Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1325
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
A. SELVAM, J.
Vijayalakshmi & Another – Appellant
Versus
Ochammal – Respondent
Review Application(MD)No. 12 of 2015 & Miscellaneous Petition(MD)No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 13-03-2015
For the Petitioners:G. Prabhu Rajadurai for K. Appadurai, Advocates.
For the Respondent:M.V. Venkataseshan, Advocate.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLVII - Rule 1 - Reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction - Peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit property – Claim of compensation - Plaint it is averred that suit property is comprised in new Survey measuring hectares and its patta - Plaintiff has purchased suit property from its absolute owners by virtue of sale deeds and since then plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of same and in pursuance of her title and enjoyment a patta has been granted in her favor - Property of first defendant is situate immediately on southern side of suit property - Second defendant is brother of first defendant - Since defendants have been making arrangements to disturb peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit property by way of denying her title present suit has been instituted for reliefs sought for in plaint - In written statement filed on side of defendants it is averred that plaintiff has unnecessarily filed present suit by way of imp leading defendants - Second defendant has purchased a property which situates in Survey virtue of sale deed - Likewise first defendant has purchased a vacant site under a registered sale deed and there is no merit in suit and same deserves to be dismissed – Held, Even a mere reading of observations given by Honble Supreme Court it is made clear that first and foremost condition for reviewing any order or Judgment same must suffer from an error apparent on face of record and in absence of any such error finality attached to Judgment order cannot be disturbed - In instant case specific argument put forth on side of respondents defendants in Second Appeal is that they are not having any semblance of right title and interest over suit property and therefore it is totally unwarranted on their part to contend that plaintiff has not identified suit property - It has already been pointed out that by virtue of Exs.A.1 and A.2 and other connected documents plaintiff has clearly identified suit property - Therefore it is quite clear that this Court has not committed any error apparent on face of record and in view of recent decision given by Honble Supreme Court this petition is totally vexatious and therefore contention put forth on side of review petitioners is sans merit - Before parting with this petition it has become sunless to record following aspects - Nowadays it has become fashion to file vexatious frivolous review petitions - Under said circumstances person who indulges in filing review petition with utmost malice should be chastise properly by way of imposing monitory punishment - Under said circumstances this petition should be dismissed with exemplary cost as stated infra - Petition is dismissed
1. This Review Application has been filed against the Judgment and decree passed in Second Appeal(MD)No.402 of 2010.
2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.237 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present review petitioners have been shown as defendants.
3. In the plaint it is averred that the suit property is comprised in new Survey No.297/25b measuring 0.04.0 hectares and its patta number is 4268. The plaintiff has purchased the suit property from its absolute owners by name Mallika Begum and Sahul Hameed by virtue of sale deeds dated 05.03.1997 and since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same and in pursuance of her title and enjoyment a patta has been granted in her favour. The property of the first defendant is situate immediately on the southern side of the suit property. The second defendant is the brother of the first defendant. Since the defendants have been making arrangements to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property by way of denying her title, the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.
4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants, it is averred that the plaintiff has unnecessarily filed the present suit by way of impleading the defendants. The second defendant has purchased a property which situates in Survey No.297/2 by virtue of the sale deed dated 01.09.2014. Likewise the first defendant has purchased a vacant site under a registered sale deed dated 22.05.2003 and there is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of divergent pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants as appellants have preferred Appeal Suit No.64 of 2007 on the file of the first appellate Court.
6. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has allowed the appeal and thereby set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and ultimately dismissed the suit by way of holding that the plaintiff has not been able to identify the suit property. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred Second Appeal(MD)No.402 of 2010..
7. In Second Appeal(MD)No.402 of 2010, this Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the available evidence on record has allowed the same and thereby set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court and restored the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and in order to review the Judgment and decree passed by this Court in Second Appeal(MD)No.402 of 2010, the present Review Application has been filed by the respondents/defendants as petitioners.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners has contended with great vehemence to the effect that the suit property and the properties of the defendants are situate in a larger area and proper identification has not been made on the side of the respondent/plaintiff and the first appellate Court after hearing both sides has rightly set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and this Court has failed to consider the fact that the plaintiff has not been able to identify the suit property and therefore an error apparent on the face of record has occurred in the Judgment and decree passed by this Court and therefore the same are liable to be reviewed.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff has contended that on the side of the respondent/plaintiff enormous documents have been filed for the purpose of proving identity of the suit property and this Court after considering the rival submissions made on either side has rightly allowed Second Appeal(MD)No.402 of 2010 and thereby res
