The court emphasized the limited scope of review proceedings and the need for errors to be self-evident to warrant review.

1. The above Review Application has been filed to review the judgment dated 19.7.1999 made in Second Appeal No.739 of 1999.

2. The grounds taken on behalf of the review applicant are that the patta issued under settlement proceedings is one entirely different from mutation proceedings and as such, it is having a better title since after coming into force of the Estate Abolition Act the lands are vested with the Government and the patta granted by the settlement authorities could be deemed as a title deed. For the said proposition, the learned counsel appearing for the review applicant has relied on a decision in Vatticherukuru village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshitulu and others, 1991 Suppl. (2) SCC 228. The second contention is that there is no correlation between pymash number 350 and survey number 310 and the third contention is that no substantial questions of law have been raised in the Second Appeal and as such the Order passed by this Court is without Jurisdiction in view of Section 100 of C.P.C.

3. To elaborate the above said three contentions, the learned counsel Mr. V.Shanmugham has made an elaborate argument and taken me through the various provisions of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, particularly Sections 11 to 15 and Section 64C.

4. For the purpose of deciding this review application, the brief facts of the case, which are necessary are as follows:

The plaintiff filed O.S.No.366 of 1993 to declare his title to the property and for consequential injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with his possession. It is stated in the plaint that the property originally belonged to one Shanmuga Nadar, who was the grandfather of plaintiff, that after his demise, the property devolved on plaintiff in oral partition; that since then he is in exclusive possession of the same for more than forty years; that the patta for the property stands in the name of the plaintiff with effect from 7.11.1959; that the plaintiff is also paying the kist to the property from 20.5.1959; that Patta pass book is also given in the name of the plaintiff by the Tahsildar.

5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant on 4.10.1993 tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff; that though the plaintiff restrained the defendant, but apprehends interference of the defendant over the enjoyment of the suit property; that the cause of action of the suit arose On 7.11.1959 on which date patta for the suit property was given to the plaintiff, 10.12.1979 when patta pass book was issued and on 4.10.1993 when the defendant attempted to interfere wit h the possession of the plaintiff. On these averments, the suit has been filed to declare the plaintiff’s title to the suit property and for consequential injunction.

6. The defendant filed written statement and denied the title of the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the suit property is portion of larger extent having more than Ac.2.73 cents in Survey number 310 originally belonged to Ramasamy Naicker, son of Rengappa Naicker; that Ramasamy Naicker leased out an extent of 9 cents on the south west to the local fund for quarrying purpose; that the appellant Sangham purchased the property by Sale deed dated 1.8.1921 for valuable consideration of Rs.2500; that since then the defendant is in possession of the property and the attempted trespass is denied and prayed for dismissal of suit.

7. The trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of the patta granted by the authorities. The appeal against the said Judgment is also dismissed. Against the said Order of dismissal of the appeal in A.S.No.176 of 1996, Second Appeal in S.A.No.739 of 1999 is filed. In the said Second Appeal, the following questions of law have been raised.

“(a) Whether the courts below erred in law and misdirected themselves in granting the declaration relief merely on the basis of patta in the absence of any other oral or documentary evide