Sri Venkataiah Vs Smt Basamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri Venkataiah Vs Smt Basamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:36441 RP No. 561 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI REVIEW PETITION NO. 561 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SRI. VENKATAIAH, (VENKATAIAH @ VENKATA) S/O LATE VENKATAGIRI GOWDA, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT ARLRALUALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA M.V, ADV)

AND:

SMT. BASAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAIAH @ KULLAIH AGED 78 YEARS, R/AT. ARALALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117.

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. MUNITHIMMAMMA W/O JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 34 YEARS R/AT NO.195/A, 23^RD CROSS, 6^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560010.

SRI. MUNIRAMAIAH S/O LATE VENKATAIAH @ KULLAIAH AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.281-A, 3^RD CROSS, 10^TH MAIN, MATHIKERE EXTENTION, BENGALURU-560054.

SRI. KARALAKKIAH S/O LATE VENKATAIAH @ KULLAIH AGED 49 YEARS, R/AT. ARALALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117

SRI. BANGARAGIRI S/O LATE VENKATAIAH @ KULLAIAH

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:36441 RP No. 561 of 2024

HC-KAR

AGED 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.281-A, 3^RD CROSS, 10^TH MAIN, MATHIKERE EXTENTION, BENGALURU-560054.

SRI. SHESHADRI, S/O LATE VENKATAIAH @ KULLAIAH AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT. ARALALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN RSA NO.1396/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 02.08.2024.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING AT DHARWAD BENCH, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

This Review Petition is filed to review the

judgment dated 02.08.2024 passed by this court in RSA No. 1396/2011.

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this Review Petition are as follows:

The review petitioners aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.14/2006 by the learned Addl. Civil

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:36441 RP No. 561 of 2024

HC-KAR

Judge (Sr.Dn), Ramanagara filed Regular Second appeal in R.S.A. No.1396/2011.

This court after hearing the learned counsel for

the review petitioner passed the judgment on 02.08.2024. This review petition is filed on the ground that the petitioner claiming the suit schedule property and petitioner is in continuous possession of the suit schedule property till today. The revenue records are also standing in the name of the petitioner. Hence, this review petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner is a senior citizen and in possession of the suit schedule properties and revenue records stands in the name of the petitioner. He submits that there is an error apparent on the face of record. Accordingly, prays to allow the review petition.

Heard, perused the records and considered the

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:36441 RP No. 561 of 2024

HC-KAR

The respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner in O.S.No.315/1991 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), and JMFC., Kanakapura. The Trial court vide its judgment dated 22.12.2005 decreed the suit of the respondents. The petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment and decree in R.A.No.14/2006 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Ramanagara.

The First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 20.01.2010 set aside the judgment of the trial court and consequently dismissed the suit of the respondents. The respondents preferred a second appeal in RSA 1396/2011 before this court. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court and restored the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. This court recorded a finding based on the records, that the father of the petitioner executed a registered sale deed in favour of the respondents’ father. Based on the registered sale deed, the respondents’ father became the absolute

NC: 2025:KHC:36441 RP No. 561 of 2024

5 -

HC-KAR

owner. The petitioners failed to prove the plea of adverse possession. This court has considered the entire evidence on

record and has rightly passed the judgment.

I do not find any error apparent on the face of

record. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The Review petition is dismissed.

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

kmv

CT: BSB