Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S.MUDAGAL, VENKATESH NAIK T.
Gullu G. Talreja @ Prakash G. Talreja, S/o. Sri. Gelaram Talreja – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Abbas Khan, S/o. Late Sidhique Ali Khan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the review petition context and ownership dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners' contentions regarding ownership based on sale deeds. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. rebuttal of petitioners' arguments concerning survey sketches and evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court's reviewing process and standards for error assessment. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. clarification of the scope of review under cpc principles. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. discussing the responses to additional evidence and amendments. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. final dismissal of the review petition due to lack of merit. (Para 29) |
ORDER :
VENKATESH NAIK T., J.
This Review Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking review of the judgment and decree passed by this Court dated 15.05.2025 in R.F.A. No.869/2024.
2. The issue involved in the present review petition is in a very narrow compass. The petitioners had filed a suit in O.S. No.337 of 2017 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court', for brevity) praying to declare the petitioners as the absolute owners of the property measuring 01 acre 16 guntas of
Review petitions cannot re-litigate issues or present new evidence and must focus solely on correcting palpable errors within the original decision.
Execution of decree – Review of judgment – Validity of - Judgment of Court is based has been reversed or modified by subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground f....
Non-appearance during an appeal hearing should be adequately justified to warrant a review based on Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
Court can exercise its power of review only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and an error which is to be fished out by a process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error ap....
Boundaries specified in a sale deed prevail over measurements when determining property ownership.
The case emphasized the importance of clearly establishing property boundaries and the need for documentary evidence to support ownership claims.
Ownership must be proven through title documentation; mere possession does not grant rights against true ownership. Legal title supersedes claims of adverse possession without sufficient proof.
The court affirmed that discrepancies in survey numbers must be rectified for valid title claims, and boundaries do not prevail over survey numbers in property identification.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
