IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2202 of 2011 Kanhaiya Pandey Versus Radhe Shyam Pandey & Ors ---------------------------------- 3/ 09.12.2011 A Title Suit no. 41 of 1967 was filed by father of respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 namely, late Baban Pandey, for partition of entire joint family ancestral property, in which father of the petitioner, late Sheo Jogi Pandey, was also impleaded as party. The petitioner, who was minor, was impleaded as a party, represented through G.R. The petitioner,s father, who was mentally ill, was represented by his brother Rameshwar Pandey. The title suit was decreed on 22.12.1973. Rameshwar Pandey, who also used to do Pairvi on behalf of Sheo Jogi Pandey (father of the petitioner), challenged the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit no.41 of 1967 before this court in First Appeal no. 121 of 1974. On 28.02.1983 the F.A. No. 11 of 1974 stood dismissed for default. The petitioner submits that similar is the position even today. The final decree since then was prepared and notified on 03.12.1985 and none including Rameshwar Pandey or his heirs raised objections on any of the earlier occasions. An Execution case no. 09 of 1987 was also preferred by the original plaintiff namely Baban Pandey (now dead). Subsequent to orders in Execution case no. 09 of 1987, delivery of possession was given to the parties way back in the year 1991 which was also confirmed on 08.04.1994. 2 The petitioner submits that in the year 2000, as when he took steps for mutation of his name as per his allotted share in T.S. no. 41 of 1967, Rameshwar Pandey and his heirs, who were also some of the defendants in the suit took a plea that Sheojogi Pandey had executed some sale deed in the year 1970 in their favour. The petitioner asserts that his father was a mentally challenged person and was in capable of understanding things. The sale deed is a fraudulent document. In the suit also he was dependant upon his brother to do Pairvi for his cause as well. The petitioner asserts that his father never executed any sale deed nor did he ever inform him of it. In these backgrounds, it has been submitted that the sale deed is a fraudulent document. On the basis of the said sale deed, now the heirs of late Rameshwar Pandey, is seeking alteration in the final decree of 1985. The petitioner, thus, made objection to alterations sought in the final decree, which was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dismissing his objection petition in the writ application. It appears that the trial court has not passed any order either modifying or altering the final decree. It is well settled that a court would be within its right to correct clerical errors in the decree. A trial court cannot make material alterations in final decree at variance with the preliminary decree. The trial court has observed that clerical errors can be corrected at any time. In such circumstances, I am not inclined 3 to interfere with the impugned order dated 26.10.2010 passed by learned Sub-Judge-II, Arrah. It will be always open for the petitioner to move appropriate court, if material alterations are made in the final decree. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)