{"id":103462,"date":"2009-10-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009"},"modified":"2016-04-28T06:11:59","modified_gmt":"2016-04-28T00:41:59","slug":"p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"P Honnamma W\/O Late Chandu Shetty vs B Jagannath S\/O B Santhappa on 30 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
P Honnamma W\/O Late Chandu Shetty vs B Jagannath S\/O B Santhappa on 30 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V.Jagannathan<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDated: This the 301%: day of October 20'Q.9\"f  .\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HONBLE MR.JUs'r1cEV..gIAGA5NNA5Ifi~1A\u00a7Jf   D'\n\nR.S.A.N0. 1014\/200.1 \u00ab\nBETWEEN: 1' V\"\n\nPHONNAMMA,  .  \nw\/0 LATE CHAND\"U  M\nAGED 72 YEARS, '     \"\nBOLAR,MANGALOR\"1~3..    \"\n\n    ..  ...APPELLAN'I'\n[By Sri s  ss_aPA\"1'I3jY.<-A1)v.._3V  A\n\nAND':\n\n1 B..JAGA]f'lNAT';'H,   \nS\/O. _B vsANTH;AP\u00a7f_A, ADULT,\n' \u00bb MANGALORE ROAD.\n V WITAL 'Ims;3,A.v1LLAGE, VITTAL,\n 'BU'NirwAL TALUK, D.K.\n\n* ILRESHNAPPA,\nS\/.0 AMMU POOJARY, ADULT,\n.HQ'i?EL VIJAYA, MANGALORE ROAD,\nVYITAL KASBA VILLAGE, VITTAL.\n" EANTWAL TALUK, D.K.\n\n... RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
—   {B5} Sri SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K, ADV. FOR R1.)<\/p>\n
THIS RSA FILED U\/S100 CFC AGAKNST THE
\nJUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.7.2001 PASSED IN
\nR.A.NO.30\/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE 1 ADDL. CIVIL<\/p>\n
ix)<\/p>\n
JUDGE {SR.DN.} 8: C-.JlVI., MANGALORE, <\/p>\n
DISMISSENG THE APPEAL AND CONEIRMINQVV
\nJUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.12.199S\u00a7_:”PAS_$E’*Cr;_.v__2_
\nIN O.S.N0.102\/1994 ON THE FILE OF  <\/p>\n
JUDGE (JR.DN.), BANTWAL.\n<\/p>\n
THIS APPEAL coM1Ns_4oN”EoR HEARING” <\/p>\n
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED:T}iE EoL,1,owm”:+\u00ab:V””  ‘<\/p>\n
This seeond  before the
\ntrial eo111:_:t_.    for eviction of
\nthe  E\ufb01islmissed by the trial
\nCourt.’ on -that the appellant had no
\nauthority.  she is a stranger and also<\/p>\n
 groun’d\u00ab.that the quit notice was not valid in<\/p>\n
V ~lav.v_.*v.._:Tl1e:”‘lower appellate court also confirmed the<\/p>\n
  order of dismissal of the suit, but on a<\/p>\n
different ground viz., the quit notice was not in<\/p>\n
 . iaeieordanee with law. Thus, the concurrent \ufb01ndings<\/p>\n
 of the courts below have formed the basis for this<\/p>\n
second appeal by the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
ea
\n3<\/span><\/p>\n
2. The appellant filed the suit seeking<\/p>\n
possession of the suit schedule property on”-.__the<\/p>\n
ground that the suit property belonged.,__’l:fO”\ufb01lter.<\/p>\n
husband viz., late Chandu Shetty and   <\/p>\n
death of Chandu Shetty andilal lsuitv <\/p>\n
possession by the wife, and lllchildren\ufb02oflpl “C’ha’r.1ldiil’~_<\/p>\n
Shetty, a compromise Wasl”i’eliitered  the
\n15′ defendant execujtod  onf5l.8l.ll98l in
\nfavour of legal  Shetty Viz.,
\nin the  son Devadasa
\nShetty  was let out on a monthly
\nrent   rent bond required the<\/p>\n
le\u00absCsee’~ not ‘tolmsulo let the suit premises. This<\/p>\n
, G;’cQ:1c1ition:l”was breached by the is defendant by<\/p>\n
if *  defendant into the premises. This led<\/p>\n
theappellarlt to order quit notice to the defendants.<\/p>\n
3. It was also contended in the suit itself by<\/p>\n
