Read Time: 07 minutes

The Supreme Court has said that an application for clarification in a judgement cannot be entertained which comes in guise of review of the verdict.

A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar declined to entertain miscellaneous applications filed with regard to a judgement delivered on March 9, 2017.

"Having given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced and the averments made in the Miscellaneous Application, we are of the considered view that this application is nothing but an application for review in disguise styled as an application for clarification of the judgment dated 9th March, 2017," the bench said. 

In this context, the bench said it is relevant to refer to the decision in 'Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Uban' (2000), wherein this Court held that the Courts should not permit hearing of such an applications for 'clarification', 'modification’ or 'recall' if the application is in substance a clever move for review.

Dealing with a connected plea, the court declined to entertain the plea owning to delay of more than 14 years, precisely 5358 days.

The matter before the Supreme Court related to appeals filed against the Madras High Court's 2005 judgement, concerning a 1968 Will jointly executed by One Palaniappa Chettiar and his wife, Chinammal alias Rangammal, who possessed considerable properties in Gobichettipalayam Taluk including 29 houses and 96.95 acres of Agriculture land. 

It was stated in the Will that couple do not have any issue and there is no hope that they will live long and their relatives are not fit to enjoy the properties. The Will further stated that on the death of any one of them, survivor shall enjoy the entire property. The Will   enumerated various charities to be carried from the income derived from the properties.

By its March 9, 2017, a two-judge bench decided several issues, and endorsed the view of High Court that the Will of September 27, 1968 was a joint and mutual Will, but with a rider that said joint and mutual Will was with an express condition that survivor shall have absolute right to deal with the property keeping the object of trust alive. Giving of right of disposition to the survivor was also one of the joint decision and agreement between the testator and testatrix which does not diminish the nature and character of Will as joint and mutual Will.

It also declared in the case, unless the alienation by the survivor i.e. Rangammal is held to be completely in breach of object of trust and fraud on trust, the Court is to be slow in disregarding such alienations.

It had also held that the alienation  made by Rangammal in favour of appellants could not have been declared null and void as has been done by the High Court. Alienation made by Rangammal during her lifetime after the death of Palaniappa Chettiar was fully covered by the Will.

It has then set aside the decision of the High Court in so far as in declaring the alienation made by Smt Rangammal after the death of Palaniappa Chettiar during her lifetime as null and void.

Case Title: K.S. PALANISAMY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS Vs. HINDU COMMUNITY IN GENERAL AND CITIZENS OF GOBICHETTIPALAYAM REP BY SUNIAPPA CHETTIAR & ORS..pdf