Madras High Court
S.V.Ramamurthy vs Singu R.Mangaleshkar on 11 April, 2023
Rev.Appl.No.8/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 11.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
REV.APPL.No.8/2023
S.V.Ramamurthy .. Petitioner
Versus
1.Singu R.Mangaleshkar
2.S.R.Bhupeshkar
3.The Sub Registrar
Office of SRO,
Velachery, Chennai-600 042.
4.The Sub Registrar
Office of SRO,
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.
5.The Sub Registrar
Office of SRO
Purasawalkkam
Chennai 600 007.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.8/2023
6.The Sub Registrar
Office of SRO
Madhavaram,
Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114
of CPC to review the order passed by this Court on 17.03.2022 in
OSA.No.33/2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Ramamurthy
Party-in-Person
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.]
(1)The above revision petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with
section 114 of CPC to review the order passed by this Court on
17.03.2022 in OSA.No.33/2022.
(2)Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this review petition are as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.8/2023
(3)The review petitioner is the 1st defendant in the suit in CS.No.390/2020.
st
The 1 respondent in this review petition is none else than the son of
review petitioner and he is the plaintiff in the said suit. He filed the suit in
CS.No.390/2020 for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in
the suit ‘A’ schedule property and for partition and allotment of 1/2 share
in the suit ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties and for consequential
reliefs including the prayer for injunction restraining defendants from
alienating the suit properties. The 2nd defendant in the suit is also the
other son of the review petitioner. The other defendants are the respective
Sub Registrars of different places where the suit properties are situated.
Though the 1st respondent/plaintiff has made serious allegations against
the review petitioner in the plaint, it is not necessary for this Court to go
into all those allegations having regard to the issues that arise for
consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.8/2023
(4)It is the case of the 1st respondent/plantiff that the suit first item belonged
to his deceased mother. It is his further case that the suit B,C and D
schedule properties are also the properties of his mother, namely, the wife
of the review petitioner, having inherited the said properties from her
parents. However, it is contended by the 1st respondent that he is entitled
to 1/3rd share admitting 1/3rd share of the review petitioner in respect of
‘A’ schedule property. As regards, B, C and D schedule properties, the 1st
respondent did not admit the share of the review petitioner on the ground
that the review petitioenr being the husband of plaintiff’s mother, is not
entitled to any share in the properties inherited by his mother from her
parents. A detailed written statement was filed by the review petitioner
and he disputed the averments made in the plaint in toto. However, the
fact that the suit properties belonged to the mother is not disputed by the
review petitioner. His contention was that section 15[2] of the Hindu
Succession Act will not apply and section 15[1] of the Act alone would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.8/2023
rd
apply. His defence appears to be that he is also entitled to 1/3 share in
suit 'B', 'C' and 'D' schedule as seen from para 9 of the written statement.
(5)During the pendency of the suit, the review petitioner filed an application
in A.No.478/2021 to reject the plalint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC,
mainly on the ground that the plaintiff/1st respondent herein cannot
dispute the share of the review petitioner by referring to section 15[2] of
the Hindu Succession Act. He also made some allegations by referring to
some of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on different issues
relating to the entitlement of the plaintiff and the review petitioner. The
learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment dated 30.11.2021,
dismissed the application filed by the review petitioner under Order 7
Rule 11 of CPC after recording the fact that the review petitioner himself
has admitted the maintainability of the suit at least with regard to the
1/3rd share of the plaintiff/1st respondent herein. Even though the
contention of the review petitioner that he cannot be excluded from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.8/2023
sharing suit items B, C and D properties, the learned Single Judge held
that the issue regarding quantum of share can be decided after trial and
that such issues cannot be decided in an application filed under Order 7
Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint. As against the said order
dismissing the application in A.No.478/2021 in CS.No.390/2020 refusing
to reject the plaint, the review petitioner filed OSA.No.33/2022.
