- 1 -
NC: 2021:KHC-K:1711
RP No. 200039 of 2021
IN RSA No. 200026 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REVIEW PETITION NO. 200039 OF 2021
IN
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200026 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1.
MAHANTAPPA
S/O GURALINGAPPA HAVANNAVAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
1(a) PRABHAVATI,
W/O MALLU MANAGOND,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: H.H. HOUSE,
R/O. C/O. M.K.MANAGOND,
GANDINAGAR, LAST BUS-STAND,
HUBBALI – 580 009.
1(b) RAJESHWARI,
W/O BASAVARAJ PATIL
AGE 50 YEARS,
OCC:H.H WORK,
R/O C/O B.N.PATIL,
PATIL CONSTRUCTION ABLI,
KOAT APARTMENT K.O.,
KASTAPETE, PUNE – 111 045.
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2021:KHC-K:1711
RP No. 200039 of 2021
IN RSA No. 200026 of 2016
1(c) IRANNA MAHANTAPPA HAVANNAVAR
AGE:50 YEARS,
R/O: VIRANNA, C/O. P.V. CONSTRUCTIONS,
370: A/B. SOMAWARPATE,
NARA PESHNA CHOUK,
PUNE – 111 045
MAHARASTRA.
1(d) KASHIBAI
W/O. MAHANTAPPA HAVANNAVAR
AGE: 71 YEARS,
OCC:H.H.WORK,
R/O. VIRANNA, C/O. P.V. CONSTRUCTION,
370: A/B. SOMWARPETE.
LRS OF NARA PESHNA
CHOUK, PUNE (MAHARASHTRA)
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G G CHAGASHETTI & L T PUJARI,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SHIVUBAI
W/O SANGONDAPPA KALASAGOND
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
1(a) ASHOK,
S/O. SANGONDAPPA KALASAGOND,
AGE : 61 YEARS,
OCC: KSRTC CONDUCTOR,
R/O. KSRTC DEPOT,
GADAG – 582 101.
1(b) SHRISHAIL,
S/O SANGONDAPPA KALASAGOND,
AGE 54 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. UTNAL,
- 3 -
NC: 2021:KHC-K:1711
RP No. 200039 of 2021
IN RSA No. 200026 of 2016
TQ. B. BAGEWADI, DIST.
VIJAYAPUR – 586 101.
1(c) INDRABAI,
W/O SHANTESH MELASHANKAR,
AGE : 56 YEARS,
OCC:H.H WORK,
R/O BABLESHWARI,
TQ. & DIST.VIJAYAPUR – 586 101.
1(d) VEERESH,
S/O SANGONDAPPA KALASAGOND,
AGE : 53 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHER,
R/O. ADARSH NAGAR,
NEAR SHANTINIKETAN SCHOOL,
VIJAYAPUR – 586 101.
1(e) SHRIKANT,
S/O. SANGONDAPPA KALASAGOND,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC:PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHER,
R/O RAM NAGAR,
BACK SIDE PEROOR GUNDERAO COLLEGE,
VIJAYAPUR – 586 101.
1(f) SHANTESH,
S/O SANGONDAPPA KALASANGOND
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O BACK SIDE
NCC OFFICE,
SOLAPUR ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR – 586 101.
2.
SANGAPPA,
S/O GURALINGAPPA HAVANNAVAR,
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O S.V.INDUSTRIES,
B-32AND B-34,
1ST STAGE,
- 4 -
NC: 2021:KHC-K:1711
RP No. 200039 of 2021
IN RSA No. 200026 of 2016
PEENYA INDL. ESTATE,
BANGALORE – 560 001.
3.
SHANTABAI,
W/O REVAPPA AWANI,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC:H.H.WORK,
R/O. MANAGULI,
TQ: B. BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR – 586 101.
4.
REVANASIDDAPPA,
S/O GURALINGAPPA HAVANNAVAR,
AGE: 68 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICUTLURE,
R/O MANAGULLI,
TQ: B.BAGEWADI,
DIST.VIJAYAPUR – 586 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN RAIKOTE ADVOCATE FOR R1A TO R1 F;
R2,R3 & R4 –SERVED)
THIS RP FILED U/O 47 RULE 1 OF THE CPC R/W SEC, 114
OF CPC, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR REVIEW PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT TO ALLOW THE REVIEW
PETITION AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED : 17.03.2021
PASSED IN RSA NO. 200026/2016 (DEC) IN SO FAR AS
DIRECTING THE TRAIL COURT TO MODIFY THE PRELIMINARY
DECREE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS PER THE JUDGMENT
OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF VINEETA
SHARMA AND RAKESH SHARMA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
- 5 -
NC: 2021:KHC-K:1711
RP No. 200039 of 2021
IN RSA No. 200026 of 2016
This review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of
CPC read with Section 114 of CPC, praying for review of
the
order
dated
17.03.2021
passed
in
RSA
No.200026/2016 (DEC).
2. The only ground raised in the review petition even
though there are multiple grounds mentioned in the
review petition is that since final decree is passed, the
principle of law laid down in the Judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA vs.
RAKESH SHARMA (2020 SCC ONLINE 641) is not
applicable
and
thus,
the
order
passed
in
RSA
No.200026/2016 is liable to be reviewed.
3. The review petitioner herein is the appellant in
RSA No.200026/2016. The review petitioner-appellant in
RSA has submitted that as per the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA
(stated supra), the daughters in the joint family are also
- 6 -
co-parceners, therefore, the shares allotted to sons and
daughters are to be altered as per VINEETA SHARMA’s
case. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed on the principle
of VINEETA SHARMA’s case and therefore, RSA filed by the
review petitioner is allowed and it is ordered that the
preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.30/1991 dated
28.02.1995 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge, Bijapur,
shall be modified by following judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA(stated
supra).
Therefore,
the
review
petitioner
in
RSA
No.200026/2016 has prayed for drawing up of final decree
on the principle of VINEETA SHARMA’s case(stated supra),
is fully honored by this Court in the RSA No.200026/2016.
4. Therefore, when the decree passed in FDP
No.2/2003 dated 22.09.2011 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Basavanabagewadi is in question and
later is set aside and therefore, it means the drawing up of
final decree is still pending by virtue of pendency of appeal
in RSA No.200026/2016. When this being the fact, the
- 7 -
principle of law laid down regarding allotment of shares in
VINEETA SHARMA’s case is applicable and that is what is
ordered by this Court in regular second appeal. Therefore,
there are no good grounds available for reviewing the
order passed in RSA No.200026/2016 dated 17.03.2021.
Also, there is no error apparent found on the face of the
record after considering the submission made by the
learned counsel for the parties and perusal of grounds
urged in review petition. Therefore, review petition is liable
to be dismissed. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
Review Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bnv
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.