 the appellant that a partition suit was also filed in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.111\/89 between the legal representatives of<\/p>\n
Chandu Shetty and in the said suit the appellant’s<\/p>\n
la<\/p>\n
4<\/span>
\neldest son Devadasa Shetty has set up a Will alleging<\/p>\n
that late Chandu Shetty had bequeathed V.-~-suit<\/p>\n
property to Prafulla, Geetha, Pushpa and <\/p>\n
stating all these factors, the appellant   it<\/p>\n
decree being passed in her”favour7,di.re.etingp”the<\/p>\n
respondents to hand over vacant”possessAion ‘of’=,thel”<\/p>\n
suit premises.\n<\/p>\n
4. The defendants. eonte-_ste~dgthe  suit by
\ntaking up thestand  defective<\/p>\n
in nature.  oflifliandu Shetty have no
\nrightlover the  and the plaintiff has no<\/p>\n
right whlatsoever to llehange the nature of the suit<\/p>\n
‘l  and lslh'”e'”bVeing a stranger even to the rent<\/p>\n
  no locus standi to \ufb01le the suit.\n<\/p>\n
 ‘laearned trial judge framed as many as<\/p>\n
 four i,Vissues and six additional issues and after<\/p>\n
 ‘appreciating the evidence on record let in by the<\/p>\n
parties, held that the quit notice issued by the<\/p>\n
appellant was defective in nature and also held that<\/p>\n
the appellant has no authority to file the suit she<\/p>\n
23%<\/p>\n
‘3<\/p>\n
being a stranger to the rent bond transaction. The
\nother issues were also answered in the affirmative<\/p>\n
except additional issue No.1 which concerns the<\/p>\n
description of the suit schedule property. The <\/p>\n
the plaintiff was dismissed. The lower appel-late: *<\/p>\n
concurred with the trial co1.1rt-in  .l.l_the.,, all<\/p>\n
ultimate result of the appeal <\/p>\n
that the appeal is liabcyg-..,._y to babe   by l’ l<\/p>\n
confirming the orde1′.of th.e”‘t1’ia’l court. lllfioweyer. the<\/p>\n
lower appellate court if foulnd’ one defect in the<\/p>\n
 quit notice being defective
\nin naturie  with the requirement of<\/p>\n
lay as far.’ as the period of notice is concerned.<\/p>\n
\u00bbV;Followingyligl’dismissal of the appeal by the lower<\/p>\n
ll   the plaintiff has come up in this<\/p>\n
selcorid’ appeal.\n<\/p>\n
6. It has to be stated at this juncture that<\/p>\n
fthis court on an earlier occasion disposed of this<\/p>\n
appeal itself on 19.77.2007 and the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the respondents could not be heard in the matter<\/p>\n
2%<\/p>\n
as the counsel remained absent. The court..g'”‘algso<\/p>\n
framed substantial question of law involving. <\/p>\n
question of the quit notice being valid.in:’lawiVi_\u00a7.f’4_nst  <\/p>\n
and by holding that the quit notice: <\/p>\n
with law, this court had.r’allowe’d_V”t’he of <\/p>\n
plaintiff and granted   ditto the
\nrespondents to vacate  and  over vacant<\/p>\n
possession of thevy.su.it’V. scbediilevp”‘p:i*o’perty to the<\/p>\n
  lea_”r’n’efd connsel Sri. Sanath<\/p>\n
Kumar ‘  respondents filed the<\/p>\n
appplicatio’n_:’seekin”g review of the order passed as<\/p>\n
 A af-ore\u00bbs”aid..pand “the main contention advanced in<\/p>\n
    review petition was that the partition<\/p>\n
suit by the appellant itself ended in a decree<\/p>\n
 pp beingwtpassed in favour of the defendants and the<\/p>\n
if  appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed<\/p>\n
 and in the process, the trial court as well as this<\/p>\n
court accepted the defendants contention in the<\/p>\n
partition suit as regards the Will being executed by<\/p>\n
$3”\n<\/p>\n
Chandu Shetty. The other L.Rs preferred an fS;L.P<\/p>\n
before the Apex Court and the same <\/p>\n
