Precedent

Karnataka High Court

RP/205/2025 of SRI.S.V.SOMASHEKAR Vs SRI SIDDARAMAIAH on 21 September 2026

Cites 3, Cited by 0

CNR: KAHC010308372025 NC: 2026:KHC:51947 RP No. 205 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REVIEW PETITION NO. 205 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI.S.V.SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

REVIEW PETITION NO. 205 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SRI.S.V.SOMASHEKAR

S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

RESIDING AT SHIVAPURA VILLAGE,

PEENYA POST, BENGALURU 560 058

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAJESWARA.P.N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

SRI SIDDARAMAIAH

S/O LATE MUNICHIKKAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

RESIDING AT SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE,

MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560091.

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

1(A)

SMT. SAKAMMA

W/O. LATE SIDDARAMAIAH

MAJOR

RESIDING AT NO. 198/1,

SIDDARAMALINGESHWARA NILAYA,

SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE,

VISHWANEEDAM POST,

YASHWANTHPURA HOBLI,

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,

BENGALURU - 560091.

Digitally signed by

PANKAJA S

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

HC-KAR

1(B)

SRI. MUNIRAJU

S/O. LATE SIDDARAMAIAH

MAJOR

RESIDING AT NO. 198/1,

SIDDARAMALINGESHWARA NILAYA,

SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE,

VISHWANEEDAM POST,

YASHWANTHPURA HOBLI,

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,

BENGALURU - 560091.

1(C)

SRI. SATHISH

S/O. LATE SIDDARAMAIAH

MAJOR

RESIDING AT NO. 198/1,

SIDDARAMALINGESHWARA NILAYA,

SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE,

VISHWANEEDAM POST,

YASHWANTHPURA HOBLI,

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,

BENGALURU - 560091.

1(D)

SMT. KAVITHA

D/O. LATE SIDDARAMAIAH

MAJOR

RESIDING AT NO. 198/1,

SIDDARAMALINGESHWARA NILAYA,

SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE,

VISHWANEEDAM POST,

YASHWANTHPURA HOBLI,

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,

BENGALURU - 560091.

1(E)

SMT. BABY

D/O. LATE SIDDARAMAIAH

MAJOR

RESIDING AT NO. 198/1,

SIDDARAMALINGESHWARA NILAYA,

SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE,

VISHWANEEDAM POST,

HC-KAR

YASHWANTHPURA HOBLI,

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,

BENGALURU - 560091.

1(F) SMT. MUNIYAMMA

D/O. LATE SIDDARAMAIAH

MAJOR

RESIDING AT NO. 198/1,

SIDDARAMALINGESHWARA NILAYA,

SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE,

VISHWANEEDAM POST,

YASHWANTHPURA HOBLI,

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,

BENGALURU - 560091.

1(G)

SMT. LATHA

D/O. LATE SIDDARAMAIAH

MAJOR

RESIDING AT NO. 198/1,

SIDDARAMALINGESHWARA NILAYA,

SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE,

VISHWANEEDAM POST,

YASHWANTHPURA HOBLI,

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,

BENGALURU - 560091.

2.

SRI B.S. MARISWAMAPPA

S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

3.

SRI B.S.NEELAKANTA

S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE

R/AT NO.36/1,OBAIAH LANE,

AKKIPET, BENGALURU 560 053

ADBUL KAREEM SAB

(SINCE DEAD BY LRS)

HC-KAR

4.

SRI. M.D.SAMIULLA,

S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM SAB,

AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

5.

SRI. M.D ZABIULLA

S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM SAB,

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

6.

SRI. M.D.RASIULLA

S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM SAB,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

7.

SMT. MUJEEBA

D/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM SAB,

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

8.

SMT. SHAHEEN TAJ

D/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM SAB,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

9.

SMT. SAYEDUNNISSA,

D/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM SAB,

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

10.

