Dismissed¶101

Smt. Kenchamma v. Late Muddaih

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2025RP/316/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), Review Petition No.316 of 2025, decided 28.10.2025 by Justice Ashok S. Kinagi. Review of judgment dated 18.03.2025 in RSA No.469/2016 dismissed for absence of any error apparent on the face of the record; no liberty had been reserved to defendants No.5 to 7 to seek modification of shares in final decree proceedings; Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; pending IAs disposed.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the judgment in RSA No.469/2016, no error apparent on the face of the record was found. ¶95

Smt. Kenchamma Vs Late Muddaih — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:43001 RP No. 316 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

REVIEW PETITION NO. 316 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. KENCHAMMA

¶11

SINCE DEAD BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶12

SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, D/O LATE KENCHAMMA,

¶13

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

¶14

SMT. PARVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, D/O LATE KENCHAMMA

¶15

LATE BYRAPPA, S/O LATE KENCHAMMA, (SINCE DEAD BY LRS)

¶16

VENKATAMMA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O LATE BYRAPPA

¶17

HARISH, AGED BOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE BYRAPPA

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43001 RP No. 316 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

VIJAYA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O LATE BYRAPPA

¶21

PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.172/A, 6^TH CROSS, VINAYAKANGARA, RAMANAGARA, RAMANAGARA TALUK-562159

¶22

LATE SMT. NANJAMMA, (SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S)

¶23

SRI. CHANDRAPPA, S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, MAJOR

¶24

PUTTASWAMAIAH, S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, MAJOR

¶25

RAMAIAH, S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA MAJOR

¶26

KRISHNAPPA, S/O NANJEGOWDA MAJOR

¶27

PETITIONERS 6 TO 9 ARE R/AT CHIKKA ARASANAHALLI VILLAGE, M.G.PALYA POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571511

¶28

SMT. PUTTAMMA (SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S)

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43001 RP No. 316 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

RAMESH

¶32

S/O VENKATAPPA, MAJOR

¶33

KRISHNAIAH @ KRISHNA, S/O VENKATAPPA, MAJOR

¶34

MANGAMMA, W/O VATTAPPA, MAJOR

¶35

PETITIONERS 10 TO 12 ARE R/AT KARIKALADODDI VILLAGE, MARALAWADI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571511

¶36

SRI.KATARI GOWDA, S/O VENKATARAJU, MAJOR

¶37

SRI. VENKATARAJU, S/O KATARIGOWDA, MAJOR

¶38

SMT. KEMPAMMA, D/O KATARIGOWDA, MAJOR

¶39

SRI.GOVINDA S/O KATARIGOWDA, MAJOR

¶40

PETITIONER Nos.13 TO 14 ARE R/AT BYREGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE, MARALAWADI HOBLI,

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43001 RP No. 316 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571511

¶44

…PETITIONERS

¶45

(BY SRI. SHRIDHARAMURTHY H.R., ADVOCATE)

¶46

AND:

¶47

LATE MUDDAIH

¶48

(SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS)

¶49

SMT. SAKAMMA W/O LATE MUDDAIAH, MAJOR

¶50

SRI. SHIVANANJIAH, S/O LATE MUDDAIAH, MAJOR

¶51

SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE MUDDAIAH, MAJOR

¶52

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE MUDDAIAH, MAJOR

¶53

RESPONDENT Nos. 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO.41, NEAR WATER TANK, VADERAHALLI, RAMANAGARA-562159

¶54

PUTTAIAH, S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, MAJOR, R/AT VADDERAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571511

¶55

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43001 RP No. 316 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

SMT. MAYAMMA, W/O LATE CHANNAPPA, MAJOR

¶58

SRI. LOKESH, S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, MAJOR

¶59

SRI. MUDDARAJU, S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, MAJOR

¶60

SMT. SHUMALATHA, D/O LATE CHANNAPPA, MAJOR

¶61

RESPONDENT Nos.5 TO 9 ARE R/O C/O LAKSHMI MEDICALS AND GENERAL STORES, SHIVAKOTE POST, DODDABYLEKERE VILLAGE, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-567801

¶62

SRI. RAMANA

¶63

SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶64

SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS W/O LATE RAMANNA R/O K GOPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA - 562109

¶65

SMT. YASHODAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶66

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:43001 RP No. 316 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

W/O VARADEGOWDA R/O VADDARAHALLI VILLAGE, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA - 562159

¶70

SMT. CHANDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O PAPANNA R/O T HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HAROHALLI HOBLI AND TALUK RAMANAGARA - 562112

¶71

SMT. SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O RAJU, R/O VADDARAHALLI VILLAGE, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA - 562159

¶72

SMT. NEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O MALLAPPA, R/O AGARA VILLAGE, HAROHALLI HOBLI AND TALUK RAMANAGARA - 562112

¶73

SMT. PRABHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O CHANNAPPA, R/O KOLAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, HAROHALLI HOBLI AND TALUK RAMANAGARA-562112

¶74

SRI. SHIVANNA, S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, MAJOR

¶75

R/AT GOPALAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶76

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:43001 RP No. 316 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA-562109

¶80

…RESPONDENTS

¶81

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION.114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN RSA NO. 469/2016, HEAR THE PARTIES AND PASS THE FOLLOWING ORDERS. a) PASS AN ORDER TO REVIEW JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2025, PASSED IN RSA NO. 469/2016.

¶82

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

¶83

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶84

ORAL ORDER

¶85

The petitioners filed this review petition to review the judgment dated 18.03.2025 passed by this Court in RSA No.469/2016.

¶86

This Court had modified the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and this review petition is filed on the ground that this Court neither allotted the share to defendants No.5 to 7, nor gave them an opportunity to file a necessary application before the FDP Court. Hence, filed this review petition.

¶87

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC:43001 RP No. 316 of 2025

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶91

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

¶92

that, this Court granted opportunity to defendants No.5 to 7 to make application in the final decree proceedings for modification of shares.

¶93

From the perusal of paragraph No.12 of the judgment passed in RSA No.469/2016, it is the submission made by learned counsel for defendants No.3 and 4. This Court has not reserved any liberty to defendants No.5 to 7 to make any application in the FDP for modification of shares. When a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners to point out the error apparent on the face of the record, the learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out any error apparent on the face of the record.

¶94