Karnataka High Court
Hanumareddy S/O Govindappa ... vs Smt.Mallavva W/O Veerappa Tigari on 12 June, 2023
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
RP No. 100167 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
REVIEW PETITION NO. 100167 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
HANUMAREDDY S/O GOVINDAPPA CHALAGER,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MALLAVVA W/O VEERAPPA TIGARI,
AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
Digitally 2. THE TAHASILDAR, RANEBENNUR,
signed by
RAKESH S TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
HARIHAR
RAKESH Location:
S High Court 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
of Karnataka,
HARIHAR Dharwad HAVERI SUB-DIVISION, HAVERI,
Date: DIST: HAVERI.
2023.06.16
13:25:02
+0530
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF
CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 21.3.2018
PASSED IN WP NO.30191/2008, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
RP No. 100167 of 2019
ORDER
1. This review petition is filed with the prayer to
review the order dated 21.03.2018 passed in
W.P.No.30191/2008 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the title of the petitioner has been declared
in RSA No.5319/2009, which arose from O.S.No.474/1990
filed by the contesting respondents herein and the said
aspect has not been considered by this Court while
disposing W.P.No.30191/2008.
3. This Court while disposing of
W.P.No.30191/2008, having noticed that petitioner's Form
No.7-A was rejected and no challenge was made to the
said order by the petitioner herein, has held that the
petitioner's name cannot be continued in the record of
rights of the land in question.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has now
raised a contention in this review petition that the
RP No. 100167 of 2019
petitioner's title has been declared in RSA No.5319/2008
and this aspect of the matter has not been taken into
consideration by this Court while disposing of W.P.
No.30191/2008.
5. The judgment passed in RSA No.5319/2009
dated 14.09.2012 is available on record. From the perusal
of the same, it is seen that the said regular second appeal
was filed by the respondent herein challenging the
concurrent findings of the Courts below, wherein the suit
filed by her in O.S.No.474/1990 was dismissed. Dismissal
of the suit filed by the contesting respondents herein
which was upheld by this Court in RSA No.5319/2009
would not amount to declaring the petitioner's title, who
was a defendant in the said suit.
6. Under these circumstances, there is no merit in
the contention raised by the petitioner in this review
petition and the order passed in WP No.30191/2008,
which is sought to be reviewed in this petition, does not
RP No. 100167 of 2019
suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record.
Therefore, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Kgk/Ct:Bck
