Madras High Court
Brinda vs Natarajan on 20 December, 2021
Rev. Appl.No.99 of 2021 in
SA.No.357 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
Review Application No.99 of 2021
in
S.A.No.357 of 2020
1.Brinda
2.Kavitha
3.Kamal @ Saranya ... Petitioners
Vs
1.Natarajan
2.Selvaraj
3.Ganesan
4.Lakshmi
5.Subash Chandrabose
6.Gunasekar ... Respondents
Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section
114 of C.P.C., against the Order dated 27.07.2020 in S.A.No.357 of 2020 on
the file of this Court against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.06.2018
passed in A.S.No.46 of 2015 by the I Additional Sub Judge, Villupuram,
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appl.No.99 of 2021 in
SA.No.357 of 2020
confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 21.04.2015 passed in O.S.No.12
of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Villupuram.
For Petitioners : Dr.Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel
for M/s.A.K.M.Samsunthar
ORDER
The petitioners seek review of judgment in S.A.No.357 of 2020
dated 27.07.2020.
2.The petitioners are the plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the said suit in
O.S.No.12 of 2014 out of which the above second appeal arose. The suit
was filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration of their title on the ground
that they had purchased the property from one Kogilambal on 14.12.2001
and therefore, they are entitled to the property. They also disclosed the fact
that Kogilambal had executed a settlement deed in favour of the defendants
5 and 6 in the suit on 21.04.1999 and thereafter, she has cancelled it on
26.11.2001. The trial Court had dismissed the suit on the ground that the
cancellation dated 26.11.2001 being an unilateral cancellation will not affect
the rights of defendants 5 and 6 under the settlement deed dated 21.04.1999.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appl.No.99 of 2021 in
SA.No.357 of 2020
They also went on to hold that Kogilambal did not have title after the
execution of the settlement deed dated 21.04.1999. The cancellation being
invalid, the sale deed executed by Kogilambal on 14.12.2001 will not
convey title to the plaintiffs. This conclusion of the trial Court was affirmed
by the appellate Court and further affirmed by me in second appeal.
3.Dr.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would vehemently contend that the defendants have not sought
for a declaration that the cancellation is invalid and therefore, the Court
below and I erred in declaring the cancellation as invalid and refusing relief
to the plaintiffs. I do not think, I can countenance the claim of the learned
counsel. It is settled law that an unilateral cancellation of a non-testamatory
instrument is invalid and no declaration to that effect is necessary. Such a
cancellation instrument will not bind the title holders under the instrument
that is cancelled. Therefore, it is not necessary for the title holders to seek a
declaration that the cancellation is invalid. The plaintiff who claimed title
pursuant to the cancellation do not derive title. Therefore, the only ground
that is attempted to be canvassed in this review does not survive. I see no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appl.No.99 of 2021 in
SA.No.357 of 2020
error on the face of the record in the judgment under review and therefore, I
do not find any necessity to entertain the review application and the review
application is therefore dismissed. No costs.
20.12.2021
vs
Index: Yes
Speaking order
To:
The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appl.No.99 of 2021 in
SA.No.357 of 2020
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
vs
Review Application No.99 of 2021
in
S.A.No.357 of 2020
20.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
