1. This review application is directed against the Judgment dated 23.09.2008 and made in A.S.No.1040 of 2004 on the file of this Court.

2. The review applicant is the first respondent in the appeal in A.S.No.1040 of 2004 and the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.2550 of 1999, on the file of the learned III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the appellants in the appeal and the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The third respondent herein is the second respondent in the appeal and the third defendant in the suit.

3. The facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of the review application are as under:

3.1.The review applicant has filed the suit in O.S.No.2550 of 1999 against the respondents herein for the following reliefs:

a. for dividing the schedule mentioned property into four equal shares by metes and bounds and allotting 1/4th share to the plaintiff;

b. for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men etc.,from alienating or encumbering the suit property of her 1/4th share; and

c. for costs.

3.2. One Mrs.Sundaravalli, who is none other than the mother of the review applicant and the respondents had inherited the plaint schedule property under Ex.A2 settlement deed dated 28.04.1964 through her mother Mrs.Radhammal, under which she was given the right of enjoyment in respect of the plaint schedule property till her lifetime and after her death the review applicant and the respondents shall enjoy the property equally.

3.3.The review applicant's mother Mrs.Sundaravalli had expired on 15.02.1994 and after her death the suit property was enjoyed and possessed by the respondents. When the review applicant demanded her 1/4th share in the suit property, the first and second respondents herein had refused to give her share. Hence, she has preferred the suit for partition of 1/4th share and also for permanent injunction as aforestated.

3.4.The third respondent/third defendant remained exparte. The respondents 1 and 2 have contended in their written statement saying that their mother Mrs.Sundaravalli died on 15.02.1994 leaving behind them, review applicant and 3rd respondent as her legal representatives. That on 06.08.1981 the review applicant (plaintiff) had executed a release deed (Ex.B1) and thereby she had relinquished her right, title and interest. After the execution of the said release deed dated 06.08.1981, the review applicant had no right, title and interest or any share in the plaint schedule property. The respondents 1 and 2 in their written statement have also contended that the third respondent / third defendant, who is one of the co-sharer, had also released her right, title and interest in the suit property in favour of them and as such they became absolute owners of the suit property.

3.5.For the written statement filed by the respondents 1 and 2, the review applicant has filed a reply statement contending that to the best of her knowledge she had not executed any release deed as alleged by the respondents 1 and 2 on 06.08.1981. In fact, on the alleged date of execution of release deed viz. 06.08.1981 the review applicant was a minor aged about 16 years and 7 months. As per the settlement deed dated 28.04.1964, the review applicant and the respondents would be acquiring right over the suit property only after the death of their mother Mrs.Sundaravalli, who died on 15.02.1994. If at all any release deed was executed by the plaintiff on 06.08.1981 it is not valid as the review applicant and the respondents did not have any right over the suit property at that time.

3.6.In order to substantiate their respective cases, the parties to the suit were made to face the trail. On evaluating the evidences both oral and documentary, the learned trail Judge had decreed the suit as prayed for. Impugning the Judgment of the trail Court, the respondents 1 and 2 herein being the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit had preferred an appeal before this Court in A.S.No