BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30/09/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.R.P(MD)No.557 of 2003 Jawahar Biwi ..Petitioner Vs 1.Mahmuda Biwi 2.Mohammed Jawath 3.Rahmadunnissa Beewi 4.Abdul Karim 5.L.K.M.Abdul Rahman (died) 6.L.K.S.M.Najma 7.L.K.S.M.Meeran Mohaideen 8.Noorunnissa 9.L.K.S.M.Mohamed Saleema Beevi 10.L.K.S.M.Mohamed Fathima 11.L.K.S.M.Kalvath Peer Mohameed 12.L.K.M.A.Mohamed Saleem 13.L.K.M.A.Mohamed 14.L.K.M.A.Mohamed Nawas Hussain ..Respondents PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the code of civil procedure to set aside the fair and decretal order in I.A.No.337 of 1985 in I.A.No.248 of 1975 in O.S.No.25 of 1972 dated 20.07.2002 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan ^For R2 ... Mr.S.S.Sundar For R3 ... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For R4 ... Mr.M.Imthias For R7 ... Mr.M.P.Senthil :ORDER
The revision petitioner has filed the above revision to set aside the fair
and decretal order in I.A.No.337 of 1985 in I.A.No.248 of 1975 in O.S.No.25 of
1972 dated 20.07.2002 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Court,
Tirunelveli.
2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The revision petitioner herein is the 2nd defendant in the suit in
O.S.No.25 of 1972 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli. The
said suit was originally filed for partition among the four plaintiffs and 5th
defendant including the revision petitioner herein. In the partition suit,
final decree was passed on 28.09.1984. Thereafter, the defendants 1 to 3,
including the revision petitioner herein have filed a review application in
I.A.No.337 of 1985 against the final decree passed in I.A.No.248 of 1975 in
O.S.No.25 of 1972 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The
prayer in the review application is that the properties should be reallotted and
partitioned.
3.After hearing the submission made on both sides, the review application
was dismissed. Against the order and decretal order passed in the review
application in I.A.No.337 of 1985, dated 20.07.2002, the above revision has been
filed to set aside the said order.
4.The learned counsel for the 7th respondent has submitted that some of
the suit properties were sold to various parties under registered sale deeds.
The alienation took place from the year 1984 to the year 1991.
5.The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted
that some of the said properties were acquired by the Government and those
properties were also included in the suit for partition. Further, the learned
counsel submitted that the other share holders have also alienated some of the
properties to 3rd parties after receiving full sale consideration. The
purchasers have developed their respective properties and are enjoying the same
without any interference as on date. Therefore, lot of irregularities have been
committed by the parties. Under the circumstances, a fresh trial is required to
rectify the various irregularities committed by the share holders.
6.The learned counsel for the respondents 12 to 14 has submitted that the
item of I and II schedule mentioned properties were acquired by the Government.
Further, the review application has been filed to challenge the final decree.
If the review application is allowed, the character of the decree will be
affected. If the revision petitioner is not satisfied with the final decree
order, he has to challenge the same only in regular appeal before the
appropriate forum. As such, the review application is not maintainable.
7.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and learned counsel for the
3rd respondent and learned counsel for the 4th respondent have jointly made a
submission that the partition suit has been filed in the year 1972. Almost 38
years have lapsed and in spite of this, the case has not been finalized. Now,
all the shareholders and the purchasers of the suit lands are facing lot of
hardship. Under the circumstances, if this court remands the suit for fresh
trial, it will cause multiplicity of proceedings and great hardship to all
parties.
8.All the learned counsels have jointly made a suggestion to this court
that there is ample possibility for amicable settlement among the parties
concerned. It was also made out by the learned counsel that if the matter is
remanded to trial court it will be amicably settled, without any further delay,
and without being prejudicial to the interests of the parties.
9.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made
by the learned senior counsel, and learned counsels for both the parties and on
perusing the impugned order of the learned Judge, this court is of the
considered opinion that there is no discrepancy in the said order passed in the
review application in I.A.No.337 of 1985 in I.A.NO.248 of 1975 in O.S.No.25 of
1972 dated 20.07.2002, as the review petitioner has challenged the entire final
decree, which is not justifiable. Therefore, this court confirms the order of
the learned Judge and consequently the above revision petition is dismissed. On
considering the joint submissions made by the learned counsels that the matter
is likely to be settled among the parties, this court directs the learned Judge
to give an opportunity to the parties concerned to effect a compromise. If the
parties file compromise memo, the same shall be considered and orders will be
passed thereafter. The court further directs the learned Judge to give top
priority to the instant case and sort it out at the earliest.
10.In the result, the above revision petition is disposed of with the
above observations. Consequently, the order and decretal order passed in
I.A.No.337 of 1985
in I.A.No.248 of 1975 in O.S.No.25 of 1972 dated 20.07.2002 on the file of I
Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli is confirmed. There is no order as to
costs.
skn
To
1.The I Additional Subordinate Judge,
Tirunelveli.