REV.APPL/235/2026 of D.VEERABADRAN Vs N. PREMAVATHY on 8 September 2026

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by D.Bharatha Chakravarthy,J.) This Review Application has been filed to review the judgment dated 01.12.2021 made in A.S.No.78 of 2018.

2. Upon perusal of material records, it can be seen that O.S.No.10 of 2014 was decreed by learned District Judge, District Court

No.II, Kancheepuram on 27.04.2018, thereby passing a preliminary decree in respect of suit for partition. The partition suit was filed by two plaintiffs, namely, R.Senthil Kumar and D.Sekkizhar @ Ravi and was defended by three defendants, viz., D.Sivamani, D.Veerabadran and N.Premavathi.

3. After considering the case of parties, learned Trial Judge passed a Decree, holding that sons are entitled to 7/30th share each in the suit properties and mother and daughter are entitled to 1/30th share each in the properties. Aggrieved by the same, the Review Applicant along with his sister N.Premavathy had filed A.S.No.780 of 2018 on the file of this Court.

4. When the Appeal Suit came up for hearing, both sides counsel filed a memo jointly by submitting that there is a readjustment with reference to the share allotted to daughter N.Premavathi and both sides counsel agreed upon to file a fresh calculation memo, whereby daughter was held to be equally entitled to on par with the sons. As per the joint memo of calculation, which was filed by both sides counsel, mother was allotted 1/36th share and four sons and daughter were equally allotted 7/36th share on the basis of joint memo of calculation.

5. Now, Review Application has been filed by D.Veerabadran / 2nd defendant by stating that he had not given such a consent to the counsel and therefore, Division Bench erred in recording the memo without examining the parties. Though no exception can be taken to the said proposition argued in the Review Application, it must be seen that firstly, the said N.Premavathi was co-appellant along with Review Applicant in A.S.No.780 of 2018. Learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of both of them had only filed memo by giving consent as early as on 01.12.2021. Immediately or any time thereafter, no complaint was made by Review Applicant. Even at the time of filing Review Application, no complaint was made against erstwhile counsel. Review Application is prosecuted belatedly with a delay of 771 days in re-presenting the papers.

6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the nature of memo that was recorded in the Appeal Suit, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for entertaining the Review Application, when the order has been passed by consent. After passing the decree or immediately thereafter, no objections had been raised by the Review Applicant. Having allowed the matter to be disposed of based on the compromise memo filed by the parties, the Review Application has been filed belatedly by one of the appellants. We see

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J. AR this not a result of no consent but an attempt to wriggle out of the consent order. In view thereof, the present Review Application is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are ordered. (S.M.S.,J.) (D.B.C.,J.) 08-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AR REV.APPL.No.235 of 2026 and C.M.P.Nos.25566 and 25646 of 2026