LASHUMANA PERUMAL vs ALAGUMUTHU GOUNDER (DIED)

Court
Madras High Court

REV.APLC(MD) No. 170 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 29-10-2026
Delivered on : -11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE THIRUMAGAL
CHANDRASEKAR
REV.APLC(MD) No. 170 of 2018
CNR:{HCMD010890482018}
Lashumana Perumal
S/o Muthappa Gounder, Pothi Reddipatti Village,
Periakollapatti, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar Dist.
..Petitioner / Appellant
Vs
1. Alagumuthu Gounder (died)
2. Perumalakkal W/o.Alagumuthu Gounder, Pothi
Reddipatti, Periakollapatti, Sattur Taluk,
Virudhunagar Dist.
3. Vasuki
D/o Alagumuthu Gounder, Pothi Reddipatti,
Periakollapatti, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar Dist.
4. Inspector General Of
Registarar, Register Office, 100, Santhome
Byepass Road, Chennai.
5. Sub-registrar
Sub-registrar Office, Sattur.
6. Alagu Rathinam,
D/o Alagumuthu Gounder, Pothi Reddipatti,
Periakollapatti, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar Dist.
7. Thangavu
D/o Alagumuthu Gounder, Pothi Reddipatti,
Periakollapatti, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar Dist.
__________
Page  1  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:38:37 pm )

REV.APLC(MD) No. 170 of 2018
8. Arunachalam
S/o Alagumuthu Gounder, Pothi Reddipatti,
Periakollapatti, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar Dist.
9. Venkatachalapathy
S/o Alagumuthu Gounder, Pothi Reddipatti,
Periakollapatti, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar Dist.
10.Yasothai
D/o Alagumuthu Gounder, Pothi Reddipatti,
Periakollapatti, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar Dist.
11.Revathi
D/o Alagumuthu Gounder, Pothi Reddipatti,
Periakollapatti, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar Dist.
..Respondents / Respondents
Prayer : Review Application has been filed under Section 114 r/w Order
XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking review of the
judgment dated 12.07.2016 passed in S.A.(MD) No.810 of 2011,
whereby this Court dismissed the Second Appeal at the stage of
admission.
For Petitioner :Mr J.Gunaseelan Muthiah
For Respondents 3, 6 to 9 & 11:M.Thirunavukkarasu
ORDER
This Review Application has been filed to review of the judgment
passed by this Court dated 12.07.2016 made in S.A.(MD) No.810 of
2011.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner
__________
Page  2  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:38:37 pm )

REV.APLC(MD) No. 170 of 2018
contended that this Court failed to consider the statutory provisions
governing adoption, particularly the age restriction prescribed under the
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It was further contended
that the substantial questions of law relating to limitation were not
properly considered and that this Court failed to consider the residence of
the third respondent / third defendant, the documents marked as Exs. A1
to A4, the voter list, the proceedings of the Taluk Office dated
06.03.2008, the police report and the judgments rendered in the earlier
proceedings. On these grounds, the review petitioner seeks to set aside
the judgment passed in the Second Appeal.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents /
defendants submitted that the review petitioner has not made out any
ground warranting review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. He further
contended that the issues relating to the validity of the adoption, the
applicability of custom and usage, and the bar of limitation had already
been considered by the Courts below and that this Court, upon
consideration of the materials available on record, found that no
substantial question of law arose for consideration and he also contended
that the review jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an appellate
jurisdiction and that a review petition cannot be permitted to be an appeal
__________
Page  3  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:38:37 pm )

REV.APLC(MD) No. 170 of 2018
in disguise. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following
Judgments:
1. The judgment of Delhi High Court made in Review Pet.
No.254 of 2017 in RFA No.394 of 2017 in the case of Amar Nath
v. Jee Ram & Another,, and
2. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2013
Supreme Today (SC) 401 in the case of Union of India v. Sandur
Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Others,,
4. Heard Mr J.Gunaseelan Muthiah learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr.M. Thirunavukkarasu, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents 3, 6 to 9 & 11 and perused the materials available on
record.
5. The scope of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII
Rule 1 CPC is limited. A review can be entertained only on the grounds
recognised under the said provision, namely, discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, despite the exercise of due diligence,
was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced
at the time when the order was passed, mistake or error apparent on the
__________
Page  4  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:38:37 pm )

REV.APLC(MD) No. 170 of 2018
face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.

