Allowed

Sri. Krishnamurthy v. Smt. P. Jayashree Bhat

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2023RP/574/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC allowed to recall the judgment in RSA No.960/2021 which disposed of an appeal regarding inheritance of properties. The court noted lack of trial records and allegations that properties were not joint family assets, warranting remittal for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed, judgment and decree in RSA No.960/2021 recalled, regular second appeal listed before appropriate Bench.

Sri. Krishnamurthy Vs Smt. P. Jayashree Bhat — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:23796 RP No. 574 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

REVIEW PETITION NO. 574 OF 2022

¶7

¶8

RSA NO.960/2021 (PAR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE BHASKAR BHAT

¶11

SRI KIRAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O SRI KRISHNAMOORTHY,

¶12

SRI PAVAN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O SRI KRISHNAMOORTHY,

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

P. NOS.1 TO 3 R/AT NO.5/22, RAVIKIRAN, NEAR JODURASHTE, ALEVOOR VILLAGE, AND POST UDUPI -574 118.

¶15

SMT MALATHI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O SRIPATHY BHAT, R/AT NANDA GOKULA, NO.76 BADAGUBETTU VILLAGE, UDUPI -574 118.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

SMT. P. JAYASHREE BHAT AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:23796 RP No. 574 of 2022

¶22

D/O LATE VASANTHI BHAT, R/AT NO.5 SRI DEVI APARTMENT, NEAR FIRE STATION AJJARKAD, UDUPI-574 118.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2022 IN RSA NO.960/2021 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This review petition is filed by the appellants in RSA

¶29

No.960/2021 for review of the judgment and decree dated

¶30

02.03.2022 passed by this Court in the said appeal.

¶31

The petitioners contended that the properties involved in the suit from which RSA No.960/2021 arose were infact allotted to the share of the predecessors of the appellants (Bhaskara Bhat) in O.S.No.340/1943 and RIA No.624/1948 dated 30.08.1948. The petitioners therefore contended that these properties were the separate properties of Sri.Bhaskara Bhat and not the joint family properties and therefore, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.67/2003 were not entitled for any share in the suit properties.

¶32

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23796 RP No. 574 of 2022

¶33

Per contra, the learned counsel for the

¶34

respondent submits that the suit properties were infact allotted to the share of Sri.Bhaskara Bhat. He submits that the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and confirmed by this Court does not warrant any review. He further submits that subsequent to the judgment of this Court in RSA No.960/2021. a final decree proceeding was initiated and 27 guntas of land was allotted to the share of the defendants and the defendants have sold off the same. He therefore contended that no purpose would be served in undoing the judgment and decree passed by this Court in RSA No.960/2021.

¶35

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶36

learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶37

This Court did not have the benefit of the records of the Trial Court when the regular second appeal was listed for admission. This Court held that the suit properties were allotted to the share of Sri.Bhaskara Bhat

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:23796 RP No. 574 of 2022

¶40

and Smt.Krishnaveniamma and that plaintiff No.1 being the daughter of Smt.Krishnaveniamma was entitled to share in the suit properties along with legal heirs of Sri.Bhaskara Bhat namely, the petitioners herein. However, since it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by the decree in O.S.No.340/1943 properties were allotted to the share of Sri.Bhaskara Bhat and not Smt.Krishnaveniamma and that

¶41

Smt.Krishnaveniamma represented Bhaskara Bhat as a natural guardian and that she was not allotted any share, it is probable that the properties allotted to the share of Sri.Bhaskara Bhat were his independent properties and same were not available for partition.

¶42

In view of the aforesaid, this Court considers it appropriate to review and recall the judgment and decree passed by this Court in RSA No.960/2021 dated 02.03.2022. Consequently, this review petition is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by this Court in RSA No.960/2021 dated 02.03.2022 is recalled and the regular

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:23796 RP No. 574 of 2022

¶44

¶45

second appeal is ordered to be listed before the appropriate Bench for consideration.

¶46

In view of disposal of main petition, pending application does not survive for consideration and stands disposed off.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

SRT

¶49

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2

Sri. Krishnamurthy v. Smt. P. Jayashree Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Krishnamurthy v. Smt. P. Jayashree Bhat

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

Kum. Lakshmi Vs Sri. Raju. C. a.

Sri. K. S. Rohit @ Vante Vs Additional Commissioner of Police (East)

Sri S Manjunath Vs Smt Nethravathi

Sri G Guruprasad Vs the State by

M/S Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S Lisa Apparels Pvt. Ltd.

Manjunatha M. S. Vs Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.