C. SIDDALINGAPPA Vs. TAHSILDAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present review petition coming on for orders, insofar as the deceased respondents 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, notice to the legal representatives of the said respondents is dispensed with at the risk of the appellant and respondent no. 2, who would submit that he is the contesting respondent insofar as the present review petition is concerned and therefore, notice to the legal representatives of respondents 4, 5 and 6 may be dispensed with. Insofar as the review petition is concerned, the review petitioner was the appellant in Regular First Appeal No. 662/2009. This appeal was disposed of along with RFA 579/2009. As seen from the common judgment passed, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, it was categorically recorded that since the appeal was filed by way of abundant caution as a subsequent purchaser and since this court was not disturbing any sale deed in his favour and therefore, he could not complain of any grievance, the appeal stood disposed of. The present review petition is filed to highlight the circumstance that insofar as the controversy as to the location and identity of the land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in Survey No. 83/2 of Nagarabhavi Village, Yeswanthpur Hobli, Bangalore District is concerned, there were certain passing observations made insofar as the judgment in Regular First Appeal No. 579/2009 was concerned, by which, the present petitioner claims to be aggrieved. He would submit that it would take away the right conferred under the sale deed, under which, he claims possession of the land described in the said sale deed. Since this court has not entered upon the controversy as to the location and identity of the land, which is the subject matter of the sale deed, under which the present petitioner claims, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with the said sale deed. Therefore, there is no warrant for review of the judgment. The petition stands disposed of.