- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25847 RP No. 57 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REVIEW PETITION NO. 57 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT PILLACHANAMMA W/O YENNANGUR MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT. HARADI VILLAGE HEMARLAHALLI POST JANGAMKOTE HOBLI SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST PIN 562 105. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SAKAMMA W/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT. CHOKKANDAHALLI VILLAGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114 2. SMT RATHNAMMA W/O PILLAMUNIYAPPA AGED 71 YEARS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25847 RP No. 57 of 2025 R/AT HARADI VILLAGE, HEMARLAHALLI POST, JANGAMKOTE HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST PIN 562105 3. SMT. PILLACHANNAMMA W/O BYRAPPA, AGED 66 YEARS R/AT. CHOKKANDAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114 4. CHANNAKRISHNAPPA S/O KEMPANNA, AGED 64 YEARS 5. MUNEGOWDA S/O KEMPANNA, AGED 62 YEARS 6. MUNIRAJU S/O KEMPANNA, AGED 62 YEARS 7. MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O KEMPANNA AGED 58 YEARS 8. NARAYANASWAMY S/O KEMPANNA, AGED 56 YEARS 9. SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O PILLACHANNAPPA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25847 RP No. 57 of 2025 AGED 73 YEARS 10. SMT MUNIAKKAYAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED 76 YEARS 11. SMT AKKALAMMA. D/O ERAPPA, AGED 66 YEARS 12. SMT KEMPAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED 60 YEARS 13. SMT.JAYAMMA, W/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED 66 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 13 ARE R/AT: HARADI VILLAGE HEMARLAHALLI POST, JANGAMKOTE HOBLI, SIDDLAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST-562 105. 14. SMT.JAYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE S.V.CHANDRA CHARY, AGED 79 YEARS 15. RAJANNA S/O LATE S.V.CHANDRA CHARY, AGED 59 YEARS 16. HARISHA, S/O LATE S.V.CHANDRA CHARY. AGED 57 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25847 RP No. 57 of 2025 17. MAHESH, S/O LATE S.V.CHANDRA CHARY, AGED 55 YEARS 18. SMT. BHARATHI, D/O LATE S.V.CHANDRA CHARY, W/O VENKATACHALAMURTHY, AGED 51 YEARS RESPONDENTS 14 TO 18 ARE R/AT: H.CROSS, JANGAMKOTE HOBLI, SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST-562 105. 19. SMT. MAMATHA D/O LATE S V CHANDRA CHARY W/O SRINIVASA AGED 49 YEARS R/AT: VEMAGAL VILLAGE & HOBLI SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST-562 105. 20. UMESHA S/O LATE S.V. CHANDRA CHARY, AGED 46 YEARS R/AT JANATA COLONY, SULIBELE TALUK, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DIST-562114. 21. DEVARAJ S/O PILLACHANNAMMA MUNIYAPPA,AGED 50 YEARS R/AT HARADI VILLAGE, HEMARLAHALLI POST, JANGAMKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST-562105 …RESPONDENTS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25847 RP No. 57 of 2025 (R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION.114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.07.2024 IN RSA NO.1201/2019, RSA 1201/2019 BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA DATED 15.04.2019 IN RA NO.23/2013 IN SO FAR AS GRANTING THE 1/9TH SHARE IN SUIT ITEM NO.7, CONSEQUENTLY, THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, AND JKMFC AT SIDLAGHATTA DATED 02.01.2013 IN OS.NO.271/2007 BE RESTORED AND THIS REVIEW PETITION BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the counsel appearing for the review petitioner. 2. This review petition is filed against the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by this Court. This Court while considering the matter at the time of admission has taken note of relief granted by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and this Court comes to the conclusion that it does not find any error committed by the trial Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25847 RP No. 57 of 2025 as well as the first appellate Court. While coming to the conclusion in respect of revocation of gift deed and also in terms of the settled principles of law, particularly in respect of suit item No.7 is concerned, in order to substantiate the contention, no document is placed before the Court and no any documentary evidence to show that property was given in favour of the appellant. This Court also made an observation that while considering the case, the first appellate Court discussed in detail in paragraph No.15 of the judgment with regard to the contentions of the respective counsels and rightly comes to the conclusion that suit Item No.7 is also amenable to the partition in view of non-mentioning the same in the gift deed. Being aggrieved by the same, the present review petition is filed before this Court. 3. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the review petitioner before this Court is that in order to succeed, the plaintiff has to establish that suit item No.7 is either the joint family property or the self-acquired - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25847 RP No. 57 of 2025 property of Dyavappa or Venkatappa. None of the documents i.e., Exs. P1 to P17 showed the name of either Venkatappa or that of the others as owner. 4. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Ex.P8 – Record of Rights produced by the plaintiff which depicts that Sy.No.26, area of 4 acres 7 guntas was owned by one Muniyappa, Venkatalakshmamma, Thammanna and lastly by the appellant Pillachannamma, wife of Yennanguru Muniyappa, as the owner of 1 acre and 10 ½ guntas and mutation was made in favour of the appellant under MR No.195-2/92-93. Thus, there is no evidence to show that, suit Item No.7 as the joint family property and this aspect was overlooked by the trial Court and the first appellate Court. 5. Though counsel appearing for the review petitioner vehemently contended that both Courts have committed an error and fails to bring to the notice of this Court an error committed by this Court while disposing of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25847 RP No. 57 of 2025 the Regular Second Appeal No.1201/2019, wherein this Court particularly discussed in detail the very contention of the appellant in the said Regular Second Appeal and in the absence of any error apparent on the record, the question of invoking the review jurisdiction does not arise or otherwise once again sitting on the appeal to consider the grounds which has already been urged and the same is considered in paragraph No.8 of the judgment and taken note of the aspect where the first appellate Court discussed in detail in paragraph No.15 of the judgment with regard to the contentions of the respective counsels. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to entertain this review petition and scope of the review is also very limited. Hence, no ground is made out to review the order dated 18.07.2024. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29