K.Karkuzhali Vs the District Registrar

This Revision Application has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code to review the order dated 25.02.2025 made in W.P. No. 36964 of 2024 and to set aside the same.

¶18

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

¶19

REV.APLW.No.225 of 2025

¶20

For Applicant M/s C.Umashankar for Mr.K.Venkateswaran For Respondents Mr.K.Kumaran, AGP (Pondy) for R1 and R2 Mr.M.Selvam for R3

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The review application is filed praying for review of the judgment made in W.P.No.36964 of 2024, dated 25.02.2025.

¶23

2.Upon hearing the learned counsel on either side and perusing the material records of the case, this review arises in the following background. It is seen that the father had executed a settlement in favour of the petitioner. While so, when the petitioner had travelled to the United States of America and the 3^rd respondent, the mother had also joined her, the father felt estranged and stating that the petitioner-daughter failed to take care of him, executed another document in the nature of cancellation of settlement and the same was registered as Doc.No.7915 of 2018 dated 26.04.2018. It can be seen that aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.36964 of 2024 was filed. It is further stated that the father, namely, Kunchithapatham died on 07.05.2024 itself, without further dealing with the property. Therefore, even if the cancellation of settlement could have been in force, still the property again devolves on the petitioner as well as the third respondent- the mother. It is, in that context, that, when the mother

¶24

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

¶25

REV.APLW.No.225 of 2025

¶26

filed affidavit before this Court in W.P.No.36964 of 2024, recording the affidavit, the writ petition was disposed of. However, it should have been held in the last sentence that the registration of the document No.7915 of 2018, dated 26.04.2018 stood cancelled, instead of stating the same, it is stated to workout the remedy in the manner known to law.

¶27

Paragraph No.6 of the order in W.P.No.36964 of 2024 dated

¶28

25.02.2025, is extracted for ready reference:-

¶29

“ 6.Recording the aforesaid affidavit of the third respondent dated 24.02.2024, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out the remedy in the manner known to law.”

¶30

Today, it is stated that the notice is also served on the third respondent. The learned counsel also entered appearance. No objection is raised on behalf of the 3rd respondent-mother. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 is present. Only on the submission that is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father did not deal with the property in any manner whatsoever and did not create any encumbrance whatsoever from the year 2018 till his death, this revision application is ordered on the following terms:

¶31

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

¶32

REV.APLW.No.225 of 2025

¶33