A review is limited to correcting apparent errors in the record, not a re-evaluation of the case, reaffirming that findings must strike readily without extensive reasoning.

1. The present petition has been filed for reviewing the judgment and decree passed in RSA No. 145 of 2022, titled Banka Dei (since deceased) through her LRs versus Watuli Devi, decided on 29.9.2023. It has been asserted that the learned District Judge has reversed the findings of the learned Trial Court in a slipshod manner. The findings were not discussed by the learned District Judge and he had failed to comply with Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that the Appellate Court is required to give reasons for findings to differ from the findings of the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff by giving specific and categorical reasons holding that the defendant was in adverse possession. The points determined by the learned Trial Court were not touched by the learned District Judge. The revenue record does not prove the title of the property. The plaintiff had failed to establish and substantiate her title. No evidence was led to prove the family partition and no decree for possession could have been passed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had failed to prove when she was dispossessed from the suit land and in the absence of the actual date of dispossession, the suit of the plaintiff could not have been decreed. The defendants had specifically pleaded that they had been in possession of the suit land for more than 12 years before the filing of the suit and had become the owner by way of adverse possession. Learned Appellate Court had wrongly held that the entry of Davedar Bai was wrongly recorded. The husband of the defendant has purchased the suit land and the entry was rightly recorded. The plaintiff’s father had sold the suit land to the defendant on 15.6.1977 for ₹500/- and executed a document on 28.5.1980. This document was placed on record as Mark-X. The defendant had taken a plea of adverse possession in the alternative. The possession of the defendant was required to be protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendants were put in possession on 15.6.1977 and a document was executed to this effect on 28.5.1980. This fact had skipped the mind of the Court while delivering the judgment. Other cosharers were not impleaded and no declaration could have been granted in their absence. Therefore, it was prayed that the present review petition be allowed and the judgment passed by this Court be reviewed.

2. I have heard Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sumit Shrma, learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants.

3. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners/defendants submitted that the judgment passed by this Court suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record. The land is owned by various co-sharers and all of them were not impleaded as parties. There was no proper identification of the land and the suit could not have been decreed in the absence of the identification. The suit was not within limitation as the plaintiff has not proved the date of her dispossession. The suit for possession can only be filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession. The learned District Judge had not complied with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC as the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court were not discussed before reversing them. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by this Court be reviewed.

4. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records