IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Review Petition No. ____ of 2003

Regular Second Appeal No. 116679 of 1999
In the matter of
Successors-in-interest of Mr. Tathagat ………….Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Shruti
Smt. Riti
Mr. Madhaveshwar …………...Respondents

REVIEW APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 114 AND ORDER 47OF THE CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, AGAINST ORDERDATED 11.01.2023 PASSED BY
THIS HON’BLE COURT INSUIT BEARING REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.
116679 OF 1999.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1) That the review petition arises out of the judgment rendered by this
Honourable Court on 11th January 2003 in Regular Second Appeal
No. 116679 of 1999, wherein the Court allowed the appeal, set aside
the judgment/decree of the Courts below, and held that the parties
are entitled to half-share in the suit property, ordering for partition
and delivery of possession of their share out of the same.
2) That the facts of the case are as- That Mr. Himesh was the original
owner of the property situated at Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
a. That he died leaving two daughters, Smt. Shruti and Smt. Riti.
b. That Smt. Riti, purportedly acting as guardian, sold Smt. Shruti's
share to Mr. Madhaveshwar by a registered Sale Deed dated
25.4.1991, while Smt. Shruti was a minor.
c. That the sale was made to collect funds for Smt. Shruti's marriage.
d. That Smt. Shruti attained majority in 1991-92 and subsequently
sold her share to Mr. Tathagat by a registered Sale Deed dated
1.7.1997.
 e. That Mr. Tathagat initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the
Criminal Procedure Code before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Karol Bagh, leading to Criminal Misc.9/97-98.
f. That the Magistrate held that Mr. Madhaveshwar was in
possession of the property.
g. That Mr. Tathagat filed Original Suit No. 99/99 seeking a
declaration of title, partition, and delivery of possession, which
was dismissed by the learned Munsif and upheld by the Civil
Judge on appeal.
h. That the Courts held that Smt. Shruti had no valid title to the
property on 1.7.1997, as her interest had already been sold to Mr.
Madhaveshwar in 1991.
3) That the Petitioners respectfully submit that there are errors apparent
on the face of the record and other sufficient reasons justifying a
review of the judgment dated 11th January 2003.
4) That the Hon'ble Court mistakenly concluded that the sale deed
dated 25.4.1991 executed by Smt. Riti as the guardian of minor Smt.
Shruti was voidable and not void. The sale of a minor's property
without court permission is void ab initio under Section 8(2) of the
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
5) That the Hon'ble Court overlooked the mandatory provisions of
Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956,
which requires prior permission of the court for any sale of a minor's
property. The absence of such permission renders the sale void and
not merely voidable.
6) That the Court incorrectly applied the limitation period for setting
aside the sale deed. Since the sale was void, Smt. Shruti was not
required to file a suit within three years of attaining majority to annul
the sale deed dated 25.4.1991.
7) That the Court failed to appreciate that the possession of the
property by Mr. Madhaveshwar was pursuant to a void transaction,
thereby not conferring any legal title or interest in the property.
 8) That the judgment of this Honourable Court is in conflict with
established legal precedents concerning the sale of a minor's
property without court approval, warranting a review to rectify the
inconsistency.

PRAYER

In light of the above, the Petitioners pray that this Honourable Court may be pleased
to:

a) To review and recall the judgment dated 11th January 2003 in Regular Second
Appeal No. 116679 of 1999;

b) To restore the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court;

c) To pass such other and further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice.

Place: New Delhi

Date:

_________________
Through Counsel, Mr.
______________________

VERIFICATION

I ................... son of ……………………., residence at ……………. do hereby solemnly

affirm and say as follows:

1. I am the plaintiff above-named. I know the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. The statements in paragraphs 1 to 6 hereinabove in the application are true to ray

knowledge and belief.

3. I sign this verification on this …………..... at …………………

Solemnly affirmed by the said ………….. on this ......... at ………………..

Notary/Magistrate

Deponent