Karnataka High Court
Chandrappa vs Sri. H S Murthy on 5 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9345
RP No. 4 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REVIEW PETITION NO.4 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRAPPA
S/O.LATE SIDDALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST.
2. SMT. LALITHAMMA
W/O.LATE CHANNABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
3. SRI.H.C. SHIVAKUMARA
S/O.LATE CHANNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
Digitally AGRICULTURIST CUM TEACHER.
signed by
SUNITHA K S ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
Location: SANTEBENNUR VILLAGE,
HIGH COURT CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
OF DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577552
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. BALARAJ A C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. H S MURTHY
S/O. LATE SIDDALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RETD., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
(EXCISE DEPARTMENT)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9345
RP No. 4 of 2025
R/OF MANJUSHREE NILAYA,
VIJAYANAGARA,
CHITRADURGA-577502
2. SMT.GEETHA,
W/O. ANKALAPPA,
(POLICE CONSTABLE),
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
D/O.LATE. H.S. VAGEESH,
RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.790/56,
S.S.HOSPITAL ROAD,
NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE,
DAVANGERE-577005
3. SMT. NALINA,
W/O. DHARANESH
D/O.LATE. H.S.VAGEESH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF SHREYAS APARTMENT,
DOOR NO.682/2, TEACHER COLONY,
4TH CROSS, CHANDRAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 099.
4. SMT. SUKANYA,
W/O.DEEPAK,
D/O.LATE.H.S.VAGEESH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF PLOT NO. 701,
VISHWAS RESIDENCY, 12TH CROSS,
BALAJI LAYOUT, NARAYANA E TECH SCHOOL,
MALLATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 056.
5. SRI.PRASANNA @PRASANNA KUMAR,
S/O.LATE.H.S.VAGEESH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF SANTEBENNUR VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DIST-577552
6. SRI.H.S.PRABHU,
S/O.LATE SIDDALINGAPPA,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:9345
RP No. 4 of 2025
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RETD. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
RESIDENT OF 2ND CROSS, VIDYANAGAR,
DAVANAGERE-577005
7. SRI.H.S. SIDDARAMASWAMY,
S/O.LATE. SIDDALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
LIBRARIAN, GMIT.,
CHITRADURGA-577501
8. SRI.H.S. PARAMESHWARAPPA,
S/O.LATE. SIDDALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
WOMAN AND CHILDREN WELFARE
OFFICER, NEAR ONAKE OBAVVA STADIUM,
CHITRADURGA-577501
9. SMT.G.S. GAYATHRI,
W/O. BASAVARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BASAVA SADANA,
SURYADEVA BADAVANE,
D-11, SHIVARAMA KARANTHA BADAVANE,
BENGALURU-560 077.
NOW C/O.H.S. GAYATHRI,
W/O.BASAVARAJA,
AGE 60 YEARS, SURYA LAYOUT,
RETD., SBI BANK MANAGER,
SHIVAMOGGA-577204
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
R/W SEC. 114 of CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN REGULAR SECOND
APPEAL NO.1028 OF 2024 DATED 27.11.2024 AND BE PLEASED
TO GRANT THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR IN THE ABOVE
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL AND ALLOW THIS REVIEW
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:9345
RP No. 4 of 2025
PETITION WITH COSTS, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
This Review Petition is filed to review the judgment
dated 27.11.2024 passed in RSA No.1028/2024, stating
that the impugned judgment of the trial Court and the first
Appellate Court in denying partition and separate
possession of suit schedule property, being bad, and illegal
and contrary to law.
2. It is stated that, the petitioner filed a regular
second appeal in RSA No.1028/2024. This Court, vide
judgment dated 27.11.2024, dismissed the regular second
appeal on the ground that there was a prior partition
between the petitioners and respondents but an error in
appreciating the petitioners' case is that, the suit schedule
property was not the subject matter of the partition.
NC: 2025:KHC:9345
There is an error apparent on the face of the record.
Hence, prays to review the judgment dated 27.11.2024.
3. Heard Sri. Rajesh Mahale, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned senior counsel submits that the trial
Court had failed to frame issues regarding to the
genuineness of the Will set up by the defendants.
However, the first Appellate Court also proceeded to
decide the matter as if the execution of the Will was duly
proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act,
1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
He submits that the defendants have not explained as to
how they came into possession of the Will, when DW.2
declined to hand over the Will to them. It is submitted
that, the first Appellate Court formulated a point for
consideration regarding the capacity of the testator to
bequeath the property, but did not consider the issue
regarding the proof of the Will. Thus, there is an error
NC: 2025:KHC:9345
apparent on the face of the record. Hence, prays to allow
the review petition.
5. Perused the records, and considered the
submissions of the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner.
6. The respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.40/2014
for partition and separate possession on the file of learned
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri. The trial Court,
vide judgment dated 28.04.2018, decreed the suit. The
defendants, aggrieved by the judgement and preliminary
decree passed in O.S.No.40/2014, filed an appeal in
R.A.No.66/2018 on the file of learned Principal District and
Session Judge, Davangere. The first Appellate Court, vide
judgment dated 31.05.2024 dismissed the appeal. The
defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed
by the trial Court, and the first Appellate Court, preferred
a regular second appeal in RSA No.1028/2024.
NC: 2025:KHC:9345
7. This Court, vide judgment dated 27.11.2024,
dismissed the regular second appeal. The petitioners did
not raise the grounds urged in the review petition in the
memorandum of second appeal. The petitioners are raising
new grounds in the review petition. I have perused the
judgment passed in RSA No.1028/2024. I do not find any
error apparent on the face of the record. The review
petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The Review Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
sks
