Madras High Court
Azhagu Shakthivel vs Seeniammal on 27 October, 2021
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.126 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Review Application (MD) No.126 of 2019
in
S.A.(MD)No.855 of 2009
1.Azhagu Shakthivel
2.Ramu
3.Ariharan
4.Santhanam
5.Azhagu Ramanathan
6.Azhagu Muthulakshmi
7.Ganesan
8.Abirami
9.Minor B.Sathishkumar ... Petitioners / Appellants
Vs.
1.Seeniammal
2.Muthulakshmi
3.Pazhani
4.Aathchiammal
5.Azhagammal
6.Shanthi ... Respondents / Respondents
Prayer : Review Application is filed under Section 114 CPC, against the
judgment dated 11.06.2019, passed in S.A.(MD)No.855 of 2009, on the file
of this Court.
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.126 of 2019
For Petitioners : Mr.B.K.Kumaresan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Thirumahilmaran
ORDER
This Review Application has been filed to review the judgment of this
Court, passed in S.A.(MD)No.855 of 2009, dated 11.06.2019.
2.It is the submission of the review petitioners/plaintiffs that in
Paragraph 30 of the judgment dated 11.06.2019, it was decided by this
Court that the plea of adverse possession was not proved by the plaintiffs.
In this regard, it is the case of the plaintiffs that they used the pathway in
question from the date of purchase i.e., from 1972 and thereby, it should be
decided that the plaintiffs perfected the title by adverse possession.
3.Now, on considering the said submissions with the relevant records,
it seems that in respect of pathway, which is under dispute, before the trial
Court, the plaintiffs claim the right over the same by means of adverse
possession. On the other hand, they took another stand as the said property
is their own property. In the said circumstances, being the reason that, the
above said two pleas are mutually contradictory one, both the Courts below
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.126 of 2019
had dismissed the suit by observing that the plaintiffs have not proved their
case.
4.This Court also while at the time of disposing the second appeal,
concluded that the plea of adverse possession taken by the plaintiffs has not
been proved by them. It is the further decision that after claiming the
property under dispute as their own property, taking a stand for adverse
possession, is mutually contradictory one and thereby, this Court dismissed
the second appeal after confirming the concurrent findings of the Courts
below. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an error apparent in the
observations made in Paragraph 30 of the judgment dated 11.06.2019.
Accordingly, I am of the considered view that there is no error apparent in
the judgment dated 11.06.2019, passed in S.A.(MD)No.855 of 2009.
5.Hence, in view of the above, this Review Application is dismissed.
No costs.
27.10.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
smn2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.126 of 2019
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
smn2
Review Application (MD) No.126 of 2019
in S.A.(MD)No.855 of 2009
27.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
