ANANTHI vs VIJAYA

REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024
in
S.A.No.498 of 2021
and CMP.No.20769 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011553082024}
1. Ananthi
W/o. Late Nallathambi, Res. at
Sennampatti Village, Morappur (Po),
Harur Tk, Dharmapuri Dt.
2.Archana
D/o. Late Nallathambi, Res. at
Sennampatti Village, Morappur (Po),
Harur Tk, Dharmapuri Dt.
3.Kavya
D/o. Late Nallathambi, Res. at
Sennampatti Village, Morappur (Po),
Harur Tk, Dharmapuri Dt.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Vijaya
W/o. Late Marappan, Res. at
Sennampatti Village, Morappur (PO),
Harur Tk, Dharmapuri Dt, presently res.
at D.No.618, Phase III Chathuvachari,
Vellore Town, Vellore Dt - 9.
2.Udhayakumar
S/o. Late Marappan, Res. at
Sennampatti Village, Morappur (PO),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )

REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024
Harur Tk, Dharmapuri Dt, presently res.
at D.No.618, Phase III Chathuvachari,
Vellore Town, Vellore Dt - 9.
3.Senthamarai
D/o. Late Marappan, Thiru.Vi.Ka
Nagar, Harur Town and Tk, Dharmapuri
Dt.
4.Chinnaraj
S/o. Puttaali @ Kulamaran, Koodalur
Post and Village, Harur Tk, Dharmapuri
Dt
5.Kandasamy
S/o. Perumal, Sennampatti Village,
Thoppampatti Tharapu, Morappur Post,
Harur Tk, Dharmapuri Dt.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
To review the order dated 15.06.2023 made in SA No.498 of 2021 and to allow
this Review Petition.
For Appellant(s): Mr.V.C.Janarthanan
For Mr.C. Prabakaran
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Thiruvengadam
For Rr1 To 3
ORDER
The review applicants are the appellants in S.A.Nos.498 of 2021 and have
filed the present review application seeking a review of the order passed by this
Court on 15.06.2023
2. The learned counsel for the respondents raised strong objections to the
review application, contending that this Court had duly considered the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )

REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024
substantial question of law framed at the time of admission of the second appeal
and had recorded its reasons in paragraph 9 of the judgment. Therefore, the
learned counsel submitted that the order does not warrant any interference and
prayed for dismissal of the review application as devoid of merits.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the
records. The review applicants herein are defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.79 of
2014, which was instituted by the respondents herein seeking partition and other
consequential reliefs. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, against which an
appeal in A.S.No.5 of 2019 was preferred. The said appeal was allowed, thereby
reversing the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the reversal of the
findings of the first appellate Court, the defendants preferred the second appeal
before this Court.
4. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following
substantial question of law was framed:
“Whether the suit O.S. No.79 of 2014 on the file of
Subordinate Judge's Court, Harur presented on 18.08.2014 inter
alia assailing a registered partition deed dated 27.02.2001 [Ext.A1]
is time barred owing to Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and if
the answer is in the affirmative whether the courts below ought to
have considered the same (in a case of this nature where other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )

REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024
prayers are dovetailed) in spite of the same not being set up as a
defence owing to the language in which Section 3 of Limitation Act
is couched?”
5. The principal contention raised by the appellants was that the suit was
barred by limitation. According to them, the partition deed marked as Ex.A1
was executed in the year 2001 and the plaintiffs, upon attaining majority, ought
to have challenged the same within three years from the date of attaining
majority. However, the suit was instituted only after a lapse of approximately
eleven years, beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Hence, the appellants
specifically contended that the suit was not maintainable as it was barred by
limitation under Section 16 of the Limitation Act.
6. On a perusal of paragraph 9 of the judgment under review, it is seen
that this Court had observed that plaintiffs 2 and 3 were not parties to the
partition deed and, therefore, they were not required to challenge the same. On
that basis, this Court answered the substantial question of law framed in the
second appeal.
7. However, the specific contention raised by the appellants that the suit
was barred by limitation, as it had not been instituted within three years from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )

REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024
the date on which the plaintiffs attained majority, has not been adequately
considered or addressed in paragraph 9 of the judgment under review. In the
absence of sufficient reasons dealing with the said contention, this Court is of
the view that the review application deserves to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the review application is allowed.
9. In view of the above, the order dated 15.06.2023 passed in S.A.NO.498
of 2021 is hereby recalled.
10. The Registry is directed to post the main second appeal on 03.11.2026
under the caption “For Orders”.
27-10-2026
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
rri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )

REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024
To
1.The Additional District Judge,
Dharmapuri.
2.The Subordinate Judge, Harur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )

REV.APPL No. 253 of 2024
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
rri
REV.APPL No. 253 of
2024

27-10-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 05:43:51 pm )