[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri. Mallikarjun Gururaj Koujageri vs Basavannevva D/O. Guruppa Yalaburgi on 20 February, 2026
-1-
RP No.100061 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
®
REVIEW PETITION NO.100061 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. MALLIKARJUN GURURAJ KOUJAGERI
AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. ROSTON APARTMENT,
BEHIND SUYOGA COMPLEX,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.
2. SHRI. SURESH GURURAJ KOUJAGERI
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. SELF EMPLOYED,
R/O. HOSUR, HUBBALLI.
3. SMT. SUDHA W/O. SHIVAPRASAD
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. NO.10, K.G. ROAD,
2ND CROSS, BENGALURU-560009.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK R. KALYANSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by GURURAJ GADEGEPPA KOUJAGERI
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR (SINCE DECEASED ON 27-04-2018)
Location: High REPRESENTED BY BASAVANNEVVA
Court of
Karnataka, D/O. GURUPPA YALABURGI,
Dharwad Bench
AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE,
R/O. G.G. KOUJAGERI BUILDING,
2ND CROSS, HOSUR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE AND
SEI. V.M. SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO, RE CONSIDER THE
JUDGMENT PASSED IN R.F.A.NO.1867/2007 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
DATED 17.12.2020 SINCE THE R.F.A. WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN
VIEW OF THE PECUNIARY JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT AND THE
HONBLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE RE CONSIDER THE JUDGMENT
PASSED IN R.F.A.NO.1867/2007 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED
-2-
RP No.100061 of 2021
17.12.2020 IN LINE WITH THE OBSERVATION OF THE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT AND THE R.F.A. BE DISMISSED BY CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.3/2001 DATED
30.05.2007 BY THE HON'BLE SECOND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN) COURT HUBBALLI.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 05.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV ORDER
This Review Petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1
read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking
review of the judgment dated 17.12.2020 passed in R.F.A.
No.1867/2007 by this Court, whereby the appeal filed by
defendant No.1 was allowed and the judgment and decree
passed in O.S. No.3/2001 was modified.
2. The petitioners herein/plaintiffs had instituted
O.S.No.3/2001 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Hubballi, ('the Trial Court' for short)
seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the
suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is a
house and open space bearing CTS No.123/43B situated at
Hubballi City. It is not in dispute that the said property
-3-
RP No.100061 of 2021
belonged to late Smt.Sushila, wife of late Shri.Gururaj G.
Koujageri, and that she had inherited the same from her
father. Smt.Sushila died intestate on 16.02.1998 leaving
behind her husband Shri.Gururaj Koujageri, two sons
namely Shri.Mallikarjun and Shri.Suresh, and a married
daughter Smt.Sudha. When mutation proceedings were
initiated, defendant No.1-husband objected claiming
exclusive ownership of the property on the basis of a Will
dated 27.12.1993 alleged to have been executed by
Smt.Sushila in his favour. In view of the said dispute, the
plaintiffs instituted the suit contending that defendant No.1
was excluded from succession in terms of Section 15(2)(a)
of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short).
3. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence on record, held that the Will
propounded by defendant No.1 was not proved in
accordance with law and decreed the suit. The Trial Court
excluded the husband from inheritance and allotted shares
only to the children of the deceased.
-4-
RP No.100061 of 2021
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree
dated 30.05.2007, defendant No.1 preferred
R.F.A.No.1867/2007 before this Court. During the pendency
of the appeal, defendant No.1 died. A third party claiming
under an alleged Will said to have been executed by
defendant No.1 was brought on record and prosecuted the
appeal. This Court, by judgment dated 17.12.2020,
dismissed the Will set up by defendant No.1 but allowed the
appeal in part by holding that succession to the property is
governed by Section 15(1) of the Act and consequently
allotted 1/4th share each to the two sons, the daughter and
the husband. The present review petition is filed assailing
the said judgment.
5. The learned counsel for the review petitioners
has filed detailed written submissions contending that the
judgment under review suffers from an error apparent on
the face of the record. It is contended that the suit schedule
property having been inherited by Smt.Sushila from her
father, succession is governed exclusively by Section
15(2)(a) of the Act and not by Section 15(1) of the Act. It is
-5-
RP No.100061 of 2021
further contended that Section 15(2)(a) of the Act begins
with a non obstante clause and operates as an exception to
Section 15(1) of the Act. According to the learned counsel,
the absence of the word "husband" in Section 15(2)(a) of
the Act clearly indicates legislative intent to exclude the
husband from inheriting parental property of the deceased
female Hindu.
6. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Lachhman Singh v. Kirpa
Singh and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1616, in
support of the above contention. It is also contended that
after the death of defendant No.1, the alleged claim of a
third party under his Will is wholly untenable, she being a
stranger to the family and to the parental property of late
Smt.Sushila.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the review petition is not maintainable. It is
contended that the issues raised in the review were directly
in issue in the Regular First Appeal and have been
adjudicated upon by this Court. It is further submitted that
-6-
RP No.100061 of 2021
the interpretation adopted by this Court in the judgment
under review is a plausible interpretation of the statutory
provisions and that a review petition cannot be used as an
appeal in disguise.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the review
petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent and
perused the material available on record.
9. The scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1
CPC is extremely limited. A review is permissible only when
there is an error apparent on the face of the record,
discovery of new and important evidence which was not
within the knowledge of the party despite due diligence, or
for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. Re-
appreciation of evidence or re-argument on merits is
impermissible in review jurisdiction.
10. The principal contention urged by the petitioners
pertains to the applicability of Section 15(2)(a) of the Act.
Section 15(1)(a) of the Act provides that the property of a
female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve firstly upon her
sons, daughters and husband. Section 15(2)(a) of the Act
-7-
RP No.100061 of 2021
carves out an exception and provides that property
inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall
devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the
deceased, upon the heirs of the father. A plain reading of
Section 15(2)(a) of the Act makes it clear that its
application is expressly conditioned upon the absence of any
son or daughter of the deceased. In the present case, it is
an admitted fact that Smt.Sushila died leaving behind two
sons and a daughter. Therefore, the condition precedent for
invoking Section 15(2)(a) of the Act is not satisfied.
11. The reliance placed on Lachhman Singh's case
(supra) does not assist the petitioners in the facts of the
present case. The said decision does not lay down that the
husband is excluded even when sons and daughters of the
deceased female Hindu are alive. This Court, in the
judgment under review, has taken a considered view that
succession is governed by Section 15(1)(a) of the Act. The
said interpretation is a legally sustainable and plausible
view. Merely because another interpretation is sought to be
-8-
RP No.100061 of 2021
advanced by the petitioners, the same cannot constitute an
error apparent on the face of the record.
12. The contentions relating to the death of
defendant No.1 and the claim of a third party under his
alleged Will pertain to the merits of the appeal and do not
furnish any ground for review. No clerical, arithmetical or
patent error is pointed out in the judgment under review.
The review petition is essentially an attempt to reopen the
matter on merits, which is impermissible in law.
13. In view of the above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that no ground is made out for review
under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.
14. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The Review Petition stands dismissed.
No order as to costs
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
MBS, CT:VP
