{"id":108154,"date":"2010-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-03-12T17:48:54","modified_gmt":"2015-03-12T12:18:54","slug":"papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Papaiah Since Dead By His Lrs vs Chikkaboraiah @ Balasettappa … on 23 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Papaiah Since Dead By His Lrs vs Chikkaboraiah @ Balasettappa … on 23 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Subhash B.Adi<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 23*\") DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010\n\nBEFORE\nTHE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADI_'...f\n\nREGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.188\/20o5\"\"' ' V-V-..:  ;_. \n\nEL'\n\nREGULAR FIRST APPEAL NOS. :89'\/2QQ5j'.AN):i12:9\/2965 I I\n\nIN R.F.A. 188 2005\nBETWEEN:\n\nPapaiah\n\nSince dead by his LRS.\nLakshmamma -- V \"\nW\/0 Late Papaiah  \nSince dead by h.e1--'..  =\n\nAshwatha\ufb01ppag I    \nSince deceased. by his<L_"Rs':v\u00ab..__  \n\nI. Smt.Ga.191agVammVa:-. _\nWj\/<5 late Asixwathappa\n.,aIZJQ'L1'[ 50 y'e.--a--rs\n\n A  ASriA,A._Laks\ufb01r13.ikan1I1\n\n. \/I0 Ashwathappa\n' . Aged ab'm_,1i.P"i8 years\n\n y 3: Mamuatlxa, minor\n\nn T \/O 'v1ai.e Ashwathappa\nVRep. by her mother.\n\n Appellants 1 to 3 are\n\n7 R\/at Old No.46. New No.4\n10*" Cross, 'I3' Street,\nAgraharadasarahalli\n\nMagadi Road, Bangalore W 79.\n\n\n\nI\nEx)\nn\n\n4. Honappa\nS \/ 0 late Papaiah\nAged about 55 years\n\n5. P.Shankar\nS \/ 0 late Papaiah\nAged about 50 years.\n\nAppellants 4 81. 5 are residing at\nNo.48, 'B' Street. 4"' Cross.\n\nMagadi Road. Agrahara Dasarahallj _\nBangalore m 7 9. A A\n\n(By Sri.R.S.Ravi, Sri. J ayarama &_\nSri. Mayanna Gowda, Advs.,) '\n\nAND:\n\nChikkaboraiah @ Baiasettap\ufb01-a_\n\nSince dead by LRs.: A '\n\nMastigowda @      \nS\/o lateChikkaborai.al1_V _   4_  " \nSince dead by \u00ab.     '\n\n1. S1*11iL, Ga_ngarri1*.\ufb01a A A  A   A  * "\nW\/ o Ia,te'*Mas!jgCwda'  "Chikkanna\nAged about 54 years." _ \n\n 2. 1.VE.\\\/AVisurariat.ld"  A\n\n_ 'S. \/A o i:atewMastigoW'd'a @ Chikkarma\n.  a.bQl;I~.33 years\n\n3. ._ "-i+1\u00a2friaii'iivh}:-agxg\u00e9glr\n'  \/ o late'i'x\u00a7as1igow*da @ Chikkanna\nAgedv--..Vab'eI\u00a71i 31 years.\n\n=  A. Respondents l. to 3 are residing at No.97\n" _ 733. 'A' Main Road. 3*" Block\n "~;1'i' Stage. Basaveswaranagar\ng Bangalore W79.\n\nA " on Si.' B.Ramakrishna\n\nS\/0 late Chikkaboraiah. Aged major.\n\n\n\n10.\n\nL\u00bb;\nz\n\nMiinikrishnappa\nS\/o Late Chikkaboraiah\nAged major\n\nRangamma\nW\/ o late Chikkaboraiah\nAged major.