Dismissed

P.Kuppammal v. S.Subramanian

Madras HC10 Mar 2023REV.APPL/44/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC to review a Second Appeal dismissing a suit for declaration of title. The petitioner sought to introduce new documents, but the court held that review is limited in scope and no permission can be granted for fresh evidence or re-argument. Application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Review Application dismissed; No costs; Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

P.Kuppammal Vs S.Subramanian — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

REV.APLC No.44 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.03.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

Review Application No.44 of 2020 and CMP Nos. 19172/21 & 3390 & 8999/22

¶7

P.Kuppammal

¶8

Mrs.Anjalai (Deceased) ... Petitioners

¶9

vs.

¶10

S.Subramanian

¶11

The Tahsildar, Office of Tahsildar, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to review the judgment made in S.A.No.598 of 2019 dated 12.11.2019.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mrs.P.Kuppammal(Party-in-Person)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner seeks review of the judgment in

¶17

S.A.No.598 of 2019, dated 12.11.2019.

¶18

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

¶19

1/4

¶20

REV.APLC No.44 of 2020

¶21

The grievance of the review applicants/appellants that is espoused in the review application is that the Government though served in the original proceedings, the appellate proceedings as well as the second appeal, did not appear before the trial Court and the first appellate court. In this second appeal alone, the Government Pleader appeared. It is also claimed by the 1^st review applicant who appears in person that the absence of pleadings by the Government before the trial Court and appearance by the Government in the appellate Court ought not to have been ignored. She has also attempted to produce certain documents which are obtained after the disposal of the second appeal by me. The suit that was filed by the appellants/review applicants for a declaration of title, was dismissed mainly on the ground that they have not identified the property.

¶22

At the hearing of the second appeal, the original order of allotment was looked into and it was found that the original allottees did not have a right to alienate the property. Since the appellants had claimed that they had purchased the property from the original allottees, I have dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that since

¶23

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

¶24

2/4

¶25

REV.APLC No.44 of 2020

¶26

the sale in favour of the appellants is in violation of the conditions of assignment which could result in cancellation of the assignment itself, the appellants cannot claim valid title. Moreover, both the documents under which the appellants had claimed title, are unregistered documents and therefore, they cannot be pressed into service to prove their title. The review applicants now want to introduce some more documents and re-argue the entire matter which, I do not think, could be permitted considering the limited scope of review.

¶27

Hence, this Review Application is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶28

NCC : Yes / No 10.03.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes bala

¶29

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

¶30

3/4

¶31

REV.APLC No.44 of 2020

¶32

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. bala

¶33

ORDER MADE IN REV.APLC No.44 of 2020 and CMP Nos. 19172/21 & 3390 & 8999/22 DATED : 10.03.2023

¶34

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

¶35

4/4

P.Kuppammal v. S.Subramanian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Kuppammal v. S.Subramanian

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

C. Jaya Sangeetha Vs Gokul Kumar

N.Chinnapan (Died) Vs Palaniammal

Karthikesan Vs T.Neethiraja Nadar

The Deputy General Manager Vs v.Aranganathan

Dr. Mohans Diabetes Specialities Centre Pvt.Ltd., Vs a.S.Thulasisah

S.M.Nasar Vs Pandia Rajan K