- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4459 RP No. 478 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA REVIEW PETITION NO. 478 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. S.N. PAPA REDDY S/O LATE NYATHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/OF SOMPURA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 125. 2. SMT. RAMAKKA W/O LATE NYATHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/OF SOMPURA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 125. 3. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE NYATHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/OF SOMPURA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 125. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.J. ALVA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE SHAMANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT CHINTALA MADIWALA ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 560 099. Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4459 RP No. 478 of 2023 2. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT CHINTALA MADIWALA ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 560 099. 3. SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE NYATHA REDDY AND NANJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/OF MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 560 099 4. SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE NYATHA REDDY AND W/O SEENAPPA AGEDA BOUT 51 YEARS, R/OF BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 560 068. 5. SMT. NAGAMMA D/O NYATHA REDDY AND RAMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/OF SUDDEHATTI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK - 562 107 6. THE SUB REGISTRAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL - 562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR .D., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2. SRI. VISHWANATH H.M., ADVOCATE FOR R3 (AB) V/O DT.31/1/25, NOTICE TO R4 & 5 - H/S - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4459 RP No. 478 of 2023 SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R6) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 AND ORDER XLVII RULE 1 AND 3 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO 1. CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE APPEAL IN RSA NO. 84/2010 FROM THE FILE OF THIS HONBLE COURT. 2. REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.12.2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN RSA NO. 84/2010 AND ETC., THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking review of the judgment dated 27.12.2022 passed in RSA No.84/2010 by this Court. 2. Heard Sri M.J. Alva, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Hemanth Kumar.D, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.6. Perused the materials on records. 3. The wife of respondent No.1 had filed the suit O.S.No.289/1995 before the Trial Court seeking partition and separate possession of the scheduled properties. During - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4459 RP No. 478 of 2023 pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and her legal representatives were brought on record. The Trial Court decreed the suit, allotting share in favour of the plaintiff. The same was challenged by the defendants before the First Appellate Court by filing R.A.No.83/2006. The said appeal came to be dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants were before this Court in the second appeal. The second appeal was contested and the same came to be disposed off vide judgment dated 27.12.2022, partly allowing the appeal and modifying the shares allotted to the parties. Now the petitioners have filed this review petition, seeking to review the judgment dated 27.12.2022 in the interest of justice. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that there was a registered Will dated 18.05.1990 executed by the deceased Nyatha Reddy, through whom the parties to the suit have derived their right and title. Existence of the registered Will was not known to the petitioners prior to June 2023 i.e., till the same was produced by one of the attester - S.L.Thippa Reddy and the petitioners came to know that the bequeath was made in favour of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the schedule - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4459 RP No. 478 of 2023 properties. In view of the vital document i.e., the registered Will under which petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have derived title long back, the petitioners are seeking to review the judgment. 5. The prayer of the petitioners for reviewing the judgment, passed long back on 27.12.2022 is seriously opposed by the respondent, contending that, concurrent finding was recorded that the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled for share. This Court disposed of the second appeal, concurring with the Trial Court regarding entitlement for share. However, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma v/s Rakesh Sharma & Others,1 the shares of the parties were modified. The petitioners are contending that there was a Will that was executed on 18.05.1990, which was never the contention taken by the defendants in the suit. The prayer made by the petitioners is outside the purview of the scope of review and therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. It is the contention of the petitioners that the registered Will dated 18.05.1990 was executed by Nyatha Reddy through whom the parties to the suit have derived their 1 AIR 2020 SC 3717 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4459 RP No. 478 of 2023 share over the scheduled properties and the same was never within their knowledge. It came to their knowledge only in June 2023 when the same was produced by one of the attesters and therefore, if the said Will is taken into consideration, the judgment passed in the second appeal is required to be modified. 7. Learned counsel also submitted that the judgment passed in RSA which in fact reached finality is to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. I do not find any reason to set aside the judgment of this Court passed on merits taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties. When it is the contention of the petitioners that the registered Will dated 18.05.1990 was in existence, as the same was executed by the testator Nyatha Reddy, it is for them to prove the Will in accordance with law. To prove the will, both the parties are to be given opportunity to put forth their contentions and to lead evidence on their behalf. Now the judgment passed by this Court in the second appeal has reached finality and the same is not challenged by the petitioners. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4459 RP No. 478 of 2023 8. The scope of Section 114 & Order XLVII Rule 1 and 3 of CPC is very limited. The scope of the provision of law cannot be extended to set aside the judgment passed on merits to take into consideration a disputed document, which was said to be in existence even when the suit O.S.No.289 of 1995 was filed. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the review and hence, the same shall fail. 9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty for the petitioners to pursue the remedy in respect of the document. The petitioners are at liberty to pursue the remedy in accordance with law, if they are advised to do so. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending IA's stands disposed of. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3