THOMSON AND ORS. Vs. WILSON MATHIAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court by its judgment dated 05.07.2011 dismissed the Second Appeals in S.A. Nos. 352 and 353 of 2002. The appellant in S.A. No. 352 of 2002 has filed the review application in Rev.Aplc.(MD) No. 69 of 2013 and the appellants in the Second Appeal in S.A. No. 353 of 2002 have filed the review application in Rev.Aplc.(MD) No. 70 of 2013. This Court disposed of both the Second Appeals by a common judgment. Since the issues involved in both the review applications are one and the same, both the review applications are also disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE plaintiff in O.S. No. 403 of 1961 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai filed the suit for redemption of mortgaged property. A preliminary decree was passed pursuant to the judgment and decree of this Court. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No. 631 of 1974 for passing of final decree before the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. The trial Court, relying upon Ex.C.7 - Advocate Commissioner's plan, passed a final decree. Aggrieved over the passing of final decree passed by the trial Court, the sixth respondent in the final decree application preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 90 of 1995 and the appellants in the Second Appeal in S.A. No. 353 of 2002 preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 91 of 1995, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai. The lower Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed in I.A. No. 631 of 1974. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, the parties had filed the above referred two Second Appeals.

(3.) THE Courts below while passing final decree relied upon Ex.A.12 - copy of the final decree passed in the suit in O.S. No. 1245 of 1956, dated 13.11.1958 and came to the conclusion that the measurements found in Ex.A.12 decree are correct measurements. Relying upon Ex.A.12 -decree, the Courts below passed the final decree. The lower Appellate Court, elaborately took into consideration the measurements found in Ex.A.12 and also in Exs.C.6 and C.7 ? Advocate Commissioner's report and plan, marked in the final decree application and ultimately came to the conclusion that the measurements found in Ex.A.12 are correct. Further the lower Appellate Court also treated the plan annexed with Ex.A.12 decree as part and parcel of the final decree passed in I.A. No. 631 of 1974.