Madras High Court
M.Kandavel vs K.Gurumoorthy on 30 July, 2021
Review Application (MD).No.42 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.5658 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
Review Application (MD).No.42 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.5658 of 2021
1.M.Kandavel
2.A.Sivan
S.Mayandi Thevar (Died)
...Petitioners/ Appellants
Vs.
1.K.Gurumoorthy
...1st respondent/ 1st respondent
2.Amma Pillai
3.Sivan
4.Murugesan
...Respondents 2 to 4/ Respondents 2 to 4
1/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
Review Application (MD).No.42 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.5658 of 2021
PRAYER: Review Application has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1
read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the
judgment and decree dated 20.01.2021 made in S.A.No.4 of 2015.
For Petitioners : Mr.PT.S.Narendravasam
JUDGMENT
The appellants whose appeal was dismissed by me on 20.01.2021
have come up with this review contending that two documents viz.,
Ex.A4 and Ex.A6 were not considered by the Courts below and I have
also affirmed the judgments of the Courts below.
2. The plaintiff sued for declaration and injunction contending that
he has purchased the suit property from Mrs.Raja Bai, Saravanan and
Suresh Babu, the children of R.S.Gopal Naidu and his father who
purchased 768 sq.ft from the ancestors of the defendants had settled the
same on him under the registered settlement deed dated 08.08.2007,
marked as Ex.A6. The sale deed under which the plaintiff purchased 5 ½
cents of land from the heirs of R.S.Gopal Naidu was marked as Ex.A2.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Review Application (MD).No.42 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.5658 of 2021
Therefore, the plaintiff claim title under these two instruments viz., the
settlement deed executed by his father and the sale deed executed by the
heirs of R.S.Gopal Naidu.
3. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff is
not entitled to entire extent because his father purchased only 768 sq.ft
under Ex.A4 and therefore he cannot claim more than the said extent.
4. The said pleading completely overlooks the fact that the plaintiff
has purchased some more extent of land from the heirs of R.S.Gopal
Naidu. While dismissing the appeal, I had specifically mentioned the
boundary recitals in the sale deed executed by the defendants' father in
favour of the plaintiff's father on 21.02.2002 marked as Ex.A4, which
demonstrate that A.R.Subba Naidu's land is situate on the West and
North of the property sold to the plaintiff's father under Ex.A4.
5. It is from the heirs of the said A.R.Subba Naidu, the plaintiff
http://www.judis.nic.in
Review Application (MD).No.42 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.5658 of 2021
has purchased the extent of 5 ½ cents in Ex.A2 on 04.01.2008. The
claim of the review petitioners that the documents have not been
considered is against the findings rendered by me in the Second Appeal,
wherein I had made specific reference to the boundary recitals which
would go to show that the plaintiff has acquired title over the Ex.A2 sale
deed and Ex.A6 settlement deed.
6. I therefore, do not find any ground to entertain the review and
the review petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.07.2021
dsa
Index : No
Internet : Yes
Speaking order
http://www.judis.nic.in
Review Application (MD).No.42 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.5658 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
Review Application No.42 of 2021
and C.M.P(MD).NO.5658 of 2021
30.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
