AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.—These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the
judgment and decree passed in I.A. No. 686/1990 in O.S. No. 54/1986 (C.R.P. No. 2611/2013) and O.S. No. 159/1990 (C.R.P. No.
2612/2013) both on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri. The petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same being the
LR of the deceased plaintiff in O.S. No. 159/1990. Heard Mr. Yashod Vardhan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The grievance of the petitioner in these two Civil Revision Petitions is that fraud has been played upon by the brothers of the petitioner''s
deceased mother in obtaining decree in O.S. No. 54/1986 and O.S. No. 159/1990. It is his contention that originally a suit in O.S. No. 410/1972
came to be filed by the petitioner''s mother for partition, wherein a preliminary decree was passed on 02.09.1978 and final decree was passed on
26.03.1984. When that being the factual position, another suit was filed in the year 1986 in O.S. No. 54/1986 by the brothers of the plaintiff in
O.S. No. 410/1972 again for partition. According to the learned senior counsel, the property which was allotted to the share of the plaintiff in O.S.
No. 410/1972 was left untouched by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 54/1986. However another suit in O.S. No. 159/1990 said to have been filed by the
very same plaintiff in O.S. No. 410/1972, the mother of the petitioner herein, wherein, according to the petitioner, fraud has been played upon in
getting a decree thereby setting aside the decree passed in O.S. No. 410/1972. Thus it is the contention of the learned senior counsel that the
plaintiff who obtained a decree in her favour in O.S. No. 410/1972, was said to have filed another suit in O.S. No. 54/1986 and got the earlier
decree set aside. According to the learned counsel it had been done by playing fraud on the petitioner''s mother by her brothers when the intention
of the petitioner''s mother was not so. Consequent upon the decree passed in O.S. No. 159/1990, the decree in O.S. No. 54/1986 also came to
be passed by taking note of the fact that the decree made in O.S. No. 410/1972 was set aside. Thus the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed
challenging the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 54/1986 and O.S. No. 159/1990 by contending that the same were obtained by fraud.
Admittedly the petitioner have moved these two Civil Revision Petitions before this Court without approaching the Court which has granted the
decree as early as in the year 1978 and 1990 or filing any appeal against the same. Her complaint is that there was some fraud played upon by the
brothers of her deceased mother. Needless to say that an allegation of fraud is an issue of fact which has to be gone into either by the Court which
has passed the decree or the Court of appeal. Thus, without approaching the Court by making appropriate application, in my considered view,
filing the present Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. No doubt the learned senior counsel
insisted that this Court can go into and decide the matter by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In my
considered view such power can be exercised only when the Court below has failed to consider the grievance of the petitioner after conducting an
enquiry into the allegation made by the petitioner. When that has not been done in this case, straight away filing a Civil Revision Petitions under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not a proper procedure and therefore I consider that these Civil Revision Petitions are totally
misconceived. If at all the petitioner has got any grievance, it is for her to go before the Court which has passed the decree and make appropriate
application for setting aside the same or to file appeal against the judgment and decree before the appropriate Court. The learned senior counsel
sought liberty for moving such application before the Court below. Mere dismissal of these Civil Revision Petitions cannot be considered as
preventing the petitioner from moving the Court below for making any such application or filing appeal, provided the petitioner satisfies the Court
on the question of limitation. With these observations, these Civil Revisions Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.