Ramanjinappa J R Vs Sri Raja

RAMANJINAPPA R. S/O. PUJARI RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.265, GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD, JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560064.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI ANISH JOSE ANTONY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI RAJA S/O LATE R. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.265, GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560064.

¶15

SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O LATE SRI R. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.265, GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD, JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560064.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

KARNATAKA STATE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES WORKERS HBCS LTD., NO.10, JASMA BHAVAN, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-560052. REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT N. LINGARAJ BENGALURU DISTRICT.

¶19

(DELETED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 19.07.2016)

¶20

KARNATAKA STATE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES WORKERS HBCS LTD., NO.10, JASMA BHAVAN, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-560052 REP. BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER N. LAKSHMAN, BENGALURU DISTRICT.

¶21

SRI NAGESH .M S/O LATE MALAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, JAKKUR VILLAGE, JAKKUR YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064.

¶22

KARNATAKA STATE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES WORKERS HBCS LTD., NO.10, JASMA BHAVAN, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-560052 REPRESENTED BY ITS LIQUIDATOR SRI MURALIDHAR.

¶23

SMT. PUSHPA B.N. W/O LATE ANAND, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶24

MISS KIRANA D/O LATE ANAND,

¶25

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

8. KUMARI KEERTHANA D/O J.N. ANAND,

¶29

AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

¶30

RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 8 ARE R/AT NO.265, GOVT. SCHOOL ROAD, JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560064.

¶31

LOKESH T.L. S/O LATE LAKSHMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT NO.79, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, BENGALURU-560097.

¶32

N. DINESH S/O NAGAPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT NO.619/1, BENGALURU-560092.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, SENIOR ADVOCATE, FOR R-1; SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE, FOR R-9 & R-10)

¶35

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1

¶36

R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT IN RFA NO.1859/2024 DATED 24.04.2025.

¶37

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER

¶38

WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

This review petition is preferred by respondent No. 1 in RFA 1859/2024, who was the defendant No. 1 in the original suit OS No. 2279/2014 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in RFA 1859/2024, whereby the learned single Judge of this Court reversed the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 1 and decreed the suit in entirety, declaring the plaintiffs as absolute owners of the suit schedule property.

¶45

The review petitioner seeks to review the order on two grounds.

¶46

(i) that the plaintiffs never sought a declaration of absolute ownership and the Appellate Court went beyond the pleadings and granted a decree to the plaintiffs, which was unprayed. Reliance is placed upon the following decisions :

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

(a) Om Prakash and Others v. Ram Kumar and

¶51

Others¹ (Om Prakash) to contend that a party cannot be granted a relief, which is not claimed, if the circumstances of the case are such that, the granting of such would result in serious prejudice to the interested party and deprive him of the valuable rights under the statute.

¶52

(b) Bharat Amratlal Kothari and Another v. Dosukhan, Samadkhan Sindhi and Others²

¶53

(Bharat Amratlal) , to contend that though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the Court, however cannot ignore and keep aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief

¶54

not even prayed for by the petitioner.

¶55

(c) Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao

¶56

and Another³ (Akella Lalitha) , to contend that the

¶57

1 (1991) 1 SCC 441

¶58

2 (2010) 1 SCC 234

¶59

3 2022 SCC Online SC 928

¶60

6 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

relief unprayed deprives the other side of chance to resist and causes miscarriage of justice.

¶64

Thus the prayer granted by the Appellate Court, trial was never conducted on that claim and the defendants were denied an opportunity to contest.

¶65

(ii) Under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, appeals above Rs.15,00,000/- must be heard by the Division Bench, property is worth over Rs. 5 Crores. Thus the Single Judge lacked jurisdiction.

¶66

Per contra , the learned counsel senior counsel

¶67

appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs submits that the pleadings of the plaintiffs covers absolute title of the plaintiffs, more particularly, para 4(a) to (d), the plaint asserts that the suit property is the self acquired property of R. Nagaraj, the father of the plaintiffs. Hence the claim of absolute ownership was embedded in the pleadings. Learned Senior Counsel takes the Court to Ex.P14, the compromise in O.S. No.892/2008, to contend that it is

¶68

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

specifically agreed between the plaintiffs father (R. Nagaraj) and defendant No.1-Ramananjappa that if the acquisition was dropped, the entire right over the suit property vested in R. Nagaraj (plaintiff) and admittedly acquisition was in fact dropped. So the plaintiff (heirs) are sole owners.