Citing all these grounds, learned co1;n_’sel’t.4_the-\u00abl<\/p>\n
course of the argument on the j;r”eView-._ ‘petition f<\/p>\n
therefore sought for rehearing ofvthe   <\/p>\n
court had not heard the  at the
\n\ufb01rst instance and  is now
\nsought to be urgtd     the matter.\n<\/p>\n
This court.\/it   counsel for the
\n  counsel for the
\n ,gtai1}\u00a7-Wendel the review petition and
\nappeal   by recalling the judgment<\/p>\n
 is how this second appeal is<\/p>\n
\u00bb  ‘now’.beirig’i1eard.\n<\/p>\n
1 gifhough this court had framed substantial<\/p>\n
of law concerning the Validity of the quit<\/p>\n
it   notice, in the light of the ground put forward by the<\/p>\n
Qreview petitioner in the review petition, one more<\/p>\n
substantial questiongpf law arises for consideration<\/p>\n
V\/\/”‘<\/p>\n
\u00bb-3\u00bb<\/p>\n
and as such, the points that required to be ansvtrered<\/p>\n
by this court in this second appeal are as undcrtt<\/p>\n
1. Whether the appellant is a  .\n<\/p>\n
suit in View of the deeree_bei’ng  a, it<\/p>\n
partition suit?\n<\/p>\n
2. Whether the  below  an ” V<\/p>\n
error of lavwrin  linterpret’ingilv’the quit
\nnotice dated a 1′ .   –l33x.D 13.\n<\/p>\n
9. Aslfar as.”t’h’e’  of law raised<\/p>\n
for oonsideration<ar'e._leoneerned, learned Counsel Sri.
\nSripathjg 'fort'  ~ appellant submitted that the<\/p>\n
appellant  one of the co–owners of the suit<\/p>\n
a V:V'proprertygaiong with other L.Rs of Chandu Shetty, is<\/p>\n
'- j.ustiiied."p:–.in::ulelairning suit for possession and the<\/p>\n
consenthof the other co–owr1ers is deemed to be there<\/p>\n
it  and as such, the question of the appellant being a<\/p>\n
 stranger to the suit does not arise. Moreover, the<\/p>\n
tenants right to question the title of the landlord is a
\nvery limited one and therefore when the appellant<\/p>\n
and other L.Rs of Chandu Shetty are the co~owr1ers of<\/p>\n
\u00a7\u00bb:\n<\/p>\n
9<\/span>
\nthe suit property, it is not for the respondents<\/p>\n
tenants to question the said status of the co~own_ers<\/p>\n
and a co–owner is as much an owner of thede-n’;ti_re.<\/p>\n
property as any sole owner and co~owners’iiip invoiiiesf <\/p>\n
the undivided integrity of whatfisw ometi. .g <\/p>\n
not withstanding the decree ldbeiiig pass-‘ed <\/p>\n
partition suit, as the 1riatter’r\u00abr:.i:s’sti1lVh pending the
\nApex Court, there    matter
\nand as such,p the   a co–owner
\ncannot be   therefore the
\n in recording a finding that
\nthe appellant”  to the suit. The<\/p>\n
s13..iornissionV”  sought to be supported by<\/p>\n
r decision of the Apex Court reported in<\/p>\n
 ‘–   6026 and the relevant paragraphs<\/p>\n
 referred to were 45 to 49. As such, the<\/p>\n
it   \u00e9:1uestion of appellant being a stranger does not arise<\/p>\n
hand as far as the quit notice is concerned,<\/p>\n
submission made is that there is no defect in the quit
\nnotice as the defendants i.e. the tenants were given<\/p>\n
sufficient time before filing of the suit to hand over<\/p>\n
kc<\/p>\n
10<\/span>
\nthe vacant possession to the appellant and as such,<\/p>\n
the question of the quit notice being not in<\/p>\n
accordance with law does not arise.<\/p>\n
10. On the other hand, learned <\/p>\n
Sariath Kumar Shetty for the :respond\u00a7ent.s” it<\/p>\n
that it is not in dispute that the Zp-artition.yAsu,it\u00ab.<\/p>\n
in a decree being passed ‘in”‘iTavour’–of  persons to V<\/p>\n
whom suit propert},=”h_as beer1lli.:’_i4:-edit’;-iieathelci'”under the<\/p>\n
