- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28636 RP No.566/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL REVIEW PETITION NO.566/2024 IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1161/2015 BETWEEN: SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT THEETHA VILLAGE KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129 …PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADISH D. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: D. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE DODDEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1. SMT. KAMALAMMA @ KAMALA W/O GIRISH D/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O LATE D. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 3. VISHWANATHA S/O LATE D. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 4. SMT. BHARATHI W/O RAMESHA D/O LATE D. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28636 RP No.566/2024 R1 TO R4 ARE R/AT C/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA RETIRED REVENUE INSPECTOR KASABA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129 5. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE D. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT GAJAMUDDANAHALLY DODDASAGGERE POST HOLAVANAHALLY HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129 6. D. MALLEGOWDA S/O LATE DODDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT GAJAMUDDANAHALLI HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 129 7. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O RANGAMURTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT KARIKENAHALLY ARODI POST, SASALU HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203 8. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE D. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT GAJAMUDDANAHALLY DODDASAGGERE POST HOLAVANAHALLY HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DHANANJAY K.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT IN R.S.A.NO.1161/2015 DATED 30.05.2019 ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28636 RP No.566/2024 THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL ORAL ORDER This review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 30.05.2019 in R.S.A.No.1161/2015 (PAR). There is delay of 1974 days in filing the petition. 2. By the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash v. Phulavathi1 held that Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 39 of 2005 has no retrospective operation. It was held that if father passes away prior to such amendment on effecting notional partition, the daughters are entitled to equal share in the share received by their father in such notional partition. 3. The review petition is filed on the ground that subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma2 has held that the right of the daughter under Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 39 of 2005 has retroactive operation. 1 (2016) 2 SCC 36 2 (2020) 9 SCC 1 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28636 RP No.566/2024 4. Admittedly as on the date of this judgment, the judgment in Vineeta Sharma's case had not come into existence. The Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 110 of the judgment in State (NCT of Delhi) v. K.L.Rathi Steels Ltd.3 has held as follows: ‘110. We, thus, hold that no review is available upon a change or reversal of a proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger bench of this Court overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the judgment/order under review was based. We also hold that notwithstanding the fact that Pune Municipal Corpn v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [(2014) 3 SCC 183] has since been wiped out of existence, the said decision being the law of the land when the civil appeals/special leave petitions were finally decided, the subsequent overruling of such decision and even its recall, for that matter, would not afford a ground for review within the parameters of Order 47 CPC.” (Emphasis supplied) 5. The above judgment clearly shows that change or reversal of proposition of law by Superior Court or by Larger Bench overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the judgment or the order under review was based, is no ground for review. 3 (2024) 7 SCC 315 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28636 RP No.566/2024 6. Learned Counsel for petitioner relying on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Channabasappa S vs. Parvatevva alia Kasturevva and Others4 submits that if the matter is pending in final decree proceedings, the decree can be amended. First of all, the said judgment is rendered relying on Section 152 of CPC and not original jurisdiction. Further, even in that judgment, the larger Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in K.L.Rathi Steels Ltd.’s case is not referred. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 7. In this case, share of the parties are finally determined and order sought to be reviewed has attained finality. In view of the aforesaid legal position rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.L.Rathi Steels Ltd.’s case, even if the delay is condoned, no purpose would be served. 8. Therefore, I.A.No.1/2024 and consequently, the review petition are dismissed. I.A.No.1/2025 stood disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE KSR LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1 4 2024(2) Kar.L.R.513