¶71

3.1. That the scope of review is not rehearing on

¶72

merits, and the appellate court merely corrected the trial Court's erroneous finding on issue No.1 Reliance is placed on the following decisions :

¶73

(a) Chhajju Ram vs Neki and Others⁴ (Chhajju

¶74

Ram) , to contend that review not to correct erroneous decision on merits, lies only for error apparent on face of record.

¶75

(b) Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari

¶76

Choudhury⁵ , that the review proceedings, not an appeal,

¶77

confined strictly to the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC.

¶78

4 AIR 1922 PC 127

¶79

5 (1995) 1 SCC 170

¶80

8 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

(c) Parsion Devi and Others vs Sumitri Devi

¶84

and Others⁶ , review lies only for a mistake, error apparent on the face of record, not for rehearing.

¶85

3.2. The learned Senior Counsel to the jurisdiction

¶86

point raised by the review petitioner it is submitted that pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest point of time and if the parties omit to plead and raise objections at a later stage, unsuccessful party would be precluded to raise lack of jurisdiction.

¶87

3.3. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex

¶88

Court in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs DLF Universal Ltd and Another⁷ (Harshad) .

¶89

3.4. Subhash Mahadevasa Habib vs Nemasa

¶90

Ambasa Dharmadas (dead) by LRs and Others⁸

¶91

(Subhash) . Referring to the said decision, it is contended

¶92

6 (1997) 8 SCC 715

¶93

7 2005 Part 7 SCC 791

¶94

8(2007) 13 SCC 560

¶95

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

that the objections cannot be raised regarding pecuniary jurisdiction at a belated stage and also brings to the notice of the Court, Section 21 of the CPC that failure to raise such an objection at the earliest constitutes a waiver.

¶98

This Court has carefully considered the

¶99

contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and the point that emerges for consideration is,

¶100

“Whether there is an error apparent on the face of record warranting any interference and whether the objections raised are merely an attempt to re-argue the merits of the appeal?”

¶101

The review petitioner challenges the decree in RFA 1859/2024 on two grounds (1) want of jurisdiction, and (2) grant of unprayed relief. Section 5 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 deals with the allocation. Objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction was not raised in the regular first appeal. Under Section 21 CPC, such objection must be raised promptly and only succeed if prejudice is shown. The Apex Court in the case of Harshad and

¶102

10 -

¶103

NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

Subhash (supra), has observed that the objections regarding pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be raised at a belated stage. The review petitioner was unsuccessful in the appeal, comes up for review. As could be noticed, the review petitioner has not raised any such objections in the regular first appeal. The law being settled, the review petitioner's contention that this Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be accepted.

¶106

Plaintiffs pleaded in para 4(a) to (d) that the suit property was the self acquired property of R. Nagaraj. Issue No. 1 involved determination of “whether it was a joint family or an absolute property .” The appellate Court relying upon the compromise decree in O.S. No. 892/2008 and the de-notification of acquisition, corrected the trial court's error and moulded the relief accordingly and at Para 20 it observed as under :

¶107

“20. As regards to the findings of the Trial Court, wherein it is held that O.S.No.892/2008 filed by the defendant No.1 - Ramananjappa R. against

¶108

11 -

¶109

NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

the father of the plaintiffs R. Nagaraj before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Devanahalli. The compromise entered between the parties, as per the documents – Ex.D.14 and Ex.D.15. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the said decree as per the terms of compromise, if the BDA acquired the suit schedule property, the properties shall be shared by the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 and in any case, the BDA dropped the acquisition proceedings, then the said R. Nagaraj become the absolute owner of the property. For the convenience the compromise decree in O.S.No.892/2008 referred as under:-

¶112

“In terms of compromise, item No.4 of the suit schedule property measuring 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.105/10 situated at Jakkur, Yalahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The said property had been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority. In view of the said acquisition the plaintiff and 2^nd defendant have mutually agreed to share the award amount equally. In the mean time plaintiff and second defendant have agreed to alienate the said property to one of the prospective buyer, and they have agreed to share the consideration amount equally. Further in the said property there is a shed

¶113

12 -

¶114

NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

measuring 100 x 25 feet which was constructed by the plaintiff at his own cost and risk. As such the 2^nd defendant has agreed to compensate the amount equal lent to the said shed out of award amount / sale consideration.

¶117

It is ordered and directed the plaintiff, if any extent of land is left out by the B.D.A. in item No.4, the 2^nd defendant is having right on it. And the plaintiff shall not claim any right in respect of that portion. And further directed the plaintiff not to claim any right in respect of other properties owned by the 2^nd defendant and his legal heirs.”

¶118

This was within the power under Order XLI Rule

¶119

24 of CPC.