Will executed by latelclhandlul She’tty,1la’_1.Secondly, the<\/p>\n
said’tiind’iin.g_ofl:the cotirtdvvas called in question<\/p>\n
before. this appeal and the said appeal<\/p>\n
was, disniissed”.’–co’n\ufb01rrning the trial court’s \ufb01nding.<\/p>\n
 A adijnittingmthat against the dismissal of the<\/p>\n
   ihgelaggrieved persons approached the Apex<\/p>\n
AC3..ourt~ bi\ufb01preferring the S.L.P and the matter is still<\/p>\n
 AA pending, yet it is argued that the fact that the decree<\/p>\n
it   been passed and the said decree having not been<\/p>\n
 set aside or modified by the Apex Court as on date, it<\/p>\n
goes without saying that the decree is operative and<\/p>\n
therefore the appellant herein cannot have any legal<\/p>\n
11<\/span>
\nright to contend that she is the co–owner of the suit<\/p>\n
property and therefore the trial court was justified in
\nrecording affirmative finding in favour of n the<\/p>\n
defendants. Learned counsel in support “~\u00ab._tii.e<\/p>\n
aforesaid submission placed reliance on the?.dec’ision’s-.– ~<\/p>\n
reported in AIR 1958 S.C.86. AER .198  ll<\/p>\n
comments by learned author on <\/p>\n
and Usage at para.476 and..@2\u00a3Q_O4(l) <\/p>\n
ll. Relying ,–on  la:wl4″‘-laid l(Zll'()’\u00bbV3.’1-‘V3i\ufb02 the<\/p>\n
aforesaid’  ‘lelarnedl counsel therefore argued
\nthat in the neither can it be said that<\/p>\n
thg-_ appelI’ant’is* a”col-“owner nor is it a case of other<\/p>\n
ll  A clalioxamersp givingmlconsent to the appellant. As such,<\/p>\n
   the was justi\ufb01ed in dismissing the suit of<\/p>\n
the appell’.ant.\n<\/p>\n
it  As far as the first point of law raised for<\/p>\n
it f’c.o.risideration is concerned, in the light of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid submissions put forward and the decisions<\/p>\n
referred to by the learned counsel for the parties , the<\/p>\n
question to be considered is, whether the court<\/p>\n
gt\u00bb<\/p>\n
*2<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
beilow was justified in holding that the appeiiant is a
\nstranger to the suit property in View of the partition<\/p>\n
suit ending in a decree against the appeilantipppyyi  ,,<\/p>\n
13. it is not in dispute between <\/p>\n
that a partition suit was fiiediind O’.S.iNo.~1 <\/p>\n
both parties do not dispute the\u00e9dfurther factor <\/p>\n
being passed in the said   Will
\nsaid to have been eireeuteidd  \u00e9hetty in
\nfavour of the ppers0nsy_toV.ewh_orn  property has<\/p>\n
  said””order of the trial Court
\nwas also  court by dismissing the<\/p>\n
appeal prefevrred  the trial court’s findings. It<\/p>\n
 A i”s..Ca1is’e an adrriittevd fact that the S.L.P is pending<\/p>\n
   Supreme Court and the matter has to be<\/p>\n
Ad-isposeri’ In other Words, the decree passed by the<\/p>\n
 up triai court has not been set aside or modified as on<\/p>\n
it  not withstanding filing of an S.L.P by the<\/p>\n
 aggrieved persons.\n<\/p>\n
iv:\n<\/p>\n
14\u00bb. The Apex Court in the case reported in<\/p>\n
AIR 1958 S.C. 86 has held that there is nothing in<\/p>\n
the Indian Law to warrant the suggestion <\/p>\n
decree or order of the court or tribunal   V’<\/p>\n
instance becomes final only on~’the’\u00abterinination offallllg<\/p>\n
proceedings by way of appeal  <\/p>\n
the appeal or revision may”pf1:itytheV’ decreej”orV”order in
\njeopardy but until  it  or Aniodified, it<\/p>\n
remains effective.\n<\/p>\n
   J. in an3othe1’\u00bb decision reported in AIR 1981
\nS.C.ll’l.13\u00ab.itV  by this court that, where<\/p>\n
