The Court's decision was based on the factual findings and evidence presented, and no question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal.

1. S.A. No. 1098 of 1994 had been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 27.06.1994, made in A.S. No. 24 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.03.1993 made in O.S. No. 468 of 1985 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.

2. The defendant in the suit was the appellant in the second appeal. The suit was filed for partition. It had been dismissed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court. The second appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"(1) Whether the lower Court is right in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 55 cents, though the sale deed is for lesser extent?

(2) Whether the lower Court is correct in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to larger extent when the sale deed described specified boundaries, within which he purchased the property?"

3. The second appeal was argued at length by the learned Counsel for the appellant and for the respondent. Thereafter, by judgment dated 12.01.2012, Honourable Mr. Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar (as his Lordship then was), held as follows:

"The Lower Appellate Court has given a finding considering the factual aspects, to the effect that the respondent herein/plaintiff got the land to an extent of 54, cents as per Ex-A1. The Commissioner appointed by the Trial Court with the consent of the defendant has given a report to an extent of 1 acre 40 cents. The property devolve on the appellant/ defendant was to an extent of 65 cents. Over and above 54 + 65 cents, there is excess land, which the Lower Appellate Court has ordered to be partitioned equally between the plaintiff and the defendant. The said finding is rendered based on the Commissioner's report and plan. Exs.A-1 to A-9 as well as the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and DW-1. There is no perversity in the said findings, calling for interference by this Court.

No question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal and consequently the second appeal is dismissed. No costs."

4. No further appeal was preferred in the Supreme Court as against the said judgment. However, the appellant filed the review application in Rev. Aplc. (MD) No. 27 of 2012. The said review application was not been admitted. Notice was ordered and the respondent had entered appearance.

5. In the grounds seeking review of the judgment of this Court in S.A. No. 1098 of 1994, dated 12.01.2012, it had been stated that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, namely, description of the land. It had been stated that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was also stated that the plaintiff had not proved that she is entitled to an extent of 55 cents in O.S. No. 2019-A in the suit property.

6. Before discussing the facts any further, it must be mentioned that the case of the plaintiff and the defendant had been extracted in the judgment in the second appeal as follows:

"3. The case of the plaintiff/respondent before the Trial Court was that the suit property in Old S. No. 2019-A, an extent of 118 cents at Medhukummal Village was resurveyed as Resurvey No. 113/6 of Kulapuram Village with an extent of 1 acre 45 cents. In the year 1967, a partition took place between Chandrika Bai and the defendant in the suit and the defendant was allotted 63 cents, out of the total extent of 118 cents. However, factually 145 cents of land were available for partition. The remaining extent has to be equally divided between the plaintiff and the defendant as the said property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the defendant. In the suit property, i.e. S. No. 113/6, plaintiff and defendant alone are claiming rights.

4. The suit was opposed by the defendant/appellant herein contending that old S. No. 2019/A of Medhukummal Village was having an extent of 6 acres 86 cents and not 118 cents as stated in the plaint. On 18.03.1105 (ME) partition took place and the en