High Court · 2025

Rev.Appl.No.233 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :04.04.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVIReview Application Nos. 233 of 2024inCRP.No.2870 of 2016andCMP.No.18907 of 2024---A.P.Namasivayam (Died)1.N.Palaniammal2.N.Anand3.H.Hari4.A.N.Senthil5.N.Priya6.N.Bhuvaneshwari... Review applicantsVersus1.S.MurugesanLoganathan (Died)2.Sathya Prabha3.Sathish Kumar4.Sharmila5.Sarubala6.Chandra Mouliswaran7.Janabai.. Respondents1\10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appl.No.233 of 2024PRAYER: Review Application filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 27.06.2023 passed in CRP.No.2870 of 2016 by this Court.For review applicants: Mr.Kaithamalai Kumaranfor Ms.J.PrithiviFor respondents:Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior CounselFor Mr.A.KandasamyJUDGMENTThe petitioner has preferred this Review application, against the order dated 27.06.2023 passed in CRP.No.2870 of 2016 by this Court.2. The learned counsel for the review applicants challenged the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 2870 of 2016, dated 27.06.2023, on the following grounds:(i) The Revision Applicants and one A.P.Namasivayam had filed O.S.No. 390 of 1985 (Subordinate Judge, Salem) against one A Loganathan for the relief of specific performance as per the sale agreement dated 10.04.1982 executed by A. Loganathan jointly in favour of 2\10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appl.No.233 of 2024A.P.Namasivayam and the Revision Petitioner.(ii). It is submitted that the sale agreement dated 10.04.1982 was in respect of 1.02 acres (44,431 square feet) described as A Schedule in O.S.No. 390 of 1985 (Subordinate Judge, Salem)(iii). It is submitted that the three sale deeds were executed prior to the filing of O.S.No. 390 of 1985 (Subordinate Judge, Salem) as follows:a. Sale deed dated 01.12.1982 with respect to 4650 sq ft. (item 1 in B Schedule) in favour of Mrurugesan (Revision Petitioner)b. Sale deed dated 01.12.1982 with respect to 4050 sq ft( item 2 in B Schedule) in favour of A.P.Namachivayam.c. Sale deed dated 27.01.1983 with respect to 4650 (item 3 in B Schedule) in favour Palaniammal and her sons.(iv). It is submitted that the suit for specific performance with alternative prayer of return of advance amount was filed on 25.04.1985 in O.S.No. 390 of 1985 (Subordinate Judge, Salem) and the execution of the three sale deeds were pleaded in the Plaint and the prayer sought in the suit is as follows: " directing the defendants to execute and get registered the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs with respect to C schedule property."3\10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appl.No.233 of 2024(v). It is submitted that the C schedule property was described as A schedule - B schedule. i.e. (A schedule property 1.02 acres (44,431 square feet) - B schedule property 13350 square feet 1.e. 4650+4050+4650 for which sale deeds were executed prior to suit)(vi). It is submitted that the suit was filed subsequent to the execution of sale deeds with respect to 13,350 square feet and the alternative prayer for return of advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was prayed excluding the sale consideration passed in the three sale deeds.(vii). It is submitted that the suit was decreed in the following terms,(A) thjpfSf;F gpujpthjpfs; jhth rP ml;ltizapy; fz;l brhj;ij fpiua gj;jpuk; vGjpf; bfhLf;f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;(B) fpiua ghf;fp bjhif Ugha; 1.60.200/00 I thjpfs; brYj;j Kd;W khj fhy mtfhrk; bfhLf;fg;gLfpd;wJ vd;Wk;(C) thjpfs; fpiua ghf;fp bjhif brYj;jpa cld; gpujpthjpfs; 4 khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; jPh;g;ghid njjpapypUe;J thjpfs; bgaUf;F fpiua gj;jpuk; vGjpf; bfhLf;f jtWk; gl;rj;jpy; ,e;ePjpkd;w Kykhf fpiua gj;jpuk; thjpfs; vGjpf; bfhs;syhk; vd;Wk;/(viii) It is submitted that the revision Petitioner has filed R.E.P.No. 107/2013 in O.S.No. 390/1985 (ASJI Salem) under Order 21 Rule 11 and 4\10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appl.No.233 of 202415 for execution of decree dated 29.07.1991.(ix). It is submitted that the execution court by an order dated 28.04.2014 held as follows"In the result, the petition is allowed. Consequently, both the petition and 8th Respondent as joint decree holders are entitled to the execution sale deed in their favour for an extent of 30,980 ½ sq.ft deducting the 20 feet pathway left by both of them running east west in the suit property. Both the Petitioner and the 8th Respondent shall file a draft sale deed with clear boundaries and measurements and with rough sketch. Call on 18.06.2014."(x). It is submitted that the Revision Petitioner has not filed any Appeal against the Order dated 28.04.2014 passed in R.E.No. 107 of 2013.(xi). It is submitted that the joint decree holder i.e. A.P. Namachivayam filed R.E.A.No. 270 of 2014 in R.E.P.No.107 of 2013 to execute separate sale deeds in the undivided common extent of 31080.05 sq.feet and subsequently filed an memo to not press R.E.A.No. 270 of 2014.