A claim for title based on adverse possession cannot be sustained if it contradicts established legal principles, and a change in subsequent law does not provide grounds for review of final judgments.

COMMON ORDER

O.S.No.106 of 2007 and O.S.No.114 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Munsiff, Kayamkulam were tried and disposed by a common judgment, against which the plaintiff in O.S.No.106 of 2007, who is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.114 of 2007, preferred separate appeals before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court concurred with the trial court and dismissed the appeals. O.S.No.106 of 2007 was filed by the review petitioner for a declaration of his title by adverse possession and also for injunction. O.S.No.114 of 2007 is filed by the respondent in the review petition against the review petitioner for a declaration of their title and also for fixation of boundary and injunction.

2. Aggrieved by the finding of the lower appellate court, the matter was taken up in second appeal before this Court. These appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated 03.08.2016 finding that the principles in Gurdwara Sahib v.

Gram Panchayat Village, Sirthala [ 2014 (1) SCC 669 ] go against the review petitioner and he cannot maintain a suit for declaration based on a plea of adverse possession.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel contended that this Court in Thomas v. Lonappan [ 2016(4) KLT 637 ] took a view that the binding precedent regarding maintainability of a suit for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession is declared inSarangadeva Periya Matam v. Ramaswami Goundar [AIR 1966 SC 1603]. It is also contended that in Thomas's case (supra), it has been held that the principles in Gurdwara Sahib's case cannot be applied to all cases regardless of the facts and circumstances. The principles inSarangadeva's case will rule the field and therefore, a suit for a declaration on the claim of adverse possession is found to be maintainable.

5. Learned counsel for the review petitioner contended that there is an error apparent on the face of judgment because this Court did not consider the binding precedent by the Supreme Court inSarangadeva's case. Relying on Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club [2005 (4) SCC 741], learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the words “sufficient reason” in order 47 Rule 1 CPC are enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. According to him, non-consideration of the principles inSarangadeva's case is a ground for entertaining a petition for review under Order 47 Rule 1.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that subsequent change of law is not a ground for review. He relied onNand Kishore Ahirwar v. Haridas Parsedia [ 2001 (9) SCC 325 ] which lays down a proposition that even if subsequent Constitution Bench takes a review, it will be no ground for reviewing the judgment in question, which has become final.

7. The apex Court in Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana [2000 (1) KLT 697 SC] has held that the judgment sought to be reviewed if overruled in another case subsequently is no ground for reviewing in the said decision. A Division Bench of this Court has also taken the same view in Board of Revenue v. P.K.Syed Akbar Sahib [1973 KLT 497]. It has been decided that subsequent binding decision would not constitute either the discovery of a new and import matter or a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

8. Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Maskara v.

State pf West Bengal [ 2015 (2) SCC 653 ] has declared the law that subsequent change in law after judgment has attained finality inter partes, is not a ground to review the final judgment, which must be effectuated.

9. Learned counsel for the review petitioner contended that the decision was rendered without noticing the binding precedent in Sarangadeva's case. However, I do not think that it is a reason for finding that there is an error apparent on the face of the record enabling the petitioner to approach this Court under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. It is well settled th