- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010507642026 NC: 2026:KHC:42015 RP No. 406 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO.406 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KAMALA BAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDWARD ROAD, OFF QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 052. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHAT GANAPATHI NARAYANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. GERARD STEPHEN HARRY, S/O. MR. HARRY DIAS THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.10/A, NEW NO.8, CANNAUGHT ROAD, QUEENS ROAD CROSS, VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 052. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MOHAMMED AFROZE, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 03.07.2026 IN MFA NO.988/2025 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT AND MISTAKE CREPTED IN THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.07.2026 MAY BE REVIEWED AND RECTIFIED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT AND ETC., Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010507642026 NC: 2026:KHC:42015 RP No. 406 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL ORDER Though the review petition is posted for admission, with the consent of both learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This review petition is filed by the respondent in MFA No.988/2025 praying to review the order dated 03.07.2026 passed in MFA No.988/2025 by this Court on the ground that there are some typographical errors which are crept in the order; therefore, so far as for those typographical errors are concerned, this review petition is filed. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner, who is the respondent in MFA No.988/2025, there are two typographical errors - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010507642026 NC: 2026:KHC:42015 RP No. 406 of 2026 crept at Paragraph No.58 in page No.39 of the order. In Paragraph No.58 of page No.39 of the order, it is observed as follows: “xxxxxx Further, it is submitted that His Highness Maharaja Bahadur of Mysore gifted the property bearing Plot Nos.14 to 16 and 21 to 28 and other properties in favour of defendant during the year 1935-37” 4. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner submitted that as per the trust deed dated 25.02.1932, it is the meaning conveyed by virtue of the trust deed that Plot Nos.14 to 16 and 21 to 28 were purchased from the Local Municipal Commission for Rs.15,000/- and further, the year mentioned as 1935-37 is to be corrected. 5. Accordingly, the said four lines in Paragraph No.58 of page No.39 are corrected in terms as stated below: “Further, it is submitted that the Plot Nos.14 to 16 and 21 to 28 in West Cubbon - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010507642026 NC: 2026:KHC:42015 RP No. 406 of 2026 Lines in the Civil and Military Station of Bengaluru, which have been purchased from the Local Municipal Commission for Rs.15,000/- (fifteen thousand only) and other properties in favour of defendant defendant during the year 1932-55” 6. Further, the other error found in the order at Paragraph No.63 of page No.43 is that the order passed in W.P.No.24790/2022 is set aside, but on seeing the order passed in W.A.No.1174/2024 connected with W.A.No.1200/2024 dated 24.02.2026, the order in the writ petition was not set aside. The order of this Court at Paragraph No.63 of page No.43 is as follows: “xxxxxxx The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.No.24790/2022 and held that the City Survey Authorities, Bengaluru, alone is the competent authority to conduct survey of the property;” 7. Since in the above said appeals, the orders of writ petitions were not set aside, but the appeals are disposed of. Therefore, the above said observation at Paragraph No. 63 of page No.43 is corrected as follows: - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010507642026 NC: 2026:KHC:42015 RP No. 406 of 2026 “The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the appeals and held that the City Survey Authorities, Bengaluru, alone is the competent authority to conduct survey of the property and not the joint director of land records.” 8. Accordingly, the observation made at Paragraph No.63 in page No.43 is corrected. 9. In terms of the above corrected order, the review petition is disposed of. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29