K.NAGARAJ Vs. PARVATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 and 8

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners before this Court is that, this Court has answered point No.1 as 'affirmative', in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court has committed an error in disbelieving the relinquishment deed executed by K. Basavaraju over the suit schedule properties by executing the release deed dtd. 2/5/1973 and this Court, answered the said point No.1 as 'affirmative' but, committed an error in granting the share in favour of plaintiff Nos.6 to 8 i.e., together they are entitled to 1/4th share in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties is erroneous. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that the relinquishment deed is very clear that he had released his right in respect of all the other properties of joint family and hence, ought not to have granted the share in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. Hence, there is an error apparent on record.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.7 and 8 brought to notice of this Court that, in the relinquishment deed, it is specifically mentioned as to what are all the properties which belongs to the family and the same is also stated therein and the relinquishment deed is also very specific that, except the properties which have been mentioned therein, there are no other joint family properties and the entire document has to be read together and the contents of the document also to be taken note of and hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioners cannot be accepted and not committed any error and no error apparent on record in the reasoning given while granting the share.