Madras High Court
REV.APPL/253/2024 of ANANTHI Vs VIJAYA on 27 October 2026
REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024
in
S.A.No.498 of 2021
and CMP.No.20769 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011553082024}
1. Ananthi
W/o. Late Nallathambi, Res. at
Sennampatti Village, Morappur (Po),
Harur Tk, Dharmapuri Dt.
2.Archana
D/o. Late Nallathambi, Res. at
Sennampatti Village, Morappur (Po),
Harur Tk, Dharmapuri Dt.
3.Kavya
D/o. Late Nallathambi, Res. at
Sennampatti Village, Morappur (Po),
Harur Tk, Dharmapuri Dt.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Vijaya
W/o. Late Marappan, Res. at
Sennampatti Village, Morappur (PO),
Harur Tk, Dharmapuri Dt, presently res.
at D.No.618, Phase III Chathuvachari,
Vellore Town, Vellore Dt - 9.
2.Udhayakumar
S/o. Late Marappan, Res. at
Sennampatti Village, Morappur (PO),
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )
REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024
Harur Tk, Dharmapuri Dt, presently res.
at D.No.618, Phase III Chathuvachari,
Vellore Town, Vellore Dt - 9.
3.Senthamarai
D/o. Late Marappan, Thiru.Vi.Ka
Nagar, Harur Town and Tk, Dharmapuri
Dt.
4.Chinnaraj
S/o. Puttaali @ Kulamaran, Koodalur
Post and Village, Harur Tk, Dharmapuri
Dt
5.Kandasamy
S/o. Perumal, Sennampatti Village,
Thoppampatti Tharapu, Morappur Post,
Harur Tk, Dharmapuri Dt.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
To review the order dated 15.06.2023 made in SA No.498 of 2021 and to allow this Review Petition.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.V.C.Janarthanan
For Mr.C. Prabakaran
For Respondent(s):
Mr.K.Thiruvengadam
For Rr1 To 3
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The review applicants are the appellants in S.A.Nos.498 of 2021 and have filed the present review application seeking a review of the order passed by this Court on 15.06.2023
2. The learned counsel for the respondents raised strong objections to the review application, contending that this Court had duly considered the
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )
REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024 substantial question of law framed at the time of admission of the second appeal and had recorded its reasons in paragraph 9 of the judgment. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the order does not warrant any interference and prayed for dismissal of the review application as devoid of merits.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the records. The review applicants herein are defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.79 of 2014, which was instituted by the respondents herein seeking partition and other consequential reliefs. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, against which an appeal in A.S.No.5 of 2019 was preferred. The said appeal was allowed, thereby reversing the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the reversal of the findings of the first appellate Court, the defendants preferred the second appeal before this Court.
4. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed: “Whether the suit O.S. No.79 of 2014 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Harur presented on 18.08.2014 inter alia assailing a registered partition deed dated 27.02.2001 [Ext.A1] is time barred owing to Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and if the answer is in the affirmative whether the courts below ought to have considered the same (in a case of this nature where other
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )
REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024 prayers are dovetailed) in spite of the same not being set up as a defence owing to the language in which Section 3 of Limitation Act is couched?”
5. The principal contention raised by the appellants was that the suit was barred by limitation. According to them, the partition deed marked as Ex.A1 was executed in the year 2001 and the plaintiffs, upon attaining majority, ought to have challenged the same within three years from the date of attaining majority. However, the suit was instituted only after a lapse of approximately eleven years, beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Hence, the appellants specifically contended that the suit was not maintainable as it was barred by limitation under Section 16 of the Limitation Act.
6. On a perusal of paragraph 9 of the judgment under review, it is seen that this Court had observed that plaintiffs 2 and 3 were not parties to the partition deed and, therefore, they were not required to challenge the same. On that basis, this Court answered the substantial question of law framed in the second appeal.
7. However, the specific contention raised by the appellants that the suit was barred by limitation, as it had not been instituted within three years from
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )
REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024 the date on which the plaintiffs attained majority, has not been adequately considered or addressed in paragraph 9 of the judgment under review. In the absence of sufficient reasons dealing with the said contention, this Court is of the view that the review application deserves to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the review application is allowed.
9. In view of the above, the order dated 15.06.2023 passed in S.A.NO.498 of 2021 is hereby recalled.
10. The Registry is directed to post the main second appeal on 03.11.2026 under the caption “For Orders”. 27-10-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No rri
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )
REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024 To
1. The Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri.
2. The Subordinate Judge, Harur.
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )
REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024 T.V.THAMILSELVI J. rri REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024
27-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )