A SUBRAMANYASWAMY Vs. A NARAYANASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents 1 (a) to (c) and respondents 2 to 4 in RFA 1134/2011 have sought review of operative portion (b) of the judgment in the said appeal. Given a short history of the events that have given rise to this review petition, A.Subramanyaswamy, the deceased husband of first petitioner and father of second and third petitioners instituted a suit, O.S.7385/2005 in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, for partition claiming 1/6th share in the suit property that bears site no. 25/C, Municipal No.18, 8th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. The trial court decreed the suit granting 1/5th share to Sri A Subramanyaswamy. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the first defendant A.Narayanaswamy preferred an appeal RFA 1134/2011. This court by judgment dated 27.2.2018 allowed the appeal partly and modified the judgment of the trial court by holding that the plaintiff was only entitled to 1/5th share in the value of the site as on the date of suit and neither the plaintiff nor defendants 2 to 4 had any share in the houses constructed in the ground and first floors. Now, the review petitioners contend that the decision of this court in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/5th share in the value of the site as on the date of suit requires to be reviewed as according to them, this is a mistake in as much as the valuation should be considered on the day when the appeal was decided.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the review petitioners and the respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the finding given by this court in the appeal that the petitioners are not entitled to any share in the houses that are in existence in ground and first floors are acceptable to the petitioners, but this court has held that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share in the value of the site and in the operative portion it is shown that the value of the site as on the date of the suit should be considered. This observation is unwarranted in the sense that the value of the property has increased manifold since the date of the suit. The petitioners are deprived of the present value of the property. For no fault on their part, they are rendered to accept a meager amount towards their share in the sital value. The petitioners have sufficient reasons for seeking review to see that justice is done. The learned counsel argued that the observation of this court amounts to an error apparent on the face of record.