A review petition challenging a judgment and decree regarding partition of joint family property and land grant title was dismissed. The high court held that review is for inadvertent errors, not to reconsider the court's view on property treatment.
Review petition dismissed; judgment and decree dated 15.05.2020 remain unreversed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
REVIEW PETITION NO.175 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
(By Sri Srihari.K., Advocate)
AND:
2
Both are residing at No.67 1st Main Road, 3rd Cross, Apoorva Apartment, Geo Layout, Sambhram College, Chikkabettahalli, Vidyaranyapura Post, Bengaluru-560097. ...Respondents
This Review Petition is filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to (i) recall the Judgment and Decree dated 15.05.2020 in R.S.A. No.2203/2012 and restore the same to its original file (ii) allow this Review Petition by reviewing the Judgment and Decree dated 15.05.2020 in R.S.A. No.2203/2012 and consequently decree the suit in favour of the appellants and etc.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition seeking
review of The Judgment and Decree dated 15.05.2020.
3
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the Judgment passed by this Court calls for review on the following grounds:
4
in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and the appeal ought to have been allowed.
(iii) The grant of land in question was in favour of the appellant-plaintiff free of cost and therefore the question of respondent-defendant contributing in money for the grant of land would not arise. Therefore, he submitted that the finding recorded by this Court that the appellant-plaintiff and the respondentdefendant have got the suit property in the name of the appellant-plaintiff is merely tactical, as by then, the respondent-defendant was already employed with the Government and was ineligible to seek regularization, is incorrect and not based on any evidence.
5
The Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be an appeal in disguise. The power of review can be exercised within the contours of Order 47 Rule 1 of Criminal Procedure Code, which is to correct inadvertent error and not to correct the view of the Court. This Court had considered Exs.D26 and D27 in great detail and recorded a finding that the suit property was treated as property belonging to the joint family.
The circumstances that led this Court to hold so are succinctly described in the Judgment. It was in that context it was held that the property in question belonged to the joint family. Thus the decision of this Court in S.P.Subba Rao and others vs. M.Lakshmana
Rao and others was not relevant and thus not considered. This Court perused Exs.D26 and D27 and was of the opinion that they were a record of prior partition and that was a view taken by this Court and
6
the same cannot be the subject matter of review in this
petition.
In that view of the matter, this Review Petition is
dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
SSD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CrPC to correct noted errors in the judgment and decree can be allowed.
Whether the finding that Exs. D26 and D27 recorded a prior partition constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.P.Subba Rao and others vs. M.Lakshmana Rao and othersDistinguished¶34
S.P.Subba Rao and others vs. M.Lakshmana Rao and others
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Akkayamma W/o Muniyappa
Nagarathnamma W/o Lakshmipathi
Lakshmi W/o late Narayana
Prashanth S/o late Narayana
NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
