This court disposed of a review application challenging a judgment on the ground of excess land being granted. Finding no merit in the claim that the judgment was erroneous, the petition was dismissed.
The review petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.03.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
Review Application No.64 of 2019 in S.A.No.649 of 2017
1.Amudha
2.Rani
3.Kanchana
4.Sumithra
5.Rajendran ...Petitioners
Vs
Krishnaveni ... Respondent
Prayer: Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with 114 of the Code of Civil procedure against the Judgement and Decree dated 29.01.2019 made in S.A.No.649 of 2017 on the file of this Honourable Court confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 03.03.2017 made in A.S.No.33 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 26.06.2012 made in O.S.No.491 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Muthukumar
ORDER
The above Review Petition is filed on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record since the Judgement grants excess 2.25 cents to the plaintiff when under the documents only an extent of 6.5 cents is available. In the Judgement, which is the subject matter of the review, this Court has in very great detail, had stated as to how the Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a 8¾ cents and the Judgement also states that the defendant have not proved their possession and enjoyment to that excess 2.25 cents. Whereas, the plaintiff has produced the patta which clearly shows that they are in enjoyment of 8¾ cents.
If the review petitioners are aggrieved, they can challenge the same by filing an S.L.P against the said order. I find no merits and the review petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-IV) //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kan
To, 1.The Subordinate Judge, Vellore. 2.The District Munsif Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore.
Review Application No.64 of 2019 in S.A.No.649 of 2017
PP(CO) GN(27/04/2019)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Review Petition filed on the ground of an apparent error on the face of the record merits the exercise of review power.
Whether the quantum of land area granted in the impugned judgment is supported by evidence.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Amudha and others
Krishnaveni
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
