Annamma Chandapillai vs Anil

A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—Taken up today, suo motu, as certain typographical errors were noticed in our judgment dated 24.6.2013, reported in Annamma Chandapillai Vs. Anil, . The last sentence of paragraph (22), as it stands how, is as under:-

Here, we would hasten to add that the respondent had a case that he was ready to execute the sale deed in the name of the appellant''s son only.

It is factually incorrect. What we intended was that the respondent had no case that he was ready to execute the sale deed in the name of the appellant''s son only. Therefore, we order that the last sentence of paragraph (22) shall stand corrected as under:-

Here, we would hasten to add that the respondent had no case that he was ready to execute the sale deed in the name of the appellant''s son only.

Yet another mistake we notice is in the last sentence of paragraph (24) of the judgment. There, the word "disallowing" has to be corrected and read as "disowning". We, therefore, order that the last sentence in paragraph (24) of the judgment shall stand modified as under: It appears that the purport of the section is that the agent cannot take undue advantage under a contract by disowning the agency.

This order shall form part of our judgment dated 24.6.2013. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel appearing for both sides. Inform the reporters also.