- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30395 RP No. 79 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REVIEW PETITION NO.79 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. CHETAN S/O LATE SWAMINATH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.553, 42ND CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, REPRESENTED BY HIS G.P.A HOLDER MR. M.R. RAJAKUMAR S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.553, 42ND CROSS 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S.M. MANJUNATH S/O LATE THIPPAIAH S.M. AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.15.M SARASWATHINAGAR, BAGALKOT TOWN, BAGALKOT DISTRICT - 587 101. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30395 RP No. 79 of 2026 2. SMT. BHAGYA W/O N.V. SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT NO.2034/27, 9TH MAIN, SIDDAVEERAPPA BADAVANE, DAVANAGERE - 577001. 3. SMT. SUNANDA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT NO.1031, 11TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560040. 4. SMT.MANJULA P.M. W/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO.2153, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD 'B' MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 040. 5. SRI. PRABHU S/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR BUGGI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.255/A, 1ST CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BEHIND URDU SCHOOL, BENGALURU-560032. 6. DR. (SMT.) UMA D/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR BUGGI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.255/A, 1ST CROSS, GANGANAGAR, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30395 RP No. 79 of 2026 BEHIND URDU SCHOOL, BENGALURU-560032. 7. SMT. NIRMALA D/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR BUGGI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.255/A, 1ST CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BEHIND URDU SCHOOL, BENGALURU-560032. 8. SMT. SHEETHAL D/O LATE SWAMINATH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.553, 42ND CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560082. 9. LATE S.M. VISHWANATH DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY LRS SMT. S.M. SHOBHA W/O LATE S.M. VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.111, VI CROSS, B BLOCK, GANDHINAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577201. 10. SMT. DHANUSHREE S.V. D/O LATE S.M. VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.676/S, 24TH CROSS, NEAR SANKRANTHI CIRCLE, HEBBAL II STAGE, MYSURU -570017. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30395 RP No. 79 of 2026 …RESPONDENTS THIS RP IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SEC.114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.10.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RFA NO.1007/2014. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this review petition, the Review Petitioner has challenged the judgment and Decree dated 10.10.2025 passed in RFA No. 1007 of 2014. 3. Sri. Prakash Timmanna Hebbar, learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner, contended that the Gift Deed said to have been executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of her grandson - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30395 RP No. 79 of 2026 ought not to have been treated as joint family property, as the parents of the plaintiffs i.e., Thippaiah, and Defendant No. 1 had acquired the property jointly. On the said ground, he sought interference by this Court in exercise of its review jurisdiction. 4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner, it is not in dispute that Defendant No.1 had no independent source of income to purchase the property in question. Further, there is no evidence on record to establish that the property was acquired out of her independent earnings. The material on record indicates that the income available to Defendant No. 1 was only through the financial assistance extended by her husband- Thippaiah. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30395 RP No. 79 of 2026 5. In that view of the matter, this Court has already considered the property in question as joint family property of the parties while deciding the appeal. The Review Petitioner has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of accordingly. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5