Sri R Nagaraj Vs Smt Bhagyamma

SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE SRI CHIKKA CHENNAPPA W/O LATE SRI. MUNIYAPPA REDDY, RESIDING AT BELLANDURU VILLAGE, VARTHURU HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 037. SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY HER LR’s.

¶16

SRI SRINIVAS

¶17

8/O LATE SRI MUNIYAPPA AND LATE BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 131 9^TH CROSS, BELLANDUR, BANGALORE-560 103.

¶18

SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O MANJUNATH D/O LATE SRI MUNIYAPPA AND LATE BHAGYAMMA

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:22183 RP No. 383 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.131 9^TH CROSS, BELLANDUR BANGALORE-560 103.

¶22

SRI H.C. MUNI REDDY S/O LATE SRI CHIKKA CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶23

SMT. SHAKUNTHALA W/O LATE SRI H.C. MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶24

SMT. H.M. MAMATHA D/O LATE SRI H.C. MUNI REDDY W/O SRI. PRASANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶25

RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT HARALURU VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU – 560034.

¶26

SMT. LAKHMAMMA D/O LATE RATHNAMMA AND LATE APPAJAPPA W/O LATE RAGHURAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶27

SMT. SARASWATHI D/O LATE RATHNAMMA AND LATE APPAJAPA

¶28

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶29

SMT. SHANTHA D/O LATE RATHNAMMA AND LATE APPAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶30

SMT. ANITHA D/O LATE RATHNAMMA AND LATE APPAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:22183 RP No. 383 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

SRI RAJU D/O LATE RATHNAMMA AND LATE APPAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶34

RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT MADHURA NAGARA DINNENEKKUNDI DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, MUTHSANDRA POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560 087.

¶35

SMT. NANJAMMA W/O. LATE RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶36

SMT SAVITHA D/O LATE RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶37

RESPONDENT NOS.11 & 12 ARE R/AT JANTHAGONDANAHALLI VILAGE SARJAPURA HPBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SMT. ANUPAMA M.V., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶40

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC., PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN MFA NO.511/2019 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW MFA NO.511/2019 FILED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT.

¶41

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

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:22183 RP No. 383 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

ORAL ORDER

¶47

The question that falls for consideration is:

¶48

“Whether the petitioner has made out a case for review by demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 01.08.2025 passed in MFA.No.511/2019.”

¶49

This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged by the review petitioner and perused the grounds in the review petition and the material on record.

¶50

At the outset, it is well settled that the scope of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is extremely limited. A review is maintainable only when there exist an error apparent on the face of the record. It is not an appeal in disguise. In the present case, the principal contention of the review petitioner is that the suit is barred by limitation, suffers from undervaluation and that the plaintiff has no prima facie

¶51

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22183 RP No. 383 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

case. These very contentions were urged in the appeal in MFA.No.511/2019 and has been considered by this Court while affirming the order of temporary injunction. As is evident from judgment and in MFA, this Court has specifically held that:

¶54

i. The plaintiff being the daughter and class I heir has made out a prima facie case.

¶55

ii. The plea of res judicata is not tenable at the interlocutory stage.

¶56

iii. The question of limitation is mixed question of law and fact, which requires adjudication during trial.

¶57

iv. The Trial Court has correctly applied the principles governing grant of temporary injunction namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Thus, the findings recorded are based on appreciation of

¶58

6 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:22183 RP No. 383 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

pleadings and settled legal principles governing interim relief.

¶62

The attempt of the review petitioner is

¶63

essentially to re-argue the matter on merits, sum up particularly on the issue of limitation and validity of alienation. Such re-appreciation of contentions and reconsideration of the very same grounds cannot be under taken in the review petition in the review jurisdiction. The reliance placed on certain judgments and contention that they were not properly appreciated could not, by itself, furnish a ground for review. At the best, it may be a ground of appeal, but certainly not for invoking review jurisdiction. No patent illegality, perversity or manifest error is demonstrated warranting interference.

¶64

The Apex Court in the case of Smt. Meera

¶65

Bhanja V/s Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury¹ (Meera

¶66

Bhanja) has held that a review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise nor can it be invoked for re-hearing of

¶67

1 AIR 1995 SC 455

¶68

7 -

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:22183 RP No. 383 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

the matter on merits. Unless there is a manifest error apparent on the face of record, interference is not warranted. In the present case, no error is made out. The finding recorded in the judgment sought to be reviewed is based on appreciation of material on record and does not call for any reconsideration.

¶72

In view of the above, no grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment sought to be reviewed. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered in the negative and the review petition is hereby

¶73

dismissed .

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶76

AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Sri R Nagaraj v. Smt Bhagyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Nagaraj v. Smt Bhagyamma

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 Rukmini Vs Sri Srinivas

Sri Ramanji Vs Smt. Hanumakka

Sri. D.Habakku Vs Sri. Prem Kumar Sharma

Tallihalla Krishnegowda Pradeep Kumar Vs Union of India

Madanapalle Retail Private Limited Vs Bhartiya Urban Private Limited

Appasab Janawad @ Appanna Ramappa Vs State of Karnataka