TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....more, are being represented by the respective heirs and successors in interest. To appreciate the relationship of the present array of parties, the genealogy is stated hereunder: 4. The plaint avers that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and are available for partition between the first plaintiff and the first defendant, being members of the Hindu Undivided Family. To attribute the character of joint Hindu family property, the plaint refers to the registered partition deed dated 22.11.1991 executed between the deceased first defendant and his brother. The suit was filed admittedly without impleading Malleeswari/Appellant in this civil appeal, who is the daughter of Munusamy Naidu and Muniammal. On 25.02.2003, the learned Trial Court passed the ex-parte preliminary decree as prayed for. The first defendant, post the preliminary decree, executed a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2004 in favour of K Suguna/first Respondent for item nos. 4 to 7 of the suit property, and also a settlement deed for item nos. 1 to 3, and 8 to 10 in favour of the Appellant. 5. On 24.01.2005, the second Respondent filed I.A no. 140 of 2006 to pass a final decree in terms of the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant was impleaded only as the legal representative of her deceased father, and that she merely stepped into his shoes and was only entitled to the share as determined by the decree dated 25.02.2003. 8.2 It also held that the HSA 2005 was inapplicable, since it could not be applied retroactively. 8.3 Further, the Settlement Deed dated 27.12.2004 was void since the deed was created after the suit had been filed and a decree had been passed. The father was also under a court injunction not to transfer the property. 8.4 She was also barred by the principle of estoppel since her own signature was there on the sale deeds as a witness. This proves that she was aware of and had consented to the transactions. 8.5 Lastly, the Trial Court notes that a preliminary decree is a final determination of rights, and can only be amended for clerical errors, and not to change the outcome fundamentally. It also notes that the proper legal remedy was to file an appeal against the original decree. 9. The Appellant filed CRP No. 1439 of 2019 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras against the order dated 08.03.2019. The CRP was allowed on 23.09.2022, and the order dated 08.03.2019 wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er under Section 114 and Order 47 of CPC. The exercise or excess of jurisdiction is determinative on the order under review and the review order. It is convenient to compare the consideration before the jurisdictional limitations of review are considered by this Court. CIVIL REVISION PETITION REVIEW ORDER (IMPUGNED ORDER) The issue was whether the Appellantdaughter's right to claim a share as a coparcener following the HSA 2005. The issue centred on whether the CRP order unfairly denied the Respondent, pendente lite-transferee, the right to defend her title against the Appellant's claim. The court accepted her claim, stating that she was entitled to a 1/3rd share in ancestral properties based on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma.[1] Acknowledged the claim but renamed it as a third-party claim. This was done in relation to the original suit structure, which warranted a fresh inquiry at the trial court level. As a pendente lite transferee, Suguna could not have challenged the ancestral nature of the properties. She would have had to settle for whatever share her vendor (the Appellant's father) was allotted. Her rights were subordinate to the co-parceners' shares an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. [Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170] 15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389] 15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise [Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715] 15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power [Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224] 15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered [Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663]. Hence, it is invoke....