¶120

The decisions cited by the petitioner in the case

¶121

of Om Prakash, Bharat Amratlal and Akella Lalitha

¶122

were the situation where relief was entirely outside the pleadings, which is admittedly not the case here. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, which reads as under:

¶123

13 -

¶124

NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

“ 1. Application for review of judgment—

¶127

(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—

¶128

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

¶129

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

¶130

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,

¶131

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

¶132

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the

¶133

14 -

¶134

NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶135

HC-KAR

¶136

Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.

¶137

Explanation.—The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.”

¶138

A plain reading of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC emphasizes that it limits within which a review of a decree or order is permitted and the words, ‘any other sufficient reason’, mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously and therefore, review of a decree made on appeal the Court has no power to order a review upon the ground that the decision was wrong on merits. The Privy Council, in

¶139

Chhajju Ram (supra), has held as under :

¶140

“The ‘genus’ here is something in the nature of an accidental omission or mistake, not an error in law on the part of the Court”.

¶141

15 -

¶142

NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶143

HC-KAR

¶144

In Meera Bhanja it is held at para Nos. 8 and

¶145

9 as under :

¶146

“8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent observations: (SCC p. 390, para 3)

¶147

"It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not

¶148

16 -

¶149

NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶150

HC-KAR

¶151

within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."

¶152

9. Now it is also to be kept in view that in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly observed that they were entertaining the review petition only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. So far as that aspect is concerned, it has to be kept in view that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully refer

¶153

17 -

¶154

NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶155

HC-KAR

¶156

to the observations of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court has made the following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record:

¶157

An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ.”

¶158

The Apex Court in the case of Parsion Devi

¶159

has held at para Nos. 9 and 10 as under :

¶160

“9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying

¶161

18 -

¶162

NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶163

HC-KAR

¶164

the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

¶165

10. Considered in the light of this settled position we find that Sharma, J. clearly over-stepped the jurisdiction vested in the court under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The observation of Sharma, J. that "accordingly", the order in question is reviewed and it is held that the decree in question is reviewed and it is held that the decree in question was of composite nature wherein both mandatory and prohibitory injunction were provided" and as such the case was covered by Article 182 and not Article 181 cannot be said to fall within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the later only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. While passing the impugned order, Sharma, J. found the order in Civil Revision dated 25.4.1989 as an erroneous decision, though without saying so in so many words. Indeed, while passing the impugned order Sharma, J. did record that there was a mistake or

¶166

19 -

¶167

NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶168

HC-KAR

¶169

an error apparent on the face of the record which not of such a nature, "Which had to be detected by a long drawn process of reasons" and proceeded to set at naught the order of Gupta, J. However, mechanical use of statutorily sanctified phrases cannot detract from the real import of the order passed in exercise of the review jurisdiction. Recourse to review petition in the facts and circumstances of the case was not permissible. The aggrieved judgment debtors could have approached the higher forum through appropriate proceedings, to assail the order of Gupta, J. and get it set aside but it was not open to them to seek a "review” of the order of Gupta, J on the grounds detailed in the review petition. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of Sharma, J. cannot be sustained and accordingly accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 6.3.1997.”

¶170

The law that emerges is under Order XLVII Rule

¶171

1 CPC, a judgment may be opened to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. An error which is not self evident has to be detected by process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the scope

¶172

20 -

¶173

NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025

¶174

HC-KAR

¶175

to exercise its power of review under Order XLI Rule 1 CPC. Thus the decisions stated supra conversely underline that the review is confined to error apparent, and not a rehearing. Review jurisdiction is narrow. The contentions urged essentially seek to reopen the merits of the appellate judgment, which is impermissible in review.

¶176

The court under review jurisdiction cannot revisit evidence or correct what is merely an alleged wrong decision. The present grounds urged by the review petitioner essentially disputes the merits of the appellate decision, which cannot be re-opened in review jurisdiction. There is no error apparent on the face of record and accordingly the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following :

¶177

ORDER

¶178

The Review Petition is dismissed.

¶179

Sd/-

¶180

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶181

CKL/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Ramanjinappa J R v. Sri Raja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanjinappa J R v. Sri Raja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Syed Shahi Pasha Vs Sri. Noor Ahmed Meccai

Smt. R. Hemalatha Vs Smt. G Swarupa

Sri Pramod Jois M B Vs M/S Canfin Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Sri M R Lakshmanappa Vs Dr C L Jayadev

Munipoojappa Vs Sri Akash Zingade

The Regional/Asst. Provident Fund Commisisoner Vs B S Geetha