Allowed

Vathumalai v. Jothi Gandhi

Madras HC12 Apr 2023REV.APPL/170/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A review application was filed challenging a judgment that dismissed a second appeal due to failure to prove secondary evidence of a settlement deed. The court held that the lower court failed to address the plea that the deed was not acted upon, constituting an error apparent on the face of the record.

What did the court decide?

The review application is allowed and the second appeal is restored to file for arguments.

Vathumalai Vs Jothi Gandhi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Rev.Appl.No.170 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON 06.04.2023 PRONOUNCED ON 12.04.2023

¶4

06.04.2023

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶7

Rev.Appl.No.170 of 2010 in S.A.No.1913 of 2003

¶8

1.Vathumalai

¶9

2.Rupavathy

¶10

3.Muniammal

¶11

4.Saroja

¶12

5.Jaiganesh

¶13

6.Saravanan ...Review Petitioners/Appellants

¶14

Vs.

¶15

1.Jothi Gandhi

¶16

2.Sabapathy ...Respondents.

¶17

PRAYER: Review Application filed under Section 114 read with

¶18

Order LXVII Rule 1 of CPC to review the judgment and Decree dated

¶19

31.08.2010 made in S.A.No.1913 of 2003.

¶20

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

¶21

1/6

¶22

Rev.Appl.No.170 of 2010

¶23

For Appellants : W.R.Subashiri for Ms.R.Raja Lakshmi

¶24

For Respondents : W.M.Abdul Majeed

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This is a review petition filed to review the judgment and decree of this court in S.A.No.1913 of 2003 dated 31.08.2010.

¶27

2. The proceedings arose as follows:-

¶28

(I). One Govindaswami executed a settlement deed in favour of his

¶29

brother Krishnaswamy on 11.07.1970. After a gap of the 13 years, he executed a sale deed in favor of his son in law on 23.02.1983. One year thereafter, he canceled the settlement deed by a document dated 23.02.1984. Hence the said Krishnasamy filed a suit for declaration and for injunction in O.S.No.606 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Gudiyatham.

¶30

The suit was dismissed on the ground that only a certified copy of the settlement deed was produced.

¶31

(II). It was taken on appeal in A.S.No.136 of 1994 before the Principal District Judge at Vellore. The appeal was dismissed. The finding that only a certified copy had been filed and the settlement deed was not proved, stood confirmed against which S.A.No.1913 was presented.

¶32

2/6

¶33

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

¶34

Rev.Appl.No.170 of 2010

¶35

3. My predecessor had dismissed the appeal on the ground that since the settlement deed was denied, the plaintiff had not proved the same in accordance with law. Therefore, he took a view that the secondary evidence has to be proved first and only thereafter the burden shifts to the respondents to disprove the same.

¶36

4. It is pertinent to point out that the very same learned Judge had issued notice in the review when it was pointed out to him that the plea was not that the settlement deed was denied but that the settlement deed was not acted upon.

¶37

5. Heard Ms.Raja Lakshmi, Learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr.Abdul Majeed, Learned Counsel for the Respondents. The scope of the review is very limited. I only have to see if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The Learned Counsel for the Review petitioner took me through the grounds of the review and had submitted that the settlement deed was not specifically denied but the plea was that the document under Ex-A2-settlement deed was not acted upon. She would further submit that the respondent would plead that the settlement deed was canceled and therefore, one has to presume that the document had been executed in accordance with law. According to her, the cancellation of a settlement deed

¶38

3/6

¶39

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

¶40

Rev.Appl.No.170 of 2010

¶41

would arise, only if it had been executed.

¶42

6. Mr.Abdul Majeed, Learned Counsel for the Appellants would raise an objection that this review is not maintainable, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V.Narayana Reddy and Ors. (Manu/SC/1013/2022) dated 18.08.2022. He invited my attention to paragraph No.20, in particular 20.2 Sub-Clause No.VI stating the mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

¶43

7. I went through the order of the Learned Single Judge. My

¶44

predecessor had dismissed the appeal on the ground that as no proper explanation had been given for production of the secondary evidence and since they fail to prove the secondary evidence as per Evidence Act, no further interference is necessary in the appeal.

¶45

8. I asked a pointed question to Mr.Abdul Majeed, whether he was denying the execution of the settlement deed or whether he is ascertaining that the settlement deed had not come into force. He took me to paragraph No.8 of the written statement and stated that the settlement deed never came

¶46

into force and the same had been not acted upon. He would state that he had taken both the pleas about the validity of the documents and about the same not having been acted upon. One plea is contradictory to the other and

¶47

4/6

¶48

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

¶49

Rev.Appl.No.170 of 2010

¶50

therefore, I called upon him to state as to what was that he had taken before the learned single judge. He submitted that the categorical plea that was taken by him before the learned single Judge was that the settlement deed never came into force and it was not acted upon. That issue has not been answered by this court nor has it been considered by the learned single judge. This according to me is an error apparent on the face of the record. It falls under paragraph 20.1 (ii) of the aforesaid order.

¶51

9. It is one thing to say that the document was never executed and the

¶52

other to say it was executed but never came into force. Hence, the error is apparent.

¶53

10. Consequently the Review Application is allowed. The second appeal is restored on to the file. Being the suit of the year 1987. The parties shall address arguments in the main appeal on 24^th of April 2023.

¶54

12.04.2023

¶55

nst Index : Yes/No Neutral citations : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No

¶56

5/6

¶57

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

¶58

Rev.Appl.No.170 of 2010

¶59

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J,

¶60

nst

¶61

Rev.Appl.No.170 of 2010 in S.A.No.1913 of 2003

¶62

12.04.2023

¶63

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

¶64

6/6

Vathumalai v. Jothi Gandhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vathumalai v. Jothi Gandhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Veerappan Vs Saraswathi Ammal

Vijaya Vs Sengodan

Pattammal (Died) Vs Mani

V.N.Dhamayanthi Vs U.K.Lakshmi

Appu (Died) Vs Perumal (Died)

Dakshinamoorthy (Deceased) Vs Kanakambaram