- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2467 RP No. 325 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REVIEW PETITION NO. 325 OF 2023 IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.692/2019 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PREMA D/O MADA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 2. SUNDARAMMA D/O MADA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT BEERAHUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK 574 251 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAGHU K B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MADA SETTY S/O LATE KARI SETTY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 2. RAVI, S/O MADA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2467 RP No. 325 of 2023 BOTH ARE R/AT BEERAHUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK 574 251 3. ANNEGOWDA S/O LATE BOKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT K SALUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK 574 251 4. SHIVAMMA S/O LATE KENGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT K SALUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK 574 251 …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 08/02/2023 PASSED IN RSA NO.692/2019 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2467 RP No. 325 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the suit schedule property is the ancestral and joint family property and the petitioners are the grand-daughters of Kari Setty. The first sale was of the year 2004 and the second sale of the year 2005 and under those sale deeds, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have sold the property without having any right and without the signature of the petitioners. Hence, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is applicable. Hence, this Court has to review the order dated 08.02.2023 passed in R.S.A.No.692/2019. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the reasons assigned by this Court in paragraphs 5 and 6 wherein this Court held that invoking of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act does not does arise, if the father of the plaintiffs has sold the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2467 RP No. 325 of 2023 property during his lifetime. Apart from that, even the property was also sold by defendant Nos.1 and 2 even prior to the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and also given the reason that no documents are placed before the Court to show that the property is a Hindu joint family property and hence, the question of granting of right in favour of the appellants does not arise since the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act does not comes to the aid of the petitioners since the property was sold prior to the amendment. Hence, I do not find any error apparent on record to entertain this review petition and no grounds are made out in the review petition to review the order dated 08.02.2023 passed in R.S.A.No.692/2019. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN