VARGHESE DEENAMMA Vs. THEVI AMMA LEKSHMI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is urged that the decision proceeds on a wrong assumption that the properties are liable for the debts of Chacko, in other words that the properties belonged to Chacko. To show this certain fresh documents were produced. We now find on hearing the counter petitioner that the question was not raised at all in the lower court and it was not raised or argued in this court except on the Review Petition. If there was no such contention in the pleadings and no such arguments advanced at the hearing of the appeal there was nothing wrong in the assumption and the decision and the party now setting up new title can have no reason to complain. Nor is the discovery of such new fact a ground for review. See Binda Blasini Roy v. Secretary of State ( AIR 1924 Cal. 774 ) and Sadhanath v. Aghore Nath ( AIR 1934 Cal. 131 ).

(2.) The Review Petition is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed with costs.