- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35389 RP No. 492 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REVIEW PETITION NO.492 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M. R. RANGASWAMY S/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA @ RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. SMT. SHOBA, W/O M.R. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MEGALAKOPALU VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK - 571 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRIRANGA S., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRANAV KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA @ RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT MEGALAKOPALU VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK 571 101. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35389 RP No. 492 of 2024 2. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA, W/O KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5/2D, 4TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, HEBBAL, MYSURU 570 016. 3. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI @ SHILPA, W/O SRI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT HANUMANALU VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARASHIPURA TALUK - 571 101. …RESPONDENTS THIS RP IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2024 PASSED IN RSA NO.916/2023 (PAR) (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL ON MERITS, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER I have heard Sri. Sriranga S., learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel, Sri. Pranav Kumar M., for the Review Petitioners. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35389 RP No. 492 of 2024 2. This Review Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2024 passed in RSA No. 916 of 2023 (Annexure-A). 3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners that, the defendant No.2 had purchased the Item Nos. 10 and 11 through his independent income and also availed loan to purchase these two items and in this regard, on Demand Register has been produced before the trial Court and same has been ignored by both the courts below. Accordingly, sought for review of the judgment and decree passed by this Court produced at Annexure A. 4. In the light of the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners, I have carefully examined paragraph 17 of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35389 RP No. 492 of 2024 the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2024 passed in RSA No.916 of 2023. Perusal of the findings would indicate that defendant No.1 is the father of the defendant No.2 (petitioner herein). Taking into consideration the findings recorded by both the courts below and after considering the material on record, this court, has arrived at a conclusion that defendant No.2 has failed to establish as to his independent income as derived for the purpose of purchasing the suit schedule properties and also age of the defendant No.2 at the relevant point of time was around 20 years and therefore, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted that, as the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below, concurrently held against the Review Petitioners herein, and therefore, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this Review - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35389 RP No. 492 of 2024 Petition. In view of the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362, I am of the opinion that the learned Senior Counsel for the Review Petitioners has failed to make out any mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14