S.NARAHARI Vs. S.R.KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition is filed praying this Court to review the order dtd. 20/12/2019 passed by this Court in R.F.A.No.392/2012 and consequently restore R.F.A.No.392/2012 for deciding the case on merits and pass such other orders as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the review petitioners, who are the appellants had filed R.F.A.No.392/2012 challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.10260/1990 dtd. 29/10/2011, the same was heard and disposed of vide order dtd. 20/12/2019 by this Court and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court; considering the point for consideration that whether the lease deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.8 to 17 are binding on the plaintiffs and whether the Trial Court has committed an error in directing the defendants to quit and vacate the premises and answered the point as negative. Being aggrieved by the judgment of this Court, the petitioners had filed SLP(c) No.8212/2020 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court upon hearing the respective counsel dismissed the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn with liberty as sought by the review petitioners to file a review petition before this Court and accordingly the review petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present review petition.

(3.) The main grounds urged in the review petition are that this Court failed to appreciate the effect of admission of compromise decree between the mother of plaintiff and others. Since, the compromise being admitted, the plaintiffs at most could have prosecuted the case, before the Trial Court as legal representative's of their mother's and failed to take note of the recitals of the Will executed by the executant - Arsoji Rao. This Court failed to appreciate the various Development Agreements executed by Smt. Anusuya Bai with several persons including the petitioner to augment the income cannot be said to be illegal acts and waste of the estate. This Court erred in holding that the transaction made between Smt.Anusuya Bai and the appellant was void and illegal as she could not have executed a Lease Deed in favour of the petitioner beyond her lifetime.