Sri. Kenchaiah vs Sri. Nagaraju
2022 Latest Caselaw 2464 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

           REVIEW PETITION No.429/2016
                         IN
                R.S.A.No.3491/2006

BETWEEN:

       SRI. KENCHAIAH,
       S/O LATE MUDDAPPA,
       SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.,

1.     SRI. VEERAMADDAPPA,
       S/O SANNAPPA,
       AGED 62 YEARS,

2.     SRI. KENCHANNA,
       S/O MADDANNA,
       AGED 68 YEARS,

       BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
       KENCHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
       BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK,
       TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.
                                       ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. NAGARAJU,
S/O DODDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT KENCHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
                            2



BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.           ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. KESHAV R AGNIHOTRI, ADVOCATE)

     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1
OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE
ORDER DATED: 08.06.2015 PASSED IN R.S.A. No.3491 OF
2006, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

1. The petitioner's suit for cancellation of the sale

deed was dismissed by the Trial Court, against which, an

appeal was preferred. The Appellate Court allowed the

appeal and remanded the matter to the Trial Court.

However, in a Miscellaneous Second Appeal, this Court

came to the conclusion that the order of remand was

incorrect and directed the Appellate Court itself to

consider the appeal.

2. Pursuant to the said order, the Regular appeal was

dismissed by the Appellate Court and aggrieved by the

same, a Regular Second Appeal was preferred before this

Court. In the second appeal, the following substantial

question of law was framed:

"Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that a case for cancellation of the registered sale deed is not made out when the admitted evidence on record show the transaction was unconsonable?"

3. This Court, after hearing the arguments of both

sides, proceeded to come to the conclusion that there

was no merit in the appeal and it proceeded to dismiss

the regular second appeal.

4. It is against the dismissal of the said second

appeal, the present review petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not

dispute the fact that the grounds now raised in the

review petition were not urged when the regular appeal

was argued. If the grounds that are sought to be urged

now were not put forth before the Court when the

second appeal was being considered, obviously, no error

apparent on the face of the record can be alleged in the

order. I, therefore, find no ground to review the

judgment.

6. The review petition is accordingly rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RK CT:SN