Kerala High Court
Krishnakumari Amma vs Valsamma on 7 April, 2022
RP NO. 807 OF 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944
RP NO. 807 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SA 476/1999 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS
1 P.K.KRISHNAKUMARI AMMA
PUTILETH HOUSE, THELLIYOOR, EZHUMATTOOR, MALLAPPILLY
2 RAJESH MOHANAN DO. DO
3 RAJI MOHANA DO. DO
BY ADVS.
SMT.P.V.KOCHUTHRESIA
SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
1 KAMALAKSHI AMMA VALSAMMA
C/O. K.S PILLAI, PLOT NO 197,CO- OPERATIVE
COLONY;.BOKARO DISTRICT, BIHAR 827 001
2 RAJENDRA PRASAD
THEKKUMKATTIL PUTHENVEEDU, THELLIYOOR P.O, THIRUVALLA
(DIED)
3 SUBRAMANYAN NAIR
(T.V.S NAIR) NOW RESIDING AT P.B BOX NO. 2086,AJMAN
U.A.E
4 GEETHA KUMARI @ GEETHA VIJAYAN
C/O. P.NV.PILLAI, QR-TYPE-III/3,SEMINAR HILLS, NAGAPUR,
MAHARASHTRA
5 PUSHPA
LAKSHAM VEEDU,NEERETTUPURAM, THIRUVALLA 689 571
6 PREM
C/O.K.S PILLAI, PLOT NO 197,CO-OPERATIVE COLONY,
BOKARO, BIHAR 827 001
RP NO. 807 OF 2017
2
7 GEETHA S
C/O. K.S PILLAI, PLOT NO 197,CO-OPERATIVE COLONY,
BOKARO BIHAR 827 001
8 GEETHA PRASAD,
W/O. LATE RAJENDRA PRASAD, THEKKINKATTIL
PUTHENVEEDU,THELLIYOOR P.O, THIRUVALLA
9 KRISHNA PRASAD
S/O. RAJENDRA PRASAD DO. DO
10 ARCHANA PRASAD
D/O. RAJENDRA PRASAD, DO. DO
BY ADV SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 807 OF 2017
3
ORDER
This review petition has been filed by the appellants in RSA
No.476 of 1999 mainly contending that the finding of this court
confirming the judgment and decree of the court below that item No.3
is not partible among the parties, is an error on the face of the record
and therefore, this application. It is well settled that the scope of
review jurisdiction is very limited. A review is not an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. If only there is
an error apparent on the face of the record the court can exercise the
review jurisdiction to rectify the said error.
2. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [AIR
1995 SC 455], it was held by the Apex Court that an error apparent
on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on
mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn
process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two
opinions.
3. In Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others
[(1997) 8 SCC 715], it was held by the Supreme Court as under :
''9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open
to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on
RP NO. 807 OF 2017
the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has
to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to
be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the
court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not
permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and
corrected". A review petition,it must be remembered has a
limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in
disguise".
4. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others [ (2013) 8
SCC 320], the following observation was made in paragraph 17:
" In a review petition, it is not open to the Court to
reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion,
even if that is possible. Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of
evidence cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is
shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record
or for some reason akin thereto."
5. So in short, the judicial pronouncements on the topic says
that it is not open for the court to re-appreciate the entire evidence in
the case and what the court is expected is only to correct a mistake if
any, apparent on the face of the record. Rehearing of the matter even if
the decision is erroneous is not permitted while considering a review
petition.
RP NO. 807 OF 2017
6. Coming to the facts of the case it is revealed from the records
that on the basis of Annexure B2 document it was found that item No.3
in which Kamalakshiamma got exclusive title by A1 had transferred the
same to the first defendant. The said document has not been
challenged in any manner known to law by the parties and it was found
that exclusive property of Kamalakshiamma was transferred by her. So
that property was found not available for partition. Therefore, the
contention raised by the appellants by way of this review petition is not
maintainable and there is no scope for reconsideration of the same in
this review petition. As the property was transferred by her in favour of
her second husband the said item is not liable to be partitioned among
the appellants and the respondents as claimed. Defendants 2 to 6 are
the legal representatives of the first defendant and defendants 7 and 8
are the legal representatives of the second defendant. Therefore, the
finding of the court below that the property is not liable to be
partitioned on the basis of the deed of transfer is absolutely correct and
that was confirmed by this court. Therefore, a finding on the basis of an
undisputed document and unchallenged finding based on the same
cannot be considered as an error apparent on the face of the records
which requires correction.
RP NO. 807 OF 2017
Hence, I find that this review petition is without any merits and it
is liable to be dismissed and I do so.
Dismissed
Sd/-
SHIRCY V
JUDGE
smm
