- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3261 RP No. 100021 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ REVIEW PETITION NO.100021 OF 2023 IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100424/2019 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. FAKIRAPPA SIDDAPPA HALAGATTI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BELLIKHINDI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-591102. 2. SHRI. BASAPPA SIDDAPPA HALAGATTI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BELLIKHINDI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-591102. 3. SHRI. SANAPPA @ SANGAPPA SIDDAPPA HALAGATTI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BELLIKHINDI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-591102. 4. SHRI. KENCHAPPA SIDDAPPA HALAGATTI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BELLIKHINDI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-591102. 5. SMT. SIDDAVVA W/O. SIDDALINGAPPA MULLUR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BELLIKHINDI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-591102. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SIDDAVVA D/O. LAKSHAPPA HALAGATTI, ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.25 15:12:47 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3261 RP No. 100021 of 2023 SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 AND 6 1. SMT. RANGAVVA W/O. VITTAL APPANAVAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HAVALKOD, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-591102. 2. SMT. YELLAVVA W/O. PANDAPPA KADRIGUDDA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KALLAPUR, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-591102. 3. SMT. CHINNAVVA @ NEELAVVA W/O. SIDDAPPA BICHAGATTI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KHANAPUR, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-591102. 4. SMT. NEELAVVA W/O. SIDDAPPA HALAGATTI, AGE: 83 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BELLIHINDI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-591102. 5. SHRI. SHIVAPPA @ SHIVANAPPA LAXMAPPA HALAGATTI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BELLIKHINDI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-591102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3; R4-SERVED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC.114 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION BY REVIEWING THE JUDGMENT DATED:18/04/2022 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN R.S.A. NO.100424 OF 2019, FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3261 RP No. 100021 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “Allow the review petition by reviewing the judgment dated 18.04.2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court in R.S.A. No.100424 of 2019, for the advancement of substantial justice.” 2. Sri B.V.Somapur, learned counsel for the petitioners, who had appeared for the appellants in R.S.A.No.100424/2019 submits that the order passed therein on 18.04.2022 is required to be reviewed. His submission is that even an aspect as regards whether a document termed as ‘Partition Deed’ is a document recognizing a factum of partition already effected between the parties in relation to the suit land is a question of law as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Pandey and Another vs. Munna Pandey and Others, Civil Appeal No.3657/2018 and as such he submits that since the Partition Deed had been produced before this Court by filing an application under Rule 27 of Order 41 of CPC, this - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3261 RP No. 100021 of 2023 Court ought to have taken the said document on record and examine the said document in a second appeal. 3. Learned counsel Sri.K.L.Patil appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 would submit the aspect of whether the Partition Deed would be produced as evidence in the second appeal has been considered by this Court in detail in paragraph Nos.12 to 17 thereof, and as such there is no grounds for reviewing which has been made out. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents No.1 to 3 and perused the papers. 5. The contentions of learned counsel Sri B.V. Somapur for review petitioners is that though the petitioners had not produced the partition deed before the trial court or the first appellate court, he relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and others, reported in 2020(9) SCC 1, more particularly in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3261 RP No. 100021 of 2023 paragraph No.125, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference. “125. The severance of status may take place from the date of filing of a suit; however, a decree is necessary for working out the results of the same, and there may be a change of rights during the pendency of the suit for allotting definite shares till final decree is passed. There are cases in which partition can be reopened on the ground of fraud or mistake, etc. or on certain other permissible grounds. In appropriate cases, it can be reopened at the instance of minor also.” 6. Placing on the same, he submits that the interpretation of a document as to whether it is a family settlement or otherwise, is also a question of law. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents. 8. Submission of learned counsel Sri B.V.Somapur essentially is as regards the appreciation of the document namely a Partition Deed, which was sought to be produced before this Court in a second appeal. The Court of original jurisdiction as also the first appellate Court having come to a conclusion that no document has been produced by the defendants - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3261 RP No. 100021 of 2023 therein, rejected their contention. It is after a Judgment was passed by the original Court confirmed by the first appellate Court that during course of hearing of the second appeal in the year 2022 that for a first time that the appellants sought to produce a document titled as ‘Partition Deed’. Insofar as the production of the said document is concerned, same has been dealt with extensively in paragraph Nos.12 to 18 of the said order and a cost of Rs.3,000/- has also been imposed on the petitioners. 9. The Judgment in the case of Uma Pandey and Another vs. Munna Pandey and Others, reported in 2018(5) SCC 376 relied on while arguing the present matter, I am of the considered opinion that it would not be applicable to the present facts and circumstances. Inasmuch as that was a case where a document termed as a Partition Deed had been produced before the original Court and interpretation thereof was considered by the original Court as well - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3261 RP No. 100021 of 2023 as the first appellate Court. That was not a case where for the first time a document is produced in the second appeal allegedly on the ground that it was not traced out earlier. 10. Insofar as decision in the Vineeta Sharma’s case reference made to paragraph No.125 is as regards interpretation of a document styled as a family settlement or a family arrangement. Even in that case, the said document had been produced in the Court of original jurisdiction and not in a second appeal. Having come to a conclusion that in the second appeal, it is only a question of law which could be agitated and no fresh evidence would be produced in the second appeal on the alleged ground that the document is not available. This Court taking into account that the document was stamped just before production before this Court and contention was raised that the document had been adequately stamped at the time of execution had imposed cost of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3261 RP No. 100021 of 2023 Rs.3,000/-. In that view of the matter, this aspect of consideration of the production of ‘Partition Deed’ having been already dealt with in detail. There is no error apparent on the face of records, which have been brought out by the counsel for the petitioners requiring review of the order, as such, petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16