- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17683 RP No. 14 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REVIEW PETITION NO. 14 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE PAPI REDDY 2. SRI SURESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE PAPI REDDY 3. SRI LAKSHMANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE PAPI REDDY 4. SRI ANJANEYA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O LATE PAPI REDDY 5. SMT. MUDDAMMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O LATE PAPI REDDY ALL ARE R/AT KAGGANAHALLI VILLAGE AVANI HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT 563141 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHESHADRI N S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17683 RP No. 14 of 2025 AND: SRI. THIPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS S/O LATE NALLA REDDY R/AT KAGGANAHALLI VILLAGE AVANI HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT 563141 …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC.114 OF CPC., PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1064 OF 2015 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER This Review Petition is filed to review the judgment dated 17.09.2024 passed in RSA No.1064/2015 on the following grounds: 11. In the instant case the dispute between the parties is whether the partition is effected, according to the intention of testator under the Will dated 15.08.1969 as per Ex. P-1. Wherein the said documents clearly recited as hereunder: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17683 RP No. 14 of 2025 "ಈ ೈ ೕಲ ಂಡ ನ ಾೆ ಮಗ ಾೆ ಎಂಬುವವಗೂ ಮತು ಮುೆಪನ ಮಗ ಾ!ೆಯವಗೂ ಸಹ ಸಮ %ಾಗ&ಾ' ನಮ( ಇಬ*ರ ,ೕ&ಾನಂತರ -ೇರತಕ ದು0 ನಮ( ,ೕ&ಾನಂತರ ಇದೊಂ12ೆ ಲಗ3ರುವ ಷಡೂ5 ನ6 ಕಂಡ ಆ3 8ಾವತೂ ನ ಾೆ ಮಗ ಾೆಗೂ ಮತು ಮುೆಪನ ಮಗ ಾ!ೆಗೂ ಸಹ ಸಮ%ಾಗ&ಾ' -ೇರತಕ ದು0 ಮತು ಅವರುಗಳ ಉತರ &ಾರಸು<ಾರುಗ=2ೆ ವಂಶ ಾರಂಪಯ@&ಾ' ವಗ@ ಚತುಷಯBೆ ಸಲುವಂCೆ Dಾ2ೆ ಬರತಕ ದ0.” In the above said Will the testators bequeathed 37 Items in favour of 2 persons empowering them to enjoy the said properties equally and also to divide the properties equally, but in the alleged Partition Deed dated 17.02.1977 as per Ex.D-2, Thippa Reddy (Defendant/Respondent) herein obtained 25 Items, measuring 10 acres 274 guntas and the value of the said properties is shown as Rs. 5.000/-. Whereas the properties allotted to the share of Papi Reddy is only 12 Item measuring 4 acres 24 guntas and value of the said properties is Rs. 3,000/-. Thus, the intention of the testator is not implemented. As such the said partition deed is against to provision under Section 74 of Indian Succession Act 1925. Ex.P-1 and Ex.D-1 and the law applicable to the said deeds are not assessed while dismissing the Appeal. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case "Arun Kumar and another V/s Shrinivas" and other in 2003 (6) SCC 98 held that intention of the testator to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17683 RP No. 14 of 2025 be given primary importance by gathering the recitals of the Will and surrounding circumstances. The recitals of the Will and surrounding circumstances wherein the alleged partition is effected discloses that as against the will of testator the partition is effected and the said process is against to the provision of Indian Succession Act, upon which beneficiaries of the Will relied upon for testators' succession. This Hon'ble Court while dismissing the Second Appeal, by confirming the Judgment and Decree of First Appellate Court, relied upon the Partition deed dated 17.02.1977 The said document is executed contrary to the provision of Indian Succession Act as such the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court needs review. 14. The testators having knowledge of the beneficiaries clearly stated that two beneficiaries are equally entitled to divide the bequeathed Properties. The testators having knowledge of the beneficiaries and given priorities to the beneficiaries to divide the same equally. The said bequeath covers under the provisions of Indian succession act. Thus, the impugned order needs review. 2. From the perusal of the judgment passed in RSA No.1064/2015, I do not find any error on the face of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17683 RP No. 14 of 2025 record. The review petition is liable to be dismissed. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ARUN KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. SRINIWAS AND OTHERS REPORTED IN (2003) 6 SCC 98. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply to the present case on hand. The scope of the review petition is limited. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. 3. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS