Sri Raghunath Prasad Vs Smt Seethalakshmi — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri Raghunath Prasad Vs Smt Seethalakshmi — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41107 RP No. 333 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REVIEW PETITION NO.333 OF 2025 IN

H.R.R.P. NO.12/2024 (EVI)

BETWEEN:

SRI. RAGHUNATH PRASAD,

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

1(a) SMT. KSHAMA K., W/O LATE R. RAGHUNATH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

1(b) SMT. NIKITHA R., D/O LATE R. RAGHUNATH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

1(c) MRS. NEHA R., D/O LATE R. RAGHUNATH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

1(d) MRS. POOJA R., D/O LATE R. RAGHUNATH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

1(e) SRI. AKASH R., S/O LATE R. RAGHUNATH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDING IN A PORTION OF PROPERTY BEARING NO.1086, 2^ND CROSS,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41107 RP No. 333 of 2025

HC-KAR

PIPELINE, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU-560 022.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. A.R.PAWAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. SEETHALAKSHMI, W/O SRI. M. BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

SMT. K. SHASHIKALA, W/O SRI. M. BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT GOWRISHANKAR BUILDING, MOHAN KUMAR NAGAR, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU-560 022.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2025 IN HRRP NO.12/2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU.

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

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41107 RP No. 333 of 2025

HC-KAR

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

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

Having considered the grounds which have been urged in the review petition, the revision petitioners contend that there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the petition schedule property bearing No.1086/A/2-1, II Cross, Pipeline, Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru and another portion of the respondents. The learned counsel also contend that the petition schedule property is different from the property in which they are residing i.e., No.1086, which is adjacent towards the northern side of the petition schedule property of the respondents. Having urged all these grounds, an attempt is made before this Court by filing a review petition that both the properties are distinct. This Court while remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, directed the Trial Court to give an opportunity to the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41107 RP No. 333 of 2025

HC-KAR

petitioners to establish the jural relationship permitting the petitioners to lead further evidence. When the petition is filed for eviction, the paramount consideration for passing of an order of eviction is to establish the jural relationship and hence this Court considering the material available on record, in paragraph No.16, made an observation that in order to prove the document, the petitioners ought to have examined the vendors, since it is the claim that the respondent entered into a rental agreement with their vendors and the vendors have not been examined and the persons who have signed as witness to the document of Ex.P.10 also have not been examined before the Trial Court. When there is a dispute with regard to the jural relationship, ought to have examined the vendors as well as the witnesses in the absence of any documentary proof for having paid the rent either to the vendor or to the petitioners and hence comes to the conclusion that the matter requires reconsideration.

NC: 2025:KHC:41107 RP No. 333 of 2025

5 -

HC-KAR

Now the learned counsel for the review

petitioners would contend that both the properties are different. The burden is on the respondents to prove the jural relationship between the parties and hence no ground is made out to review the order passed by this

Court. Hence, the review petition is dismissed.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25