Dismissed

Renugadevi (Deceased) v. Santhamani

Madras HC24 Sept 2019REV.APPL/9/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed two review applications (Nos. 9 and 10 of 2019) filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC challenging orders in civil suits. The court held that the applications raised no error apparent on the face of the record and strictly interpreted the scope of review to exclude merits-based challenges.

What did the court decide?

Review applications No. 9/2019 and 10/2019 are dismissed. No costs.

Renugadevi (Deceased) Vs Santhamani — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Rev.Appl. No.9 and 10 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.09.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶6

Rev. Appl. No.9 and 10 of 2019
in
S.A.No.2122 and 2123 of 2001
Rev. App. No.9 of 2019
1. Tharani Sri Sakthi
2. Jai Gugan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. Santhamani
2. Suthakaran
3. Vijayalakshmi
4. Minor Vivek
(minor rep. by his mother Santhamani)
Guruchandran ( deceased)
5. Natarajan
6. Merugiri
Vellingiri (deceased)
7. Kailasam
Sivagiriammal (deceased)
8. Subbulakshmi
9. Rajeswari
10. K.Manimala

¶7

http://www.judis.nic.in 1 of 6

¶8

Rev.Appl. No.9 and 10 of 2019

¶9

Sasikala (Respondents 9 to 11 are legal heirs of the deceased Guruchandran)

¶10

Savithiri
13. Devi
14. Amudha
(Respondents 12 to 14 are legal heirs of deceased
Vellingiri)
15. M.Manickam
16. S.Sasikala
17. Maheswari
(Respondents 15 to 17 are legal heirs of the
deceased Sivagiriammal) .. Respondents
Rev. App. No.10 of 2019
1. Tharani Sri Sakthi
2. Jai Gugan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. Santhamani
2. Suthakaran
3. Vijayalakshmi
4. Minor Vivek
(minor rep. by his mother Santhamani)
5. Balasubramaniam
Sivagiriammal ( deceased)
6. Subbulakshmi
7. M.Manickam

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in 2 of 6

¶12

Rev.Appl. No.9 and 10 of 2019

¶13

S.Sasikala

¶14

Maheswari

¶15

(Respondents 7 to 9 are legal heirs of deceased Sivagiriammal)

¶16

Prayer in Rev.Appl. No.9 of 2019 : Review Application filed under

¶17

Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the orders passed in S.A.No.2122 of 2001 dated 01.11.2018.

¶18

Prayer in Rev. Appl.No.10 of 2019 : Review Application filed under

¶19

Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the orders passed in S.A.No.2123 of 2001 dated 01.11.2018.

¶20

For Review Petitioners : Mr.R.Singaravelan (Senior Counsel) for R.Kannan For Respondents : No appearance Common Order

¶21

The facts of both the cases are narrated in S.A.No.2122/2001 and

¶22

S.A.No.2123/2001 and therefore, it is not necessary to repeat the same in the

¶23

review application.

¶24

The grounds on which the present review application filed is

¶25

(i) Where a transfer of property in completion of an exchange can be

¶26

made only in the manner provided for the transfer of such property by sale and no one can assert his right based on an unregistered or unwritten exchange.

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in 3 of 6

¶28

Rev.Appl. No.9 and 10 of 2019

¶29

(ii) Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 are not between the parties to the lis and

¶30

therefore, the same would not bind them.

¶31

(iii) Since neither Renugadevi nor Balasubramaniam were parties to

¶32

the suit in O.S.No.209/1982, the decree and judgment passed in the said suit would not bind them.

¶33

(iv) Since Nanjaiya Gouder had admitted the title of Kandasamy Gouder in S.No.742/C to an extent of 1.22 acres, he is estopped from claiming anything in S.No.742/C.

¶34

(v) Moreover out of 1.22 cents in S.No.742/C, 23 cents devolved upon

¶35

Balasubramaniam, who in turn settled the same in favour of Renugadevi.

¶36

It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an

¶37

appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1

¶38

of the Code of Civil Procedure. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or

¶39

could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. It may also be exercised, where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. But it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits, which would be the procedure of a court of Appeal. More over error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on

¶40

http://www.judis.nic.in 4 of 6

¶41

Rev.Appl. No.9 and 10 of 2019

¶42

mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may be conceivably be two opinions.

¶43

This court considered all the points raised by the review

¶44

petitioners in S.A.No.2122/2001 and S.A.No.2123/2001 and infact, paragraphs 15 to 23 deal with all the aspects raised in the present review applications. Since there are no defects apparent on the face of the record, the present review application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

In the result, the review application No.9/2019 and 10/2019 are dismissed. No costs. 24.09.2019

¶46

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/non Speaking order mst

¶47

http://www.judis.nic.in 5 of 6

¶48

Rev.Appl. No.9 and 10 of 2019

¶49

R.HEMALATHA, J. mst

¶50

Rev.Appl.No.9, 10/2019
in
S.A.No.2122 and 2123 of 2001
24.09.2019

¶51

http://www.judis.nic.in 6 of 6

Renugadevi (Deceased) v. Santhamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renugadevi (Deceased) v. Santhamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs.R.Thangamani

Bharathy Vs P.Vijayakumar

The National Insuranceco Ltd. Vs Thiru Govindaraj

Ma Mohamed Raffi Vs P Sudhagar

The Manager Vs C.Pandian

Maari Vs Ramesh