1. Review petition concerning the inheritance and partibility of estate properties. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 966
Supreme Court Of India
NEHALIPANJIYARA
Versus
SHYAMA DEVI
Decided On : (May 4, 2000) 2002
Important Points
A review petition cannot be entertained on the basis of a new legal contention that was not raised or canvassed before the trial court or the lower appellate courts.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Dispute
Act Referred
Headnote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 114 and Order 47, Rules 1 and 4 - New plea in Review Petition- Entirely a new point about the extinction of the legal heirs in the line of descendants of the estate represented raised in the Review Petition- . Such contention never canvassed before any of the courts below-Not only that, there was no issue sought for on that point even before the trial court- Therefore Review Petition dismissed. [Para 2]
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends that certain legal heirs became extinct prior to the suit, altering the line of inheritance. (Para 2 )
3. The contention regarding the extinction of legal heirs is a new point not raised before the trial court or lower appellate courts. (Para 2 )
4. Review proceedings cannot be used to introduce entirely new contentions that were not canvassed before the lower courts. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Review petition dismissed on merits. (Para 4 )
6. Can a review petition be maintained on the basis of a new legal contention not raised in lower courts?
No, a review petition cannot be entertained if it raises entirely new points or contentions that were never canvassed before the trial court or the courts below. (Para 2 , 3 )
( 1 ) WE have carefully gone through the review petition and the connected papers.
( 2 ) THE review petition raises entirely a new point about the extinction of the legal heirs in the line of descendants of the estate represented by gurudayal Panjiara and Kunjlal Panjiara prior to the institution of the suit and that the said estate stood inherited in amongst the descendants of only matuki Panjiara and Ashrafi Panjiara. Such a contention was never canvassed before any of the courts below. Not only that, there was no issue sought for on this point even before the trial court. In second appeal the only dispute raised was regarding suit properties Items 2 to 8. The High Court confirmed the decision about their partibility in the light of the findings reached by the lower appellate court which has noted in para 49 of its judgment that defendant 2nd party admitted plaintiffs claim for Items 2 to 8 of the schedule.
( 3 ) CONSEQUENTLY, no case is made out for our interference in the review proceedings on the aforesaid new contention.
( 4 ) THE review petition is, therefore, dismissed on merits.
