RAMANJINAPPA R. v. SRI RAJA

(BY SRI SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, SENIOR ADVOCATE, FOR R-1; SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE, FOR R-9 & R-10) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT IN RFA NO.1859/2024 DATED 24.04.2025. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER This review petition is preferred by respondent No. 1 in RFA 1859/2024, who was the defendant No. 1 in the original suit OS No. 2279/2014 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in RFA 1859/2024, whereby the learned single Judge of this Court reversed the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 1 and decreed the suit in entirety, declaring the plaintiffs as absolute owners of the suit schedule property.

#2. The review petitioner seeks to review the order on two grounds. (i) that the plaintiffs never sought a declaration of absolute ownership and the Appellate Court went beyond the pleadings and granted a decree to the plaintiffs, which was unprayed. Reliance is placed upon the following decisions : - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025 HC-KAR (a) Om Prakash and Others v. Ram Kumar and Others1(Om Prakash) to contend that a party cannot be granted a relief, which is not claimed, if the circumstances of the case are such that, the granting of such would result in serious prejudice to the interested party and deprive him of the valuable rights under the statute. (b) Bharat Amratlal Kothari and Another v. Dosukhan, Samadkhan Sindhi and Others2 (Bharat Amratlal), to contend that though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the Court, however cannot ignore and keep aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner. (c) Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao and Another3 (Akella Lalitha), to contend that the 1 (1991) 1 SCC 441 2 (2010) 1 SCC 234 3 2022 SCC Online SC 928 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025 HC-KAR relief unprayed deprives the other side of chance to resist and causes miscarriage of justice. Thus the prayer granted by the Appellate Court, trial was never conducted on that claim and the defendants were denied an opportunity to contest. (ii) Under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, appeals above Rs.15,00,000/- must be heard by the Division Bench, property is worth over Rs. 5 Crores. Thus the Single Judge lacked jurisdiction.

#3. Per contra, the learned counsel senior counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs submits that the pleadings of the plaintiffs covers absolute title of the plaintiffs, more particularly, para 4(a) to (d), the plaint asserts that the suit property is the self acquired property of R. Nagaraj, the father of the plaintiffs. Hence the claim of absolute ownership was embedded in the pleadings. Learned Senior Counsel takes the Court to Ex.P14, the compromise in O.S. No.892/2008, to contend that it is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025 HC-KAR specifically agreed between the plaintiffs father (R. Nagaraj) and defendant No.1-Ramananjappa that if the acquisition was dropped, the entire right over the suit property vested in R. Nagaraj (plaintiff) and admittedly acquisition was in fact dropped. So the plaintiff (heirs) are sole owners.

3.1. That the scope of review is not rehearing on merits, and the appellate court merely corrected the trial Court's erroneous finding on issue No.1 Reliance is placed on the following decisions : (a) Chhajju Ram vs Neki and Others4 (Chhajju Ram), to contend that review not to correct erroneous decision on merits, lies only for error apparent on face of record. (b) Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury5, that the review proceedings, not an appeal, confined strictly to the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. 4 AIR 1922 PC 127 5 (1995) 1 SCC 170 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:34581 RP No. 231 of 2025 HC-KAR (c) Parsion Devi and Others vs Sumitri Devi and Others6, review lies only for a mistake, error apparent on the face of record, not for rehearing.

3.2. The learned Senior Counsel to the jurisdiction point raised by the review petitioner it is submitted that pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest point of time and if the parties omit to plead and raise objections at a later stage, unsuccessful party would be precluded to raise lack of jurisdiction.

3.3. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs DLF Universal Ltd and Another7 (Harshad).

3.4. Subhash Mahadevasa Habib vs Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas (dead) by LRs and Others8 (Subhash). Referring to the said decision, it is contended ORDER The Review Petition is dismissed. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20