K. R. VEERANNA vs SMT A N INDUMATHI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57763
RP No. 473 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010566302026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 18 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
REVIEW PETITION NO. 473 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
K. R. VEERANNA
S/O LATE K.B. RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
BUSINESSMAN
R/O DOOR NO.1990,
PURANTARA HOSPITAL ROAD
MCC A BLOCK,
DAVANAGERE -577 001
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT A.N.INDUMATHI
W/O SRI. A. NATARAJ
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/O DOOR NO.9,
53-A CROSS, 16TH MAIN 3RD
Y BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA
BANGALORE - 560 016
2. SMT. K.R. NAGARATNA
W/O SRI. S. MUDDANNA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O DOOR NO.515, RR RESIDENCY,
TH
FLAT NO.F, 24 CROSS
RAMCO BHEL LAYOUT
KENCHANAHALLI, RR NAGARA
BANGALORE - 560 098
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57763
RP No. 473 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010566302026
3. SMT. K.R. MALA
W/O SRI. K.A. MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O DOOR NO.567/3,
TH TH
6 MAIN, 6 CROSS P.J. EXTENSION,
DAVANAGERE-577 002
4. SMT. HEMALATHA S VALI
W/O SRI. SHIVAYOGI S VALI
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/O B-3, SHARAVATHI STOP
YALAHANKA NEW TOWN
BANGALORE-560 064
5. SMT. B.M. VIJAYA
W/O SRI. B. MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/O MAGGE VILLAGE ALUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 129
6. SRI. K.R. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE K.B. RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/O DOOR NO.1990,
PURANTARA HOSPITAL ROAD
MCC 'A' BLOCK,
DAVANAGERE-577 002
7. SRI. K.R. PRAKASH
S/O LATE K.B. RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O DOOR NO.1990,
PURANTARA HOSPITAL ROAD
MCC 'A' BLOCK,
DAVANAGERE-577 002
8. SRI. K.R. THIPPESH
S/O LATE K.B. RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O DOOR NO.1990,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57763
RP No. 473 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010566302026
PURANTARA HOSPITAL ROAD
MCC 'A' BLOCK,
DAVANAGERE-577 002
9. SRI. K.R. PRABHU KUMAR
S/O LATE K.B. RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O DOOR NO.1990,
PURANTARA HOSPITAL ROAD
MCC 'A' BLOCK,
DAVANAGERE-577 002
10. SMT. K.R. MADHU
W/O LATE N.V. GIRISH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
TH
R/O DOOR NO.1/1, 34 CROSS
RAJAJINAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 021
11. SMT. SUNANDA R GUJJAR
W/O RAJANNA GUJJAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O DOOR NO.20/21,
TH
17 CROSS, MAGADI CHORD ROAD,
NEAR MARUTHIMANDIR
BANGALORE - 560 040
12. SMT. HANUMAKKA
W/O LATE K. THIPPANNA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/O KELAGOTE,
CHITRADURGA-577 501
13. SRI. GAURAV
S/O SRI. K.R. THIPPESH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O DOOR NO.1990,
DR. PURANTAR HOSPITAL ROAD
MCC 'A' BLOCK,
DAVANAGERE-577 001
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57763
RP No. 473 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010566302026
14. SRI. SANKETH
S/O SRI. K.R. THIPPESH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/O DOOR NO.1990,
DR. PURANTAR HOSPITAL ROAD M
CC 'A' BLOCK,
DAVANAGERE-577 001
15. KUM. NAMRATA
D/O SRI. K.R. THIPPESH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O DOOR NO.1990,
DR. PURANTAR HOSPITAL ROAD
MCC 'A' BLOCK,
DAVANAGERE-577 001
16. SMT. K.S. SHOBHA
W/O SRI. K.R. SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/O DOOR NO.1990,
DR. PURANTAR HOSPITAL ROAD
MCC 'A' BLOCK,
DAVANAGERE-577 001
…RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION.114 R/W
ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
ORDER DATED 27.07.2026 IN W.P. NO.3099/2026.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57763
RP No. 473 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010566302026
ORAL ORDER
This Court by order dated 27.07.2026 had dismissed
WP.No.3099/2026. The petitioner has filed this review petition
seeking review of the order dated 27.07.2026.
2. It is stated that the impugned order was passed
without advertence to and consideration of the written synopsis
and compilation of documents filed by the petitioner, which
were material, germane, and decisive to the adjudication of the
lis. The non-consideration of this documentary evidence has
resulted in miscarriage of justice and has caused grave and
irreparable prejudice to the petitioner. It is stated that the
petitioner filed a detailed compilation of synopsis along with the
writ petition, demonstrating the following crucial and
inseparable interconnection between the two suits.
a) The suit schedule properties in O.S.No.26/2010, filed
by the daughters of K.B.Rudrappa, and in O.S.No.149/2014 are
inter se the same properties. Without determining the share of
K.B.Rudrappa in O.S.No.149/2014, their daughters/plaintiffs
cannot claim a definite share. Item No.20 of O.S.No.26/2010
corresponds to the Schedule A property of O.S.No.149/2014,
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57763
RP No. 473 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010566302026
measuring 5 acres 19 guntas at Bethur village, Davanagere
Taluk.
b) Item Nos. 1, 2, 21, 22, and 23 of O.S.No.26/2010
correspond to the Schedule B property of O.S.No.149/2014.
The daughters of K.B.Rudrappa, i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 5,
10, and 11, are also parties to O.S.No.149/2014 and all
consequent proceedings.
c) It is stated that the Court failed to consider that the
Schedule A property in O.S.No.149/2014 is stayed by this Court
in RSA.No.256/2024. The Schedule B property in
O.S.No.149/2014 is stayed by this Court in RSA.No.672/2024.
