Error apparent on the face of record also includes error of law.

This is a petition to review the Judgment, dated 6th January, 1972 of Ganesan, J., in C.R.P. No. 916 of 1971, which was filed under section 83 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961.

2. The petitioner Valliammal, is the wife of one Palanisami Gounder. The husband of the petitioner filed a Return in Form II, as required under section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in which he had shown that he was in possession of an extent of 44.061 standard acres, after excluding the exempted lands. He had also shown that bis wife, Valliammal, had inherited 11.075 stanard acres on the death of her son on 25th March, 1962. The husband of the petitioner claimed in that Return that as per the Act, he was entitled to retain 30 standard acres as holding of the family and that his wife Valliammal, the petitioner herein, was entitled to hold 10 standard acres as Stridhana property. After issuing notices to the petitioner and her husband, the Authorised Officer, Land Reform , Coimbatore, by his order dated 3rd December, 1969, held that since the petitioner and her husband form a Hindu joint family, the family as a unit, was entitled to hold only 30 standard acres, and that the petitioner herein was not entitled to retain any land as Stiidhana property. Both the petitioner and her husband preferred appeals to the Land Tribunal, Coimbatore. The Tribunal held that since the Act defined “stridhana lands” as meaning any land held on the date of commencement of the Act, by any female member of the family in her own name and since the petitioner herein inherited the land on the death of her son only on 25th March, 1962, i.e., subsequent to the commencement of the Act, she was not entitled to retain any land as Stridhana property. It may be mentioned that the Act came into force on 6th April, 1960. The petitioner filed thereafter C.R.P. No. 916 of 1971 to this Court. By an order dated 6th January, 1972, Ganesan, J., dismissed the revision petition on the ground that in view of the definition of Stridhana land in section 3 (42) of the Act, the petitioner was not entitled to hold 16 standard acres as Stridhana property, in addition to the 30 standard acres allowed to the family consisting of herself and her husband. It is to review this order that the above petition has been filed.

3. A preliminary objection is taken by the learned Counsel for the respondent that since the very point in issue was considered by the learned Judge, no review petition would lie merely on the ground that the view expressed by the learned Judge is erroneous in law. But the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the learned Judge is liable to be reviewed on account of the error of law apparent on the face of the record, under Order 47, rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 1, Order 47 provides that any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order may apply for a review of the judgment "on account of some-mistake or error apparent on the face of the record." The mistake or error within this provision is not confined to mistake or error of facts. Even on a mistake or error of law. if apparent on the face of the record, the order is liable to be reviewed. This was also the view expressed by a division Bench of this Court in Murrari Rao v. Balavanth Dikshit1. In that case, the suit was dismissed On the ground that as between the plaintiffs, who were the various agnates, and the defendants, who were the sister’s sons of the last male owner, the latter were the preferential heirs under the Mitakshara law prevailing in Madras State, contrary to the decision in Kamala Bai v. Bhagirathi Bai2. A review petition was held to be maintainable on the grov.nd of an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

4. I am satisfied, in this case, that the view expressed by the learned Judge in the decision in C.R.P. No. 916 of 1971 is contrary to the provisions of the Act and, th