JUDGMENT : (Prayer:- The Review Appeal has been filed under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2019 passed by this Court in S.A.No.621 of 2019.) 1. The review application is projected to review the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2019 passed by this Court in S.A.No.621 of 2019. 2. Second appeal No.621 of 2019 has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2019 passed in A.S.No.64 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tambaram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2017 passed in O.S.No.645 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur. 3. It is found that the suit property and other properties comprised in Survey Nos.234/3 and 234/4 measuring an extent of 4.05 acres situated in the suit village belong to the plaintiff's Mutt. Some persons claiming to be the agents of the plaintiff's Mutt appeared to have alienated the plots belonging to the plaintiff's Mutt without any authority and the same have been noted by the present Adheenam of the plaintiff's Mutt, after taking over the management, accordingly, found that the alienations of the plots belonging to the plaintiff's Mutt were made without any authority of the plaintiff's Mutt and the said alienations also having been effected against the interest of the plaintiff's Mutt, accordingly, the suit has come to be laid by the plaintiff's Mutt against the alleged purchasers for the recovery of the properties belonging to the plaintiff's Mutt. 4. The main contention that has been put forth by the purchaser viz., the defendant is that he is a bonafide purchaser and had put up the construction at huge costs and been enjoying the property and the plaintiff's Mutt had suppressed the obtainment of the sanction of the Commissioner, HR & CE qua the sale of the suit property and the defendant is not a party to the writ proceedings in the High Court and therefore, contended that the plaintiff's Mutt is not entitled to seek the reliefs prayed for. 5. The Courts below had accepted the plaintiff's case and granted the reliefs in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. Impugning the same, the second appeal has been preferred. 6. 5. The Courts below had accepted the plaintiff's case and granted the reliefs in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. Impugning the same, the second appeal has been preferred. 6. After considering the submissions put forth by the Review Applicant's counsel in the second appeal and on a perusal of the materials available on record, found that in the writ petition, the alleged vendor of the defendant being a party, had noted that no sanction had been obtained from the Commissioner under Section 34 of the HR & CE Act and accordingly, in the writ appeal proceedings, this Court had directed the Commissioner HR & CE to reconsider the entire matter and following the same, the Commissioner, HR & CE had passed the order dated 26.04.1989 by way of which, it was held that the sale of the suit property and other properties belonging to the plaintiff's Mutt is not beneficial to the plaintiff's Mutt and there is no necessity to sell the suit property and other properties and accordingly, determined to lease out the properties belonging to the Mutt through public auction. 7. This Court, finding that the order passed in the Writ Appeals as well as the order passed by the Commissioner, HR & CE, not having been put to further challenge, accordingly, noting that the suit property belonging to the plaintiff's Mutt and the same had been alienated without any valid sanction as per law, accordingly, determined that the sale effected in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendant is null and avoid and not binding upon the plaintiff's Mutt and accordingly, directed the removal of the construction put up by the defendant in the suit property and hand over the possession to the plaintiff's Mutt. 8. Seeking to review the said order, the present review application has been preferred. 9. In the review application, the counsel for the review applicant seeks to urge the same points, which had been already canvassed by him at the time of the hearing of the second appeal and according to him, the order of the Commissioner, HR & CE is not a speaking order and therefore, the same cannot dislodge the sale effected in favour of the review applicant. However, as above pointed out, this Court having noted that the order of the Commissioner, HR & CE has not been put to any challenge and also noted that sanction had not been obtained for the sale of the property belonging to the plaintiff's Mutt as per law, accordingly, determined that the sale effected in respect of the suit property and other properties belonging to the plaintiff's Mutt is null and void. In such view of the matter, the review applicant cannot be allowed to urge that the order of the Commissioner is silent and the same had not been canvassed at the time of the hearing of the second appeal, as such, cannot be countenanced. 10. It is further put forth that the plaintiff has failed to seek the relief of declaration of title to the suit property. It is not in dispute that it is the plaintiff's Mutt, which owns the suit property and other properties and the defendant has claimed to have acquired title to the suit property from the so-called agent of the plaintiff's Mutt. However, the so-called agent not having the authority and also not having the obtained the sanction of the Commissioner, HR & CE, in such view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of seeking declaration of title to the suit property on the part of the plaintiff's Mutt does not arise and therefore, the above plea put forth by the review applicant for reopening the matter cannot be accepted in any manner. 11. The sale transaction effected in favour of the review applicant being without any authority and as above pointed out, not having the sanction of the commissioner, HR & CE as per law and the commissioner having determined that the alleged alienation in favour of the review applicant is not in the interest of the plaintiff's Mutt and there was no necessity for the Mutt to sell the same and the resultant position being that the sale transaction effected in favour of the review applicant being null and void, there is no question of limitation for setting aside such a sale transaction and therefore, the question of limitation now sought to be projected by the review applicant for dislodging the findings of this Court in the second appeal does not merit acceptance. 12. 12. In the light of the abovesaid factors, it is found that there is no apparent error or mistake on the face of the impugned judgment warranting any review and no other sufficient cause has also been put forth by the review applicant for disturbing the reasonings and conclusions of this Court made in the second appeal and the review application seems to have been instituted in the guise of rehearing the matter on the same points, which had been already canvassed and determined by this Court. In such view of the matter, the review application is found to be totally devoid of merits and not entitled for acceptance. In the light of the abovesaid factors, no valid ground is made out as per law to interfere with the judgment and decree of this Court dated 24.06.2019 passed in the second appeal No.621 of 2019. Resultantly, the review application is found to be devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.