The main legal point established in the judgment is that the bequeathing of the Will in favor of the unborn children was void based on the provisions of the Hindu Disposition of Property Act, 1916 and The Miscellaneous Personal Laws (Extension) Act, 1959.

R. MALA, J.

1. The present review application has been filed against the Decree and Judgment dated 03.03.2011 made in A.S.No.1037 of 2007.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

The first respondent herein as plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.36 of 2005 on the file of the District Court, Salem for specific performance on the basis of the sale agreement dated 20.10.2004. The review petitioners who are the defendants in the said suit raised the plea that the document is not a sale agreement but it was only a security for the amount borrowed. However, the Trial Court after considering the submissions made by both sides had decreed the suit. Against the said judgment of the Trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.1037 of 2007, wherein the judgment of the Trial court was confirmed. Against the said judgment of the appellate Court, the defendants/appellants preferred an Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the said SLP came to be dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner/appellant/defendants to file review against the order passed by the learned Single Judge so as to bring to his notice the provisions of the Hindu Disposition of Property Act, 1916 (herein after called as the 'Act') and The Miscellaneous Personal Laws (Extension) Act, 1959. Thus, the review petitioners have now come before this Court seeking review of the order made in A.S.No.1037 of 2007.

3. The learned counsel for the review petitioners/ appellants/defendants has come forward with this review petition stating that while deciding the appeal, this Court has not considered the Hindu Disposition of Property Act, 1916 and The Miscellaneous Personal Laws (Extension) Act, 1959. So, the finding regarding the bequest in favour of the 6th and 7th review petitioners as void has to be reviewed in as much as the absolute estate has been given to the 6th and 7th review petitioner under the Ex.B.1/Will. The review petitioner 2 and 4 have been given only life estate in the Will. As per Section 2 and 3 of the Hindu Disposition of Property Act, 1916, the Will in favour of the unborn child is valid. So, the review petitioners 6 and 7 are having vested interest in the property and since they are minors, the interest of the minors has to be safeguarded. Thus, the finding in respect of bequest in favour of 6th and 7th review petitioners is void has to be reviewed. To substantiate his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions:

1. Raman Nadar Vishwanathan Nadar and Others vs. Snehappoo Rasalamma and Others, AIR 1970 SC 1759

2. N. Radhakrishna Naidu and Others vs. S. Govindaswami Naidu and Another, 1975 (1) MLJ 212

3. Javvadi Venkata Satyanarayana vs. Pyboyina Manikyan and Others, AIR 1983 Andhra Pradesh 139 and submits that as per Section 2 and 3 of the Hindu Disposition of Property Act, 1916, the Will in favour of the unborn child is valid. Hence, the learned counsel for the review petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

4. Resisting the same, Mr.Ar.L.Sunderasan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the review itself is not maintainable because it is a well settled principle that the review of the order passed by the competent Court is possible only under 3 circumstances namely,

(i) On discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by a party at the time when the decree was passed or order made.

(ii) On account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

(iii) For any other sufficient reasons.

However, in the given case on hand, none of the above three circumstances exists. Hence, the review itself is not maintainable. To substantiate his argument, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision reported in K. Alliammal vs. Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravida Welfare Department, Tirupattur, 2008 (2) L.W. 156. Further, the ig