- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10159 RP No. 75 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REVIEW PETITION NO. 75 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O.LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 2. SRI. S.M. MUNISIDDAPPA S/O.LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 3. SRI. PATALAPPA S/O.LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 4. SRI. DYAVAPPA S/O.LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT. KADUSONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, KANNUR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 149. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H P.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT NAGAMMA W/O LATE PATALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10159 RP No. 75 of 2025 2. SRI. P. SIDDESHA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., SMT. MANJULA. N, W/O P. SIDDESH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 3. SRI. JAYANTH. S S/O P. SIDDESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 4. SRI. DARSHAN. S S/O P. SIDDESH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, SL.NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT: KADUSONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, KANNUR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 149. 5. SRI. P. MADESHA S/O LATE PATALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 6. SRI. P. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE PATALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SL.NO.5 & 6 ARE R/AT: KADUSONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, KANNUR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 149. 7. SMT. P. RATHNAMMA, W/O CHALAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT: VAGARE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10159 RP No. 75 of 2025 KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK & POST, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 102. 8. SMT. P. LALITHAMMA, W/O MUNINANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT: AVATHI, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562 106. 9. SRI. P. MUNIRAJA, S/O LATE PATALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 10. SMT. P. GOWRAMMA W/O. RAGHU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, SL.NO.9 & 10 ARE R/AT: KADUSONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, KANNUR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 149. 11. SRI. S.D. SIDDAPPA, S/O LATE DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT: KADUSONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, KANNUR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN-562 149. ANJANAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10159 RP No. 75 of 2025 12. SMT.DEVAMMA W/O.ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 13. SRI. PRAKASH. A SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., SMT. SUDHA, W/O. LATE PRAKASH. A, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 14. SRI. ABHILASH. P S/O. LATE PRAKASH. A AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 15. MADHU D/O. LATE PRAKASH. A AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 16. SRI. HANUMAGOWDA. A S/O. ANJANAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., SMT. SUDHA RANI, W/O. LATE HANUMAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 17. SMT. SMITHA D/O. LATE HANUMAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, 18. BHUVAN D/O. LATE HANUMAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDENT No.17 & 18 ARE MINORS, WHO ARE REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SMT. SUDHA RANI, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10159 RP No. 75 of 2025 19. SRI. AMBRISH. A S/O. LATE ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, SL.NO.12 TO 19 ARE R/AT: KADUSONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, KANNUR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN-562 149. 20. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA D/O.LATE ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 21. SRI. RAMAIAH S/O. LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT: KADUSONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. PIN-562149. 22. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR BIDARAHALLI NADA OFFICE BIDARAHALLI HOBILI BENGALURU EAST TALUK. 23. SRI RAMAIAH, S/O CHIKKA MUNISWAMI @ CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT KADUSONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. PIN-562149. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10159 RP No. 75 of 2025 24. SRI. MUNIRAJA S/O. LATE HANUMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O. MUNIRAJA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 25. SRI. NAGESHA S/O. LATE MUNIRAJA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., SMT. SHWETHA. N, W/O. LATE NAGESHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 26. MASTER MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE NAGESHA, AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SHWETHA. N SL.NO.25 TO 26 ARE R/AT: KADUSONNAPPANAHALLI CIRCLE, K. SHRAVANTHI HALLI, KANNUR, BENGALURU-562 149. 27. SMT. ROOPA @ RUPA W/O DEVARAJA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT: DEVIGANAHALLI, JANGAMA KOTE HOBLI & POST, SHIDDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN-562 105. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10159 RP No. 75 of 2025 28. SRI MUNIYAPPA, S/O. LATE CHIKKA MUNISWAMY @ CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 29. SRI. C. MADESH S/O. LATE CHIKKA MUNISWAMY @ CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, SL.NO.28 AND 29 ARE R/AT. KADUSONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, KANNUR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT- 562 149. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.B. AJIT, ADVOCATE FOR R11 (NOTICE NOT YET ORDERED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.11.2024 IN RSA 1368/23 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.07.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.52/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10159 RP No. 75 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners filed this review petition to review the judgment dated 26.11.2024 passed in RSA No. 1368 of 2023 on the ground that Ex.P71 produced by the plaintiffs before the trial court is a memorandum of agreement and the said Ex.P71 does not require registration. Hence, there is an error apparent on the face of record. Accordingly, the petition may be allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for respondent No.11. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have produced Ex.P71. It is a memorandum of agreement between the parties to the suit stating that the parties have exchanged their properties about 40 years back and the parties have acted upon Ex.P71. Ex.P71 does not require registration, and this court has recorded a finding in para 9 of the judgment that Ex.P71 is an unregistered - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10159 RP No. 75 of 2025 document and the same is inadmissible in evidence. The said finding recorded by this court is contrary to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further, he placed reliance of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex, which are as follows: 1. Parison Devi and others vs. Sumithra Devi and others reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715. 2. Green view Tea and Industries Vs. Collector reported in (2004) 4 SCC 122. 3. S.Nagaraj and others Vs. state of Karnataka reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595. 4. Ram Charan das Vs. Girija Nandini Devi and others reported in AIR 1966 (SC) 323. 5. Ravindra Kaur Grewal and others Vs. Manjit Kaur and others reported in Civil Appeal No.7764/2014. 6. Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and others reported in 2003 (8) SCC 745. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10159 RP No. 75 of 2025 7. Thulasidhara vs. V. Narayanappa reported in AIR Online 2019 SC 262. 8. Kale and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others reported in (1976) 3 SCC 119. 9. S.Shanmugham Pillai and others vs. K.Shanmugam Pillai and others reported in (1973) 2 SCC 312. 10. Korukonda Chalapathi Rao and others vs. Korukonda Anapurna Samapathkumar reported in Civil Appeal No.(s) 6141/2021. 4. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.11 supported the impugned judgment. 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Admittedly, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction based on Ex.P71. The petitioners in the plaint has contended that the parties - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10159 RP No. 75 of 2025 have got exchanged the properties under Ex.P71. From the perusal of the recital of Ex.P71, this Court has opined that it is nothing but an exchange deed and not a memorandum of agreement between the parties to the suit. If the value of the property is more than ₹100, it requires registration as per Section 17 of the Registration Act. 8. Admittedly, Ex.P71 is an unregistered document. The said document is inadmissible in evidence. This Court has already considered the said aspect in para 9 of the impugned judgment. Hence, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record. 9. Further, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the case on hand. There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the memorandum of partition. It is a settled law that the memorandum of partition does not require registration, but admittedly Ex.P71 is an - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10159 RP No. 75 of 2025 exchange deed. It requires compulsory registration. Hence, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the impugned judgment. 10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS