SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

- 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top