K. RAJALAKSHMI Vs. JAYARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application for review is filed by the 1st respondent in the Second Appeal. She seeks a review of the judgment dated 18.06.2012 on various grounds as if there are errors apparent on the face of the judgment and that even if there are no errors apparent on the face of the judgment, there are other sufficient reasons for reviewing the judgment.

(2.) THE question this Court considered while deciding the Second Appeal was whether item No.5 of the A schedule of Ext.A1, partition deed was allotted in that partition to the 1st respondent and the late Santhamma jointly or, it was an allotment of that item to the late Santhamma exclusively and whether the gift deed executed by the late Santhamma concerning the said item valid or not? I heard the learned counsel on both sides as to the contentions raised, found from Ext.A1, partition deed that notwithstanding the heading given to the A schedule, the specific description given to item No.5 of the A schedule along with circumstances indicated that allotment of item No.5 of the A schedule of Ext.A1 was exclusively for the late Santhamma and hence she was competent to dispose of the said property. In view of that finding, the Second Appeal was allowed and the Cross Objection preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. That judgment is sought to be reviewed on the grounds mentioned in the Review Petition.

(3.) A further contention the learned Senior Advocate has advanced is that the recitals in the body of Ext.A1 should prevail over the description of the schedule which only meant for describing the property. Lastly, it is argued that even if the schedule descriptions are accepted, Ext.A1 being a partition deed the first disposition must prevail over the latter disposition. It is therefore, submitted that if not an error apparent on the face of the judgment there are other sufficient reasons for reviewing the judgment.