Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. The review petition has to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground.

By invoking section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C, the Tamilnadu Housing Board sought to review the judgment and decree rendered by this Court by Justice Swamidurai, J, as he then was, in Second Appeal No. 1526 of 1988 dated 7-4-1994 on the ground of legal error causing injustice to the appellant herein.

2. The suit property, a land situated in Survey No. 140/4 in Kodambakkam village within the Registration district of Madras bounded on North by 8th Avenue R.S.No. 140/3, on east by property of Appavoo Mudaliar and 48th street on the west by 1st Avenue Main Road, on south by plot -30 with the superstructure thereon and marked in the plaint sketch filed along with the plaint, was claimed to have belonged to one Mr.Viswam, the 1st plaintiff, who died during the pendency of the proceedings, and consequently his legal representatives 2 to 11 were brought on record. Claiming title on the basis of a long adverse possession pursuant to the grant made by one Appavoo Mudaliar to the 1st plaintiff Viswam long back apprehending interference by the Tamilnadu Housing Board under the pretext of the acquisition done to the surrounding area, the relief of permanent injunction was prayed for in the suit filed by the said Viswam. The suit was resisted by the Tamilnadu Housing Board by filling a written statement specifically denying the very title of the plaintiff to the land and contending that the same has been acquired long back and for which compensation amount duly fixed, has been paid already and out of grace and sympathy, the plaintiff was allowed to reside therein by putting a hut and however, filing of a suit without giving notice to the Authorities as provided under Section 138 of the Tamilnadu Housing Board Act, is clearly a total bar and that even so, the Housing Board has got possession from the Government after the acquisition proceedings were over and thus the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable.

3. On recording the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in its entirety. However, on appeal in A.S.NO.60 of 1985, the learned lower appellate Court Judge viz., the V Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras by his judgment dated 26-12-1985 allowed the appeal by accepting the case of the plaintiff and thus granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff who is the respondent herein. Aggrieved at this, the unsuccessful defendant preferred Second Appeal No. 1526 of 1988 before this Court. After hearing the respective parties in detail, my learned brother Justice Swamidurai, J, as he then was, on 7-4-1994, delivered the judgment confirming the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court and thus rejected the second appeal. On the basis of certain manifest error since resulted in great injustice to the appellant this review was sought for by and on behalf of the appellant as aforesaid.

3. Mr. T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant dwelt his first attack upon the judgment in question for the purpose of review by my notice the very averments made in paragraphs-3, 4 and 5 of the plaint which were mostly relied upon by all the courts concurrently which are as hereunder:

“ para.3: The plaintiff is the absolute owner of Plot A-29, I Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Madras-83 more fully described in the Schedule hereunder, it being his ancestral property and the plaintiff has been in peaceful continuous and uninterrupted possession of the property for the past over 30 years”.

“ para.4: In the year 1966 there has been proceedings for the development of the nearby lands and there had been land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of rehabilitation of slum dwellers in the nearby Kanniappa Nagar, but the same lands had been later on abandoned since the purpose for which the lands were sought to be acquired no longer existed. The plaintiff submits that the land adjacent in the plaintiff’s property was owned by one Ap