(xii). It is submitted that the memo for not pressing R.E.A.No 270 of 2014 was accepted o by order dated 12.02.2016 which was challenged in CRP.No. 2870 of 2016.(xiii). It is submitted that A.P. Namasivayam had filed the memo to not press R.E.A.No 270 of 2014 only after the execution court raised objection to the maintainability of the R.E.A.No 270 of 2014in the view of the order dated 28.04.2014 passed in R.E.P.No. 107 of 2013.5\10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appl.No.233 of 2024(xiv). It is submitted that the execution court doubted the maintainability of R.E.A.No 270 of 2014 in para 3 of the order dated 12.02.2016 as follows,"3. Then this court urged at 8th Respondent that there is a clear expressive order in decree and directed to present draft sale deed by decree holder and 8th Respondent jointly for extent of 30.980 sq.feet. After dictation land for 20 feet east west common path way. how this Petition is maintainable for getting separate sale deed in common and undivided property."(xv). Thus, it is submitted that the order dated 12.02.2016 was Pursuant to the order passed in RE.P.No. 107 of 2013 dated 28.04.2014.(xvi). It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court by order dated 27.06.2023 allowed Civil Revision Petition on the premises that the Plaintiffs have purchased the portion of the entire extent of suit properties measuring 1.02 acres (44,431 square feet) subsequent to the filing of suit, as follows in para 13"considering the submission of both sides, it is the settled principles of law, the execution court cannot go beyond the decree but coming to the facts of the case, as per decree passed by the trail court after taking note of the subsequent sale deeds executed in favour of both plaintiffs, for the remaining extent only decree was passed. As per the original agreement, both plaintiffs are having equal half 6\10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appl.No.233 of 2024share in the entire extent of 1.02 acres. But after filing of the suit, both plaintiffs have purchased the portion of property separately. The 1" plaintiff the portion of the property through two sale deed and 2nd plaintiff purchased the portion of the property in common half share belongs to them. Therefore the execution court is bound to find out the extent of each of the plaintiff is entitled and for that alone, sale deeds is to be executed in favour of both the plaintiffs."xvii. Thus, it is submitted that the finding with respect to purchase of portion of properties subsequent to the filing of suit is an error apparent on the face of the record considering the admitted facts in the Plaint in O.S.No.390/1985 wherein it has been specifically pleaded about the sale deeds in respect of the portion of properties prior to filing of the suitxviii. It is submitted that the draft sale deed which is part of order passed in C.R.P.no/2870 of 2016 was not produced and marked in the execution court and first time produced before this Hon'ble Court."3. Upon submitting all the grounds, the learned counsel for the review applicants contended that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for a review of the order passed by this Court.7\10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appl.No.233 of 20244. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, as per the order of this Court, the sale deed was executed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Salem on 17.11.2023. As of now, the execution proceedings have also been closed.5. In compliance with the order of this Court, the sale deed has already been executed. The E-Court status report submitted by the respondents also establishes that the review applicants also appeared before the executing court. On merits, the execution application has also been disposed of in compliance with the said order. 6. However, a perusal of the grounds raised by the review applicants reveals that the applicants seeks to revisit the entire set of facts and the order passed by this Court, which is impermissible under the provisions of law. There is no error apparent on the face of the record as alleged by the applicants. All the issues were elaborately discussed, and the order was passed on merits.8\10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appl.No.233 of 20247. Therefore, I find no ground to entertain this review application. The grounds raised by the counsel for the review applicants are also not sustainable under law. 8. Accordingly, this review application is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 04.04.2025Index : Yes/NoNeutral Citation : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non Speaking orderrriTo1.The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem.2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras.T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.rri9\10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appl.No.233 of 2024Review Application Nos. 233 of 2024inCRP.No.2870 of 2016andCMP.No.18907 of 202404.04.202510\10