Malleeswari vs K. Suguna - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1650

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1650

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, S. V. N. BHATTI
Malleeswari – Appellant
Versus
K. Suguna – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. V. Prabhakar, Sr. Adv. Ms. E. R. Sumathy, AOR Mrs. Jyoti Parasher, Adv. Ms. Harmeet Kaur, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy, AOR Mr. Shilp Vinod, Adv. Mr. Gokulakrisnan, Adv. Mr. Avinash Ranjan, Adv. Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. C. Adhikesavan, Adv. Mr. Harikrishnan P.V., Adv. Mr. Dhass Prathap Singh, Adv. Mr. C. Kavin Ananth, Adv. Mrs. Vibha Srivastava, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

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 d