Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 601 (MAD)

Srinivasa Reddy v. Vyjayanthimala

2013-01-28

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This review application is filed to review the judgment and decree made in S.A. No. 415 of 2011 dated 22.08.2011. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the review applicant submitted that while interpreting Ex.A2-Will, this Court has not properly appreciated the provisions of Sections 88 and 89 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and having regard to the provision of Section 89 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the subsequent clause is void for uncertainty and therefore, as per the earlier clause in the Will, Ex.A2 the daughters got the absolute estate and that was not properly appreciated. The learned counsel further submitted that even assuming that the daughters did not get absolute estate, the claim of the appellants is also barred by adverse possession and that aspect was not considered by this Court, while allowing the second appeal. 3. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the review applicant. As stated supra, this review application is filed against the judgment made in S.A.No.415 of 2011 passed by this Court. Though the scope of review is very limited and confined to the provision of Order 47, having regard to the fact that the review application is sought to review the judgment passed in the second appeal, this Court cannot go beyond the substantial question of law framed in the second appeal. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law, namely. What was the estate given to the daughters under Ex.A2-Wll, whether the daughters got absolute estate or life estate? While answering the substantial question of law as stated above, I held that the daughters got only life estate and not absolute estate and only the grandchildren got the absolute estate having regard to the terms of the Will Ex.A2 and after relying upon the judgment reported in (1962) 1 M.L.J. 401 . Therefore, I cannot now review my finding given on the Will Ex.A2, while reviewing the judgment passed by me in the second appeal and that is beyond the scope of the review. Therefore, I cannot now review my finding given on the Will Ex.A2, while reviewing the judgment passed by me in the second appeal and that is beyond the scope of the review. Further the arguments of the learned counsel that this Court has not considered the plea of adverse possession, while considering the second appeal, cannot also be accepted, as the second appeal was argued only on the substantial question of law framed and the only substantial question of law framed in the second appeal was as stated above and there was no substantial question of law framed regarding the adverse possession. Hence, it is not open to the parties to submit their arguments on the adverse possession aspect, in this review. In the absence of any substantial question of law framed by this Court, while considering the merits of the second appeal, hence, I do not find any merits in the review application and the review petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.