This judgment dismisses a review petition filed by heirs challenging a preliminary decree in a partition suit. The court held that the plea regarding shares of children from an illegitimate marriage constituted a new ground not canvassed earlier.
The review petition is dismissed. Preliminary decree against sharing stands confirmed.
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 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
REVIEW PETITION NO.271 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
S/O ESHWARACHARI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O BELLURU VILLAGE,
2
NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563101.
... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI. SUNIL. S. RAO, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC)]
AND:
SMT. SAROJAMMA D/O ESHWARACHARI, W/O N. SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O ATHIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK-562105.
…RESPONDENT
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO (A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN RSA NO.543/2017 DISPOSED BY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.02.2020 AND CONSEQUENTLY CALL FOR THE LOWER COURT RECORDS IN O.S.NO.193/2011 AND R.A.NO.6/2013 RESPECTIVELY (B) REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2020 PASSED BY THIS HONB’LE COURT IN RSA NO.543/2017 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY (C) CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
This review petition is filed by the petitioners to review the Order dated 25.02.2020 passed by this Court in RSA No.543/2017.
4
new point which was not canvassed during the course of original proceedings. The contention of the petitioners is that the Trial Court had held that the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were children from the second wife of the petitioner No.1 and therefore, the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were not entitled for a share in the suit schedule properties which were ancestral properties. The learned counsel therefore, contends that unless the Apex Court decides the question as to whether the children from an illegitimate marriage also possess an undivided share in the ancestral properties, this Court as well as the Trial Court could not have rolled out any findings concurring the share of the respondent No.2 herein but must have left it at large to be determined by the final decree Court after the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court.
the petitioners cannot be entertained in view of the language employed in Order XX Rule 18 of CPC which
5
mandates that a Court should pass a preliminary decree declaring the shares of the parties concerned. The proceedings before the final decree is always dynamic in the sense the shares can get altered depending on the birth/death of parties or at the instance of non-party heirs etc. Thus, it is for the petitioners to challenge the Order of this Court and the Courts below and this cannot be by way of a review petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition can be entertained to urge a new ground regarding shares of children from an illegitimate marriage in ancestral property.
Whether a Court can pass a preliminary decree declaring shares without waiting for the Apex Court's pronouncement on illegitimate marriage shares.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Revanasiddappa and another Vs. MallikarjunReferred¶27
(2011) 11 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Ehwarachari S/o Venkatarayappachari
Lokesh S/o Eshwarachari
Smt. Chandrika W/o Dr. Govindaraju
Kumar S/o Eshwarachari
Malathi D/o Eshwarachari
Smt. Sarojamma D/o Eshwarachari
Nataraj Rangaswamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
