Sri Ramajayam Educational v. The State Of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.02.2018 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Review Application No.326 of 2015 in S.A.No.359 of 2009

1. M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy (Deceased)

2. Rajamma

3. L.N.Vasudeva Reddy

4. Leelavathi

5. L.N.Mopuri Reddy

6. L.N.Umashankar Reddy

7. L.N.Ravikumar Reddy

8. L.N.Jayasankara Reddy

9. Geethalakshmi

10. L.N.Ramachandra Reddy ... Petitioners/Appellants versus

1. Nyathappa Goudu

2. Santhamoorthy

3. Ramappa

...Respondents/Respondents

Prayer:- The Review application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w. Section 114 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree passed in S.A.No.359 of 2009 dated 18.08.2015. For Petitioners :

Mr.T.Srikrishna Bhagavat For Respondents :

Ms.V.Srimathi

O R D E R

The appellant/plaintiff is the review petitioner seeking to review the judgment dated 18.08.2015 passed in S.A.No.359 of 2009.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the defendants had no manner of right for the 10 cents of land, which is the suit property and in the absence of any evidence for adverse possession, their title has been confirmed. It is also pointed out that in paragraph 19, it is specifically stated that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to cancel the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

patta issued in favour of the defendants under U.D.R. scheme. However, it is stated that the plaintiff had taken steps by submitting application to the Revenue authorities. Unless the plaintiff had taken steps to challenge within the period of limitation, the same cannot be adjudicated in the review petition. There is no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record in the judgment. The grounds of review sought for are not self evident and they have to be detected only by process of reasoning, which cannot be deemed to be an error apparent on the face of the record. As the review has got a limited purpose, the same cannot be allowed to be argued as an appeal to reappreciate facts and evidence. As there is no error apparent on the face of the record, as stated above, the review application is dismissed. No Costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rsi To 1.

The Subordinate Court, Hosur, 2.

The District Munsif Court, Hosur.

+1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate, S.R.No.14881 +1cc to Mr.P.Subba Reddy, Advocate, S.R.No.15541 Review Application No.326 of 2015 in S.A.No.359 of 2009 AP(CO) CS/27/03/18 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/