Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Malleeswari – Appellant
VERSUS
K. Suguna And Another – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 11437 of 2025 [@ SLP (C) NO. 12787 of 2025]
Decided On : 08-09-2025
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 – Review Jurisdiction – Right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by statute or rules having force of a statute – Review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on authority or Court – Power of review is different from appellate power – In exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected – Review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise – Power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view – Such powers can be exercised within limits specified in statute governing exercise of power – Review court does not sit in appeal over its own order – A rehearing of matter is impermissible – It constitutes an exception to general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered – It is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors – Courts ought not mix up or overlap one jurisdiction with another jurisdiction. (Paras 15 and 18)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 – Review – Ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by party at the time, original decree or order was passed – Mistake or error apparent on face of record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be one which is manifest on face of record – Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision – An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on face of record – Impugned order has not adverted to an error apparent on face of record, but has taken up an error on reappreciation of the case and counter case of parties – Review order records a few findings extending far beyond actual working out of prayers in a suit for partition – Order impugned has exceeded jurisdiction of review by a court – Order impugned set aside. (Paras 17, 18, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Civil appeal examines whether the order impugned conforms to the scope of review of an order under Section 114 and Order 47 of CPC. The exercise or excess of jurisdiction is determinative on the order under review and the review order.
Findings of Court:
Trial Court is directed to expeditiously dispose of all the pending applications, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
The legal document primarily addresses the scope and limitations of review jurisdiction within the judicial system. It emphasizes that review power cannot be assumed unless explicitly conferred by law, distinguishing it clearly from appellate authority. The court underscores that review is intended for correcting manifest errors or discovering new and important evidence that was not available earlier, rather than re-examining or re-hearing the entire case. The order clarifies that errors which require extensive reasoning to establish are not considered apparent errors suitable for review. Additionally, the document highlights that courts should not mix or overlap review jurisdiction with appellate jurisdiction, as doing so exceeds their legal authority. The decision also notes that a review court does not have the power to reappraise facts or substitute its own view, and that a rehearing of the case is generally impermissible unless related to correcting specific errors within the limited scope of review. Overall, the principles outlined serve to maintain the finality of judgments and prevent the misuse of review proceedings as a substitute for appeals.
JUDGMENT
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Subramani, the husband of the second Respondent, filed OS No. 192 of 2000 in the Court of the District Munsiff at Ponneri for partition of the suit schedule properties into two equal shares and allot one such share to him. The suit in question was filed against Munasamy Naidu, the father of the plaintiff.
3. The original plaintiff and the defendant, since no more, are being represented by the respective heirs and successors in interest. To appreciate the relationship of the present array of parties, the genealogy is stated hereunder:
4. The plaint avers that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and are available for partition between the first plaintiff and the first defendant, being members of the Hindu Undivided Family. To attribute the character of joint Hindu family property, the plaint refers to the registered partition deed dated 22.11.1991 executed between the deceased first defendant and his brother. The suit was filed admittedly without impleading Malleeswari/Appellant in this civil appeal, who is the daughter of Munusamy Naidu and Muniammal. On 25.02.2003, the learned Trial Court passed the ex-parte preliminary decree as prayed for. The first defendant, post the preliminary decree, executed a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2004 in favour of K Suguna/first Respondent for item nos. 4 to 7 of the suit property, and also a settlement deed for item nos. 1 to 3, and 8 to 10 in favour of the Appellant.
5. On 24.01.2005, the second Respondent filed I.A no. 140 of 2006 to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dated 25.02.2003. The first defendant executed a will bequeathing his share to the Appellant. On 13.05.2011, the first defendant died, and the Appellant has been impleaded as the legal heir and successor to the first defendant.
6. The first Respondent, pursuant to final orders in IA nos. 130 and 135 of 2013, has been impleaded as one of the Respondents in the pending final decree proceedings. The subject matter of the appeal arises from the steps taken by the Appellant in I.A no. 1199 of 2018, praying for amending the preliminary decree in terms of her status as one of the co-parceners and entitling her to an equal share along with the father and the brother. The application for amendment of the preliminary decree was opposed by the first and second Respondents. The Appellant’s case is that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (‘HSA 2005’), grants daughters equal coparcenary rights by birth. As a daughter of a living coparcener at the time the act came into force, she is entitled to a 1/3rd share. Thus, she claimed her father’s 1/3rd share through the Will dated 23.04.2008, bringing the total to 2/3rd share. The Appellant further contended that the sale to the first Respondent on 27.12.2004 is invalid as it occurred after the amendment’s cut-off date of 20.12.2004; thus, violating the court’s injunction order.
7. In the objection to the reopening of the preliminary decree, it is contended by the Respondent that the application is barred by limitation, having been filed over 15 years after the preliminary decree and 7 years after the petitioner admittedly became aware of the suit. Further, the Appellant is estopped from challenging the sale to the first Respondent, as she was an attesting witness to the sale deed. Moreover, the preliminary decree had already ascertained and finalized the shares in 2003, before the 2005 amendment came into force. Consequently, the sale was valid and based on prior agreements, and the petitioner’s remedy was to appeal the preliminary decree and not to seek its amendment. Lastly, the settlement deed and Will favouring the Appellant are invalid as they were executed during the pendency of the suit, lis pendens, in violation of the injunction.
8. On 08.03.2019, the Trial Court dismissed IA no. 1199 of 2018 – a petition to amend the preliminary decree dated 25.02.2003.
8.1 It noted that the Appellant was impleaded o
(1) Review – Review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on authority or Court – Power of review is different from appellate power – Courts ought not mix up or overlap one jur....
The court established that the rejection of a plaint must adhere to procedural guidelines and that daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, i....
The court ruled that properties devolved under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act are not ancestral and thus not subject to partition among coparceners.
(1) Second Appeal – In a second appeal, High Court shall not reverse findings of both Courts below except under few situations.(2) Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 enables daughters to exercise....
The amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act grants daughters equal rights as coparceners, allowing them to claim shares in ancestral properties irrespective of their birth date.
A partition suit concerning property inherited from a female Hindu cannot be maintained as coparcenary property, as such property is held as absolute ownership under the Hindu Succession Act.
Daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral property per the amended Hindu Succession Act, 2005.
Daughters have equal coparcenary rights in Hindu Undivided Family properties post-2005 amendment, but prior partitions are valid if established before the amendment.
A partition suit concludes with the final decree, and parties cannot seek modification of shares based on subsequent legislative changes after the final decree is passed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
