SUBRAMANI Vs. S J DEVADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVIEW application filed under Section Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC to review the Judgment and Decree dated 17.09.2002 made in S.A. No. 288 of 1991 on the file of this Court. The review petitioners are the respondents in S.A. No. 288 of 1991. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed O.S. No. 219 of 1986 on the file of District Munsif Court, Arakkonam for declaration of title to the 'B' Schedule Property and consequently for delivery of possession or in the alternative, a declaration of their prescriptive right of way and free passage for the drainage water and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants therein to remove the obstructions from the B Schedule Described Property. The said suit was decreed on 28.07.1989 and the appeal preferred by the review petitioners was allowed on 18.12.1989, hence, the respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed the above said second appeal, which was allowed by A.Ramamurthi, J by Judgment dated 17.09.2002 confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court.

(2.) THIS review petition was filed on 31.10.2002, which was returned for certain compliance and the same was re-presented on 21.08.2003 and the review petition was numbered on 21.08.2003. In the meantime, A. Ramamurthi, J retired and therefore the review application was ordered to be posted before this Court on 10.09.2003. On 21.11.2003, it was reported that both the respondents herein died and later CMP No. 1442 of 2004 was filed on 23.01.2004 to bring the legal heirs i.e., respondents 3 and 4 on record, which was allowed on 08.09.2005. On 06.04.2004, CMP No. 6384 of 2004 was filed to implead the respondents 5 to 10 herein in the review application, which was also allowed on 08.09.2005. Several adjournments were granted on the request of both sides for reporting settlement, at last, it was reported today that settlement is not possible and the review application was taken up for hearing today i.e., 14.09.2006 and this Court considered the argument of counsel for both sides.

(3.) IN this context, it is relevant to look into the decision reported in (Jayaraman and another vs. The Union of INdia and another) AIR 2003 Madras 29 wherein a division Bench of this Court held in Para-17 thus: -