Dismissed

M.Mohammed Ali v. D.Naina Mohammed(Died)

Madras HC4 Jul 2022REV.APLC(MD)/68/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application filed under the Code of Civil Procedure to challenge a judgment dismissing a suit relating to the right of way between neighbours. The court held the arguments involved a re-consideration of evidence merit rather than errors apparent on the record.

What did the court decide?

The review application was dismissed; no costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

M.Mohammed Ali Vs D.Naina Mohammed(Died) — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.68 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.07.2022

¶4

CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

Review Application (MD) No.68 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD) No.2639 of 2019 in S.A.(MD) No.501 of 2007

¶6

1.M.Mohammed Ali 2.M.Neejam 3.M.Ali Fathima 4.M.Parveen .. Applicants/Respondents 5 to 8 -vsD.Naina Mohammed (Died) 1.Rahamadulla 2.Diwan Maideen 3.Nathar Bhara 4.Balkis Begam .. Respondents 1 to 4/Appellants 5.Amanulla 6.Pakkeer Mydeen .. Respondents 5 & 6/Respondents 1 & 3

¶7

_________Page 1 of 4

¶8

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

¶9

Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.68 of 2019

¶10

Prayer : Review Application filed under Order 47 Sections 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the order dated 30.06.2017 made in S.A.(MD) No.501 of 2007.

¶11

For Appellants : Mr.L.George Paul Anto For R1 to R6 : Ms.V.Janaki Devi for Mr.T.S.R.Venkataramana

¶12

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Respondents 5 to 8 in S.A.(MD) No.501 of 2007 have filed this review application to review the judgment and decree, dated 30.06.2017 allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit filed by respondents 1 to 4 in this application. The suit pertains to right of pathway as between neighbours.

¶15

2. Heard the learned counsel for the review applicants/respondents 5 to 8. The learned counsel's line of argument requires a re-consideration on the merit of the appreciation of evidences and does not involve any error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, this Court does not consider that

¶16

_________Page 2 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.68 of 2019

¶19

there is anything that survives for reviewing the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2017. Hence, the review application stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

04.07.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No abr

¶21

Page 3 of 4

¶22

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

¶23

Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.68 of 2019

¶24

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

¶25

abr

¶26

Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.68 of 2019

¶27

04.07.2022

¶28

_________Page 4 of 4

¶29

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

M.Mohammed Ali v. D.Naina Mohammed(Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Mohammed Ali v. D.Naina Mohammed(Died)

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

P.Arunachalam Vs M.Kaliammal

P.Sasikumar Vs Lekshmibai Thankachi

Backiavathy Vs N.Balasundaram

M. Balakrishnan (Died) Vs B.Ranjani

Doctor S.Ravi Vs Parummandi Panchayat

Muthulakshmi Vs Ramakrishnan