- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26968 RP No. 531 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REVIEW PETITION NO. 531 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE RAMALINGAIAH, DEAD BY LRS R2 AND R3 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF R1; SRI YATHEESHA S/O LATE D S RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2. SRI RAJASHEKHAR S/O LATE D S RAMALINGAIAH AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS 3. SRI CHANDRASHEKARAIAH D S S/O LATE D S SIDDALINGAPPA AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS 4. KUM D S DEVEERAMMA D/O LATE D S SIDDALINGAPPA AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS 5. SRI NAGARAJU S/O LATE D S SIDDALINGAPPA AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26968 RP No. 531 of 2025 THE PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT DODDERI VILLAGE BELLAVI HOBLI-572 107 TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GOVINDARAJA T.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI D S DAMARUGENDRA S/O S SHANMUKAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 2. SRI S SHANMUKHAIAH SO LATE D S RAMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 3. SMT PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE D S VAJRAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 4. SMT NIRMALA D/O LATE D S VAJRAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 5. SRI RENUKAPRASAD S/O LATE D S VAJRAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 6. SMT SHASHIKALA D/O LATE D S VAJRAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 7. SRI LOKESH S/O LATE D S VAJRAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26968 RP No. 531 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 7 ARE R/AT DODDERI VILLAGE BELLAVI HOBLI,TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 107. 8. SMT GANGAMMA W/O LATE MARILINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT MMA KAVAL VILLAGE DODDRIKATTE IN FRONT OF SUGUNA POULTRY FARM ERAKASANDRA POST CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 117. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V B.,ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER IN RSA NO.1616/2023 (PAR) C/W RSA NO.438/2023 (PAR) ON THE FILE OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU, DATED 24.10.2025 FOR REVIEWING IT FOR CONSIDERING IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND TO ALLOW THE PETITION WITH COST, IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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 for review petitioners and also the counsel appearing for the respondents. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26968 RP No. 531 of 2025 2. This review petition is filed against the order passed by this Court dated 24.10.2025 and this Court has considered the merits of the case and allowed the second appeal granting half share in favour of the plaintiffs in the share of his father i.e., defendant No.3- S Shanmukaiah in item Nos.3 and 4 of the ‘B’ schedule property. 3. It is also made it clear that other defendants i.e. defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are also entitled for 1/5th share each in the property. This Court also made an observation that subsequent purchaser i.e. defendant No. 7 can claim share/equity before the FDP Court in respect of the share of defendant No.1-D S Ramalingaiah, in view of D S Ramalingaiah having already executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.7 and the suit in respect of item No.1 of ‘A’ schedule property and also item No.1 in respect of ‘B’ schedule property is dismissed. 4. The ground urged in the review petition by the review petitioners is that the Courts below have passed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26968 RP No. 531 of 2025 justifiable order and judgment including so far as in respect of item Nos.3 and 4 in respect of ‘B’ schedule property denying the rights of the plaintiff. However, this Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court and modified the same. 5. It is further submitted that petitioners have considered the sale transaction made by the deceased Ramalingaiah on behalf of them also and therefore, they have determined to abdicate their rights in respect of Item Nos. 3 and 4 of ‘B’ schedule property in favour of respondent No.8 to fulfill the said obligation of sale transaction in her favour. Therefore, that part of the judgment is liable to be modified to meet the ends of justice. 6. The said ground cannot be considered in this review petition. This Court while passing an order in the second appeal in the operative portion, made it clear that subsequent purchaser i.e. defendant No.7 can claim - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26968 RP No. 531 of 2025 share/equity before the FDP Court in respect of the share of defendant No.1. D S Ramalingaiah, in view of D S Ramalingaiah having already executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.7 and when such operative portion discloses and protected the interest of the purchaser, question of modifying the same doesn't arise and hence I do not find any ground to review the order passed by this Court as there is no scope for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure and no error apparent on the face of record and accordingly, review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49