Karnataka High Court
Smt Sunanda vs Sri Suresh Chatra on 18 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27163
RP No. 384 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REVIEW PETITION NO. 384 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SUNANDA
W/O LATE K BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT BALAKRISHNA SADANA
KEREKATTE KOTESHWARA
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576222
2. SMT KATHYYINI
W/O RAMESH
D/O LATE K BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 45 EYARS,
R/AT BANK COLONY B H ROAD,
Digitally VADERA HOBLI KUNDAPURA TALUK
signed by C UDUPI DISTRICT-576201
HONNUR SAB
Location: 3. SMT MAHALAKSHMI
HIGH COURT W/O DATTATREYA K N
OF D/O LATE K BALAKRISHNA
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT JEEVANA CHAITANYA
NEAR KANAKA BHAVAN
GANGALURU HOSAKOTE -562114
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
4. SRI VEERA NARAYANA
S/O LATE K BALAKRISHNA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27163
RP No. 384 of 2018
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT BALAKRISHNA SADANA
KEREKATTE KOTESHWARA
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI TALUK -576 222
5. SMT BHAVANI S KAMATH
W/O SAMPATH KAMATH
D/O LATE K BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT B-3 DURGAMATHA BUILDING
MATHASHREE SANKUL BEHIN
TCJ GODOWN REES VILLAGE,
RASAYANI RAIGAD DISTRICT
MAHARASTRA-410204
6. SMT VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O SANDEEP
D/O LATE K BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT VIDYODAYA PUBLIC SCHOOL
VADIRAJA ROAD,
UDUPI-576 101
7. SRI VEERA NARASIMHA
S/O LATE K BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT BALAKRISHNA SADANA
KEREKATTE KOTESHWARA
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576222
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:27163
RP No. 384 of 2018
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI SURESH CHATRA
S/O VENKATACHALA CHATRA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT BADAKERE OF KOTESHWARA
VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576222
2. SMT GAYATHRI
W/O VENKATESH SHANUBHOUGH
D/O LATE ANNAPPAYYA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.F-2
KAMAKSHI PRASAD
OPPOSITE POLE FACTORY
G0A DIARY ROAD,
GANGANAGARA STREET
PHONDA GOA-403401
3. SMT PADMAVATHI
W/O SRIPATHI BHAT
D/O LATE ANNAPPAYYA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT ANUGRAHA NO.358/5
BEACH ROAD KOTESHWARA
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-403401
4. SMT RAJANI
W/O VENUGOPALA BHAT
D/O LATE ANNAPPAYYA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT NAGARAKODIGE
HOSANAGARA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577418
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S GANGADHAR AITHAL FOR R1., ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:27163
RP No. 384 of 2018
HC-KAR
THE REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ
WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE
COURT TO I. REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.01.2018
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RSA NO. 1368/2005. II.
ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION AND RECALL THE JUDGMENT
DATED 11.01.2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RSA
NO. 1368/2005. III. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
ABOVE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed in RSA No.1368/2005 is based on the judgment in Syed Nazmuddin vs. N.S.Krishna Murthy1 and Aras Khan and Others vs. Ali Mian2 and both are contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dr. Ranbir Singh V. Asharfi Lal3.
1 1998(4) KAR LJ 110 2 AIR 1985 PATNA 126 3 (1995) 6 SCC 580 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:27163 RP No. 384 of 2018 HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel on the specific question put by this Court specifically submits that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court was not brought to the notice of this Court, while arguing the appeal.
4. Be that as it may, it is again noticed that the petitioners before this Court have claimed adverse possession in respect of property bearing Door No.3- 108(2) against the respondents. The claim of adverse possession was given up before the Trial Court, though a specific issue was framed in this behalf. This Court has passed a decree for eviction against the petitioners in this petition.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that he does not admit his status as the tenant of respondents of this petition. This being the position, the position of the petitioners is that of a trespasser.
6. It is also submitted that after the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner is evicted pursuant to the decree -6- NC: 2025:KHC:27163 RP No. 384 of 2018 HC-KAR passed by this Court. It is also submitted that counsel for the respondent could not argue the matter when the Regular Second Appeal was heard on merits.
7. The petitioners are not claiming the right over the property by way of adverse possession and it is also noticed that the notice was duly served on the respondents, in the Second Appeal.
8. After considering the fact that the petitioners have given up their claim of adverse possession and have not claimed the status as a tenant or a licensee, nothing remains to be considered or adjudicated against. This court does not find any error in the judgment and decree under Review.
9. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
10. Applications, if any, pending stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE RJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25