SUBRAMANIAM Vs. JAYARAMA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in Second Appeal No.519 of 1998 is the revision petitioner. The mother of the review petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.21 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur, for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the property measuring East - West 76 ft. and North - South 26 ft. bounded on the West by Mannady Street, North by property belonging to Singara Reddy, South by Street, East by a vacant site belonged to Arumuga Reddy and a house constructed thereon. The suit was dismissed and the Appeal filed by the plaintiff in A.S.No.99 of 1987 was also dismissed and the legal representatives of the plaintiff filed Second Appeal that was also dismissed by me by judgment dated 17.06.2011. Aggrieved over the judgment dated 17.06.2011 made in Second Appeal No.519 of 1998, this Review Petition is filed.

(2.) MR .M.V.Venkataseshan, learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that during the arguments of the Second Appeal, it was not brought to the notice of this Court the recitals in Exs.A.1 and A.2 wherein the title of the suit property to an extent of 26 feet North - South and 26 ft East - West bounded on the West by Mannady Street and South by Street, North by property belonging to Singara Reddy, East by a vacant site belonged to Arumuga Reddy and the western boundary is fixed boundary and therefore, when under Exs.A.1 and A.2, land with a house having western boundary in the street with the measurement of 26 East - West and 26 ft. North - South was sold to the plaintiff's predecessor in title, the plaintiff proved her title to the suit property even though the oral sale pleaded by the plaintiff's vendor was not proved. In other words, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, western boundary of the suit property is Mannady Street and under Exs.A.1 and A.2, the property East of Mannady having measurement of 26 x 26 ft was sold to the plaintiff's predecessor in title and under Ex.A.3, a larger extent was sold to the plaintiff and that would not lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not owner of the property lying East of the Mannady Street purchased under Exs.A.1 and A.2 and the plaintiff also proved title and possession to the suit property and those aspects were not properly appreciated and therefore, the judgment rendered in Second Appeal has to be reviewed and the Review Petition has to be allowed. In support of his contention, he also relied upon the following judgments: -

(3.) THE learned counsel for the review petitioner, Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan, tried to convince me by taking through the recitals in Exs.A2 and A.3. Further, according to the learned counsel, the plan annexed along with the review petition too would prove that the review petitioner has proved title in respect of the disputed portion of the property and therefore, contended that the review has to be allowed.