- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010657462024 NC: 2026:KHC:42976 RP No. 546 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REVIEW PETITION NO. 546 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O.LATE.KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 2. MADHUMATHI, W/O.MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 3. SRI. DINESH, S/O.LATE.KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 4. SRI. YASHWANTH, S/O.LATE.KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VIDYANAGARA, CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE, PALYA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 213. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BALARAJ A.C, ADVOCATE) AND: KUM. CHANDANA D/O.LATE.DILIP @LAKSHMEGOWDA, ALIAS DILEEP @ LAKSHMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT BEING MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010657462024 NC: 2026:KHC:42976 RP No. 546 of 2024 GUARDIAN MOTHER, SMT.NETHRAVATHI, W/O.LATE.DILIP @ LAKSHMEGOWDA, ALIAS DILEEP @ LAKSHMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PALYA VILLAGE, PALYA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 213. …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO 1.CALL FOR RECORDS 2.REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED IN R.F.A. NO.2501 OF 2023 DT 12.9.2024 AND PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HASSAN IN O.S.NO.06 OF 2018 DATED 30.10.2023 AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Present review petition is filed by the appellants in RFA No.2501/2023. 3. This Court by considered judgment dated 12.09.2024, dismissed the appeal on merits. While so dismissing the appeal, this Court has taken note of the fact that prior partition as per Ex.D.10 had been established by the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010657462024 NC: 2026:KHC:42976 RP No. 546 of 2024 defendants or not and recorded a categorical finding that one of the witnesses to prior partition marked at Ex.D.10 was examined as D.W.3 and in his cross-examination, a categorical admission is found that in respect of the land in Sy.No.16, suit is filed. 4. Thus, this Court does not find good grounds in any one of the grounds urged in the review petition to review the judgment. 5. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39