O.S.No.149/2014 was decreed only in respect of the Schedule
A property, and the suit was dismissed in respect of the
Schedule B property, against which RA.No.79/2014 was filed
and decreed, followed by FDP.No.24/2024, which is now stayed
in RSA.No.672/2024.
d) The Court failed to appreciate that the preliminary
decree dated 31.08.2023 passed in O.S.No.26/2010 did not
determine and declare the shares of defendant Nos.2 to 6,
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57763
RP No. 473 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010566302026
including the petitioner herein. The decree merely declared that
plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and defendant Nos.1, 7 and 8 are entitled to
1/12th share each, leaving the fate of the remaining four
shares undetermined and unadjudicated.
e) The Court erroneously proceeded on the factual
premise that the preliminary decree had already declared the
party shares, as stated in paragraph 10 of the impugned order,
and that the shares already stood determined under the
preliminary decree. This is a clear error apparent on the face of
the record, as the synopsis, objections, and documents
produced before the Court clearly demonstrated that the shares
of defendant Nos.2 to 6 were not determined in the preliminary
decree.
f) It is stated that the Court failed to consider that when
the shares of defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are not determined in the
preliminary decree, appointing a Commissioner to demarcate
1/12th share each for plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 is not only legally
impermissible but also physically impossible, as the
Commissioner would be unable to determine which portion to
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57763
RP No. 473 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010566302026
exclude or reserve for the undetermined shares of the
contesting defendants.
g) The Court failed to appreciate that the trial Court itself
noted in the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 that RSA.No.
256/2024 is pending before the Court, with a stay on the
drawing of the final decree, yet erroneously proceeded to
appoint the Commissioner on the basis that other proceedings
can go on, without appreciating that the same properties are
subject to conflicting decrees and pending second appeals
before the Court.
h) The Court failed to consider that, in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, where the same properties are
subject to interconnected and conflicting claims in two different
suits and are under stay in RSA.No.256/2024 and 672/2024,
appointing a Commissioner to demarcate shares amounts to a
substantive step toward the final decree and would render the
stay orders wholly nugatory and meaningless.
i) It is stated that the non-consideration of the written
synopsis and the compilation of documents containing vital
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57763
RP No. 473 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010566302026
information about the interconnection of the suits, the identity
of the properties, and the pending stays has resulted in the
Court passing the impugned order on a factually incorrect
premise, causing a miscarriage of justice. It is further stated
that the Court failed to appreciate that the preliminary decree
is incomplete and ambiguous as regards the shares of
defendant Nos. 2 to 6. The suit schedule properties are already
the subject matter of O.S. No. 149/2014, and the consequent
appeals and execution proceedings are stayed, in which
adjudication of share of K.B. Rudrappa in O.S. No. 149/2014 is
yet to be decided. The appointment of a Commissioner at this
stage would create irreversible rights and fait accompli,
rendering the pending appeals infructuous. The trial Court
committed a jurisdictional error in allowing I.A. No. IV without
considering the petitioner's objections and the pending stays.
j) It is stated that the impugned order was passed
without advertence to the written synopsis and compilation of
documents produced by the petitioner, which is a sufficient
reason for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. It is
also stated that there is an error apparent on the face of the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57763
RP No. 473 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010566302026
record. The impugned order failed to consider the
interconnection between O.S.No.26/2010 and
O.S.No.149/2014, and the fact that the same properties are
stayed by this Court in RSA.No.256/2024 and 672/2024.
Hence, the petitioner has sought review of the order dated
27.07.2026.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
perused the impugned order. The trial Court allowed I.A.No.IV.
While allowing the application, the trial Court observed that
respondent No.3 and other respondents had already filed
RA.No.32/2018 and 46/2018 challenging the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.26/2010, and that both appeals were
dismissed, against which RSA.No.256/2024 is pending before
the High Court. The High Court granted a stay only on the
drawing of the final decree, without the leave of the Court, and
the other proceedings can go on. The trial Court then
proceeded to appoint a Court Commissioner to demarcate the
shares as per the preliminary decree passed in the original suit.
The trial Court held that it was objected by the petitioner that
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57763
RP No. 473 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010566302026
the objections filed by respondent No.3 cannot be considered at
this stage, and accordingly, the application was allowed.
3. This Court, in paragraph No.6 of the order dated
27.07.2026, has in detail considered the submissions made on
behalf of the parties. The issue that was framed was “whether
the appointment of a commissioner under Order 26 Rule
13 of the CPC is in violation of the interim order directing
that all proceedings may continue but the final decree
shall not be drawn without leave of the Court” . This Court
had discussed the scope of appointment of a Commissioner and
the distinction between the continuation of proceedings and the
drawing of the final decree, which cannot be ignored. This
Court discussed the same at length. The petitioner submits
about the pending appeals, common properties and
determination of rights of the parties and according to them,
those properties as stated in the synopsis are not considered
and it is an error apparent on the face of the record, and as
such the order needs to be reviewed.
4. Whatever properties are common in both cases, in
respect of those suits, when the appeals are pending and in the
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57763
RP No. 473 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010566302026
appeals the court has only stayed the drawing up of the final
decree, this court is not able to appreciate any of the
contentions after going through the synopsis and considering all
the grounds that are raised by the petitioner. This Court is of
the view that the order passed by the trial Court is sustainable.
The trial Court has rightly passed an order, and this Court,
considering all that, has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed
by the petitioner. None of the grounds that are raised by the
petitioner are the grounds to review the order dated
27.07.2026 passed by this Court. Hence, this Court is passing
the following order:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed .
ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
MEG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52
MR