Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 22074 Mad
Judgement Date : 9 November, 2021
Review Application No.63 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.11.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Review Application No.63 of 2021
1. T. Murugaiyan
2. T. Ravi
3. D.Loganayaki
4. A. Anusuya
5. K. Santhakumari
6. S. Jamuna
7. Minor S. Saranya
8. Minor S. Vidya
(Minors 7 & 8 are rep. by mother
and guardian S.Jamuna)
(Cause title accepted vide as per order of the Court
dated 05.09.2002 made in CMP No.12296 of 2002) .... Applicants
Vs
1. Shanmugha Mudaliyar (Died)
2. Suryamurthi Mudaliyar
3. Maheswari
4. Gopalakrishnan
5. M. Dhandapani (Died)
(R1-died. RR2 & 3 are recorded as LRs of the
deceased R1. R5 died. R4 is recorded as LR
of the deceased R5 vide order of Court dated
20.09.2019 made in SA No.1539 of 2002
as per memo dated 20.08.2019 in VSR No.
24529 of 2019) .... Respondents
Prayer :- Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w. 114 of
Civil Procedure Code to review the Judgment and Decree dated 27.02.2020
made in S.A.No.1539 of 2002 on the file of this Court.
For Petitioners : Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi
for Mr.E.Kotteeswaran
For R2 : Mr.B.Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Senior Counsel for Mr.Usharaman
4/4
Review Application No.63 of 2021
ORDER
This Review Application has been filed to review the Judgment and
Decree passed by this Court dated 27.02.2020 in S.A.No.1539 of 2002.
2. Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that though the appellants raised specific ground for
adverse possession in respect of the suit property, this Court, while admitting
the Second Appeal, failed to frame the substantial question of law. The
appellants raised specific ground that they are admittedly in possession of the
suit property for several decades. She further submitted that in fact the Trial
Court also framed issues in this regard. Therefore, this Court failed to discuss
about the grounds raised by the appellants, while dismissing the Second
Appeal.
3. Per contra, Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the second respondent submitted that the Trial Court has framed issues with
regard to the adverse possession and the same was discussed in a detailed
manner by the Appellate Court which rejected the claim of the appellants. He
further submitted that the appellants and the respondents are close relatives and
as such, they were permitted to reside in the suit property. That apart, it is
nothing but abuse of process of law. and it cannot be considered in the Second https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.63 of 2021
Appeal. Therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of the record to
review the Judgment passed by this Court and as such the Review Application
is liable to be dismissed.
4. In view of the above, the Review Application is dismissed.
09.11.2021 Lpp Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.63 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Lpp
Review Application No.63 of 2021
09.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!