Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43897
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Murali Shankar, J
Amirthalingam – Appellant
Versus
Rajendran – Respondent
REV.APLC(MD)No.60 of 2025 in S.A.(MD)No.196 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Selva Aditya, G.Prabhu Rajadurai
Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record; it cannot be invoked to re-appreciate evidence or act as an appeal in disguise to correct perceived arithmetical errors in share allocation.
Headnote:The Review Application was filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking correction of an alleged arithmetical error regarding the share calculation in a decree passed in a Second Appeal. The Petitioners contended that the court erroneously included the life-estate holder as a shareholder, thereby incorrectly dividing the property into 4/5ths instead of 3/4ths. The Court examined the scope of its review jurisdiction, noting that it could not re-appreciate evidence or sit in appeal over its own judgment. The main issue was whether the division of property shares in the original judgment constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court applied the principles laid down in multiple Supreme Court precedents, holding that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting manifest errors of law or fact and cannot be used as an 'appeal in disguise' to re-litigate findings of fact. The court found that the original calculation regarding the 4/5th share was consistent with the relinquishment of interest by the life-estate holder alongside other rightful heirs. In the result, the Review Application was dismissed as being devoid of merits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the suit and the impugned judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioner's argument regarding arithmetical error in share calculation and the court's evidentiary context. (Para 7 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. scope and limitations of review jurisdiction under cpc. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's finding that no apparent error exists and dismissal of the review application. (Para 16 , 17) |
ORDER
The Review Application is directed against the judgment and decree made in S.A.(MD)No.196 of 2014, dated 23.12.2022, on the file of this Court.
2. The respondents 1 and 2 filed the above suit to declare their right, title and interest in respect of the suit properties and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men in any way interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties are the self acquired properties of one Paramasiva Muthuraja, that the said Paramasiva Muthuraja and his wife had four children viz., Murugesan, Arumugam (first defendant), Subbu and Saravanam Ammal, that the said Paramasiva Muthuraja executed a Will dated 26.05.1975 under Ex.A.1 bequeathing both items of the suit properties to his wife Pichayee Ammal for life, that the said Paramasiva Muthuraja died in the year 1980 and the Will came into force, that Pichayee Ammal along with her children Murugesan, Subbu and Saravanam Ammal had sold both items of suit properties to one Karuppannan and Kandasamy, who in turn sold the said properties to one Somji Patel and his children and that after the demise of the said Somji Patel, his heirs sold the properties to one Kalyani and Amaravathi, who in turn sold the same to the plaintiffs by virtue of a sale deed dated 07.04.2000. The plaintiffs by alleging that the limited right conferred under Ex.A.1 Will on the said Pichayee Ammal has enlarged into an absolute right under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act and hence, Pichayee Ammal had absolute right of alienation and that all the successive purchasers have been in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession for over the statutory period of 12 years and hence, the plaintiffs had perfected title by adverse possession as well, filed the above suit claiming the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction.
4. The defendants had taken a defence that the bequeath made to Pichayee Ammal was not absolute as it was not given for her maintenance and that therefore, she had no right of alienation. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have held that Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act only would apply and consequently Pichayee Ammal had absolute right to alienate the suit properties and on that basis, they have upheld the sales. Challenging the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, the defendants 1 to 3 have preferred the Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.196 of 2014 before this Court.
5. A learned Judge of this Court, taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that it is not Section 14(1), but only Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act will apply and that therefore, Pichayee Ammal had obtained only a limited life estate under Ex.A.1 Will. This Court has further held that the first defendant, one of the sons of Paramasiva Muthuraja and Pichayee Ammal was excluded by the said Pichayee Ammal while selling the suit properties along with her other three children and since the first defendant is having 1/5th share in the suit properties, declared that the plaintiffs are entitled to 4/5 shares in the suit properties.
6. Since the defendants 1 and 3 were dead, the second defendant has filed the present review application.
7. The learned Counsel for the review petitioner would submit that since Pichayee Ammal had no share in the properties and only a limited life estate to take income from the properties, that there are only four sharers ie., four children of Paramasiva Muthuraja and Pichay
