JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THIS Petition calls for a review of the judgment passed by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 955/2001 on 24. 7. 2007 and the submission of the learned Counsel Shri Mohammed Saleha mukarram for the review petitioners is that this Court had dismissed the second appeal filed by the review petitioners and confirmed the judgment of the lower appellate Court, which had recorded a finding that the review petitioners, being the children born out of illegal cohabitation between deceased Siddalingegowda and the mother of the review petitioners, are not entitled to any share in the ancestral properties of Siddalingegowda. ( 2. ) THIS Court had confirmed the said view taken by the lower appellate court and also took the view that a child born out of void marriage is not entitled to a share in the coparcenary property by following the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patel Chandrappa Vs. Hanumanthappa, reported in ILR 1989 Karnataka 2384, and accordingly the said appeal was dismissed. The submission of the learned Counsel for the review petitioners is that, subsequently he came to lay his hands on a recent ruling of this court in the case of Smt. Sarojamma Vs. Smt. Neelamma, reported in 2006 (1) Civil L.J. 145, ad as per the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the said case, the position in law is that an illegitimate son can be equated with natural sons and can be treated as coparcener in respect of the properties held by the father, whether the properties are originally joint family properties or not and the only limitation is that, during the life time of the father, an illegitimate son of a void marriage, is not entitled to seek for partition and he can seek partition only after the death of his father. ( 3. ) CITING the aforesaid decisipn, the learned Counsel for the review petitioners prayed for review of the judgment rendered by this Court on 24. 7. 2007. In support of his submission for review, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decisions reported in AIR 1977 Allahabad 1, AIR 2005 Gauhati 124 and ILR 2007 Karnataka 3216, apart form the Division bench ruling referred to above in the case of Sarojamma Vs. Neelamma. ( 4. 7. 2007. In support of his submission for review, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decisions reported in AIR 1977 Allahabad 1, AIR 2005 Gauhati 124 and ILR 2007 Karnataka 3216, apart form the Division bench ruling referred to above in the case of Sarojamma Vs. Neelamma. ( 4. ) ON the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel Shri Yoganarasimha for respondent-1 submitted that the review petition is liable to be dismissed on three counts. The first one is that this Court had confirmed the findings of the lower appellate Court and the review that is now sought is not in respect of any of the findings of fact recorded by this Court while disposing of the second appeal. The second reason put forward by the learned Senior Counsel is that, application of the decision referred to by the learned Counsel for the review petitioners arises only in cases of marriage which falls within the category of void marriage or voidable marriage as defined in Sections 11 and 12 respectively of the Hindu Marriage Act and, in the instant case, there is no evidence to show that the review petitioners' mother had married siddalingegowda, but, on the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that Siddalingegowda had illegal cohabitation with the mother of the review petitioners without having gone through any formal marriage. ( 5. ) THE third ground of attack is that, having regard to Section 114 of the C.P.C. as well as Order 47, the scope of review is confined only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not on an erroneous decision. Even if it is shown that this Court had not taken note of the decision rendered in Sarojamma's case, that is not a ground to review the order passed, but he review petitioners have got other remedies available to them in law. In support of the aforesaid contentions, reliance was placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the decisions reported in 2004 (2) KCCR 1161, AIR 2006 SC 1634 and AIR 2004 Madras 512. ( 6. In support of the aforesaid contentions, reliance was placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the decisions reported in 2004 (2) KCCR 1161, AIR 2006 SC 1634 and AIR 2004 Madras 512. ( 6. ) HAVING taken note of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also after going through all the rulings cited by the respective sides, the only point for consideration is whether a case has been made out to review the judgment passed by this Court on 24.7.2007. A review is permissible under Order 47, Rule 1 of the C.P.C., on satisfying the Court on any one of the following factors: i) On the ground of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made; or ii) On account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or iii) For any other sufficient reason. ( 7. ) IT is, therefore, clear from the above provisions, that one of the grounds for seeking review is that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not an erroneous decision, as has been observed by a Division bench of the Madras High Court in the case reported in AIR 2004 Madras 512. As far as an error apparent on the face of the record is concerned, mulla on C.P.C. (13th Edition) mentions that a review may be granted whether on any ground urged at the original hearing of the suit or not, whenever the Court considers that it is necessary to correct an evident error or omission and it is immaterial how the error or omission occurred. The same work also mentions that overlooking a proposition of law well settled in Supreme Court amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record and likewise, where an error on a point of law was apparent on the face of the judgment, review can be granted. ( 8. ) IN a case reported in ILR 2007 Karnataka 3216 (Mrs. Mallika Vs. Mr. ( 8. ) IN a case reported in ILR 2007 Karnataka 3216 (Mrs. Mallika Vs. Mr. Chandrappa), this Court has taken the view that if a decision has been given in ignorance of binding law laid down by the Supreme Court, then, it is an error apparent on the face of the record. In another decision reported in AIR 2005 Gauhati 124 (Krishna Mohan Jamatia Vs. State of tripura), it has been held that the words 'sufficient reason' also includes an erroneous statement made by an Advocate for party. The Apex Court, in the case of Haridas Das Vs. Smt. Usha Rani banik, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1634 , has also considered the scope of review under Order 47, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. and has referred to various earlier decisions rendered by it and in one such decision referred i. e., in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde Vs. Mallikarjun bhavanappa Tiruymale, AIR 1960 SC 137 , it has been held that an error apparent on the face of record for acquiring jurisdiction to review, must be such an error which may strike one on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning. ( 9. ) IN the light of the foregoing prpositions of law and having regard to the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of sarojamma, supra, I am of the opinion that the learned Counsel for the review petitioners has made out a case for review of the judgment delivered by this Court on 24. 7. 2007 and, therefore, in the light of the decision rendered by the Division Bench with regard to the entitlement of an illegitimate child to a share in the property of his father, irrespective of the nature of the property, I am of the opinion that the matter requires to be reviewed and, as such, I pass the following order : the review petition is allowed and the judgment delivered on 24. 7. 2007 is recalled and R.S.A. No. 955/2001 is restored to file, for being heard by the appropriate Bench dealing with the roster.