OSA.No.33/2022 was listed before a Division Bench of this Court on
23.02.2022. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, on
instructions, sought permission to withdraw OSA.No.33/2022 with a
request to dispose of the suit in CS.No.390/2020 within a time frame. The
Division Bench, vide judgment dated 23.02.2022, disposed of the Original
Side Appeal in the following lines:-
''After making elaborate submissions,
Mr.M.Kalyana Sundaram, learned Senior counsel
appearing for the appellant, on instructios, from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.8/2023
appellant, who is also present in the Court, seeks
permission to withdraw the Original Side Appeal with a
request to dispose of the suit in CS.No.390/2020 within
a time frame. Mr.R.Vasudevan, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, has also made an
endorsement to that effect.
2.In view of the same, the Original Side
Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Since the learned
Senior counsel appearing for the appellant expressed
some urgency in the matter, we request the learned
Single Judge to take up the matter and dispose of the
same at the earliest. The learned Senior counsel is at
liberty to make a mention before the learned Single
Judge for taking up the matter early. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.''
(6)Surprisingly, even against the judgment of the Division Bench dated
23.02.2022, the review petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition in
Spl.[C].DiaryNo.29775/2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.8/2023
dated 21.11.2022, had disposed of the Special Leave Petition in the
following lines:-
''Delay condoned.
2.We are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order. The special leave petition is,
accordingly, dismissed.
3.However, liberty is reserved to the
petitioner to pursue the review petition already filed
before the High Court.
4.We request the High Court to consider the
review petition without being influneced by this order.
5.Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.''
(7)After the disposal of the Special Leave Petition, the review petitioner has
now filed the present review petition, wherein he has raised the following
grounds:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.8/2023
[a]The review petitioner was not heard by the
learned Single Judge while disposing of the
interlocutory application.
[b]Since the plaintiff/1st respondent is
residing in UK, the Court fee has to be paid under
section 37[1] of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit
Valuation Act.
[c]The review petitioner is entitled to a share
in the property of his wife under section 15[1] of Hindu
Succession Act and section 15[2] of the Act is not
applicable.
(8)Though the review petitioner has raised a few more grounds, the review
petitioner has not given any valid explanation, why the learned Senior
counsel appeared, was instructed to withdraw the appeal with liberty to
prosecute the suit filed for partition. The order dismissing the Original
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.8/2023
Side Appeal as withdrawn is on the basis of the statement made by the
learned Senior counsel engaged by the review petitioner. None of the
grounds raised by the review petitioner in this review petition would
attract Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. When there is no error apparent on the
face of the record, there is no scope for reviewing the order. From the
averments made in the plaint and the written statement and the stand taken
by the review petitioner throughout, this Court gets an impression that the
petitioner/father of the plaintiff/1st respondent, is successfully dragging
on the matter and his intention is to present the suit for partition being
disposed of on merits and in accordance with law. Absolutely there is no
merit in the petition filed by the review petitioner for rejection of plaint as
the allegations do not attract any of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of
CPC. Since the object behind the litigation appears to be to protract the
proceedings and thereby to deprive the legitimate share of plaintiff, this
Court is of the view that the review petition is liable to be dismissed with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.8/2023
exemplary cost.
(9)Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed with the cost of Rs.5,000/-
[Rupees Five Thousand only] payable by the review petitioner to the
Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai, within a period
of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(10)Post the review application during first week of June 2023 for
reporting compliance.
[SSSRJ] [PBBJ]
11.04.2023
AP
Internet: Yes
To
1.The Sub Registrar, Office of SRO,
Velachery, Chennai-600 042.
4.The Sub Registrar
Office of SRO, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.
5.The Sub Registrar
Office of SRO, Purasawalkkam
Chennai 600 007.
6.The Sub Registrar
Office of SRO, Madhavaram, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.8/2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND
P.B.BALAJI, J.
AP
Rev.Appln.No.8/2023
11.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
