Karnataka High Court
RP/598/2025 of SRI N B SATHYANARAYANA RAO Vs K S SUBBANNA CHAR on 3 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010840312025 NC: 2026:KHC:48186 RP No. 598 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REVIEW PETITION NO.598 OF 2025 IN R.S.A.No.1604/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. N.B. SATYANARAYANA RAO, S/O LATE
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REVIEW PETITION NO.598 OF 2025
IN
R.S.A.No.1604/2025
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. N.B. SATYANARAYANA RAO,
S/O LATE N.S. BHEEMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT SUBHADRA NILAYA,
KALLASAGARA ROAD,
CHANNAGIRI TOWN AT POST AND TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT,
PINCODE: 577213.
2.
SRI. N.B. RAGHAVENDRA RAO,
S/O LATE N.S. BHEEMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND DEED WRITER,
R/AT NO.101/120, NADIGARA BEEDI,
KALLESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD,
CHANNAGIRI TOWN AT POST AND TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT,
PINCODE: 577213.
3.
SRI. N.B. SUBRAMANYA RAO,
S/O LATE N.S. BHEEMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND DEED WRITER,
R/AT SUBHADRA NILAYA,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
CHANNAGIRI TOWN AT POST AND TALUKA.
DAVANGERE DISTRICT,
PINCODE: 577213.
(NOTE: THE REVIEW PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
BEING REPRESENTED BY THEIR DULY
CONSTITUTED GPA HOLDER SRI. SUPRITH R.,
S/O SRI. N.B. RAGHAVENDRA RAO
VIDE DULY NOTARISED GPA DT. 11.12.2025)
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
K.S. SUBBANNA CHAR,
S/O LATE N. SETHU RAO,
BY HIS LR
SRI. S. RAVI KUMAR,
S/O LATE K.S. SUBBANNA CHAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: NOT KNOWN,
R/AT BHAVANI NILAYA,
BEHIND POLICE QUARTERS
CHANNAGIRI TOWN AT POST AND TALUKA,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT,
PINCODE: 577213.
2.
N.S. ANANTHA RAM,
S/O LATE N.SETHU RAO,
BY HIS LR.
SRI. NAGARAJ N.A.,
S/O LATE N.S. ANANTHA RAM,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: NOT KNOWN,
R/AT DOOR NO.4,
CHANNAGIRI TOWN AT POST AND TALUKA,
HC-KAR
DAVANGERE DISTRICT,
PINCODE: 577213.
3.
SMT. BHAVANI N.A.,
D/O LATE N.S ANANTHA RAM AND
W/O SRI. PRASANNA K.S.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCC: NOT KNOWN,
R/AT NO.870/10,
NEW CHIKKANAHALLI EXTENSION,
NITTUVALLI, DAVANGERE,
PINCODE: 577004.
4.
SRI. N.S. KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O LATE N. SETHU RAO,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC: NOT KNOWN,
R/AT KALLASAGARA ROAD,
CHANNAGIRI TOWN AT POST AND TALUKA,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT,
PINCODE: 577213.
5.
SRI. N.S. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCC: NOT KNOWN,
R/AT DOOR NO.4, KALLASAGARA ROAD,
CHANNAGIRI TOWN AT POST AND TALUKA,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT,
PINCODE: 577213.
6.
SMT. SHANTHA KUMARI @ SHANTHA D. DESAI,
D/O LATE N. SETHU RAO AND
W/O SRI. D.N. DESAI,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
R/AT GUTTUR COLONY,
GUTTUR, HARIHARA TOWN AND TALUKA,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT,
PINCODE: 577601.
HC-KAR
7.
SMT. MANJULA @ MANJULA S. DESAI,
D/O LATE N. SETHU RAO AND
W/O SRI. S.N. DESAI,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.856/284,
4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, VINOBA NAGAR,
DAVANGERE TOWN AT POST,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT
PINCODE: 577002.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING (1) ADMIT THIS
REVIEW PETITION, REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.12.2025
IN RSA NO.1604/2025 OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AT
PRINCIPAL
BENCH,
BENGALURU,
CONSEQUENTLY AND RESTORE THE RSA TO THE FILE FOR
FRESH ADMISSION TO CONSIDER THE STATUTORY BAR OF
LIMITATION AND THE PATENT CONTRADICTIONS IN THE
COMMISSIONER’S REPORT AND MATHEMATICAL ERRORS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
This review petition is filed against the order dated 01.12.2025 passed by this Court in R.S.A.No.1604/2025.
2. This Court while dismissing R.S.A.No.1604/2025, gave a clear finding in paragraph No.10 and 11 considering the
HC-KAR
Commissioner’s report as well as the admission on the part of D.W.1, who has categorically admitted that he is in possession of the ‘B’ schedule property. Though an attempt is made by the review petitioner’s counsel that this admission was given in 2014 prior to the appointment of the Court Commissioner, but even subsequent to the Court Commissioner appointment also, D.W.1 is examined before the Trial Court and he categorically admits that the Court Commissioner in the report categorically stated that there was an encroachment to the extent of 35 guntas. In paragraph No.2 of the cross-examination dated 31.08.2023 and subsequently in the cross-examination in paragraph No.3, one more admission was given that the encroachment was known to them earlier itself and further admission was given that in respect of encroachment of 35 guntas of land, the present suit is filed. The case of the plaintiffs/respondents before the Trial Court also that in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property to the extent of 35 guntas only, suit is filed against the defendants that they made an infringement to the extent of 35 guntas. When all these materials were taken note of while disposing of the RSA, there
HC-KAR
is no any error apparent on record in giving the finding by this Court and an attempt is made before this Court that there is a mathematical error and the same cannot be considered in review petition when there was a clear admission and the same is not a stray admission and this is the admission given in 2014 as well as subsequent to the appointment of the Court Commissioner in 2023. Such categorical admission is given not only one time, but on several occasions, even subsequent to the appointment of the Court Commissioner. When such finding is given by this Court, the question of reviewing the order does not arise and hence, no ground is made out to review the order.
3. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14