Karnataka High Court
Sri A K Viswanath Gowda vs Sri I R Arun Kumar @ Era Gowda on 14 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46612
RP No. 360 of 2024
C/W RP No. 358 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REVIEW PETITION NO.360 OF 2024
IN
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.217/2018 (POS)
C/W
REVIEW PETITION NO.358 OF 2024
IN
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.218/2018 (INJ)
IN RP NO.360/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. A.K. VISWANATH GOWDA,
S/O LATE SRI. KALE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
COFFEE PLANTER,
RESIDING AT AVATHI VILLAGE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577101.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONER
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. PARASMAL B @ PARAS JAIN AND
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SRI. G.P.JAGADISH, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI. I.R. ARUN KUMAR @ ERA GOWDA,
S/O LATE SRI. RUDRE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
7TH ADVENTIST SCHOOL ROAD,
BASAVANAHALLI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.
2. SRI. C.S. LAKSHMIKANTHA,
S/O LATE SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46612
RP No. 360 of 2024
C/W RP No. 358 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1, II CROSS,
LINGAPPA BLOCK,
THIMMAIAH GARDEN,
BENGALURU-560024.
3. SMT. TULASI,
W/O SRI. C.S. LAKSHMIKANTHA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1,
II CROSS, LINGAPPA BLOCK,
THIMMAIAH GARDEN,
BENGALURU-560024.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SWAROOP SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 03.07.2025,
NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 (a) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908, PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN RSA NO.217/2018 (POS),
DATED 14.06.2024.
IN RP NO.358/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. A.K. VISWANATH GOWDA,
S/O. LATE SRI. KALE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
COFFEE PLANTER,
RESIDING AT AVATHI VILLAGE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PARASMAL B @ PARAS JAIN AND
SRI. G.P.JAGADISH, ADVOCATES)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46612
RP No. 360 of 2024
C/W RP No. 358 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI. I.R. ARUN KUMAR @ ERA GOWDA,
S/O. LATE SRI RUDRE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
7TH ADVENTIST SCHOOL ROAD,
BASAVANAHALLI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.
2. SRI C.S. LAKSHMIKANTHA,
S/O. LATE SRI SIDDALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1,
II CROSS, LINGAPPA BLOCK,
THIMMAIAH GARDEN,
BENGALURU-560024.
3. SMT. TULASI,
W/O. SRI C.S. LAKSHMIKANTHA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1,
II CROSS, LINGAPPA BLOCK,
THIMMAIAH GARDEN,
BENGALURU-560024.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SWAROOP SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 03.07.2025,
NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 (a) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908, PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN RSA NO.218/2018 (INJ)
DATED 14.06.2024.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:46612
RP No. 360 of 2024
C/W RP No. 358 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. These two review petitions are filed against the
order passed in R.S.A.No.218/2018 c/w R.S.A.No.217/2018
praying this Court to review the order dated 14.06.2024.
3. This Court having considered the factual aspects
of the case and also considering the material on record in
detail, dismissed both the second appeals and hence, the
present review petitions are filed before this Court.
4. The main contention urged before this Court is
that a valid GPA was executed by Sri I.R. Arun Kumar @
Eragowda and the same was duly notarized before the
notary public. The execution of the GPA was confirmed by
the forensic expert opinion that signature on the GPA is that
of Eragowda. The advocate, who has drafted the GPA led the
evidence and stated that GPA was drafted by him at the
NC: 2025:KHC:46612
HC-KAR
instance of Eragowda and he has signed the GPA and GPA
contains two signatures of Eragowda. The material is
available on record. The learned Trial Judge in his judgment
in paragraph No.46 holds that it is proved before the Court
that Ex.P.12 power of attorney has been executed by the
defendant and he put his signature for the same and it is
stated that the plaintiff has also proved the execution of
Ex.P.12 GPA. When GPA has been duly proved that it has
been executed by Eragowda, holding the sale deeds
executed on 06.05.1997 and 07.05.1997 as null and void, is
erroneous and perverse finding.
5. In these review petitions grounds urged are with
regard to the Trial Judge further erred in holding at
paragraph No.92 of the judgment that the sale deeds are not
genuine, without any material on record to say so. It is
settled law that title passes on registration of the sale deed.
The right of possession over the property is a facet of title.
As soon as deed of sale is registered, in terms of the sale
deed the vendor has to deliver possession of the property
sold.
NC: 2025:KHC:46612
HC-KAR
6. Having perused the grounds, which have been
urged in the review petitions, it is in respect of an error
committed by the Trial Judge while considering the material
on record. This Court vide order dated 14.06.2024
considered all these aspects in paragraph Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10
and in order to invoke the review jurisdiction, nothing is
urged in the grounds of review petition i.e., an error
apparent on the face of the record. When such being the
case, the question of this Court once again sitting on the
appeal having considered the grounds, which have been
urged in the review petition does not arise. The question of
invoking the review jurisdiction does not arise and there is
no mistake apparent on the record and all the grounds,
which have been urged before this Court was considered
while disposing of the second appeals. The learned counsel
for the review petitioner has not made out any ground to
invoke the review jurisdiction and the grounds which have
been urged in the review petitions are against an error
committed by the Trial Judge while considering the matter on
merits and not urged any ground with regard to invoking of
NC: 2025:KHC:46612
HC-KAR
review jurisdiction and hence, no grounds are made out to
review the order of this Court dated 14.06.2024.
7. Hence, both the review petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
