Chitralekha v. R. Ranganayaki

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL REVIEW APPLICATION NO.45 OF 2018 1.Mrs.Chitralekha 2.C.Vishnuprabhu 3.C.Sathyaprakash All residing at Coimbatore Palghat Transport Office, Thomas Street, Uppukinar Lane, Coimbatore.

... Petitioners/Appellants Vs.

1.R.Ranganayaki Door No.119, Old Market Road, Fort, Coimbatore-1.

2.Vijayakumar Door No.R-7, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore.

3.R.Kalaivani Door No.27/19, R.S.Puram, Mahalingapuram Post, Pollachi-2.

... Respondents 1 to 3 / Respondents 1 to 3 Page No.1 of 5

PRAYER : Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to allow the Review Application by Review in Order dated April 05, 2017 in A.S.No.505 of 2013 on the file of this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioners :

Mr.M.Santhanaraman For Respondent-1 :

Mr.C.Veeraraghavan

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.S.Ramesh) Mr.M.Santhanaraman, learned Counsel for the review petitioners submits that before passing of the Preliminary Decree, that is to say before determination of the shares of the parties, the respondents herein / plaintiff and defendants 1 & 5 alienated 3⁄4 share in Suit Item No.1, without the consent of the review petitioners, thereby violating their preemptive right contemplated under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 read with Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Hence, the Review Application. He relies on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.Vasudeva Pai -vs- Kamarunnisa, reported in (2011) 15 SCC 768.

Page No.2 of 5

2) We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners and perused the materials available on record. We do not find any mistake or error apparent on the face of record in the Judgment and Decree passed by this Court. The review petitioners have not made out any case for review.

3) Vasudeva Pai's Case [cited supra] relied on by the learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, since this Court passed only a Preliminary Decree, with liberty to implead the subsequent purchaser in respect of Suit Item No.(1) Property in the Final Decree Proceedings, whereas in that case, an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 made during the Final Decree proceedings was justified by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this case, there is absolutely no pleadings qua any preemptive right nor is there any plea under Section 4 of Partition Act, 1893. No issue was framed and no evidence was let in, in this regard. Hence, there is no need to review the Judgment & Decree dated April 05, 2017 passed by this Court in A.S.No.505 of 2013 Page No.3 of 5

4) Resultantly, the Review Application is liable to dismissed. Accordingly dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

[M.S.R., J.] [R.S.V., J.] Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes : Yes pam Page No.4 of 5

M.S.RAMESH, J.

AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

pam REVIEW APPLICATION NO.45 OF 2018 Page No.5 of 5