Dismissed¶60

Chandrappa v. Sri. H S Murthy

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2025RP/4/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review Petition dismissed - Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC - error apparent on face of record - review of judgment dated 27.11.2024 in RSA No.1028/2024 - second appeal against partition decree in O.S.No.40/2014 (trial Court decree 28.04.2018; R.A.No.66/2018 dismissed 31.05.2024) - grounds on genuineness and proof of Will (Section 68 Evidence Act 1872; Section 63 Indian Succession Act 1925) held to be new grounds not raised in memorandum of second appeal - High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru - Hon'ble Mr Justice Ashok S.Kinagi - NC: 2025:KHC:9345.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the judgment in RSA No.1028/2024, this Court found no error apparent on the face of the record; the review petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. ¶56

Chandrappa Vs Sri. H S Murthy — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9345 RP No. 4 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

REVIEW PETITION NO.4 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHANDRAPPA

¶10

S/O.LATE SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS AGRICULTURIST.

¶11

SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O.LATE CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI.H.C. SHIVAKUMARA S/O.LATE CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS AGRICULTURIST CUM TEACHER.

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SANTEBENNUR VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577552

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. BALARAJ A C., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. H S MURTHY S/O. LATE SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RETD., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, (EXCISE DEPARTMENT)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9345 RP No. 4 of 2025

¶20

R/OF MANJUSHREE NILAYA, VIJAYANAGARA, CHITRADURGA-577502

¶21

SMT.GEETHA, W/O. ANKALAPPA, (POLICE CONSTABLE), AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, D/O.LATE. H.S. VAGEESH, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.790/56, S.S.HOSPITAL ROAD, NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE, DAVANGERE-577005

¶22

SMT. NALINA, W/O. DHARANESH D/O.LATE. H.S.VAGEESH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SHREYAS APARTMENT, DOOR NO.682/2, TEACHER COLONY, 4TH CROSS, CHANDRAPURA, BENGALURU-560 099.

¶23

SMT. SUKANYA, W/O.DEEPAK, D/O.LATE.H.S.VAGEESH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PLOT NO. 701, VISHWAS RESIDENCY, 12^TH CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT, NARAYANA E TECH SCHOOL, MALLATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 056.

¶24

SRI.PRASANNA @PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O.LATE.H.S.VAGEESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SANTEBENNUR VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DIST-577552

¶25

SRI.H.S.PRABHU, S/O.LATE SIDDALINGAPPA,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9345 RP No. 4 of 2025

¶27

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RETD. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, RESIDENT OF 2^ND CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577005

¶28

SRI.H.S. SIDDARAMASWAMY, S/O.LATE. SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, LIBRARIAN, GMIT., CHITRADURGA-577501

¶29

SRI.H.S. PARAMESHWARAPPA, S/O.LATE. SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, WOMAN AND CHILDREN WELFARE OFFICER, NEAR ONAKE OBAVVA STADIUM, CHITRADURGA-577501

¶30

SMT.G.S. GAYATHRI, W/O. BASAVARAJA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BASAVA SADANA, SURYADEVA BADAVANE, D-11, SHIVARAMA KARANTHA BADAVANE, BENGALURU-560 077. NOW C/O.H.S. GAYATHRI, W/O.BASAVARAJA, AGE 60 YEARS, SURYA LAYOUT, RETD., SBI BANK MANAGER, SHIVAMOGGA-577204

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 of CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1028 OF 2024 DATED 27.11.2024 AND BE PLEASED TO GRANT THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR IN THE ABOVE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL AND ALLOW THIS REVIEW

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:9345 RP No. 4 of 2025

¶35

PETITION WITH COSTS, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶36

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

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

This Review Petition is filed to review the judgment dated 27.11.2024 passed in RSA No.1028/2024, stating that the impugned judgment of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court in denying partition and separate possession of suit schedule property, being bad, and illegal and contrary to law.

¶40

It is stated that, the petitioner filed a regular second appeal in RSA No.1028/2024. This Court, vide judgment dated 27.11.2024, dismissed the regular second appeal on the ground that there was a prior partition between the petitioners and respondents but an error in appreciating the petitioners’ case is that, the suit schedule property was not the subject matter of the partition.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:9345 RP No. 4 of 2025

¶43

There is an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶44

Hence, prays to review the judgment dated 27.11.2024.

¶45

Heard Sri. Rajesh Mahale, learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

¶46

Learned senior counsel submits that the trial Court had failed to frame issues regarding to the genuineness of the Will set up by the defendants. However, the first Appellate Court also proceeded to decide the matter as if the execution of the Will was duly proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. He submits that the defendants have not explained as to how they came into possession of the Will, when DW.2 declined to hand over the Will to them. It is submitted that, the first Appellate Court formulated a point for consideration regarding the capacity of the testator to bequeath the property, but did not consider the issue regarding the proof of the Will. Thus, there is an error

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:9345 RP No. 4 of 2025

¶49

apparent on the face of the record. Hence, prays to allow the review petition.

¶50

Perused the records, and considered the

¶51

submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

¶52

The respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.40/2014 for partition and separate possession on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 28.04.2018, decreed the suit. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgement and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.40/2014, filed an appeal in R.A.No.66/2018 on the file of learned Principal District and Session Judge, Davangere. The first Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 31.05.2024 dismissed the appeal. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, and the first Appellate Court, preferred a regular second appeal in RSA No.1028/2024.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:9345 RP No. 4 of 2025

¶55

This Court, vide judgment dated 27.11.2024,

¶56

dismissed the regular second appeal. The petitioners did not raise the grounds urged in the review petition in the memorandum of second appeal. The petitioners are raising new grounds in the review petition. I have perused the judgment passed in RSA No.1028/2024. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. The review petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶57