- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37593 RP No. 861 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REVIEW PETITION NO. 861 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SMT. CHANDRAMATHI W/O. NAGARAJEGOWDA D/O LATE SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.582, OLD MYSORE ROAD, OPP TO KASIM KHAN, SAMUDAYA BHAVANA, K.R. PET TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT. …REVIEW PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKESH B. BHATT, ADVOCATE) AND: PUTTARAMEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BYLRS 1. SMT. SUDHAMANI W/O LATE PUTTARAME GOUDA R/AT HARAVE VILLAGEAND POST PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432 2. SRI. MANJUNATH H P S/O LATE PUTTARAMEGWODA AGED 52 YEARS R/AT HARAVU VILLAGE AND POST PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTICT - 571 432 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37593 RP No. 861 of 2022 3. SMT. SHALINI D/O LATE PUTTARAMEGOWDA MAJOR R/AT HARAVU VILLAGE AND POST PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTICT - 571 432. 4. SMT. KUSUMA D/O LATE PUTTARAMEGOWDA MAJOR R/AT HARAVU VILLAGE AND POST PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTICT - 571 432 5. SMT. LALITHA W/O K.SURYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S.K. 42, NEW TOWN BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DSITRICT - 577 301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.09.2025 REVIEW PETITION AS AGAINST R2 IS REJECTED) THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULES 1 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.09.2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN RFA 1508/2006 AND GRANT A DECREE OF PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION OF 1/3RD SAHRE EACH TO PETITIONER, RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 4 AND RESPONDENT NO.5 IN RESPECT OF ITEM NO. 1, 2, 4 AND 5. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37593 RP No. 861 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsels on the review petition. 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has pointed out that one Shivaiah had 3 children namely, plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 3, but in the judgment of the appeal under review while narrating the facts in paragraph No.15, instead of mentioning the name of Hosakanambadi Marigowda, who purchased the suit item No.3, name of the 3rd defendant Chandramathi has been mentioned. Therefore, this needs to be corrected. 3. Likewise, Sri Rakesh Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner also brings it to the notice of the Court that in the operative portion of the judgment of this Court, no share has been granted to 3rd defendant, who is also the daughter of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37593 RP No. 861 of 2022 Shivaiah. Therefore, the review petition needs to be allowed. The said factual aspect is not disputed by the respondent. 4. Hence, a case is made out for allowing the review petition. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER (i) Review petition is allowed. (ii) RFA No.1508/2006 c/w RFA.Crob No.33/2008 is restored for fresh consideration. List these matters on 25.09.2025. RFA No.1508/2006 c/w RFA.Crob No.33/2008 may be listed before this Court after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice as only name of the parties and share has to be corrected in the matters. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40 CT: BHK