6. In Amar Nath case , the Delhi High Court observed that an
error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and must not
require a comprehensive examination, scrutiny or an elaborate process of
reasoning. It was further observed that where the alleged error requires a
long process of reasoning or debate, the same cannot be treated as an
error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order XLVII
Rule 1 CPC. The Court also reiterated that review jurisdiction cannot be
exercised to substitute one possible view for another or to permit a party
to reargue the matter.
7. Further, in Union of India case , the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
after referring to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in
(1997) 8 SCC 715 in the case of Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri
Devi and Others, reiterated that the power of review can be exercised for
correction of a mistake and not for substituting a different view. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court further emphasised that an error which is not
self-evident and which requires detection through a process of reasoning
cannot constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. A review
__________
Page  5  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:38:37 pm )

REV.APLC(MD) No. 170 of 2018
petition cannot be permitted to become an appeal in disguise, and the
scope of review must be confined strictly to the parameters prescribed
under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
8. Applying the above principles to the present case, it is seen that
the principal contention of the review petitioner relates to the age of the
third respondent / third defendant at the time of adoption. In this regard,
Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956,
provides that a person who has completed the age of fifteen years cannot
ordinarily be taken in adoption, unless there is a custom or usage
applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the
age of fifteen years to be taken in adoption. In the present case, the
judgment under review has specifically recorded that the third respondent
/ third defendant had raised a plea of custom and usage permitting
adoption after the age of fifteen years and that the Trial Court had
accepted the validity of the adoption on the basis of the prevailing custom
and usage. Therefore, the mere contention that the third respondent / third
defendant had crossed the age of fifteen years at the time of adoption
would not, by itself, establish that the adoption was contrary to the
statutory provision, in view of the exception contemplated under Section
10(iv) of the Act. The question as to whether such custom or usage was
__________
Page  6  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:38:37 pm )

REV.APLC(MD) No. 170 of 2018
sufficiently pleaded and established is a matter which requires
examination of the pleadings and evidence on record. In the present
Review Application, the petitioner has not demonstrated any patent error
apparent on the face of the record in the consideration of the said issue by
this Court. A fresh examination of the applicability of the statutory
provision and the alleged custom would necessarily involve
reappreciation of the pleadings and evidence, which cannot ordinarily be
undertaken in the exercise of review jurisdiction. Hence, the said
contention does not constitute a ground for review under Order XLVII
Rule 1 CPC.
9. Insofar as the contention relating to limitation is concerned, the
judgment under review has specifically dealt with the said issue. This
Court had taken note of the fact that the alleged adoption took place in
the year 1998 and that the suit was instituted in the year 2003. The
judgment also referred to the earlier proceedings in which the petitioner /
plaintiff was a party and the right of the third respondent / third defendant
had been recognised. The review petitioner / plaintiff has not pointed out
any apparent error in the consideration of the question of limitation
warranting interference in review jurisdiction.
__________
Page  7  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:38:37 pm )

REV.APLC(MD) No. 170 of 2018
10. The other grounds raised by the review petitioner, namely, the
alleged failure to consider the residence of the third respondent /
defendant, Exs. A1 to A4, the voter list, the proceedings of the Taluk
Office dated 06.03.2008, the police report and the judgments in the
earlier proceedings, substantially seek a fresh appreciation of the
evidence and reconsideration of the findings already rendered. The mere
non-reference to each and every document or contention separately in the
judgment would not, by itself, constitute an error apparent on the face of
the record. The review petitioner / plaintiff has also not established the
discovery of any new and important evidence which, despite due
diligence, could not be produced at the time of hearing of the Second
Appeal.
11. It is settled law that the review jurisdiction cannot be invoked
merely because the review petitioner seeks a different interpretation of
the facts or law or because another view is possible on the materials
available on record. The petitioner cannot be permitted to reargue the
Second Appeal under the guise of a review petition. This Court finds that
the grounds raised in the present Review Application do not disclose any
glaring omission, patent mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record warranting exercise of the review jurisdiction.
__________
Page  8  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:38:37 pm )

REV.APLC(MD) No. 170 of 2018

12. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled principles
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the other High Courts, this
Court is of the considered view that the review petitioner has not made
out any ground contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC for
reviewing the judgment dated 12.07.2016 passed by this Court made in
S.A.(MD) No.810 of 2011.
13. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs.
-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
T. RAJAPRABA
__________
Page  9  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:38:37 pm )

REV.APLC(MD) No. 170 of 2018
To
1. Inspector General Of Registrar, Register Office, 100, Santhome
Byepass Road, Chennai.
2. Sub-registrar
Sub-registrar Office, Sattur.
__________
Page  10  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:38:37 pm )

REV.APLC(MD) No. 170 of 2018
THIRUMAGAL CHANDRASEKAR, J.
T. RAJAPRABA
REV.APLC(MD) No. 170 of 2018
-11-2026
__________
Page  11  of  11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:38:37 pm )