second schedule annexed to the sale deed dated 28th October 1998 and the deed of conveyance dated 29th November 2003 are corrected in terms of the statements made in paras 13 and 14 of the affidavit in reply. 6] Parties state that necessary deeds to rectify and correct these errors would be executed without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the suit. 7] It is clarified that the corrections to the schedule will be made in such a manner by both parties so that whatever rights 4 nms3704-09.doc are claimed by them respectively in the land beneath the structure are not adversely affected. If such a deed is executed and brought for registration, the corrections be made by the authorities or else no orders that are made on this motion can be effective and enforceable. 8] Motion is disposed of accordingly. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)