REV.APPL/142/2026 of N. Mythili Vs M.D. Mani on 24 August 2026

ORDER

This review application has been filed to review the order dated 29.08.2025 in CRP(PD).No.1628 of 2025.

2. I have heard Mr.A.Palaniappan, learned counsel for the review applicants and Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the review applicants would bring to my notice that I had disposed of the revision and proceeded to reject the plaint, finding that the daughters were not co-parceners and they cannot claim any co- parcenary right in the suit property and consequently, challenge the settlement deed executed by their father, the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant. The learned counsel for the review applicants would however bring to my notice to paragraph No.6 of the plaint, where dehors the claim of co-parcenary interest in the suit property, the review applicants have also challenged the settlement deeds executed by the 1st defendant as fraudulent, forged and fabricated, to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. However, the learned counsel for the review applicants states that it came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only in September 2021. He would therefore state that it is a mixed question of fact and law, which can be gone into, only if the parties are directed to go for an elaborate trial. He would therefore pray for the review being allowed and the order in the revision petition being set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents states that firstly it is not open to the plaintiff’s daughters to challenge the settlement deed, as forged and fabricated, when the executant, namely the father M.D.Mani, who is very much alive as on date, has not questioned the said document executed by him in favour of the 2nd defendant. The learned counsel for the respondents would therefore state that there is no infirmity in the order in the revision and the review application is sans merit.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

6. While disposing of the revision petition, I found that there was no cause of action for the daughters to seek any co-parcenary interest or right in the subject properties, especially since the origin of the properties traces to the mother of M.D.Mani, the 1st defendant by name, Dhanammal @ Dhanakottiammal w/o. Duraisamy Achari. In such view of the matter, I do not see how there can be any co-parcenary right or invocation of Section 6 in the first place, when it is not claimed under a male ancestry line.

7. Even assuming the petitioners came to know about the alleged settlement deeds only in 2001, the said settlement deeds were executed by the grandmother, Dhanammal, giving life interest to the 1st defendant and thereafter to her only son, the 2nd defendant and consequently, the 1st defendant settling the property in favour of the 2nd defendant. It is not open to the daughters of the 1st defendant to challenge these documents, as being forged or fabricated. If at all they could have claimed an independent right and maintained the suit. This has already been dealt with and negatived in the civil revision petition. The mere fact that the settlement deeds are also being questioned, cannot entitle the petitioners to reopen the trial and seek to proceed with the suit. I do not see any grounds to review the order dated 29.08.2025.

8. In fine, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs. 24.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA Review Application No.142 of 2026 24.08.2026