Madras High Court
Mohanraj vs Kuppusamy Gounder on 22 August, 2023
Rev. Appl. No. 90 of 2022
against S.A.No. 774 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Rev. Appl. No. 90 of 2022
against
S.A.No. 774 of 2019
Mohanraj,
S/o. Kuppusamy Gounder ... Review Applicant
Versus
1. Kuppusamy Gounder,
S/o. Muthupalani Gounder
2. Sakthivel,
S/o. Kuppusamy Gounder ... Respondents
Prayer:- Review Application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of
C.P.C. r/w 114 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree
dated 24.01.2022 passed by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice S.Kannammal in
S.A.No.774 of 2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Premkumar
For Respondents : Mr. G.R.Deepak
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appl. No. 90 of 2022
against S.A.No. 774 of 2019
ORDER
The Review Applicant is the appellant in the Second Appeal and he
has filed this Review Application to review the judgment dated 24.01.2022
passed in S.A.No.774 of 2019.
2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr. T.Premkumar,
learned counsel for Review Applicant would submit that before the lower
court, 1/3rd share in item nos.1 and 2 of suit schedule property was granted.
Against which, the first appeal was preferred. The suit in O.S.No. 131 of
2007 was filed claiming the relief of partition in item Nos.1 to 3 of suit
schedule property. All the properties are claimed as ancestral properties.
However, the lower court dismissed the suit, against which, first appeal was
preferred in A.S.No. 19 of 2015, wherein 1/3 rd share in item Nos.1 and 2 of
suit schedule property was granted. Challenging the said findings, the
defendants preferred the Second Appeal in S.A.No.774 of 2019, wherein
this Court gave a finding by setting aside the findings of first appellate court
in A.S.No.19 of 2015 and confirming the findings of trial judge.
Accordingly, the suit was dismissed, more particularly, no share was
allotted to the plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appl. No. 90 of 2022
against S.A.No. 774 of 2019
3. Now, the learned counsel for Review Applicant would further
submit that while discussing the issue with regard to the nature of property,
this court not appreciated the question of law as well as facts and
circumstance of the case and erroneously declined to grant the relief to the
plaintiff. So, the plaintiff filed the present Review Application to review the
entire findings in the Second Appeal.
4. As the Review Applicant wanted to review the entire findings of
this court in the above Second Appeal, as it would not come under the scope
of Review Application. If at all, the plaintiff is aggrieved by the findings of
this court in the Second Appeal, he has to approach the higher forum as per
manner known to law. So, I do not find any error on the face of record or to
review the findings in the judgment passed by this court in S.A.No.774 of
2019 and hence, the Review Application is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Review Application is dismissed. No costs.
22.08.2023
rpp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appl. No. 90 of 2022
against S.A.No. 774 of 2019
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
Rev. Appl. No. 90 of 2022
against
S.A.No. 774 of 2019
22.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
