A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Justices A. Hari Haranadha Sarma and K. Manmadha Rao has dismissed a review application filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The application sought review of the Court's judgment dated 13 March 2025, which had dismissed a second appeal arising from a partition suit concerning properties in Kurnool district.
Procedural History and Factual Matrix
The plaintiff instituted a suit for partition claiming to be the son of the defendant and a coparcener entitled to a half share in the suit schedule properties, asserting they constituted Hindu undivided joint family properties. The plaintiff's grandfather, Sambhasiva Reddy, had died in 1990, following which the properties came into the possession of his children.
The defendant contested the suit, denying the plaintiff's joint possession and claiming two sons through another woman who had received shares. The Trial Court, the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, found the properties ancestral and passed a preliminary decree for division into two equal shares.
In the first appeal, the VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool, partly allowed the defendant's appeal. The First Appellate Court held that item Nos. 1 and 2 were the self-acquired properties of the defendant's father and could not be treated as ancestral properties. However, finding no evidence that item Nos. 3 and 4 were the defendant's exclusive properties, the Court upheld the plaintiff's entitlement to a half share in those items.
The plaintiff challenged this decision in a second appeal before the High Court. Vide judgment dated 13 March 2025, the High Court dismissed the second appeal. The Court held that item Nos. 1 and 2 had devolved upon the defendant from his father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and had thereby ceased to retain their character as joint family properties. Relying on Satish Vishanji Fatnani v. Mohanlal Dungarmal Futnani (1985 0 Supreme (Mad) 245), the Court upheld the finding that the plaintiff could not claim a share in those properties as a coparcener, while affirming the decree in respect of item Nos. 3 and 4.
Grounds Urged in Review Application
Aggrieved by the judgment, the plaintiff filed the present review application contending that the defendant had died during the pendency of the first appeal and that he was consequently entitled to a half share in all the suit schedule properties. The applicant relied on Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh (2013) 9 SCC 419 and Sk. Bhikan v. Mehamoodabee (2017) 5 SCC 127 to contend that a son acquires a right by birth in joint family property.
The respondents opposed the application, submitting that no ground for review had been made out and that review jurisdiction could not be exercised as an appellate power to re-examine the merits of the decision.
What are the permissible grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC?
The permissible grounds for review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an appellate power to re-appreciate evidence or re-examine merits.
Analysis and Decision
Placing reliance on Government of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. (2024) 7 SCC 315 and Malleeswari v. K. Sugana (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927), the Court reiterated that review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC can be exercised only by a person aggrieved and strictly on the grounds of discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.
The Court held that the contentions raised by the applicant pertained to re-appreciation of evidence and re-argument on the merits of the case. The argument regarding the defendant's death during the pendency of the first appeal and its legal effect on the plaintiff's share was a matter that could have been raised at the appropriate stage. The Court found that this did not constitute a discovery of new evidence despite due diligence nor an error apparent on the face of the record.
The Bench observed that the reliance placed on Rohit Chauhan and Sk. Bhikan pertained to the substantive law of coparcenary rights, which had already been considered and distinguished in the main judgment based on the devolution of property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Court emphasised that a review petition is not a forum to re-argue the case or to seek a second opinion on the correctness of the decision.
Accordingly, the Court held that no grounds for exercising review jurisdiction were made out and dismissed the review application.
Comparison of Appellate and Review Jurisdiction
Aspect | Appellate Jurisdiction (Second Appeal) | Review Jurisdiction (Order XLVII Rule 1) |
|---|---|---|
Scope | Re-examination of findings of fact and law; substantial question of law | Limited to new evidence, error apparent on face of record, or sufficient reason |
Re-appreciation of Evidence | Permitted within statutory limits | Not permitted |
Re-argument on Merits | Core function | Impermissible |
Binding Precedent Cited | Satish Vishanji Fatnani (1985) | K.L. Rathi Steels (2024); Malleeswari (2025) |
The judgment reinforces the well-settled principle that the extraordinary power of review must be exercised sparingly and only when the strict statutory conditions are satisfied, rather than as a substitute for an appeal.