Madras HC Rejects Man’s Review Bid In Adoption Dispute, Says Age-And-Custom Challenge Requires Reappraising Evidence

The petitioner sought review of the High Court’s judgment dated 12 July 2016 dismissing his second appeal at the admission stage.

He argued that the Court had failed to consider the statutory age restriction on adoption, limitation, the third respondent’s residence, and various documents and earlier proceedings.

The respondents opposed review, contending that the application sought impermissible reappreciation of matters already considered.

The judgment under review had noted that the alleged adoption occurred in 1998, the suit was instituted in 2003, and the trial court had accepted the adoption based on custom and usage.

Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC permits review on discovery of new and important matter or evidence that could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier; an error apparent on the face of the record; or other sufficient reason.

An apparent error must be self-evident; an alleged error requiring elaborate reasoning or reappraisal is not a review ground. Review cannot be used to substitute one possible view for another or operate as an appeal in disguise, as stated in Amar Nath v. Jee Ram & Another and Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Others, applying Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi.

Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 generally bars adoption of a person who has completed fifteen years, unless an applicable custom or usage permits it.

The Court found that the adoption-age argument required consideration of the asserted custom and the pleadings and evidence concerning it; the petitioner had not identified a patent error in the judgment’s treatment of that issue.

The limitation issue had been addressed in the judgment under review, and no apparent error in that treatment was shown.

The complaints concerning residence, exhibits, the voter list, Taluk Office proceedings, the police report, and earlier judgments sought fresh appreciation of evidence; omission to refer separately to every document did not itself establish an error apparent. Nor had the petitioner shown qualifying new evidence unavailable despite due diligence.

The application therefore sought reconsideration beyond the permissible scope of review.

The Review Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.