- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27163 RP No. 384 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REVIEW PETITION NO. 384 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SMT SUNANDA W/O LATE K BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT BALAKRISHNA SADANA KEREKATTE KOTESHWARA KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576222 2. SMT KATHYYINI W/O RAMESH D/O LATE K BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 45 EYARS, R/AT BANK COLONY B H ROAD, VADERA HOBLI KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576201 3. SMT MAHALAKSHMI W/O DATTATREYA K N D/O LATE K BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT JEEVANA CHAITANYA NEAR KANAKA BHAVAN GANGALURU HOSAKOTE -562114 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 4. SRI VEERA NARAYANA S/O LATE K BALAKRISHNA Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27163 RP No. 384 of 2018 AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT BALAKRISHNA SADANA KEREKATTE KOTESHWARA KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI TALUK -576 222 5. SMT BHAVANI S KAMATH W/O SAMPATH KAMATH D/O LATE K BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT B-3 DURGAMATHA BUILDING MATHASHREE SANKUL BEHIN TCJ GODOWN REES VILLAGE, RASAYANI RAIGAD DISTRICT MAHARASTRA-410204 6. SMT VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O SANDEEP D/O LATE K BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT VIDYODAYA PUBLIC SCHOOL VADIRAJA ROAD, UDUPI-576 101 7. SRI VEERA NARASIMHA S/O LATE K BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT BALAKRISHNA SADANA KEREKATTE KOTESHWARA KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576222 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27163 RP No. 384 of 2018 AND: 1. SRI SURESH CHATRA S/O VENKATACHALA CHATRA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT BADAKERE OF KOTESHWARA VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576222 2. SMT GAYATHRI W/O VENKATESH SHANUBHOUGH D/O LATE ANNAPPAYYA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.F-2 KAMAKSHI PRASAD OPPOSITE POLE FACTORY G0A DIARY ROAD, GANGANAGARA STREET PHONDA GOA-403401 3. SMT PADMAVATHI W/O SRIPATHI BHAT D/O LATE ANNAPPAYYA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT ANUGRAHA NO.358/5 BEACH ROAD KOTESHWARA KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-403401 4. SMT RAJANI W/O VENUGOPALA BHAT D/O LATE ANNAPPAYYA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NAGARAKODIGE HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577418 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S GANGADHAR AITHAL FOR R1., ADVOCATE) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27163 RP No. 384 of 2018 THE REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO I. REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.01.2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RSA NO. 1368/2005. II. ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION AND RECALL THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.01.2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RSA NO. 1368/2005. III. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ABOVE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed in RSA No.1368/2005 is based on the judgment in Syed Nazmuddin vs. N.S.Krishna Murthy1 and Aras Khan and Others vs. Ali Mian2 and both are contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dr. Ranbir Singh V. Asharfi Lal3. 1 1998(4) KAR LJ 110 2 AIR 1985 PATNA 126 3 (1995) 6 SCC 580 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27163 RP No. 384 of 2018 3. Learned counsel on the specific question put by this Court specifically submits that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court was not brought to the notice of this Court, while arguing the appeal. 4. Be that as it may, it is again noticed that the petitioners before this Court have claimed adverse possession in respect of property bearing Door No.3- 108(2) against the respondents. The claim of adverse possession was given up before the Trial Court, though a specific issue was framed in this behalf. This Court has passed a decree for eviction against the petitioners in this petition. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that he does not admit his status as the tenant of respondents of this petition. This being the position, the position of the petitioners is that of a trespasser. 6. It is also submitted that after the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner is evicted pursuant to the decree - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27163 RP No. 384 of 2018 passed by this Court. It is also submitted that counsel for the respondent could not argue the matter when the Regular Second Appeal was heard on merits. 7. The petitioners are not claiming the right over the property by way of adverse possession and it is also noticed that the notice was duly served on the respondents, in the Second Appeal. 8. After considering the fact that the petitioners have given up their claim of adverse possession and have not claimed the status as a tenant or a licensee, nothing remains to be considered or adjudicated against. This court does not find any error in the judgment and decree under Review. 9. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 10. Applications, if any, pending stand dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE RJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25