Disposed¶40

Smt. Eramma v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2025RP/122/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RP No.122 of 2025 (Karnataka HC, 05.12.2025, B M Shyam Prasad, J) - review of Katha-issuance order dated 04.12.2024 in W.P.No.23581/2022 (BBMP); review on ground of non-arrayment of claimed legal heirs of Testator rejected; review requires error apparent (Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w S.114 CPC); bequeath disputes left to competent civil Court (O.S. No.1487/2022); petitioners given liberty to seek remedies elsewhere; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Review petition disposed of without reviewing the impugned order; liberty reserved to the petitioners, subject to all just exceptions, to avail remedies otherwise than by review. ¶40

Smt. Eramma Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:51227 RP No. 122 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

REVIEW PETITION NO.122 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. ERAMMA W/O C.T.JAYAPAL, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

¶11

DUSHYANTH C.J. S/O LATE C.T. JAYAPAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶12

PETITIONR NOS.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, BELAGODU HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. RADHA D/O C.T. JAYAPAL, W/O SURESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT BALLUR VILLAGE, PALYA HOBLI, SINGODANAHALLI POST, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 218

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. YASHWANTH NETHAJI N.T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K V NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:51227 RP No. 122 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R CIRCLE BANGALORE - 56

¶23

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (SOUTH), BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANASHANKARI ZONE BANGALORE - 560 070.

¶24

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANASHANKARI ZONE BENGALURU - 560 070.

¶25

SMT. NIVEDITHA W/O MAHESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2518, 1^ST FLOOR, 27^TH CROSS, 17^TH MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO a) ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN W.P.NO.23581/2022 (LB-BMP) DATED 04.12.2024; b) GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶28

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:51227 RP No. 122 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

This Court has disposed of the writ petition in W.P. No.23581/2022 by the order dated 04.12.2024 directing the fourth respondent to issue Katha for the subject property in favour of the petitioner therein subject to the orders in the pending suit in O.S. No.1487/2022. This Court, inter alia, has observed that bequeath is not interdicted only because some persons have filed objections to the revenue entries and if there is a dispute about the bequeath, it can only be decided by the competent civil Court.

¶35

The present review petition is filed asserting a bequeath excluding the petitioners contending that they are the legal heirs of the Testator and that they should have been made parties to the present proceedings. It would suffice for this Court to observe that even if it could be that the petitioners can establish that they should have been arrayed as

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:51227 RP No. 122 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

parties in the proceedings, they will have their remedies otherwise than by a review and the jurisdiction for review is based on an error apparent. This Court is not persuaded to opine that there is an error apparent only because the petitioners assert that they should have been arrayed as parties. As such, reserving liberty subject to all just exceptions to the petitioners to avail remedy, the petition stands

¶40

disposed of.

¶41

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶42

AN/-

Smt. Eramma v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Eramma v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Noor Ul Haseeb Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank

Mr. Bilal Mohammed Noushad Vs the State of Kerala

Sri. B S Nesara Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

The Naranahalli Milk Producers Co. Operative Society Vs the State of Karnataka

L a Belur (H.U.F) Vs the Commissioner

The State of Karnataka Vs Dr. Roopa K