Madras High Court
S. Nagarajan vs K.S. Annapoorani Bai (Died) on 3 January, 2023
1 REV.APLC.(MD)NO.132 OF 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
REV.APLC.(MD)No.132 of 2022 in
S.A.No.1332 of 2003
Subramaniam(Died) ... 1st Respondent
1. S. Nagarajan
2. G. Sankari
3. S. Sudha
4. G. Nagaretinam
5. G. Vanaja ... Review Petitioners
Vs.
1. K.S. Annapoorani Bai (Died)
2. N. Arulchandar ... Respondents 1 & 2 /
Appellants 1 & 2
3. Vairavan (Died)
4. Kulalamani (Died)
5. Nagarajan (Died)
6. Rajamani (Died)
7. Gandhi Bai
8. Ramachandran
9. Vaidyalingam (Died)
10. B. Kalavathy
11. K. Vasanthi
12. R. Satheesh Kumar
13. V. Nagendran (Died)
14. R. Gomathi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
2 REV.APLC.(MD)NO.132 OF 2022
15. R. Valliammal
16. R. Kamalam
17. R. Krishnammal
18. K. Sankari
19. Kamala
20. N. Sankar ... Respondents 3 to 20 /
Respondents 1 to 19
21. N.A. Nagalatha (Died)
22. Rajaram
23. Karthik ... Respondents 21 to 23 /
Respondents 20,22 & 23
Prayer: Review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule
1 of CPC, against the Judgement and Decree passed in S.A.
No.1332 of 2003 dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Court.
(Cause title is accepted vide Order dated 12.09.2022
made in CMP(MD)No.8029 of 2022 in Rev. Aplc.
(MD)No.SR12751 of 2022)
For Petitioners : Mr.T.S.R. Venkat Ramana
For R-2 : Mr.J.Parthasarathi,
for Mr.B.Ponnu Pandi.
For R-7 & R-15 : Mr.G.Ramanathan
For R-10 to R-12 : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For R-22 & R-23 : Mr.P.S.Ganesan
For R-8, R-14,
R-16 to R-18 : No appearance.
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/7
3 REV.APLC.(MD)NO.132 OF 2022
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.1055 of 1985 on the file of
the II Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil, filed S.A.No.1332
of 2003. It was a suit for partition. The second appeal was
disposed of as follows:-
“1) That the judgment and decree, dated
28.03.2003 passed in AS No.91 of 2000 on the file
of the I Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil, be and
hereby are set aside.
2) That the present appellant Arulchandar
shall be entitled to 1/8th undivided share in both
the suit items. Rajaram and Karthick, husband and
son of Nagalatha, shall be entitled to 1/8th share in
both the suit items by virtue of being the legal
heirs of the original plaintiff Annapoorani Bai.
3) That the Ex.A8 executed by the legal
heirs of Shankaran in favour of Subramanian (R1
herein) be and hereby is valid to the extent of
Vendor's 1/4th undivided share. Subramanian and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 REV.APLC.(MD)NO.132 OF 2022
the legal heir of his sibling Vaidyalingam shall be
entitled to 1/4th undivided share in both the suit
items in their capacity as legal heirs of
Nagarammal.
4) That the legal heirs of Vairavan shall be
entitled to 1/4th undivided share in both the suit
items. The legal heirs of Shankaran shall have 1/4th
undivided share in item No.2.
5) That this second appeal is disposed as
above.
6) That there be no costs in the second
appeal. ”
Aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of the deceased first
respondent in the second appeal have filed this review
application.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the review
applicants reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds
for review. The learned counsel appearing for the review
applicants fairly stated that he would not fault the judgment of
this Court to a substantial extent. He has only one grievance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 REV.APLC.(MD)NO.132 OF 2022
regarding allotment of shares. The case involved four
branches, namely, Vairavan branch, Shankaran branch,
Nagarammal branch and Saraswathy branch. This Court held
that each branch was entitled to 1/4th share. Ex.A.8 was
executed by the legal heirs of Shankaran in favour of the first
respondent Subramanian. However, I had held that it would
be valid to the extent of vendor's 1/4th divided share. I had also
noted that the deceased first respondent will be entitled to
1/4th undivided share in both the suit items in their capacity as
legal heirs of Nagarammal. The learned counsel wants this
Court to work out the equities in such a manner so that the
review applicants can take the entire first item. There are two
items of property. Since the total share of Shankaran will be
1.87 cents, he wants the first item in its entirety to be allotted
to Shankaran branch.
4. This issue cannot be gone into in this review
application. This is for more reasons than one. The petitioners'
counsel would rely on the principle of feeding the estoppel.
That doctrine cannot be invoked. Shankaran branch had only
1/4th share in the first item. 1/4th share of Shankaran branch in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 REV.APLC.(MD)NO.132 OF 2022
the second item cannot be taken away so as to cause accretion
to their share in the first item. In any event, these are matters
that will have to be worked out in the final decree
proceedings, when the Court will physically divide and allot
items. Granting liberty to the review applicants to work out
their rights in the final decree proceedings, this review
application stands dismissed. No costs. I make it clear that the
dismissal of this review application will not affect their case in
the final decree proceedings.
03.01.2023
NCS : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PMU
To:
The II Additional District Munsif,
Nagercoil.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 REV.APLC.(MD)NO.132 OF 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
REV. APLC(MD)No.132 of 2022
03.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
