Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Sekar & Another - Appellant
Versus
Arthanari - Respondent
Rev.Appl. No. 33 of 2010 & M.P. No. 1 of 2010
Decided On : 17-08-2022
Tampered Document - Property Dispute - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 101 to 103 - U.D.R. Scheme - D.K.T. No. 1513/68 - S. No. 332/1 - S. No. 332/3 - Exs. A-1 to A-7 - Exs. B.1/B.9
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over a property, alleging trespass by the defendants. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision. The plaintiff filed a second appeal, challenging the interpretation of assignment documents by the lower courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the assignment document produced by the defendants was tampered with, leading to a wrongful interference with the justice delivery system. The court dismissed the review application and directed the trial court to proceed against the defendants for producing a tampered document.
Issues: Interpretation of assignment documents, tampering of evidence, review jurisdiction
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of strict review jurisdiction, the discovery of new evidence, and the prohibition of review based on erroneous decisions. It also highlighted the need to address tampering of documents and its impact on the administration of justice.
Final Decision: The review application was dismissed, the judgment of the second appeal was retained, and the trial court was directed to proceed against the defendants for producing a tampered document.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.12.209 passed by her Lordship Miss. Justice R.Mala in S.A.No. 203 of 1993.)
1. The respondents in S.A. No. 203 in 2003, Sekar and Lakshmiammal, aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.12.2009, by which judgment, the second appeal had been allowed, thereby reversing the judgment of the first appellate Court in A.S. No. 3 of 1999 are the review applicants herein.
2. They were the defendants in O.S. No 63 of 1990 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.
3. O.S. No. 63 of 1990 had been filed by the plaintiff, Arthanari seeking declaration of title over the suit properties and for permanent injunction to protect possession. Since it was alleged that pending the suit, the defendants therein, Sekar and Laksmiammal, the review applicants herein, had trespassed into the suit property, the plaint was amended to include the relief of recovery of possession.
4. By judgment dated 16.11.1998, the Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi, decreed the suit.
5. The review applicants herein/defendants in the suit, then filed A.S. No. 3 of 1999 before the Sub Court, Kallakurichi. By judgment dated 23.11.2001, the appeal suit was allowed and the decree in the suit was reversed and the suit was dismissed.
6. The plaintiff, Arthanzri then filed S.A. No. 203 of 2003 before this Court.
7. The second appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
1. “Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in law in reversing the judgment of the trial court, without setting aside the findings rendered by the trial court ?
2. When the appellant has established his title and right over the suit property by producing Exs. A-1 to A-7, whether the lower appellate Court is justified in law in its interpretation of the said documents ?
3. Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in law in assuming that R.S. 332/1A2 had been subdivided as R.S. 333/2, especially when there is neither any plea nor any evidence for arriving at such conclusion ?
4. Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in law in holding that th suit property was assigned to one Subbaraya Gounder, especially when there are no materials on record, in total contravention of the imperative provisions of Sections 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ?”
8. It would be only appropriate to have a brief look into the background facts.
9. The plaintiff, Arthanari claimed to have purchased the suit property, vacant land in Dry R.S. No. 332/3, measuring 3 acres and 29 cents (now subdivided as R.S. No. 332/3A measuring 1.25.0 hectares and R.S. No. 332/3B measuring 0.08.0 ares) under U.D.R. Scheme, and situated at Thottapadi Village, Kallakurichi, by a registered sale deed dated 23.3.1987 from the original owner Shanmugam. He had also obtained patta No. 227. Claiming interference from the defendants, Sekar and Lakshmiammal, the suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction to protect possession. However, alleging that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants had encroached onto the suit lands, the relief was amended to include recovery of possession.
10. The defendants, Sekar and Lakshmiammal, who are the review applicants herein, in their written statement disputed the title of Shanmugam, the vendor of the plaintiff. They claimed to be in possession and therefore claimed to have prescribed title by adverse possession. They filed additional written statement asserting possession and further claimed that the suit lands had been assigned by the Government to one Subbaraya Gounder under D.K.T. No. 1513/68, dated 13.08.1959, and that patta No. 430 was also granted. The 1st defendant, Sekar claimed to be the brother’s son of the said Subbaraya Gounder, and therefore also claimed right to title over the suit lands.
11. The parties went to trial. The plaintiff was examined as P.W,1. He marked his sale deed dated 23.08.
The judgment underscores the significance of maintaining the integrity of evidence and the limitations of review jurisdiction, while emphasizing the consequences of tampering with documents in legal ....
A review is limited to correcting apparent errors in the record, not a re-evaluation of the case, reaffirming that findings must strike readily without extensive reasoning.
A review petition is maintainable where there is fraud, suppression of material facts and developments involving the same land and that too when the property already became a property of the State.
Review Petition – Jurisdiction of High Court while exercising review cannot be exercised as an inherit power nor as Appellate Court be exercised in guise of power of review – Power of review may be e....
The power of review is limited to correcting apparent errors on the record and cannot be used to rehash arguments or findings that have been previously settled.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of review jurisdiction, emphasizing the requirement for a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and the court's ina....
Court can exercise its power of review only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and an error which is to be fished out by a process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error ap....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
