Sri. M. R. Rangaswamy Vs Sri. Shivakumar

THIS RP IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2024 PASSED IN RSA NO.916/2023 (PAR) (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL ON MERITS, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

I have heard Sri. Sriranga S., learned Senior

¶29

counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel, Sri. Pranav Kumar M., for the Review Petitioners.

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:35389 RP No. 492 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

This Review Petition is filed by the

¶34

petitioners seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2024 passed in RSA No. 916 of 2023 (Annexure-A).

¶35

It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners that, the defendant No.2 had purchased the Item Nos. 10 and 11 through his independent income and also availed loan to purchase these two items and in this regard, on Demand Register has been produced before the trial Court and same has been ignored by both the courts below. Accordingly, sought for review of the judgment and decree passed by this Court produced at Annexure A.

¶36

In the light of the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners, I have carefully examined paragraph 17 of

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:35389 RP No. 492 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2024 passed in RSA No.916 of 2023. Perusal of the findings would indicate that defendant No.1 is the father of the defendant No.2 (petitioner herein). Taking into consideration the findings recorded by both the courts below and after considering the material on record, this court, has arrived at a conclusion that defendant No.2 has failed to establish as to his independent income as derived for the purpose of purchasing the suit schedule properties and also age of the defendant No.2 at the relevant point of time was around 20 years and therefore, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted that, as the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below, concurrently held against the Review Petitioners herein, and therefore, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this Review

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:35389 RP No. 492 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Petition. In view of the declaration of law made by the

¶45

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer , reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362 , I am of the opinion that the learned Senior Counsel for the Review Petitioners has failed to make out any mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed .

¶46

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶47

SB

¶48

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14

Sri. M. R. Rangaswamy v. Sri. Shivakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. R. Rangaswamy v. Sri. Shivakumar

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. Sarojamma Vs B. G. Benakappa

Mr. Hector D Souza Vs Sri. G. Chandranna

Barugur Subban Ravi Alias Ravi.B.S Vs Gardenview Abode Private Limited

Kirit Morzaria Vs International Coach Builders Limited

Official Liquidator Vs Sri V.M. Kalimulla

Lyrus Life Sciences Private Limited Vs Sai Parenterals Limited