Single judge dismissed a review petition seeking reconsideration of a second appeal judgment regarding property title, holding no error on the face of the record.
Review petition dismissed.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:50519 RP NO.337 OF 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REVIEW PETITION NO.337 OF 2022
IN
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.92 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SINCE DEAD, BY LR'S.
W/O LATE KENCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O NO.906, MARIGUDI BEEDI, BOGADI, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 026.
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka
S/O LATE KENCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O NO.9O6, MARIGUDI BEEDI, BOGADI, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 026.
NC: 2024:KHC:50519 RP NO.337 OF 2022
1(d). RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE KENCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O NO.906, MARIGUDI BEEDI, BOGADI, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 026.
1(e). CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE KENCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O NO.906, MARIGUDI BEEDI, BOGADI, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 026.
1(f). MARIYAMMA W/O SIDDEGOWDA D/O LATE KENCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O NO.322, ONAKE OBAVVA ROAD, BOGADI, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 025.
1(g). MANJULA W/O SURESH D/O LATE KENCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O NO.2422, 5TH CROSS, K.G. KOPPAL, MYSURU CITY - 570 009.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VINAY D. HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. DR. P. MARUTHAM W/O DR. R. PANEER SELVAM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO.786,
JANJAR NO.829, BOGADI CROSS ROAD, BOGADI VILLAGE, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 026.
…RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1(A) READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO RE-LOOK AND REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 05TH FEBRUARY, 2021 PASSED IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.92 OF 2019 AND PASS SUITABLE JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this Review Petition, petitioners are seeking review of judgment dated 05th February, 2021 passed by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No.92 of 2019.
NC: 2024:KHC:50519 RP NO.337 OF 2022
their right in respect of the suit schedule property, that too, in the suit filed for declaration of title. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, no interference be called for in this Review petition as there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, following the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL vs.
STATE TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER reported in (2024)2 SCC 362, Review Petition is dismissed.
SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE
ARK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1(A) read with Section 114 CPC should succeed when no error appears on the face of the record.
Whether the duty to produce documents to establish title in a suit for declaration bars interference in the review application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer and AnotherFollowed¶40
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer and Another (2024)2 SCC 362 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kencegowda Since Dead by LRs.
Dr. P. Marutham
E.S. Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
