- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010115182026 NC: 2026:KHC:39030 RP No. 72 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REVIEW PETITION NO.72 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KUMARA S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2. SRI. RAJA S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. SRI. SHEKAR S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 018. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.R. VISWANATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(A) SHIVANNA S/O LATE BORAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. MAYAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010115182026 NC: 2026:KHC:39030 RP No. 72 of 2026 R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE YELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 018. 2. SRI. AV ANANDARAM S/O LATE A. VASUDEVASETTY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO. 22/1, M.N. JOIS ROAD SONAR STREET, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU-570 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI/SMT. CHINMAY G. KURANDWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A); SRI. FAYAZ SAAB .B.G, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.09.2025 PASSED IN RSA NO. 1269/2017 (PAR) AND CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND PASS SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2025 passed in RSA No.1269/2017. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010115182026 NC: 2026:KHC:39030 RP No. 72 of 2026 2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the findings recorded by this Court at paragraph No.15 of the judgment dated 12.09.2025 passed in RSA No.1269/2017, wherein it is held that the suit schedule property has been sold by defendant No.1 for family necessities and therefore, this Court finds no grounds to review the said judgment. 3. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this review petition, as there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41