P.Kuppammal vs S.Subramanian
2023 Latest Caselaw 2267 Mad

                                                                                   REV.APLC No.44 of 2020


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 10.03.2023

                                                         CORAM :

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                           Review Application No.44 of 2020

                1. P.Kuppammal
                2. Mrs.Anjalai (Deceased)                                      ... Petitioners

                                                           vs.

                1. S.Subramanian

                2. The Tahsildar,
                Office of Tahsildar,
                Cuddalore Taluk,
                Cuddalore District.                                             ... Respondents

                          PRAYER : Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of
                the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure
                Code, 1908, to review the judgment made in S.A.No.598 of 2019
                dated 12.11.2019.


                                  For Petitioners      : Mrs.P.Kuppammal(Party-in-Person)


                                                         ORDER

The petitioner seeks review of the judgment in

S.A.No.598 of 2019, dated 12.11.2019.

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

REV.APLC No.44 of 2020

2. The grievance of the review applicants/appellants that is

espoused in the review application is that the Government though

served in the original proceedings, the appellate proceedings as well

as the second appeal, did not appear before the trial Court and the

first appellate court. In this second appeal alone, the Government

Pleader appeared. It is also claimed by the 1st review applicant who

appears in person that the absence of pleadings by the Government

before the trial Court and appearance by the Government in the

appellate Court ought not to have been ignored. She has also

attempted to produce certain documents which are obtained after

the disposal of the second appeal by me. The suit that was filed by

the appellants/review applicants for a declaration of title, was

dismissed mainly on the ground that they have not identified the

property.

3. At the hearing of the second appeal, the original order of

allotment was looked into and it was found that the original allottees

did not have a right to alienate the property. Since the appellants

had claimed that they had purchased the property from the original

allottees, I have dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that since

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

REV.APLC No.44 of 2020

the sale in favour of the appellants is in violation of the conditions of

assignment which could result in cancellation of the assignment

itself, the appellants cannot claim valid title. Moreover, both the

documents under which the appellants had claimed title, are

unregistered documents and therefore, they cannot be pressed into

service to prove their title. The review applicants now want to

introduce some more documents and re-argue the entire matter

which, I do not think, could be permitted considering the limited

scope of review.

4. Hence, this Review Application is dismissed. No costs.

                NCC      : Yes / No                                10.03.2023
                Index : Yes / No
                Internet : Yes
                bala




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

                                          REV.APLC No.44 of 2020


                                     R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
                                                 bala




                                         ORDER MADE IN
                                  REV.APLC No.44 of 2020
                                      DATED : 10.03.2023




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