2007 Supreme(SC) 1560

Supreme Court Of India
S.BAGIRATHI AMMAL - Appellant
Versus
PALANI ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION - Respondent
Appeal (Civil) 79 Of 2002
Decided On : 12/06/2007
.

IMPORTANT POINT
The error for invoking provision of review should be something more than a mere error and must be an error of inadvertence. It must be manifest on the face of the record.

Headnote:(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLVII Rule 1 – Grounds for invoking Review provision – Provision can be invoked if any of the 4 grounds, including where error is apparent on the face of the record or is a palpable wrong is satisfied – The error should be something more than a mere error and must be an error of inadvertence – It must be manifest on the face of the record – Review will lie if the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the appellant – In review parties are not entitled re-hearing. (Para 5)

       (b) The Tamil Nadu City tenants Protection Act, 1921 – Section 1 (f) – Finding of the High Court and investigation report of Magistrate – Roman Catholic Mission held a religious institution. (Para 6)

       (c) Madras City Tenants’ Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 – Section 9 and 1(3) – Land belonging to religious institution or religious charity of Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religion exempted from operation of section 9 – Respondent Roman Catholic Mission being a religious institution – Amended section 1(3) gives the respondent a valuable right of exemption from provisions of the principal Act. (Para 8)

       (2000) 3 M. L. J. 616; 2005 (5) CTC 494 – Referred

       (d) Section 9 – Tenant complying with section 9(1)(b) an depositing the amount within the fixed time – Court obliged to pass order directing conveyance of property by landlord to tenant – Unless conveyance is made, suit will be pending – Instantly, on the date of the amendment Act coming into force, sale deed as not executed – High Court rightly held that respondent was entitled to exemption. (Para 11, 12)

       Facts of the case:

       THE respondent herein was the owner of the suit vacant land in question. In 1959, the suit land was leased out for five years by the respondent to the appellant herein.

       After the expiry of the lease period, the respondent wanted the appellant to vacate the premises.

       Respondent’s O. S. No. 76 of 1977 for delivery of possession was decreed in favour of the respondent while O. P. No. 4 of 1977 filed by the appellant for purchase of the land by her was erroneously dismissed and an order of eviction was passed against the appellant.

       Against the said dismissal order, the appellant filed A. S. No. 121 of 1978. The appellate court allowed the appeals of the appellant directing the respondent to sell the land to the appellant for an amount of Rs. 65,092. 50.

       Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed S. A. No. 2149 of 1981 and C. R. P. No. 2204 of 1980 which were dismissed. S. L. Ps. were also dismissed.

       After the stay order operating from 1980 to 1985 continuously ceased to operate, the appellant deposited the full site value. With the dismissal of the S. L. Ps by this Court and the deposit of the full site value by the appellant, the same became final.

       In the year 1985, the appellant filed an execution petition for execution of the sale deed of the land in his favour by the respondent.

       On the other hand, the respondent filed an execution petition executing the compromise decree in O. S. No. 218 of 1969.

       The executing Court allowed E. P. filed by the appellant for execution of the sale deed and dismissed E. P. filed by the respondent. Dissatisfied therewith, the respondent filed C. R. P. No. 1445 of 1988 against the order in E. P. No. 79 of 1983 and A. A. O. No. 767 of 1989 against the order in E. P. No. 257 of 1985. Both the petitions were heard together and the same were dismissed by the High Court. On 28. 10. 1996, the sale deed in favour of the appellant was executed by the Court of district Munsif, Palani. The sale deed was registered as document No. 1908 of 1996 in the Registrar’s office.

       On 7. 2. 1997, the appellant filed an application E. A. No. 820 of 1996 for return of the duly registered sale deed and the same was allowed. The C. R. P. filed by the Registrar was dismissed and the Registrar returned the sale deed to the executing Court.

       The respondent filed an application in the review applications for producing additional documents which was allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court. As a result of the order of the High Court, the proceedings for return of the registered sale deed to the appellant was dismissed by the executing Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court is justified in granting the relief as provided under the amended Act (Act No. 2 of 1996) by allowing the review applications.

       Result:

       Appeal dismissed.