Supreme Court Sums Up Principles For Review Jurisdiction, Sets Aside HC Order Denying Daughter Her Coparcenary Right

Upholding a daughter's statutory right to a coparcenary share under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the Supreme Court on Monday (Sep. 8) set aside a Madras High Court review order which had reappreciated facts and questioned her entitlement. The Court held that such an exercise was beyond the scope of the High Court under its review jurisdiction.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti heard the case where the dispute began with a partition suit (2000), where one Subramani secured a 2003 decree excluding his sister, i.e., Appellant-Malleeswari. She later sought to amend the decree, claiming a coparcenary share under the HSA 2005 and additional rights via her father's Will. The Trial Court rejected her plea in 2019, but the High Court in 2022, relying on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), upheld her claim. In 2024, however, the High Court on review reversed course, questioning the property's ancestral character and remanding the matter.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Bhatti clarified that review jurisdiction under Order 47 CPC is confined to correcting “errors apparent on the face of the record” and cannot be used as a disguised appeal.

By re-appreciating facts and introducing new grounds, the High Court had transgressed its powers and acted as an Appellate Court, the court said.

“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 court observed.

Explaining that the power of the High Court, while exercising Appellate jurisdiction and Review jurisdiction, is different which comes with limitations, the grounds for Review are summed up as follows:

“1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.

2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. 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.

3 Lastly, the phrase 'for any other sufficient reason' means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and it was directed that the matter be remitted to the Trial Court solely for expeditious determination of Appellant's shares in accordance with the restored 2022 High Court order.

Cause Title: MALLEESWARI VERSUS K. SUGUNA AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 876

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. V.Prabhakar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jyoti Parashar, Adv. Ms. Hameet Kaur, Adv. Ms. E. R. Sumathy, AOR

For Respondent(s) Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. C.Adhikesavan, Adv. Mr. Harikrishnan P.V, Adv. Ms. Ratna Priya Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Dhass Prathap Singh, Adv. Ms. Shoba Ramamoorthy, AOR Mr. Gokula Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Avinash Ranjan, Adv.