an eviction s_Vuit.’Vvas. filed by one of the co~owners, on<\/p>\n
   of lvbvoriafide requirement and the appeal<\/p>\n
  ‘a.gajnst~–.,’the’–decree for eviction was pending and in<\/p>\n
tlie In~eari’while the plaintiff co-owner loses the<\/p>\n
 ppinteresti’ in the property as a result of decree in<\/p>\n
 Vpartjition suit. the Appellate Court can take notice of<\/p>\n
 it .._..the subsequent event and can mould the relief<\/p>\n
accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
14<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
16. In another decision reported in 2004(1)<\/p>\n
Supreme 350 it has been held by the Apex Court that<\/p>\n
Where one co–owner files a suit for eviction against<\/p>\n
the tenant, he does it on his own behalf in <\/p>\n
right and as an agent of the other  ~<\/p>\n
consent of other co~owners isAA\u00bbwassui’ned”‘*a,s ‘taker:-._V it<\/p>\n
unless it is shown that the other  ‘-\ufb02:f’1}iQ <\/p>\n
not agreeable to eject the-.t:enantA’Vand’ filed ”<\/p>\n
inspite of their disag.reeme’ntf_”One. co–oWner7 cannot<\/p>\n
withdraw his Consent”mi~d?3vay__’lthe,. “suit so as to<\/p>\n
prejudice  V-3t.h’er_ c\u00a2}’ox\u00bbmer.
\ni’?.4__’ ” In  the aforesaid law laid down<\/p>\n
bg,*.ithe~ Ape}; ‘Court, if We examine the case on hand,<\/p>\n
\u00bb Llfi3’_S1 .iof.pall:fthe partition suit has ended in a decree<\/p>\n
H ”  upholding the Will said to have been<\/p>\n
erteedtedl by late Chandu Shetty and the suit property<\/p>\n
 Apw’a.s bequeathed in favour of four persons viz.,<\/p>\n
Vfi-“rafulia, Geetha, Pushpa and Shobha. The appeal<\/p>\n
filed against the order of the trial court was also<\/p>\n
allowed confirming the trial courts order and S.L.P is<\/p>\n
15<\/span>
\npending against the Appellate Courts judgment in<\/p>\n
the Apex Court. The appellant herein therefore<\/p>\n
cannot be said to be a co–owner of the <\/p>\n
when the decree drawn at the first   <\/p>\n
partition suit itself has not beenlset aside; <\/p>\n
by the Apex Court as, of  ‘l’he_refore,n<\/p>\n
appellant cannot be said to’V”be'”lone of the aeVo–o’Wners of
\nthe suit property :li’gl_1tdp.Vl'”o.f the decisions
\nrendered in the partition  court in the<\/p>\n
appeal. the:rnatter’4is:vstill–pending before the
\nApeig  not attained its finality
\nnevertheless as  stands as on date, the<\/p>\n
a.p\u00a7pell’ar1t thereforegicannot contend that she is one of<\/p>\n
\u00bb jet-he  of the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
 Secondly, the rent bond was executed<\/p>\n
betweenthe 18′ defendant and Chandu Shetty, son of<\/p>\n
it it the fappellant. Under these circumstances,<\/p>\n
ll”-particularly, in the light of the decisions referred to<\/p>\n
 above by the learned counsel for the respondents, I<\/p>\n
am of the View that the trial court was justified in<\/p>\n
$7<\/p>\n
16<\/span>
\nholding that the appellant has no locus standi to<\/p>\n
institute the suit against the defendants. Accordingly<\/p>\n
I answer this point for consideration.<\/p>\n
19. Since the appellant has no    <\/p>\n
file the suit itself, the question of ._c’opnside1t*ing’the”:<\/p>\n
validity or otherwise of the quit notice doefsnot <\/p>\n
Although there is force  submission hiade by
\nthe learned counselffor lgtappeiliant that “the quit
\nnotice is in accordance  ltavi’~-aritijvthe defendants<\/p>\n
were””giv’enaf, sufficient” ti1n_e””‘to deliver the vacant
\npossession of ‘the_l”su__lit…’property, yet in View of the<\/p>\n
\ufb01nding recorded on the 15* point for consideration, it<\/p>\n
.  is— of no signi\ufb01ctalnce as to whether the quit notice was<\/p>\n
” y.a1id.fm: rim, <\/p>\n
,__~2’0..i in the light of the aforesaid reasoning, the<\/p>\n
 _ oourts” below were justified in dismissing the suit of<\/p>\n
if  plaintiff and consequently this appeal has to fail<\/p>\n
 and it is dismissed. It is also made clear that as the<\/p>\n
matter is pending before the Apex Court, the<\/p>\n
observations made herein above shall not come in the<\/p>\n
way of the appeliant in pursuing the remedies <\/p>\n
to her in law in the event of the Apex  <\/p>\n
the appeiiant also being entitled to a share  _  <\/p>\n
property.\n<\/p>\n
e_tJUDGE<\/p>\n
Dvr:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court P Honnamma W\/O Late Chandu Shetty vs B Jagannath S\/O B Santhappa on 30 October, 2009 Author: V.Jagannathan IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated: This the 301%: day of October 20’Q.9″f . BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUs’r1cEV..gIAGA5NNA5Ifi~1A\u00a7Jf D’ R.S.A.N0. 1014\/200.1 \u00ab BETWEEN: 1′ V” PHONNAMMA, . w\/0 LATE CHAND”U M […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103462","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP Honnamma W\/O Late Chandu Shetty vs B Jagannath S\/O B Santhappa on 30 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P Honnamma W\/O Late Chandu Shetty vs B Jagannath S\/O B Santhappa on 30 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-28T00:41:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P Honnamma W\\\/O Late Chandu Shetty vs B Jagannath S\\\/O B Santhappa on 30 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-28T00:41:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2548,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009\",\"name\":\"P Honnamma W\\\/O Late Chandu Shetty vs B Jagannath S\\\/O B Santhappa on 30 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-28T00:41:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P Honnamma W\\\/O Late Chandu Shetty vs B Jagannath S\\\/O B Santhappa on 30 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P Honnamma W\/O Late Chandu Shetty vs B Jagannath S\/O B Santhappa on 30 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P Honnamma W\/O Late Chandu Shetty vs B Jagannath S\/O B Santhappa on 30 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-28T00:41:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P Honnamma W\/O Late Chandu Shetty vs B Jagannath S\/O B Santhappa on 30 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-28T00:41:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009"},"wordCount":2548,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009","name":"P Honnamma W\/O Late Chandu Shetty vs B Jagannath S\/O B Santhappa on 30 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-28T00:41:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-honnamma-wo-late-chandu-shetty-vs-b-jagannath-so-b-santhappa-on-30-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P Honnamma W\/O Late Chandu Shetty vs B Jagannath S\/O B Santhappa on 30 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103462","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=103462"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103462\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103462"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103462"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103462"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}