Karnataka High Court
H Hombale Gowda @ Javare Gowda vs Smt Anitha D H on 6 January, 2022
Bench: R. Nataraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
REVIEW PETITION NO.313 OF 2021
IN
R.S.A. No.953/2018
BETWEEN:
1. H. HOMBALE GOWDA @ JAVARE GOWDA
WRONGLY INCLUDED
INITIAL 'D' IN O.S. CAUSE TITLE
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
S/O LATE HOMBALE GOWDA
RETIRED ENGINEER
'MATHRUSHREE NILAYA'
20TH CROSS, V.V. NAGAR
KALLAHALLI,
MANDYA TOWN-571 401
2. D.H. NARAYANA @ D H NARAYANA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O LATE HOMBALE GOWDA
R/O DODDEGOWDANA
KOPPALU VILLAGE, KALKUNI POST
KIRUGAVALU HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430
3. SMT. HOMBAMMA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
W/O JAVARE GOWDA
R/O C.V. KOPPALU
VILLAGE, MALIYUR POST
2
BANNUR HOBLI
T. NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 424
4. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
W/O MARIGOWDA
R/O HANUMANALU VILLAGE
BANNUR HOBLI
T. NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 124
5. SMT. NAGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
W/O LINGE GOWDA
@ THIMME GOWDA
R/O BEEDANAHALLI VILLAGE
BANNUR HOBLI
T. NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 124
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SMT. ANITHA D.H.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
D/O LATE D.H. HOMBALE GOWDA
W/O HUCHEGOWDA
R/O KAROTI VILLAGE
MAKAWALLI POST
K.R.PETE TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
2 . SMT. D.H. MAMATHA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
D/O LATE D.H. HOMBALE GOWDA
W/O J. MAHESH
R/O CVG KOPPALU VILLAGE
3
BANNUR HOBLI
T. NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571124
3 . KUMARI D.H. SUNITHA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
D/O LATE D.H. HOMBALE GOWDA
4 . KUMARI D.H. RUPAKALA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
D/O LATE D.H. HOMBALE GOWDA
RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4
ARE RESIDENTS OF
C/O MUDDUMARAYYA @ CHOTANNA
3RD CROSS, BABA SAHEBPALYA
NEAR IYENGAR BAKERY
BASAVESWARANAGAR
KENGERI POST, MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 060
5 . MARI JOGI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
S/O KUNDA HONNEGOWDA
R/O DODDEGOWDANA
KOPPALU, KALKUNI POST
KIRUGAVALU HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430
6 . N. MAHESH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O NINGE GOWDA
R/O DODDEGOWDANA KOPPALU
KALKUNI POST
KIRUGAVALU HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571430
...RESPONDENTS
4
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE
CODE, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25/03/2021 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN R.S.A. NO.953/2018 AND HOLD THAT THE
RESPONDENT NO.6 IS NOT ENTITLED TO A SHARE IN THE SUIT
SCHEDULE PROPERTIES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT DHARWAD BENCH, THIS
DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Review Petition is filed seeking review of the
Judgment dated 25.03.2021 passed in RSA No.953/2018.
2. The petitioners herein who were the defendant
Nos.1 to 5 before the Trial Court did not contest the suit.
The Trial Court partly decreed the suit based on the
evidence of PW.1 and the evidence of DW.1. The Judgment
and Decree of the Trial Court was upheld by the First
Appellate Court as well as this Court based on the
admission of PW.1 regarding the relationship of defendant
No.9 with the predecessors of the plaintiffs. Now, the
petitioners seek to review the Judgment passed by this
Court in the Regular Second Appeal on the ground that the
admission of PW.1 regarding the relationship of defendant
No.9 is untrue. The petitioners have filed an application in
I.A. No.1/2021 along with copy of an extract of the list of
members of Rajya Vokkaligara Sanga and a copy of the
sale deed dated 18.03.1963 where the name of the father
of Sri Kullegowda was mentioned as Mallegowdana
Hombalegowda.
3. The Regular Second Appeal was disposed off
based on the available material. The grounds urged by the
petitioners herein do not qualify to be an error apparent on
the face of the record. In addition, no reason is assigned
as to why the defendant Nos.1 to 5 could not produce the
aforesaid documents earlier. Therefore, this petition does
not merit consideration.
4. In that view of the matter, there is no error
apparent on the face of the record requiring interference of
this Court or review of the Judgment dated 25.03.2021
passed by this Court in RSA No.953/2018.
Hence, the Review Petition stands dismissed.
The pending interlocutory application stands
disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sma
