( 1 ) BOTH the appeals RFA Nos. 286/2001 and 386/2001 have been dismissed by judgment dated 10-7-2006. This petition has been filed to review the said judgment on the ground that the said decision has been given in ignorance of binding, law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kanpur Vs. Chander Sen, AIR 1986 SC 1753.

( 2 ) THE appeals arose out of common judgment dated 18-1-2001 passed by the learned XXIV Additional City Civil Judge (CCH-6), Bangalore, in o. S. Nos. 3470/1988 and 3491/1988. The suit O. S. No. 3470/1988 was for a declaration that the suit property,. e. , 10 guntas of land in Sy. No. 84/3a of cholanayakanahally village, Bangalore North Taluk, was a joint family property in which the plaintiffs had right as co-parceners; and the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 for the sale of different sites therein were not binding on their shares. The plaintiffs prayed also for consequent permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said suit was decreed as regards declaration sought and decree was granted in favour of the plaintiffs holding that sales in favour of the defendant nos. 2 to 5 were not binding on the shares of the plaintiffs. However permanent injunction as prayed for was not granted in view of the proved possession of the property by the defendant Nos. 2 to 5.

( 3 ) CHALLENGING the declaration granted against them, the defendant nos. 2 to 5 preferred RFA No. 386/2001. The defendant No. 5 of that suit who was purchaser of site No. 8 out of 10 guntas of Sy. No. 84/3a had filed o. S. No. 349/1988 claiming that he was in lawful possession of site No. 8 in ten guntas of Sy. No. 84/3a and that the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 3470/1988 be restrained from disturbing his possession. In view of the finding by the trial Court that the defendant No. 5 was in possession of that property and was entitled to injunction, that was granted until the plaintiffs in o. S. No. 3470/1988 dispossessed him by taking recourse to law. Challenging that judgment, RFA No. 286/2001 had been filed.

( 4 ) THE main contention urged by the appellants in RFA No. 386/2001 (the plaintiffs in O. S. 3470/1998) was that in the settlement made by the propositus Dasappa (father of the defendant No. 1) while settling the properties between the members of the family he had retained thirty one guntas of Sy. No. 84/34 (suit property is a part of that extent of thirty one guntas), which on his death came to the defendant No. l and his brothers and therefore the defendant No. l and his brothers held that property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. In the subsequent partition that property was allotted to the defendant No. 1. It was contended that therefore the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 had no right therein as co-parceners. Negativing that contention, this Court observed that merely because the right of the defendant No. l is in furtherance of the partition, his earlier right, as class one heir of Dasappa does not change the nature of the property as co-parcenery property.

( 5 ) THE review petition seeks to review of that judgment on the ground that this view taken by the Court is in ignorance of the decision of the supreme Court in the above mentioned decision of the Commissioner of wealth-tax, Kanpur Vs. Chander Sen, AIR 1986 SC 1753 which held that the settled principle of Hindu law that the son would inherit the property of his father as kartha of his own family is amended by Section 8 of the succession Act and such property devolving on the son has to be regarded as the son's individual property and therefore son's sons will have no right in the said property by birth. The question that would arise is whether the view taken by this Court in judgment dated 10-7-2006 can be regarded as an error apparent on record in view of the above principle of law, necessitating review of the judgment o