K.Anbu, v. Thanikachalam,

Review Application No.75 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.11.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN Review Application No.75 of 2021 and C.M.P.Nos.7901 & 7904 of 2021 1.K.Anbu 2.K.Anandhan ....

Petitioners -Vs1.Thanikachalam 2.Kamatchiammal 3.Sivakumar 4.Parthasarathy 5.Vanaja 6.Sabitha 7.Mala ....

Respondents Prayer : Review Application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order date 30.09.2020 passed in C.R.P.No.2552 of 2018 on the file of this Court.

For Petitioners : Mr.Richardson Wilson For Respondents : Mr.C.Jagadish

O R D E R

The only contention that is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this Review Application is that, while the second plaintiff was not party to the sale deed dated 24.12.1982, the third plaintiff who was major was shown as minor. 1 / 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Review Application No.75 of 2021 R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

KST

2. The suit prayer is for declaration that the sale deed is null and void and for declaration of title of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the first plaintiff who was major on the date of the sale and the plaintiffs 4 to 6 who were minors and represented by their father and guardian were parties to the sale deed. Therefore, a declaration of this nature cannot be sought for by the other two plaintiffs along with the plaintiffs 1, 4, 5 and 6.

3. I therefore do not see any reason to review the order passed in the Civil Revision Petition. It may be open to the other plaintiffs who are not parties or who were wrongly impleaded, to agitate their rights in the manner known to law. The Review Application is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

17.11.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No KST Review Application No.75 of 2021 2 / 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis