Dismissed

Smt. Manikyamma v. Chikkagiriyappa Since Dead by Lrs

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2014RP/750/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a review petition questioning a property demarcation judgment. The court held that excluding certain measurement sites was a conscious decision not amounting to an apparent error on the record, and petitioners should file an appeal instead.

What did the court decide?

Review petition rejected; petitioners directed to seek remedy by way of appeal.

Smt. Manikyamma Vs Chikkagiriyappa Since Dead by Lrs — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 06^th DAY OF JANUARY 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

REVIEW PETITION No.750 OF 2013

¶7

¶8

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.729 OF 2010

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Smt. Manikyamma, Aged about 53 years, Daughter of Late Venkataswamy,

¶11

Smt. Nagamma, Aged about 43 years,

¶12

Daughter of Late Venkataswamy,

¶13

Both are residing at

¶14

No.131/1 and New No.U-17

¶15

and No.U-15, Goripalya, Rayapuram Main Road, J.J.Nagar,

¶16

Bangalore – 560 018. … PETITIONERS

¶17

(By Shri. R. Nataraj, Advocate)

¶18

¶19

AND:

¶20

Sri. Chikkagiriyappa, Since dead by legal representatives

¶21

a) Smt. Lakshmamma, wife of Late D. Chikkagiriyappa, aged about 53 years, residing at Old No.2/1, J.J.Nagar, Rayapuram Main Road, Goripalya, Bangalore- 560 018.

¶22

b) Sri. C. Vittalkumar, son of Late D. Chikkagiriyappa, aged about 34 years, residing at Old No.130, New No.2/1, J.J.Nagar, Rayapuram Main Road, Goripalya, Bangalore- 560 018.

¶23

c) Sri. Srinivas, son of Late D. Chikkagiriyappa, aged about 34 years, residing at Old No.130, New No.2/1, J.J.Nagar, Rayapuram Main Road, Goripalya, Bangalore- 560 018.

¶24

Smt. Kenchamma, Wife of Late Doddagiriyappa, Aged about 65 years, 2/1, J.J.Nagar,

¶25

¶26

Rayapuram Main Road, Goripalya, Bangalore – 560 018.

¶27

Sri. Ananda, Son of Late Doddagiriyappa, Aged about 35 years,

¶28

Sri. Ravikumar, Son of Late Doddagiriyappa, Aged about 30 years, Respondents 3 and 4 are Residing at No.2/1, J.J.Nagar, Rayapuram Main Road, Goripalya, Bangalore – 560 018.

¶29

Sri. Ramaiah, Son of Late Sannagiriyappa, Aged about 73 years, Residing at No.U-17, New No.U-15, Goripalya, J.J.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 018. …RESPONDENTS

¶30

¶31

This Review Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to review the order dated 30.07.2013 passed in RFA No.729/2010, on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.

¶32

This Review Petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

¶33

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The

¶36

present petition is filed questioning the correctness of the judgment, not by virtue of any error apparent, though it is sought to be canvassed that since this court, in its judgment, had left out of its purview site no.144, which had been allotted to the share of the respondents in an earlier demarcation by a Court Commissioner and since by virtue of the petitioners’ claim in respect of site no.131/1 having been restricted, the petitioners’ entitlement to have a share in site No.144 is not taken note of and therefore stands deprived of the same.

¶37

This may be a ground for appeal and is not a ground

¶38

on which a review petition can be admitted. The view taken by this court is a conscious one and cannot be characterized as being an error apparent on record. Therefore, the petitioners are left to their remedies by way of an appeal.

¶39

It is incidentally contended that reference to Section

¶40

47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as regards the

¶41

¶42

petitioners’ door being closed insofar as the execution of the decree that has attained finality and unless this court is to rework the rights of the parties and the entitlement of the petitioners being addressed, the petitioners would be left with no remedy. This however, would not be correct. If the petitioners are in a position to satisfy the appellate court in seeking to challenge the present judgment of this court, it would be possible for the petitioners to obtain appropriate relief.

¶43

There is no warrant for interference and the petition is

¶44

rejected.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Smt. Manikyamma v. Chikkagiriyappa Since Dead by Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manikyamma v. Chikkagiriyappa Since Dead by Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M R Khan Vs M/S Maldini Yarn Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Gangambika W/O Late v Muddanna Vs the State of Karnataka Rep by Its Principal Secy

H Eraiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Miss M L Usha Rani Vs Karnataka Veterinary, Animal &

Syed Akbar Azam Vs M/S Silver Stone Builders & Developers