REV.APPL/187/2023 of M.SAKKARAPANI Vs M.RANGAN on 15 September 2026

Common Order

The petitioner in both the review petitions is the appellant in S.A.No.707 and 678 of 2022.

2. The review petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.119 of 1987 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.252 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Attur. O.S.No.252 of 1996 was filed by the review petitioner seeking a partition and separate possession of two items of properties. O.S.No.119 of 1987 was filed by the 1st respondent against the review

REV.APPL No. 187 of 2023

petitioner seeking a declaration of his right, title and interest in respect of the suit property and for permanent injunction. The parties are referred to in their ranking in the suit O.S.No.252 of 1996 for ease of understanding.

3. The short facts which have led to the filing of these review petitions are as follows:

(i) The review petitioner / plaintiff therein had filed the above suit for partition in respect of two items of property. The first item relates to land situate in Theyaganoor Village and the second item of property comprised lands in Kamakkapalayam Village. It is the case of the plaintiff that he and the 2nd defendant are the sons of the deceased 1st defendant and they constituted a Hindu Joint Family. The properties had fallen to the share of the 1st defendant under a partition with his brother Ramasami Padayachi pursuant to the partition deed dated 29.03.1978. Until then all the properties were being enjoyed jointly. Thereafter, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 were jointly enjoying the properties allotted under the partition to the 1st defendant. By virtue of a sale deed dated 15.09.1980, some portions of the suit property were purchased in the name of the 2nd defendant (the 2nd item of property).

REV.APPL No. 187 of 2023

(ii) It is the case of the plaintiff that the purchase was so made since the 2nd defendant was the eldest son and the 1st defendant was old and the plaintiff was younger. It is the case of the plaintiff that this property was purchased only from out of the income derived from the joint family properties. He would submit that misunderstandings arose between the plaintiff and the defendants and under a family arrangement, properties were divided into two equal shares and one share was allotted to the plaintiff and the other to the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff’s contention is that he is in possession and enjoyment of the half share in the properties purchased in the name of the 2nd defendant. It appears that pending the suit, the 1st and the 3rd defendants had died and their daughters were brought on record as their legal heirs. The plaintiff would further submit that taking advantage of the fact that the partition between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant was oral and not by way of a registered written document, the 2nd defendant started making false claims over the suit schedule properties. He had also filed the suit O.S.No. 119 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Attur for a declaration and permanent

REV.APPL No. 187 of 2023

injunction in respect of some portions of the suit schedule properties comprised in the 2nd Item. The plaintiff's case was that, as the 2nddefendant had taken a stand in the said suit that there was no partition and the 1stdefendant had joined hands with him, he was constrained to approach the Court.

(iii) In the suit O.S.No.119 of 1987 which was filed earlier in point of time, the 2nd defendant who was the plaintiff therein had filed the suit for a declaration and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property which was the 2nd item of property in the other suit. The 2nd defendant would submit that on 06.03.1987, the plaintiff had attempted to enter the suit property and prevented the 2nd defendant from pumping out the water from the well using the oil engine and with the intervention of the neighbours this attempt was prevented.

4. O.S.No.119 of 1987 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff therein/2nd defendant in O.S.No.252 of 1996. O.S.No.252 of 1996 was partly decreed by the trial Court holding that the 1st Item of property is not available for partition and therefore, the plaintiff has no right over the

REV.APPL No. 187 of 2023

same in the light of the title in respect of the same being declared in O.S.No.119 of 1987. Insofar 2nd item of property is concerned, it was held that both the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are entitled to half share each. Against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.252 of 1996 and O.S.No.119 of 1987, A.S.No.2 of 2013 and A.S.No.9 of 2012 were filed by the review petitioner. The said appeals were dismissed resulting in the filing of S.A.Nos.678 and 707 of 2022 before this Court. By a common judgment and decree dated 26.08.2022, this Court was pleased to dismiss the second appeals.

5. For dismissing the second appeals, this Court had taken into consideration the evidence of P.W2, who had stated that the plaintiff (Sakkarapani) and the 2nd defendant (Rangan) were cultivating their respective lands and that there was no ancestral properties belonging to the plaintiff’s family. P.W.2 had also stated that the plaintiff had constructed a thatched house in the property purchased by him. That apart, the plaintiff’s wife, under Ex.B17-Sale Deed, had purchased an extent of 81 cents in Survey No.82/1, Kamakkapalayam Village in the year 1992 subsequent to the purchase made by the 2nddefendant under Ex.B1-Sale Deed. Therefore, this Court held that the plaintiff, from his own

REV.APPL No. 187 of 2023

admission, had admitted that the properties comprised in Kamakkapalayam Village belonged to the 2nd defendant which was also corroborated by the documents. In the light of the above, this Court came to the conclusion that there was no substantial question of law and dismissed both the appeals.

6. Review Petition No.187 of 2023 is filed challenging thejudgment and decree in S.A.No.707 of 2022 and Review Petition No.188 of 2023 is filed in respect of the judgment and decree in S.A.No.678 of 2022.

7. The review petitions are filed only on the ground that the review petitioner has come across a document executed by his father in his favour and the 1strespondent, styled as a Muchalika recognising an undivided right to the property dated 14.01.1986. The said document is an unregistered document. Further, in the affidavit filed in support of the review petitions, there is nothing to show as to why the said document was not produced when the suits were pending or at any subsequent stage of the proceedings. There is also no pleading with reference to the said document in any of the earlier proceedings. The review petitioner has,

REV.APPL No. 187 of 2023

therefore, sought to rely upon the said document which has not seen the light of the day at the stage of review.

8. The review petitioner has not explained as to why the said document was not produced before the Courts below or before this Court during the pendency of the Second Appeals. That apart even assuming that such a document had been executed, the same only recognises an undivided right to the properties. This document is not signed by Rangan in whose name the properties stand. Therefore, the review petitioner has not made out any ground to show that the judgment and decree passed in the Second Appeals suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the review petitions are dismissed. 15-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SRN

REV.APPL No. 187 of 2023

P.T.ASHA J. SRN REV.APPL No. 187 of 2023 AND REV.APPL NO. 188 OF 2023 15-09-2026