Dharamgouda Vs. Venkanagouda & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Review Petition (C) No. 716 of 2000
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26 of 2000
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26 of 2000
Petitioner: Dharamgouda
Respondent: Venkanagouda & Ors.
Apeal: Review Petition (C) No. 716 of 2000
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26 of 2000
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26 of 2000
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 08, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Article 137 – Review – Claim of 1/6th share instead of 1/8th – Plaintiff who was awarded 1/6th share not challenging – Contesting petitioner, not raising such plea in SLP – No such contention before High Court – Share depending upon the marriage of two daughters and their relinquishments – Even that not raised below. Held that there was no ground to review. Petition dismissed. (Para 2)
Article 137 – Review – Claim of 1/6th share instead of 1/8th – Plaintiff who was awarded 1/6th share not challenging – Contesting petitioner, not raising such plea in SLP – No such contention before High Court – Share depending upon the marriage of two daughters and their relinquishments – Even that not raised below. Held that there was no ground to review. Petition dismissed. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. 70 days delay is condoned.
2. The only ground made out in this review petition moved by defendant no.1 is that the share of the plaintiff and other contesting parties in the partition suit should have been 1/6th each instead of 1/8th. It is interesting to note that the plaintiff who was awarded 1/6th share in the suit property has not thought it fit to challenge the said order of the High Court. So far as the present petitioner-defendant no.1 is concerned even though he challenged the order of the High Court by filing the special leave petition, even in the special leave petition no such contention was raised. Consequently, there was no occasion for this Court to consider this contention. No such contention was canvassed before the High Court also. Whether the share of each of the contesting parties is 1/6 or 1/8, depends upon the further question whether two daughters of deceased, Bhimagowda, namely, Akkabai and Balabai were married in 1955 and 1956 respectively and whether they had relinquished their shares in the suit properties, are pure questions of fact which in the absence of being raised before the courts below, could not have been raised before this Court in special leave petition, muchless in review petition. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed on merits.
1. 70 days delay is condoned.
2. The only ground made out in this review petition moved by defendant no.1 is that the share of the plaintiff and other contesting parties in the partition suit should have been 1/6th each instead of 1/8th. It is interesting to note that the plaintiff who was awarded 1/6th share in the suit property has not thought it fit to challenge the said order of the High Court. So far as the present petitioner-defendant no.1 is concerned even though he challenged the order of the High Court by filing the special leave petition, even in the special leave petition no such contention was raised. Consequently, there was no occasion for this Court to consider this contention. No such contention was canvassed before the High Court also. Whether the share of each of the contesting parties is 1/6 or 1/8, depends upon the further question whether two daughters of deceased, Bhimagowda, namely, Akkabai and Balabai were married in 1955 and 1956 respectively and whether they had relinquished their shares in the suit properties, are pure questions of fact which in the absence of being raised before the courts below, could not have been raised before this Court in special leave petition, muchless in review petition. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed on merits.
