M.Sarala … vs Seethaiyammal
2022 Latest Caselaw 1089 Mad

                                                                              Rev.Applc (MD) No.84 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED :    24.01.2022

                                                        CORAM :

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                               Rev.Applc (MD) No.84 of 2021

              M.Sarala                                                          ….    Petitioner

                                                          -Vs-

              Seethaiyammal
                                                                                ….    Respondent
              Prayer : Review Application under Section 114 of C.P.C. Read with Order 47 Rule 1 of
              CPC against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2021 made in S.A.No.723 of 2020.


                                  For Petitioner    : Mr.A.Arumugam


                                                        ORDER

The petitioner seeks review of the judgment in S.A.No.723 of 2020. The only

ground that is urged is that, despite the fact that the defendant had denied execution

of the settlement deed dated 28.03.2003 by Karuppiah Pillai, I had proceeded on the

premise that the execution of the document has not been denied.

2. Mr.Arumugam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would draw my

attention to the written statement filed in the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2021 out of which

the above Second Appeal had arisen and contend that there has been a specific

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Applc (MD) No.84 of 2021

denial of the execution. No doubt, in Para 3 of the written statement it is stated that

the claim of the plaintiff that Karuppaiah Pillai has executed a settlement on

28.03.2003 is denied as false. But, in the very next line it is stated that Karuppiah

Pillai did not have the right to execute the settlement deed. Again, in Para 5 of the

very same written statement, it is clearly stated that the document executed by

Karuppiah Pillai on 28.03.2003 is invalid, inasmuch as Karuppiah Pillai has no right to

execute the document. Therefore, the defence is not one of specific denial of

execution, but denial of right of the settlor to execute the settlement deed.

3. I therefore do not see any error in my conclusion that the settlement deed

has not been specifically denied. Hence, this review application fails and it is

dismissed.

24.01.2022

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No KST

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Applc (MD) No.84 of 2021

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

KST

Rev.Applc.(MD)No.84 of 2021

24.01.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis