- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010673322025 NC: 2026:KHC:46813 RP No. 449 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REVIEW PETITION NO.449 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI KEMPEGOWDA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. SRI NARAYANAGOWDA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NERALAGHATTA VILLAGE, HANABE POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. 3. SMT.SAVITHRAMMA D/O LATE RUDRAPPA, W/O ANAND KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A SAMPIGEHALLI, VILLAGE, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.- 560 092. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI NARAYANA SWAMY P M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI R SUBBANNA S/O RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDNG AT R/O NO.9, C/O C NARAYANASWAMY, MUNICIPAL QUARTERS, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN - 561 203. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010673322025 NC: 2026:KHC:46813 RP No. 449 of 2025 2. SRI RUDRAPPA S/O SUBBANNA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT MANJAMMA, W/O LATE RUDRAPPA D/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT, NERALAGHATTA VILLAGE, HANABE POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 561 203. 3. SMT.VANKAMMA @ ANGADI VANKAMMA D/O LATE RUDRAPPA W/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A RAJANAKUNTE VILLAGE, YALAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 092. 4. SMT. CHANDRAKALA D/O LATE RUDRAPPA, W/O RAVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A BYATHA VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 092. 5. B N VENKATAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. SMT ASHWATHAMMA, W/O LATE B N VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 6. SRI B V RAMAIAH S/O LATE B N VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010673322025 NC: 2026:KHC:46813 RP No. 449 of 2025 BOTH ARE R/A MANDIBEDARAHALLI HANABE POST, DODDABALLAPURA TQ - 561 203. 7. SRI B V HARISH S/O LATE B N VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, OPP FOREST OFFICE, T B CIRCLE, DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203. 8. SRI B V SUDHAMANI S/O LATE B N VENKATAPPA, W/O R ANAND, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NO.2601, 11TH MAIN, E BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 010. 9. SRI B KEMPEGOWDA S/O VEERANNA, MAJOR, R/A MANDIBYADARAHALLI, HANABE POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION.114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO RSA 586/2010 SET ASIDE THE FINDING RECORDED JUDGMENT AND REVIEW ORDERS PASSED IN THE ABOVE CASE THAT IN ORDERS IN RA NO.20/2004 IS MODIFIED AND PLAINTIFF IS HELD ENTITLE FOR 5/8TH SHARE IN (i.e. 1/2 SHARE PLUS 1/8TH SHARE IN 1/2 SHARE OF DEFENDANT NO.1 SRI RUDRAPPA) IN SUIT PROPERTY EXCLUDING ITEM NO.1, 7 AND 8 EACH OF CHILDREN OF SMT.KEMPAMMA i.e. RESPONDENT - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010673322025 NC: 2026:KHC:46813 RP No. 449 of 2025 NO. 2(b), 2(e) TO 2(g) AND PETITIONERS. THAT THE SAME HAS TO BE REVIEWED AS THE 1/9TH SHARE EACH RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND RESPONDENTS NO.2(b), 2(e) TO 2(g) AND PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Seeking for review of judgment dated 24.04.2025 passed by this Court in RSA nos.587/2010 and 586/2010, this petition is filed. 2. There is a delay of 140 days in filing review petition. IA no.1/2025 is filed for condonation of delay along with affidavit and additional affidavit. Sole ground assigned for condonation of delay is that no notice were served to petitioners in second appeal and they were not aware of proceedings until Final Decree Proceedings. In order to satisfy conscience of Court, records were perused. It is seen that on death of respondent no.1, legal representatives respondent no.1 (a to h) were stated to be legal heirs and notices issued. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010673322025 NC: 2026:KHC:46813 RP No. 449 of 2025 Respondents no.1 (b to e) (including petitioners herein) were held sufficient by way of paper publication under order dated 07.04.2014. Notice issued to respondent no.1 (h) shows received by her husband. Therefore, there would be no gainsay in claiming that petitioners were not served. Other contention that there was no proper division of shares and would not appeal to this Court as division is ordered by taking note of rights of parties. Hence, there is no error apparent on face of record to entertain review. 3. For above reasons, both on ground that sufficient cause for condonation of delay is not established as well as there are no good grounds to entertain review, IA no.1/2025 is dismissed. Consequently, review petition is also dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9