The Supreme Court, in a Division Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti, set aside a Madras High Court order that had questioned the appellant’s right to become a coparcener in her share of ancestral property under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Bench further held that the matter could not be re-heard through a review petition in the trial court, as directed by the High Court..
The case arose with a partition suit in the District Munsiff Court at Ponneri, where an ex parte preliminary decree was passed in 2003. Following this the father of the appellant sold part of the property to Respondent No. 1 and gave some property to his daughter, through a settlement deed. After he died in 2011, the appellant was added to as a legal heir through a will executed in 2008 by him.In 2018, the appellant asked the court to amend the preliminary decree and recognise her right to a one-third share as a coparcener, plus another one-third through her father’s Will. The trial court rejected her request, holding that she had agreed to the earlier sale of the property and that the 2005 Amendment of the Act could not be applied. The High Court later allowed her claim, but in review sent the matter back to the trial court, reopening questions about the nature of the property and the buyer’s rights.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had acted as an appellate court by re-examining facts going beyond the narrow scope of review jurisdiction. It reiterated that review can only correct errors apparent on the face of the record or take into account new evidence not available earlier, but cannot treat the same as a rehearing of the case. Accordingly, the Court set aside the review order and restored the earlier order of 23 September 2022, which recognised the appellant’s entitlement to a one-third share as a coparcener. The civil appeal was allowed, and the trial court was directed to dispose of pending applications within three months. No order was made as to costs.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s)- Mr. V.Prabhakar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jyoti Parashar, Adv. Ms. Hameet Kaur, Adv. Ms. E. R. Sumathy, AOR
For Respondent(s)- Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. C.Adhikesavan, Adv. Mr. Harikrishnan P.V, Adv. Ms. Ratna Priya Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Dhass Prathap Singh, Adv. Ms. Shoba Ramamoorthy, AOR Mr. Gokula Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Avinash Ranjan, Adv.