\n\nEramma\nW\/0 late Chikkaboraiah\nAged ma} or\n\n{Resp.l\\lo. ES 81 7 are Wives of late:=Chi3\u00a7.}<aboiraial1)'- 4'    A\n\nJayamma\nW\/o Doddanna\nAged major.\n\nResp. Nos. 4 to 8 are residiijg at ll\\\u00a5\u00abo.59';\u00ab_\nAcquisition Agrahara l3'asara_1frallvi   '\n4"] Cross, lndusirialToW'11_ A ' \nBangalore.    ' V A\nP.Krishn\ufb02pp\u00a71  ._ ._\nS\/o late 3Papa"i'ah  . '  .\nAged _a_bou'L_58'years.,_4" _ V' "\n\nDeVara}u'-- _  \nS\/ o latePapaia'h  = V\nAged about {l6ye--ars.\n\nEiespgoridents No.""\u00a7r& 10 are residing at\n\n,, .,No.46,,'B4' A\ufb02ivreei, 4"' Cross,\n\n  lvlagarlillRoad;:.Agra1"1ara Dasarahalli\nA' ._  -V-.27';-3.\n\nErappa -. \u00ab--\nS \/ o. Narayanaswamy\n\n _ Aged" major\n\nEmployee in Minerva Mills\n " \u00abResiding in House Situated in\n Survey No.81\/3, Agrahai-a\n Dasarahalli\n\nBangalore W 79.\n\nThe Respondent'   " \nare already on_-i'eo-oifd ga's,R4V \n\n\n\n12.\n\n13.\n\n14.\n\n15.\n\nDasegowda\n\nS\/o Ramegowda\n\nAged major\n\nEmployee in Plastic. Factory\nResiding in House situated in\nSurvey No.81\/3, Agraliara\nDasarahalli\n\nBangalore ~ 79.\n\n1\\\/Iuniyappa\n\nS \/ o Kempaiah\nAged major\n\nOCC: Coolie Work\n\nResiding in House Consti-ueted  \n\nSurvey No.81\/3, Ag1"ahara.7 \nDasarahalli V\nBangalore - 79.\n\nKemparangaiah\nS\/o Ganganna\nAged major\n\nOcc: Employee' in Bi:fa'1.y'l\\\u00bb'lfVillsS' \n\nResiding i11'Hc::u.s'e ConStr'ticted.Vi1"1--S "\n\nSurvey No.8.1_\/3.,5;1_\\gral_1a"ra_  \nDasarahalli\u00ab::__}_  \u00bb  \n\nBangalore .-- V'79:I'-, "  \n\nSubrafnalii V _ .\nS\/.o_ Sxvaminaihan \n\n,S\u00a7ir:ce~dead 'by_yLRs. V\n\n"v ,Smi. Nyavaneethamma\n" ,\/ o"Lai.e " Sulljramani\n\n"'Ageti n';aj_o'r: "\n\n _l5[b}\n\nS"Sml'.;.f 'G \n\nW \/'~ 0 Rulikesi\n\n n , Aged" major\n\niba\n\n " 4 "VV15(d}\n\nTiizmuda\n\nD\/o late Subramemi\nAged major.\n\nSaiya\n\n\n\n16.\n\n17.\n\n18.\n\n13\/0 late Subramani\naged major.\n\nRes. No.15{a} to 15{d} are residing\nAt No. 1, 8"' 'A' Cross, 11 S\u00e9age\nSampige Road. KHB Colony\nPapaiah Garden\n\nBangalore.\n\nVenkataramannappa\n\nS \/ o Sannappa\n\nAged major . \u00ab ._\nEmployee in Bangalroe City Co1'p.o1'a:_\u00a3i(:n'\nR\/at House No.2, Constructed in  1'\nSy.No.8l \/ 3, Agrahara Dasarahalli '\nBangalore -- 79.  \n\nV    deleted as per\nS\/o Chikkarangaiah   '_ _ _ order dated\nAged major       11\/11\/2010\nEmployee in Banga1ore..C_11:y Co1:poratioI'1i.V(- on memo filed\nR\/at House No. 1.0, C\u00a75_o11str';.1c1:ed~.in_\nSy.No.81 \/  Agrahara Da\u00e9a1'ahal1i 1' "\nBangalore 73.91\u00bb  A      ' '\n\nRangappa\n\nTippaiah' .    .\nS\/0 Mu11--isiddappa._  \nAged rriajol'   --V \nEmployee '' in A 13-i.Iii..:'1y M1'_11'\u00e9\nat P1'emi\u00e9eAs_VNo.1 1 ('SI 12 in\n\n _ -S_y".N_o.8 1.3, Agraimra Dasarahalli\n' ; _Bar1_ga1.ere'~--v\"?9; \n\nHb\ufb01appa \u00bbH ,\n   ..... ..'\n\n.., , .   years\n\nls\ufb01\n\no5$?\ufb01\u00aee\n\n v V \nA S\/0 1at.e'}f'_a.paiah\n\nPageCl.__'about 50 years.\n\nT Bhagyamma\n'W\/ 0 B.N.Na1'asimhaiah\n\n \" Aged about 48 years\n No.925, 4\"' Cross, 'B' Block.\n Vi}-ayanagar, Near Nandini Layout\n\nBangalore -- 96.\n\n\n\nAND:\n\n1.\n\n \":3a'11gav101*eA.-79.  \"\"\" \"\n\n[Appellant N0. 1[a]._ since deceased has\nNot been made as party)\n\nAppellants Md) 8: Me) are residing at\nNo.46, 'B' Street, 4\"' Cross,\n\nMagadi Road, Agrahara Dasarahalli\nBangalore w~-- 79.\n\n_[By Sri.R.S.Ravi, Adi\/,)\n\nSri.Yerrappa\n\nS \/ 0 Narayanaswamy\nAged major\n\nR\/a S.N0.81\/4,\nAgrahara Dasarahaiii\nBangaiore -- 79. \n\nP.Krishnqppa   \u00ab\nS\/0 late Papaiah   _  V\nAged about _5.8a_years\u00a7:\n\nDevarajui   \nS\/oglate P\"apg1iah'3, ' \nAg\"ed,abo'ut 46'   \nResponidents No,2 '& Segre residing at\nN048, 'B\"'Sireet;-<Jc"5'.Crt)ss,\n\nM\ufb01gigadi. Road; ~Ag'rah;~,ra Dasarahalli\n\n[  Crowds 81\n\ns 1'; J;M.iR\u00e9;w'1e:umai4, Advs. for C \/ Rm 1.\n\n'   Rw2 & __R;3 scare-:\u00a71}i'\nV' J  . _ _1'ri_ VR.F.A.~3.g_9(2005\n \n\n _11_"15;ip\u00e9u:ah\n.._Sinc.e dead by his LRS.\n\nii '" Egakshmamnla\n\n.. APp.i;i..i;AN'--i\u00a7s\n\n.. RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\nW\/0 Late Papaiah\nSince dead by her LRs.\n\nAshwathappa\nSince deceased by his LRs:\n\n1.\n\nSrnt.Gangamma\nW\/0 late Ashwathappa\nAged about 50 years\n\nSri.A. Lakshmikanth\nS\/0 late Ashwathappa\nAged about 18 years\n\nMamatha, minor\nD \/ 0 late Ashwathappa\nRep. by her mother;  \n\nAppellants 1[b)(i) to {iii} are  '\nR\/at Old No.-\u00e9~G,v New Am-.\u00ab1.f'\n\n10" Cr0ss,:~v'E'\u00abtSfreet:, __ :\nAgraharada.sarah._alli 7 \nMagadi fR0a_d"V V V". A"  \nBangalore 5'"? n\n\nHt\ufb01lappa  .   \nS\/0 late'--PapaiVa'r1._;'._ "  \nAged august V55"yfea1's\u00bb* _ \n\nShankar  'A\n\n. 0:,.late\u00bbIfapalah' """ " 'V\n.  abQt1t.5O years.\n\n._ \n' VW\/0 B.N'\/l\ufb01arasimhaiah\n\n"Agecll ab{)'{,1.t 48 years\nN0~.92j5, 4'-*1 Cross, 'B' Block\n\n A. ,3\/'ijavyanagar, Near Nandini Layout\n\n" _ Bangalore \u00ab-- 560 096.\n\n[Appellant No.1(a]. since deceased\nhas not been made as party)\n\nAppellants 4 <3: 6 are 1'esiding at\n\n\n\n-9-\n\nNo.48, 'B' Street. 4111 Cross.\nMagadi Road, Agrahara Dasarahalli\nBangalore --~ 79.