Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.

The respondents 1 (a) to (c) and respondents 2 to 4 in RFA 1134/2011 have sought review of operative portion (b) of the judgment in the said appeal. Given a short history of the events that have given rise to this review petition, A.Subramanyaswamy, the deceased husband of first petitioner and father of second and third petitioners instituted a suit, O.S.7385/2005 in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, for partition claiming 1/6th share in the suit property that bears site no. 25/C, Municipal No.18, 8th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. The trial court decreed the suit granting 1/5th share to Sri A Subramanyaswamy. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the first defendant A.Narayanaswamy preferred an appeal RFA 1134/2011. This court by judgment dated 27.2.2018 allowed the appeal partly and modified the judgment of the trial court by holding that the plaintiff was only entitled to 1/5th share in the value of the site as on the date of suit and neither the plaintiff nor defendants 2 to 4 had any share in the houses constructed in the ground and first floors. Now, the review petitioners contend that the decision of this court in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/5th share in the value of the site as on the date of suit requires to be reviewed as according to them, this is a mistake in as much as the valuation should be considered on the day when the appeal was decided.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the review petitioners and the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the finding given by this court in the appeal that the petitioners are not entitled to any share in the houses that are in existence in ground and first floors are acceptable to the petitioners, but this court has held that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share in the value of the site and in the operative portion it is shown that the value of the site as on the date of the suit should be considered. This observation is unwarranted in the sense that the value of the property has increased manifold since the date of the suit. The petitioners are deprived of the present value of the property. For no fault on their part, they are rendered to accept a meager amount towards their share in the sital value. The petitioners have sufficient reasons for seeking review to see that justice is done. The learned counsel argued that the observation of this court amounts to an error apparent on the face of record.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that there is no error in the operative portion of the judgment. This court has made that observation after giving thought over the issue and it stands to sound reasoning. His further argument was that if the argument of petitioners' counsel is considered, this court will be compelled to supply reasons for granting review. 'Error apparent' must be glaring and expects no reason to be given for granting review on that ground. If it is possible to take other view in the given set of circumstances, review is not permitted. He argued for dismissing the petition by placing reliance on the following decisions :-

(1) N.Veerabhadrappa vs Smt. Shivamma and Another, (2001) 4 KarLJ 630

(2) Smt. Chinnamma and Others vs R.Venkataswamy and Others, (2003) 6 KarLJ 105

(3) Arikala Narasa Reddy vs Venkat Ram Reddy and another, (2014) 5 Scale 187

(4) Sasi (D) Through LRs vs Aravindakshan Nair and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 692

(5) Sushila and Another vs Rajbeer Singh and Another, (2008) ACJ 1262

(6) T.Thimmaiah vs Venkatachala Raju, (2008) 11 SCC 107

(7) Union of India vs Sandur Manganese & Iron Ore Limited and Others, (2013) AIRSCW 2905

(8) Kamlesh Verma vs Mayawati and Others, (2013) AIR SC 3301

5. Before discussing the point whether there is a case for review or not, it is necessary to refer to the decisions that the counsel for the respondents has relied upon.

5.1. In Veerabhadrappa (supra), this court has referred to an earlier decision in the case