( 1 ) THIS petition under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC, is filed for review of the judgment and decree passed by this Court in R. F. A. No. 11/1998, dated 17-4-1998 and for reconsideration of the appeal, R. F. A. No. 11/1998.

( 2 ) THE essential facts of the case leading up to this petition are as follows :- parties would be referred to with reference to their rank before the trial Court.

( 3 ) PETITIONERS herein filed O. S. No. 9/1990 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), KGF, for partition and separate possession, declaration, mesne profits and other reliefs against defendants. After trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit by answering Issues against plaintiffs by its judgment and decree dated 19-12-1997. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dismissing the suit, plaintiffs filed R. F. A. No. 11/1998 on the file of this Court and this Court by its order dated 17-4-1998 dismissed the appeal.

( 4 ) IT is case of plaintiffs that : one Kaki Muniyappa had a son by name Chikka Appoji, who in turn had a son by name Kaki Ramaiah; Kaki Ramaiah married one Menasamma and had two sons and 4 daughters through her and two sons are defendants 1 and 2, the daughters Muni-venkatamma, Iragamma, Narayanamma and Nagarathnamma are married and are living in their husband's house; after the death of Menasamma, Kaki Ramaiah married the 1st plaintiff-Chinnamma and he had 3 sons and a daughter through the said wedlock with the 1st plaintiff and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the said sons and daughter of plaintiffs; plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 2 and Kaki Ramaiah are members of an undivided Hindu joint family; during his lifetime, Kaki Ramaiah was managing the affairs of the said joint family and he died on 6-6-1985 leaving behind the suit schedule properties, which are the joint family properties and wherefore, plaintiffs are entitled to partition and separate possession of the share to which they are entitled in the suit schedule properties.

( 5 ) THE suit was resisted by defendants 1 and 2 by contending that there was an oral partition between Kaki Ramaiah and his 2 sons in the year 1971 and thereafter, the partition deed was registered on 1-5-1978 and wherefore, suit schedule properties have ceased to be joint family properties after the said oral partition pursuant to which parties have been in separate possession of shares allotted to them defendant No. 3 filed a separate written statement contending that defendants 1 and 2 got their properties from their father and brothers by way of partition and plaintiff have no right over the property as ever since the date of oral partition, all are residing separately.

( 6 ) THE trial Court by its judgment dated 19-12-1997 held that plaintiffs had failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and defendants had proved that there was an oral partition in the year 1971 and since then, Kaki Ramaiah, and his sons were in possession of separate shares allotted to them in status of the joint family and the partition deed has been registered as per Ex. D-1 on 1-5-1978 and plaintiffs are bound by the said partition deed and in view of the said oral partition by defendants, plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. The trial Court has also held that since plaintiffs 2 to 4 have not filed the suit within 3 years after attaining majority as they were aged 29, 31 and 27 years respectively when the suit came to be filed, the suit was not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, appellants preferred the appeal, R. F. A. No. 11/98 before this Court.

( 7 ) THIS Court by its judgment dated 17-4-1998, after hearing the learned counsel, who was appearing for appellants, held that : the suit filed by plaintiffs for partition has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that defendants have established a prior partition in the family which is under a registered document and the trial Court has also held that certain other properties which are not covere