- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42000 RP No. 510 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REVIEW PETITION NO.510 OF 2024 IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.411/2018 BETWEEN: 1. R LOKESH S/O LATE RANGAPPA, ADOPTED SON OF LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 2. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, BOTH ARE PRESENTLY RESIDENTS OF RANGAPURA, KASABA HOBL, TIPATURU TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572224. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A V, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42000 RP No. 510 of 2024 AND: 1. SMT SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O YADAVANAHALLI, GANDASI HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573119. 2. SMT. NANJAMMA W/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O SIDDARAMADEVARAPALYA, TIPATURU TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572201. 3. SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O BASAVANNA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O YADAVANAHALLI, GANDASI HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573119. 4. SMT. NINGAMMA W/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O BALLEKERE VILLAGE, TIPATURU TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572201. 5. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42000 RP No. 510 of 2024 AGRICULTURIST, R/O MATHIGHATTA, NONAVINAKERE HOBLI, TIPATURU TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572224. 6. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA D/O LATE KEMPANNA, AND W/O PATEL GOWRISHANKARA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST 7. SMT. MEENAKSHI D/O LATE KEMPANNA, AND W/O PATEL SHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF KOPPA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TIPATURU TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572201 8. SHANKARAMURTHY S/O LATE KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O RANGAPURA, KASABA HOBLI, TIPATURU TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V B, ADVOCATE) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42000 RP No. 510 of 2024 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16/7/2024 PASSED IN RSA NO.411/2018 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for he respondents. 2. This matter was listed before the Court for admission on 16.07.2024 and at that time, respondents i.e. review petitioners were also represented before this Court by an advocate and in the presence of the counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, the matter was heard. This Court having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Trial Court apportioned 3/4th share and the same is not correct - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42000 RP No. 510 of 2024 and ought to have been made as 1/8th share in view of proving of adoption as adopted son of Lingappa and Parvathamma and hence, 1/8th share has to be granted. The counsel who represented on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the review petitioners herein also not disputes the said fact when concurrent finding is given with regard to the adoption is concerned and the same is set out in paragraph 5 of the judgment in detail. The change of advocate is not a ground to review the order passed by this Court when this Court found that no substantive question of law is made out to invoke Section 100 of CPC, thus, now the counsel appearing for the review petitioners cannot contend that the order impugned is a mistake apparent on record since, the said fact was also taken note of when adoption was proved and concurrent finding is given by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and the order is also passed with the consent of the counsel and the counsel also not disputes the question of fact and question of law and hence, no - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42000 RP No. 510 of 2024 ground is made out to review the order as there is no error in the order. Thus, I do not find any ground to review the order passed by this Court. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. 3. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN