Lingappa vs Rangamma @ Vijayamma on 27 October, 2010

 AND;  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 27"' DAY OF OCTOBER 2010
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAR.E'IjIJ*2Y;.-. u

REVIEW PETITION NO.294 OF 2010   
WRIT PETITION NO.3095'0'OI:f 200,9   I 
BETWEEN: A I
Lingappa
S/O Late N anj appa,
Aged about 65 years,

Residing at Huthri KOppa1tI,$  I
Huthridurga HObIi,,_  '

Kunigal 6: _  _ 
Tumkur Disaict,    K  _   ~ ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. B.'N.__4Sh,ivVanIIa,'_A:I}k.OOate)

W.S1nt; "Ra1nga'IB_rn:«II'  Vij ayamma

W./_0=H7K';'vS'I;.i,Vaana',
Aged about 461V years,

 I . Residing at Haluvagilu,
. .. _. I j; 2 _ I Hutridufga Hobii,
 };<unv1g;;ITaIuk. ...RESPONDEN'1'



This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for review of the ordendated
26.07.2010

passed in W.P.No.30950/2009, on the file’e,ofe.the
1~Ion’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.

This Review Petition coming on for Orderslltlhisi=dé1}i;i

Court passed the following: –

This review petition for~. for non-

compliance of office 0b’jeC”|i’;i:i..’bV:I”‘L:S’ meriitsil

2. The primary cententio.’n.l’thexhleperine’d Counsel for the
petitioner is the appeal on the
footing that –.a’ ‘de’ed:’wh’ic’h was relied upon in the suit

being 3 conip1;lso,rilyregistreble document could not have been

uthe b:;_1si:S the suit”an_d…this was with reference to the decision of

lil’thee’fApex”vC_otir’t:lr1–.AVlNASH KUMAR CHUHAN .vs. VIJAY

KRlS_llNA_i.Ni:ESAlPIRA (2009) 2 sec 532. The counsel for the

CV’~___lpetitionei’.would seek to place reliance on a judgment of the

is-pip:-e.nl%_.e Court in the case of NARENDRA KANTE vs.

llii’i:’_4″‘ANlURA}Z)HA KANTE AND OTHERS [20l0(2) KCCR

l089(SC)] to contend that the deed of partition did not require to

be registered.

3. This is an incorrect proposition

judgment related to a case of an oral _p_artittion vxhéreby partieesi it

had later reduced the terms under 2: -of

Therefore, the judgment cannot bev..r;e’}.ied ufaon. to._p_’r_esis,the”present”

review petition.

4. There is no gro_t1_nd._fovr__ reVvie’w.i The-review petition is

rejected.

*a1b/i;.*- ” it