Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 189
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R.S. RAMANATHAN, J.
Subramaniam
Versus
Jayarama Reddy (died) & Others
Review Petition No. 212 of 2011
Decided On : 28-01-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M.V. Venkataseshan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M.S. Subramanian, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review petition cannot be used to re-argue the case and can only be entertained if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
Headnote:
Review Petition - Property Dispute - Exs.A.1, A.2, A.3 - The court discussed the legal principles related to the scope of review and the grounds for entertaining a review petition. It emphasized that a review petition cannot be used to re-argue the case and can only be entertained if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The court held that the review petitioner failed to prove possession and ownership of the disputed property, and therefore, dismissed the Review Petition.
Fact of the Case:
The review petitioner's mother filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of a property. The suit was dismissed, and subsequent appeals were also unsuccessful. The review petition was filed challenging the judgment of the Second Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the review petitioner failed to prove possession and ownership of the disputed property. It emphasized the limited scope of review and the grounds for entertaining a review petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the review petitioner had proved possession and ownership of the disputed property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a review petition cannot be used to re-argue the case and can only be entertained if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. It held that the review petitioner failed to prove possession and ownership of the disputed property.
Final Decision: The Review Petition was dismissed, and no order as to costs was given.
1. The appellant in Second Appeal No.519 of 1998 is the revision petitioner. The mother of the review petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.21 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur, for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the property measuring East – West 76 ft. and North – South 26 ft. bounded on the West by Mannady Street, North by property belonging to Singara Reddy, South by Street, East by a vacant site belonged to Arumuga Reddy and a house constructed thereon. The suit was dismissed and the Appeal filed by the plaintiff in A.S.No.99 of 1987 was also dismissed and the legal representatives of the plaintiff filed Second Appeal that was also dismissed by me by judgment dated 17.06.2011. Aggrieved over the judgment dated 17.06.2011 made in Second Appeal No.519 of 1998, this Review Petition is filed.
2. Mr. M.V. Venkataseshan, learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that during the arguments of the Second Appeal, it was not brought to the notice of this Court the recitals in Exs.A.1 and A.2 wherein the title of the suit property to an extent of 26 feet North – South and 26 ft East – West bounded on the West by Mannady Street and South by Street, North by property belonging to Singara Reddy, East by a vacant site belonged to Arumuga Reddy and the western boundary is fixed boundary and therefore, when under Exs.A.1 and A.2, land with a house having western boundary in the street with the measurement of 26 East – West and 26 ft. North – South was sold to the plaintiff's predecessor in title, the plaintiff proved her title to the suit property even though the oral sale pleaded by the plaintiff's vendor was not proved. In other words, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, western boundary of the suit property is Mannady Street and under Exs.A.1 and A.2, the property East of Mannady having measurement of 26 x 26 ft was sold to the plaintiff's predecessor in title and under Ex.A.3, a larger extent was sold to the plaintiff and that would not lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not owner of the property lying East of the Mannady Street purchased under Exs.A.1 and A.2 and the plaintiff also proved title and possession to the suit property and those aspects were not properly appreciated and therefore, the judgment rendered in Second Appeal has to be reviewed and the Review Petition has to be allowed. In support of his contention, he also relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) Sundarambal vs. V.Ramaiya Pillai [2000(2) T.L.N.J.6]
(ii) Mariammal & another Vs.Subbuthai & others [2013-4-L.W.360]
(iii) S.R.Srinivasa and others Vs. S.Padmavathamma [2010(5)CTC 364 (SC)
3. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Subramanian, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the scope of review is very limited and no case has been brought out to review the judgment rendered in Second Appeal No.519 of 1998 and if the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner is accepted it amounts to re-hearing the Second Appeal, which is not permissible and there is no error apparent on the face of the record and having regard to the fact that both the Courts concurrently held that he review petitioner did not prove his possession or title to the suit property, the suit was dismissed and the same was confirmed in the Second Appeal and therefore, the Review Petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he also relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) B.Dhanalakshmi Vs. M.Shajahan and others [AIR 2004 MADRAS 512]
(ii) Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others [(1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 715]
(iii) K.M.Karuppana Gounder (died) & others Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyar District, Erode & others [2013 (5) CTC 146]
4. The learned counsel for the review petitioner, Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan, tried to convince me by taking through the recitals in Exs.A2 and A.3. Further, according to the learned counsel, the plan annexed along with
