Rev. Appl. Nos. 59 of 2020 & 101 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.07.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

Rev. Appl. Nos. 59 of 2020 & 101 of 2021

and

C.M.P.No. 12116 of 2021

against

S.A. No. 812 of 2013

& C.M.P.No. 3417 of 2020

R.Vijayasamundeeswari,

W/o. Late T.K.Ravichandra Mouli

.. Petitioner in

both R.A.s

Vs.

P.Anandavalli ammal (died)

2. Lakshmikantham

W/o. Late Adimoolam

3. Perumal Mudaliar

4. P.Siva Selvam

5. Vijayalakshmi

6. Poonkuzhali

7. P.Athithan

1/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev. Appl. Nos. 59 of 2020 & 101 of 2021

(R3 to R7 are impleaded as legal heirs

of deceased R1 vide Court order

dated 10.11.2022 made in C.M.P.

Nos. 19175 & 19183 of 2022)

.. Respondents in

both R.A.s

PRAYER in Rev.Appl. No.59 of 2020 : Review Application filed under

Order XLVII Rule 1 Sec.114 of C.P.C., praying to review and reconsider

the order dated 02.03.2020 in C.M.P.No.3417 of 2020 in S.A.No. 81 of

2023 passed by this Court.

PRAYER in Rev.Appl. No.101 of 2021 : Review Application filed under

Order XLVII Rule 1 Sec.114 of C.P.C., praying to review and reconsider

the order dated 02.03.2020 in S.A.No. 81 of 2023 passed by this Court.

For Petitioner in

: Mr. T.M.Hariharan for

both R.A.s

Mr.M.Vijayakumar

For Respondents

: Mr.K.Doraisamy,

in both R.A.s

Senior Advocate for

Mr.A.Bharathi for R1

Mr.S.Sethuraman for R2

C O M M O N O R D E R

2/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev. Appl. Nos. 59 of 2020 & 101 of 2021

The Review Petitioner herein is a third party to the Second Appeal.

The 2^nd respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.113 of 2007 on the file of

Sub-Judge, Tindivanam against the 1^st respondent herein for the relief of

declaration that she is the absolute owner of 6 acres and 26 cents of land in

Survey No.61/1, Pallipattu village, Tindivanam and also prayed to declare

the sale deed, which stands in the name of 1^st respondent/defendant dated

28.09.2000 as sham and nominal document.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the

ranking in the suit.

3. The case of plaintiff is that the property originally belongs to her

father Arumuga Mudaliar and after his demise, as a only daughter, she is a

absolute owner of the property, but her daughter Rajeswari seems to have

executed a sale deed in favour of this defendant based on the Will said to be

executed by her parents Arumuga Mudaliar and Visalakshi in the year of

1995, but the alleged Will was forged one. So, the vendor of defendant has

no title, thereby she prayed to declare the sale deed stands in the name of

3/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev. Appl. Nos. 59 of 2020 & 101 of 2021

defendant as null and void. On the contrary, the defendant Anandhavalli

contested the suit stating that the vendor Rajeswari was one of the grand

daughters of Arumuga Mudaliar and Visalakshi, through plaintiff, she was

brought up by a testator and out of love and affection, they have executed a

Will, based on that, she perfected her title from the year of 1995 onwards,

but the defendant and her husband cultivating the lands much earlier from the

year of 1988. Subsequently, the beneficiary Rajeswari executed a sale deed

in her favour in the year of 2000, thereby she became absolute owner. After

fullfledged trial, the trial court disagreed with the claim of defendant and

also not accepted the title of her vendor and consequently declared that the

plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. Against which, an appeal

in A.S.No.31 of 2012 was filed, wherein the first appellate judge also

confirmed the findings of the trial court by dismissing the appeal. Against

which, the defendant Anandavalli preferred the present Second Appeal in

S.A.No. 812 of 2013.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings, there was a compromise

4/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev. Appl. Nos. 59 of 2020 & 101 of 2021

between plaintiff and defendant. Accordin