Dismissed¶36

Smt Nanjamma v. Smt Puttamma

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2025RP/312/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), Justice H.P.Sandesh, RP No.312 of 2024 in R.S.A.No.1807/2023 (DEC-INJ), decided 19-03-2025; review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC 1908; error apparent on record; review not a concealed appeal; Ex.D1/D2 documents of 1969, sale deed unchallenged 1969-2007, suit of 2013 alleging fraud in mutation; parties from Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The grounds urged in the review petition to recall the order passed in R.S.A.No.1807/2023 do not come within the purview of review jurisdiction. ¶28

Smt Nanjamma Vs Smt Puttamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:11379 RP No. 312 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REVIEW PETITION NO.312 OF 2024

¶8

¶9

R.S.A.No.1807/2023 (DEC-INJ)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. NANJAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRANNA @ CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 96 YEARS R/O HUNSEPALYA, SANGANAHALLI MAJARE CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK - 572117 TUMAKURU DISTRICT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH REPRESENT BY HER SPA HOLDER COURT OF KARNATAKA SRI S C NATARAJU, S/O CHANDRANNA @ CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O HUNSEPALYA, SANGANAHALLI MAJARE CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK 572117 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11379 RP No. 312 of 2024

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶17

SRI JAGADEESH S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶18

SMT. PUSHPALATHA W/O JAGADEESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶19

ALL THE RESPONDENTS ABOVE ARE R/O MARASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK - 572117 TUMKURU DISTRICT

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS Review Petition IS FILED under order 47 rule 1 read with section 114 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Praying to review the judgment dated 04/07/2024 passed in RSA No.1807/2023 AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This review petition is filed against the order passed

¶26

by this Court in R.S.A.No.1807/2023 on 04.07.2023

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11379 RP No. 312 of 2024

¶28

wherein this Court considered the grounds which have been urged in the regular second appeal and the same has been stated in paragraph 5. Having considered the grounds and also considering the material on record particularly Ex.D1 and D2 which have been placed was made by the husband in the year 1969 and from 1969 to 2007, he did not challenge the sale deed and only after the death of the husband of plaintiff, in the year 2013 approached the Court only the ground of fraud in getting the document mutated. This Court having considered the same, detail discussion was made in paragraph 6 and order has been passed considering the material on record. When such being the case, the grounds which have been urged in the review petition to recall the order not comes within the purview of review jurisdiction. The counsel again contend that the original sale deed was not produced and no sale was made in the year 1969. When such issue also discussed and dealt with by this Court at the time of admission of RSA, the question of reviewing the same does not arise. Once again, if this Court sits for

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:11379 RP No. 312 of 2024

¶31

re-consideration of the same based on the grounds urged, it amounts to an appeal against the order passed by this Court itself and thus, such ground cannot be considered in the review jurisdiction. Hence, I do not find any error apparent on record and this Court passed the detail order

¶32

assigning in the reason in paragraph 6.

¶33