Supreme Court | Scope of Review Under S.114 & Order 47 CPC Restated | High Courts Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence or Substitute Findings Under Guise of Review
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti set aside a review order of the Madras High Court which had remanded a partition dispute for fresh consideration. The Court restored the earlier High Court order that recognized the entitlement of a daughter to claim coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Bench held that the High Court had exceeded its review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by reappreciating facts as if exercising appellate powers. The Supreme Court directed the trial court to dispose of pending applications within three months.
The litigation traces back to the year 2000 when Subramani, husband of the second respondent, filed a suit for partition in the District Munsiff Court, Ponneri. The suit was instituted against Munusamy Naidu, the first defendant, seeking division of the suit schedule properties into two equal shares. The plaint asserted that the properties were ancestral in nature, invoking Hindu Undivided Family principles and relying on a registered partition deed of 22 November 1991.
The original plaintiff and defendant subsequently passed away, leading to the impleadment of their heirs, including Malleeswari, the present appellant and daughter of Munusamy Naidu. The trial court, on 25 February 2003, issued an ex parte preliminary decree granting partition as prayed for. Thereafter, on 27 December 2004, the first defendant executed a registered sale deed in favour of the first respondent covering certain portions of the property, and a settlement deed in favour of the appellant for the remaining items. He also executed a Will bequeathing his share to the appellant.
The appellant sought amendment of the preliminary decree by filing I.A. No. 1199 of 2018, claiming rights as a coparcener under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. She asserted entitlement to a one-third share by birth and an additional share through her father’s Will. She also challenged the validity of the 2004 sale deed, contending that it violated a subsisting injunction order and occurred after the cut-off date of the amendment.
The respondents opposed, arguing limitation, estoppel, and finality of the 2003 preliminary decree. They stressed that the appellant had signed the sale deed as a witness and therefore could not challenge it. The respondents further contended that rights under the 2005 amendment were unavailable retrospectively and that the proper remedy would have been to appeal the preliminary decree. They also questioned the validity of the settlement deed and Will on the principle of lis pendens.
On 8 March 2019, the trial court dismissed the amendment application, holding that the appellant merely stepped into the shoes of her father and could not reopen final rights settled in the decree. The court also held that the 2005 amendment could not apply retroactively and that estoppel barred the appellant from challenging transactions she had attested.
The appellant filed a civil revision petition in the Madras High Court, which on 23 September 2022 allowed her plea, set aside the trial court’s order, and permitted her to pay court fee for her share. The first respondent sought review. On 19 October 2024, the High Court allowed the review petition, remanded the matter for fresh consideration, and permitted the respondents to raise defences on title, including challenging the ancestral nature of the property. The appellant thereafter filed the present civil appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court recorded that “the review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts.” It noted that the power of review is distinct from appellate jurisdiction and subject to strict limitations.
The Bench observed: “The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.” It further stated: “In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.”
The Court cited settled precedents, recording: “The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power.” It further noted: “The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered.”
Turning to the High Court’s approach, the Bench stated: “The impugned order has not adverted to an error apparent on the face of the record, but has taken up an error on reappreciation of the case and counter case of the parties. The review order records a few findings extending far beyond the actual working out of prayers in a suit for partition. The order impugned has exceeded the jurisdiction of review by a court.”
The judgment also reaffirmed that an error apparent on the record must be manifest without requiring elaborate reasoning: “An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.”
The Supreme Court concluded that the Madras High Court had exceeded its review jurisdiction. It recorded: “For the above reasons, the order impugned is set aside, and consequently, the order dated 23.09.2022 in CRP is restored.”
“The Trial Court is directed to expeditiously dispose of all the pending applications, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment.”
“Civil Appeal allowed. No order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. V. Prabhakar, Senior Advocate; Ms. E. R. Sumathy, AOR; Mrs. Jyoti Parasher, Advocate; Ms. Harmeet Kaur, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy, AOR; Mr. Shilp Vinod, Advocate; Mr. Gokulakrisnan, Advocate; Mr. Avinash Ranjan, Advocate; Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR; Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Advocate; Mr. C. Adhikesavan, Advocate; Mr. Harikrishnan P.V., Advocate; Mr. Dhass Prathap Singh, Advocate; Mr. C. Kavin Ananth, Advocate; Mrs. Vibha Srivastava, Advocate
Case Title: Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1080
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2025 [@ SLP (C) No. 12787 of 2025]
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
