Review petition filed challenging dismissal of second appeal regarding partition of property. Petitioner argued applicability of amended Section 6. Court dismissed review due to uncompelled office objections.
Review petition dismissed on account of office objections not being removed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
R.P. NO. 100084/2018 IN R.S.A. NO. 5556/2013 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
KESARI W/O CHANDRASHEKAR RABAKAVIMATH, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED H.D.M.C. EMPLOYEE, R/O. M.I.G. 120, 5TH CROSS, HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
(BY SRI MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
MALLIKARJUNAYYA S/O GURUSIDDAYYA RABAKAVIMATH, SINCE DECEASED, REPTD., BY HIS L.RS.,
: 2 :
R/O: MADHURA COLONY, HUBLI, TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
SAGAMMA W/O SHIDDALINGAYYA SHAHAPURMATH, SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HIS LR.S.
: 3 :
R/O: GHANTIKERI, HUBBALLI,
TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
: 4 :
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC SEEKING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2017 PASSED IN R.S.A. NO. 5556/2013 & ETC.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This review petition was filed on 13.11.2018. Since
then, the office objections have not been removed.
committed an error in dismissing the second appeal. According to him, the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to equal share in view of the amendment brought to Sec.6 of the Hindu Succession Act. There is a clear observation that Gurusiddayya, the propositus died in the year 18.09.1962. Therefore, the amendment to Sec.6 cannot be applied. Share allotted to the parties is in accordance with law. There is no error apparent on the face of the record or other reasons for amending the relief. Hence, review petition is dismissed.
SD/JUDGE
bvv
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kesari W/o Chandrashekara Rabakavimath
Sulochana W/o Mallikarjun Rabakavimath
Vikas S/o Mallikarjun Rabakavimath
Vilas S/o Mallikarjun Rabakavimath
Shiddalingayya S/o Veerabhadrayya Shahapurmath
Mahesh S/o Jitendra Rabakavimath
Sreenivas Harish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
