- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9118 RP No. 100073 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO. 100073 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHEKAWWA DUNDAPPA CHANNIKUPPI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: HALLADAKERI, TALUK: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 309. 2. SRI PRAKASH MALLAPPA CHANNIKUPPI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: HALLADAKERI, TALUK: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591 309. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. MANGAL KADAPPA CHANNIKUPPI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: AMBEDKAR NAGAR, HALLADAKERI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 309. 2. SANKET KADAPPA CHANNIKUPPI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: AMBEDKAR NAGAR, HALLADAKERI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BEALGAVI-591 309. 3. SAKSI KADAPPA CHANNIKUPPI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: AMBEDKAR NAGAR HALLADAKERI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BEALGAVI-591 309. 4. SAMBRAM KADAPPA CHANNIKUPPI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.08.14 12:07:15 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9118 RP No. 100073 of 2025 R/O: AMBEDKAR NAGAR HALLADAKERI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BEALGAVI-591 309. 5. GIRIJA TUKARAM TARAL, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TERANI, TALUK: GADINGLAJ, DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-414 615. 6. ANAND @ VINOD S/O RAVASAHEB KALE, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: SANJAY NAGAR, SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA-416 416. 7. CHETAN S/O ANAND @ VINOD KALE, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SANJAY NAGAR SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA-416 416. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5.) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2024, PASSED IN R.S.A.NO.5917/2013, PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) The defendants No.1 and 3(B) have filed this review petition seeking to review the order passed by this Court in RSA No.5917/2013 dated 08.08.2024, whereby this - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9118 RP No. 100073 of 2025 Court has dismissed the RSA as there was no substantial question of law involved. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed before the Court. 3. The suit filed by the plaintiff for possession was dismissed, which was reversed by the First Appellate Court and decreed the suit and directed the defendants to hand over possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two weeks from the date of order, against which regular second appeal was filed, which was also dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for review petitioner/defendants No.1 and 3(B) submitted that entirely the suit schedule properties were purchased in the year 1972 in the name of plaintiff, as the plaintiff was karta of the joint family. Therefore, virtually suit schedule properties are the joint family property and the defendants - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9118 RP No. 100073 of 2025 have contributed some funds for purchasing and construction of house on it. The First Appellate Court has held that there is no evidence by the defendants that they have contributed funds for purchasing and construction of house on it. This Court also observed that though the defendants have stated that they have also contributed some amount for construction of house and they are also co-owners along with plaintiff, but there is no evidence by the defendants to this effect. Therefore, this Court confirmed the order passed by the First Appellate Court. 5. In order to review the order passed by this Court in the second appeal, the learned counsel for review petitioners/defendants No.1 and 3(B) has not convinced the Court what is the error apparent on the face of the record so as to review the order. The learned counsel read over the cross examination of plaintiff/PW.1. But there is no material found in the said evidence that the defendants also contributed amount for purchasing and construction - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9118 RP No. 100073 of 2025 of house on it. Therefore, it is found there are no error apparent on the face of the record. 6. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the review petitioners have property which was allotted by the Government under ‘Ashraya Scheme’. Further the defendants have given undertaking affidavit to vacate the schedule house within 30.06.2025. When this being the fact, there are no grounds to review the order as there are no error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the review petition is dismissed. 7. However, the suit is filed for possession. It is stated that the review petitioners are residing in the suit house for more than 30 years. Therefore vacating the suit house immediately and all of a sudden is somewhat difficult. Therefore, till alternative arrangement is made by the review petitioners, some breathing time is to be granted. Learned counsel for review petitioners prays for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9118 RP No. 100073 of 2025 one year time to vacate the premises which is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, considering these factors, since the review petitioners are residing in the house for the last 30 years, for making alternative arrangement of another accommodation, further nine (09) months time is granted to the review petitioners to vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit property. 8. To this effect the learned counsel for review petitioners shall file undertaking affidavit before this Court within a period of four weeks from today. The review petitioners without fail shall vacate the suit house within nine (09) months from today without seeking any extension of time. 9. If the review petitioners fail to file undertaking affidavit, then the plaintiff may press into service the decree. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9118 RP No. 100073 of 2025 10. In view of disposal of the review petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13