NASREEN TAJ

D/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM SAB,

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 10 ARE

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.2

II CROSS, 4TH MAIN, M.K.COMPUND,

A.D.HALLI, BENGALURU-560079

11.

SRI SHYAMSUNDAR

S/O H.NARAYANA RAO,

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.39/125,

VIJAYANAGAR,

BENGALURU-560040

HC-KAR

12.

MOHAMMED RAFFEQ

S/O AZEEM SAB

AGED ABOUT MAJOR

R/AT NO 7-32, 12TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK,

RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 560010

13.

SMT NIKITH PARVEEN

W/O KHAJA MOHIDDIN ABID

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

RESIDING AT SABJAN STORES,

B H ROAD, BHADRAVATHI,

SHIMOGA DISTRICT

14.

DR MOHAMOOD ALTAF HUSSAIN

S/O HUSSAIN PEERAN,

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO 732, 12TH MAIN,

3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,

BENGALURU-560 010

15.

SRI MONOHAR RAMACHANDRA MAHALE

S/O RAMACHANDRA V. MAHALE,

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.4/8, 1ST FLOOR,

1ST CROSS, OKALIPURAM,

BENGALURU- 560021

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K. VIJAYAKUMAR , ADVOCATE AND

SRI. K. LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 AND FOR

PROPOSED IMPLEADING R21, R25, R38, R39, R40, R41, R2, R21, R25, ARE REP.BY GPA HOLDER R3

SRI. H.R. SHRIDHARA MURTHY, ADVOCATE AND

SRI. C.B KOMAL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5,

SRI. K. SRIHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R6, R7, R8, R9 &

R10,

SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R15,

R12, R14, SERVED-UNREPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER R3, R2, R21 & R25 ARE REPRESENTED BYGPA HOLDER R3

VIDE ORDER DATED 24/09/2025, NOTICE TO R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R13, HELD SUFFICIENT

HC-KAR

R1(B), R16, R17, R22, R26, R27, R28, R29, R30, R31, R32, R33, R34, R35, R36, R37-SERVED, UNREPRESENTD

VIDE ORDER DATED 21/11/2025, NOTICE TO R18, R19, R20, R23, R24 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT, VIDE

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

3

Decisions referred to

In this index

1

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORDER

DATED 20/01/2026,NOTICE TO LR'S OF PROPOSED DECEASED R1 I.E R1(A), R1(C), R1(F) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT, VIDE ORDER DATED 10/04/2026, NOTICE TO R1(D)(E)(G) & R11 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED 26.03.2025 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1246/2019 (DEC/INJ).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

This review petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 26.03.2025 passed in RFA.No.1246/2019.

2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire materials on record.

3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that this Court in paragraph No.23 of the judgment has incorrectly recorded that Muniswamy S/o Ramaiah held an undivided 1/3rd share in Sy.No.73, which was subsequently divided eqaully between his two sons named Siddaramanna and

HC-KAR

Kempanna, resulting in each receiving 5 acres 36 guntas. According to him, there was a partition between Kempanna and Ramaiah in the year 1904-06 whereby the ancestral properties were divided. The proeprty in Sy.No.73 is the absolute and self acquired property of Muniswamy, as the same is purchased after the partition. Hence, there is an error apparent on the face on record. As such, he prays to allow the review petition.

4. On perusal of the impugned judgment passed by this Court in Regular First Appeal, it is seen that the review petitioner has argued at length on all the above aspects of the matter and the same have been dealt with by this Court in detail.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officers reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406 by referring the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 25, as held in paragraph No.10 as under:

"10. It is also well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of

HC-KAR

a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so."

6. Further, in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court by referring Parsion Devi V. Sumitri Devi reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 as held in paragraph 11 as under:

"Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.”

7. Applying the above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that there is no error apparent on the face of record either on law or facts which would warrant to review the judgment dated 26.03.2025 in RFA No.1246/2019.

HC-KAR

8. In view thereof, review petition, being without any merit and substance, is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of.

SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead