SMT. H. SWARNAMBA v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

Judgment

1. SMT. H. SWARNAMBA W/O LATE MR CHANDRASHEKARAYA (DECEASED) LRS (ALREADY ON RECORD) 1a. SMT. KUMUDA B.C (DECDASED), SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 1(b) TO 1(e), 1b. SMT. BHAGYA H.S W/O LATE N. SUDHAKARA BABU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.2772, SIDDAGANGA LAYOUT MLS SHIVANANJALLA ROAD TUMKUR - 572 101. 1c. DEVPRASAD S.D S/O LATE SUDHAKAR BABU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.2772 SIDDAGANGA LAYOUT MLS SHIVANANJALLA ROAD TUMKUR - 572 101.

1d. MR. DIXIT S.D S/O LATE SUDHAKAR BABU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.2772, SIDDAGANGA LAYOUT, MLS SHIVANANJALLA ROAD TUMKUR - 572 101. 1e. SMT. POORNIMA S.D D/O LATE MR SUDHAKAR BABU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:8829-DB RP No. 422 of 2023 HC-KAR R/AT NO.2772, SIDDAGANGA LAYOUT MLS SHIVANANJALLA ROAD TUMKUR - 572 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SANGAMESH R.B, ADV.) AND:

1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER TUMKUR SUB DIVISION TUMKUR - 572 101.

3. SMT. G.R. JAYALATHA W/O SRI H. UDAYASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.143/2, SANTOSHA NILAYA 3RD MAIN ROAD, BETWEEN 8TH AND 9TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU - 560 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2) THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 07 CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29/11/2022, PASSED IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 4004/2019 AND ALLOW THE SAME. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8829-DB RP No. 422 of 2023 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

1. This review petition under section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C, is filed with a prayer to review the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in writ appeal No.4004 of

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3. Facts leading to filing of this review petition narrated briefly are as under: The original petitioner Smt. H Swarnamba during her lifetime had executed a Gift Deed dated 05.06.2009 in favour of respondent no.3, who is her daughter, in respect of the property bearing No.F-3 measuring 60 x 40 feet situated at Siddaganga Layout, Sivananjappa Road, Tumkur Town. Subsequently, Smt.Swarnamba had initiated proceedings against respondent no.3 herein under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, the 'Act of 2007) alleging that respondent no.3 - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:8829-DB RP No. 422 of 2023 HC-KAR herein had failed to take care and maintain her. The competent authority / Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur by order dated

13.10.2015 declared the Gift Deed dated 05.06.2009 as null and void. The said order was set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.no.52091/2015. The order passed in W.P.no.52091/2015 was confirmed in W.A.No.4004/2019 by order dated 29.11.2022. Seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 29.11.2022 passed in W.A.no.4004/2019, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, after the Gift Deed dated 05.06.2009 was declared as void by the competent authority, Smt Swarnamba had executed a Sale Deed and a Gift Deed in respect of the property, which is subject matter of the Gift Deed dated 05.06.2009, in favour of her other children on 20.10.2015. Therefore, the dispute in respect of property survives even after the death of Swarnamba and to that extent, the order passed in W.A.Ano.4004/2019 is bad in law.

5. Smt Swarnamba, who had executed the Gift Deed dated 05.06.2009 in respect of the property in dispute in favour - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8829-DB RP No. 422 of 2023 HC-KAR of respondent no.3 herein had died during the pendency of the writ petition and thereafter her legal heirs had prosecuted the petition on her behalf. The learned Single Judge by order dated

15.10.2019 passed in W.P.No.52019/2015 has set aside the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Tumakuru, wherein the Gift Deed dated 05.06.2009 executed by Smt. H Swarnamba in favour of respondent no.3 herein was declared as void. In W.A.no.4004/2019, appreciating the fact that Smt. Swarnamba, who was the applicant before the competent authority had died during the pendency of the writ petition, this Court had refused to remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for consideration of the matter afresh though this Court prima-facie found that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was cryptic and no finding was recorded by him whether there was any material to show that ingredient of Section 23 of the Act, 2007 would be attracted in the case even though there is no specific mention about providing maintenance to the transferor and accordingly had dismissed the writ appeal. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:8829-DB RP No. 422 of 2023 HC-KAR

6. According to petitioners herein, who are the legal representatives of Smt. Swarnamba, since Swarnamba had executed a Gift Deed and Sale Deed in favour of them on

20.10.2015, after the competent authority had declared the Gift Deed dated 05.06.2009 a void, the right of the parties in whose favour the aforesaid two deeds were executed by Swarnamba would be affected. If that is so, it is for the concerned party to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking appropriate remedy. The rights of representatives of deceased Smt. Swarnamba cannot be adjudicated in a proceedings initiated by her during her lifetime under the provisions of the Act of 2007. The petitioners have failed to point out that order which is sought to be reviewed suffers from error apparent on the face of record.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL VS STATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANOTHER - (2024)2 SCC 362, in paragraphs 11 & 16, has observed as under: "11. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715] , this Court - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:8829-DB RP No. 422 of 2023 HC-KAR made very pivotal observations : (SCC p. 719, para 9) “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.” "16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that:

16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:8829-DB RP No. 422 of 2023 HC-KAR be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”.

16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.

16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."

8. In the case of B.DHANALAKSHMI VS M.SHAJAHAN - AIR 2004 MAD 512, the High Court of Madras has observed as under: - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:8829-DB RP No. 422 of 2023 HC-KAR "If the parties are aggrieved by the judgment on the ground that it is erroneous, remedy is only questioning the said order in appeal. The power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC may be opened inter alia, only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, the said power cannot be exercised as is permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'."

9. Under the circumstances, we do not find any good ground to entertain this review petition as we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for interference in exercise of the review jurisdiction of this Court.

10. Accordingly, review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1