- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9756 RP No. 565 of 2023 IN WP No.11751 OF 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17THDAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ REVIEW PETITION NO. 565 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11751 OF 2015 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O LATE ANNAYAPPA DEAD BY LRS PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA 2. GURUMURTHI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA 3. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO 120, GOVARDHAN NILAYA, BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560068 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAGADEESHACHARI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER Digitally signed by VARSHA N RASALKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9756 RP No. 565 of 2023 IN WP No.11751 OF 2015 BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BOMMANAHALLI ZONE,BOMMANAHALLI BANGALORE - 560068 2. SMT SARASWATHI R AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O VENKATESH D/O LATE SMT JAYAMMAAND LATE RAMU 3. SMT AMBIKA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O CHANDRU D/O LATE SMT JAYAMMA AND LATE RAMU RESIDING 4. GURURAJ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE SMT JAYAMMA AND LATE RAMU RESIDING RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO 26, 8TH D MAIN ROAD, NEW GURAPPANAPALYA, NEW KANNADA MEDIUM SCHOOL BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE - 560029 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. V. BALAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 01/09/2023 PASSED IN W.P.NO.11751/2015 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9756 RP No. 565 of 2023 IN WP No.11751 OF 2015 a. “Allow the Review Petition. b. Review the order dated 01.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.11751/2015 at Annexure-A; c. Dismiss the W.P.No.11751/2015 by issuing any direction at Annexure-A; and d. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent Nos.2 to 4 had earlier denied the existence of the partition deed dated 25.04.1976 in the written statement filed in O.S. No.999/1987. In that background, it is contended that an application seeking issuance of Khata and phoding of the property based on the said partition deed dated 25.04.1976 ought not to have been granted by this Court while disposing of W.P.No.11751/2015 by order dated 01.09.2023. According to the petitioners, once the respondents had taken a categorical stand disputing the very existence of the partition deed in earlier proceedings, they could not have subsequently sought benefit based upon the same document. 3. It is in the above circumstances that Sri.Jagadeeshachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the order dated 01.09.2023 requires to be reviewed. His submission - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9756 RP No. 565 of 2023 IN WP No.11751 OF 2015 is that the fact relating to the denial of the partition deed by the respondents in the written statement filed in O.S. No.999/1987 could not be brought to the notice of this Court when the writ petition was disposed of. On that ground, it is contended that the present review petition deserves to be entertained and the earlier order requires reconsideration. 4. A perusal of the documents placed on record would however indicate that O.S.No.999/1987 had been filed by the brother of the present petitioners, namely Sri. Shamanna, against the defendants therein. One of the defendants in the said suit was Smt. Jayamma, who is none other than the mother of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in the present proceedings. 5. In the plaint filed in the said suit, Sri. Shamanna has categorically asserted that a partition had been effected in the family on 25.04.1976, and the suit itself was instituted on the basis of such assertion. Therefore, the existence of the partition deed dated 25.04.1976 was not introduced by respondent Nos.2 to 4 in the present proceedings, but had in fact been asserted by a member of the petitioners’ own family in earlier litigation. 6. When a member of the petitioners’ own family had earlier relied upon and asserted the existence of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9756 RP No. 565 of 2023 IN WP No.11751 OF 2015 partition deed dated 25.04.1976 in judicial proceedings, it cannot now be contended that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are disentitled from relying upon the same document merely because their predecessor had earlier taken a different stand in the written statement. The assertion of the partition by the petitioners’ family itself forms part of the record of the civil proceedings. 7. If the defendants in the present proceedings now choose to accept the partition deed dated 25.04.1976 which had been asserted by the family of the petitioners, such acceptance would bind both sides to the consequences flowing from the said document. In other words, once the existence of the partition has been asserted in earlier proceedings by the petitioners’ side and is now accepted by the respondents, both parties would necessarily be governed by the rights and obligations arising from such partition. 8. It is also well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court in a review petition is extremely limited. A review can be entertained only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, or for other analogous - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9756 RP No. 565 of 2023 IN WP No.11751 OF 2015 reasons. A review proceeding cannot be used as a means to re-argue the matter or seek reconsideration of the order on merits. 9. In the present case, the petitioners have not demonstrated the existence of any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 01.09.2023. The fact that the respondents had earlier denied the partition in the written statement does not by itself constitute a ground for review, particularly when the partition had been asserted by the petitioners’ own family member in earlier proceedings. 10. In view of the above circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with or review the order dated 01.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.11751/2015. 11. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 71