K.M.Ramanathan v. Palaniammal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.04.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY 1.K.M.Ramanathan 2.R.Rangaswamy 3.S.Sambandamurthy 4.P.Durairaj 5.G.Arjunan 6.P.Rajendran 7.N.Kandaswamy 8.P.Subramanian 9.M.Ayyswamy 10.P.Muthuvel 11.G.Mangaiyarkarasi 12.Amitha 13.Minor Nithila 14.G.Dhanalakshmi 15.B.Shanmugavadivu 16.M.Padmavathi 17.G.Senthilkumar 18.Noorjahan 19.Mohamed Nassar 20.Ilahinnissa 21.Mohamed Abdoul Khader 22.D.Dhanapalan 23.Jayanthi 24.Indira ... Applicants Vs.

1.Smt.Palaniammal 2.Smt.Lakshmiammal 1/6

3.Smt.Palaniammal 4.R.Balasubramanian 5.Smt.R.Rajeswari 6.S.Arumugam 7.Smt.Subathra 8.Smt.Parvathi 9.S.Rajendran 10.Balakrishnan 11.Smt.Vijayalakshmi 12.M.Manokaran 13.M.Ramalingam 14.P.Subash 15.R.Banu Rajendran 16.M.Lalitha 17.R.Manikandan 18.Meenakshi 19.E.Tamilarasi 20.K.Sivasankari 21.R.E.Saravanan ... Respondents PRAYER : Review Application is filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC to review the operative portion of the judgment and decree of this Court dated 20.04.2021 made in S.A.No.512 of 2017. For Applicants : Mr.K.Doraisami Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Muthumani For Respondents : Mr.A.Ramkumar [RR17 & 18] Mr.R.Shanmugam[RR2 to 5,7, 8and 11] 2/6

ORDER

This Review Application has been filed seeking to review the operative portion of the judgment and decree of this Court made in S.A.No.512 of 2017 dated 20.04.2021.

2. Though the prayer sought for herein is for review the operative portion of the judgment and decree made in S.A.No.512 of 2017, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants restricted the prayer to correct the typographical error.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that a typographical error has occurred in paragraph No.61(ii) in the judgment and decree made in S.A.No.512 of 2017 dated 20.04.2021.

4. This Court in S.A.No.512 of 2017 in paragraph No.59.2 has observed as follows:

"59.2. With regard to the allotment to the portion of B and D are concerned, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court shall stand unaltered. While allotting the portion marked as "A", coloured in "Red" to Mrs.Palaniammal, this Court 3/6

makes it clear that whatever portions constructed in that area by the deceased first defendant will go to Mrs.Palaniammal. As far as two sheds, constructed by Mrs.Palaniammal in the portion, marked as "C", coloured in "Green" it will go to the deceased first defendant."

5. In view of the above observations made in paragraph No.59.2, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the operative portion in paragraph No. 61(ii), in the second line, instead of "A" coloured in "Red" it has been wrongly stated as "C" coloured in "Green". Further in the same paragraph i.e., paragraph No.61 (ii), in the fifth line instead of "C" coloured in " Green" it has been wrongly stated as "A" coloured in " Red".

7. Accordingly, the paragraph No.61(ii) shall be read as follows: "(ii) The portion marked as "A" coloured in "Red" in Ex.C.2 Advocate Commissioner Reports Plan, would be allotted to Mrs.Palaniammal instead of portion marked as "C" coloured in "Green" in the Plan as allotted by the Advocate Commissioner and subsequently confirmed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court."

4/6

Hence, this review application is disposed of. No costs. 25.04.2023 mp Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Note: Registry is directed to issue a corrected order copy to the parties. Issue order copy on 04.05.2023.

5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY. J., mp 25.04.2023 6/6