Bhagwan Singh vs Narendra Singh

Heard.

This Review petition has been filed for review of the order dt. 30.8.2011 passed in S.A. No. 348/2000.

Learned senior counsel contended that rights of the petitioner in the property have been matured on the basis of natural succession.

The aforesaid point has been considered by the court in para 15 of the judgment under review, which reads as under:-

Since the plaintiff''s alleged adoption in family of Baijnath has not been accepted by Courts below, reliance has been placed on natural succession.

Suffice it to say that a person adopted in another family is held notionally dead by this Court in the case of Kaveribai Vs. Rewabai and Others, Chain Singh, the predecessor of the plaintiff was in no way related to Madhav Singh, the original Jagirdar of Jagir Mundhara. In this view of the matter, plaintiff Bhagwan Singh cannot legally claim any property of Jagirdar Mundhara, which was succeeded by Baijnath. Baijnath having gone in adoption to a third family, his relationship with the family of birth ceased and Bhagwan Singh could not have been legally treated as a member of family of Jagirdar of Mundhara. On account of adoption of Baijnath in third family, natural relatives of Baijnath would have been obviously outside the family of Madhav Singh and Hari Singh.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, as held as under in regard to the facts that in which circumstances the review petition is not maintainable:

When the review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.

In this view of the matter, in our opinion, in view of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court this review petition is no maintainable because there is no error apparent on the face of the record.

Consequently, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.