\n\n[By S1*i.R.S.RaVi, Adv.._}\n\nAND:\n\nA\u00a7gedo'Major' '' \n\nSubramanyam\nSince dead by LRS. \nP.KrishI1appa\n\nS \/ 0 late Papaiah V. \n\nAged about 58 years  \nR\/at No.22, Papaiah Garden \nHousing Board Colony A\nBangalore -- 560 079, '. \n\nDevaraju * V V\nS\/o Late Papai-ah  \nAged about~4'{-";\u00ab.y%;ars*_ __\nR\/at No.46; 'B5jst_reet',\u00ab  _V\n4th Cros\u00e9, 4'  ,  '\n\nMagadi.  31.: ;;:_ ,\n\nAgrzvahara' I):-;sara'.h'a1.1:i' ' ~\nBangalore .-  --- d '\n\nSmt. Vao1j_1idth_a _ A \nW,\/ Q. Late s_'ubra'm3;'r1yeim\n\nW,GeetAha ,  V\n" TD'\/o "Late S_L1b;ramanyan1\n' .4yge(:i' m~_a_ ]_ 011: ' ' '\n\n'\u00a5':L11"I?.L1G3":\n\nD \/*0 late Subramanyam\n\nV n , o1__\\ged*'maj or.\n\nV' "Sdthi\n\nD \/ o late Subramanyam\naged major.\n\nResp. No.3[a) to (d) are resicling\n\n.. APPELL.-ANTS\n\n\n\nA lflv\n\nAt No.1. 6"? Main Road\n\n8"' Cross. Papanna Garden\n2"" Cross, Basaveswaranagar\nBangalore 79.\n\n7. Sri.H.C.Ashok Kumar\n\nS\/0 I~f.V.Chandrashekaraiah\n\nAged about 32 years\n\nR\/at. No.229, West of Chord Road\n\n5" Phase Extrr. Rajajinagar\n\nBangalore w 560 044.\n\n8. Sri.Kishore C.Sasihithal\n\nS\/o Chandrashekar\n\nAged about 40 years _ _\n\nR\/at.l\\lo.384, 'Sangam Nivasf \n\n161 'A' Cross, 3rd Block  \n\n3"' Stage, Basaveshwaranagar  '    \nBangalore -79. .    '  . V  .. RESPONDENTS\n\n{By Sri.Krishna Murthy G. Hasyiagiarj\nR-2 8: R\u00bb? served; Notice tosR'--"l,:R--3 .to_R~6'_ he'l'd sufficient}\n\nRegular_Fir_st'i1:ppea_1_No}l88\/2005 is filed under Section\n96 of CPC against the j1.idgment. and decree dated 8.9.2004\npassed in 'OS.:No..1 '10:};-,\/_I:i383..Q'n..tirie file of the l Addl. City Civil &\nSessions Judge, Bangalore'\u00bbCity\u00ab'(CCH.No.2), decreeing the suit\nfor declaration; V jfiernianent injunction and mandatory\niI"UunctiQI1- '' V 7  \n\nvv..Firstx"Aj:ip'eal No.189\/2005 is filed under Section\n\n "CFC .ag.ain_st the judgment and decree dated 8.9.2004\n\npassed in o.s'.Ne.s'491\/1982 on the file of the 1 Addl. City Civil &\nSessions. Judge. Bangalore City (CCH.No.2}, decreeing the suit\n\nC   for decla.rat;ion~and mandatory injunction.\n\nRegular vFirst Appeal No.l29\/2005 is filed under Section\n\n of_CPC~against the judgment and decree dated 8.9.2004\n\n _ pa'ssed"'i.n os.No.3489\/1982 on the file of the I Addl. City Civil &\n_ Sessions' Judge. Bangalore City (CCH.No.2], dismissing the suit\n __ 'for declaration and mandatory injunction.\n\nS V These Appeals coming on for hearing this day, the Court.\n"  delivered following:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
R.P’.A.No.l88\/2005 is by the first defendant in
\nO.S.No.1lO5\/1983. iR.F’.A.No.189\/2005 is by the plain~t_i_i’f in
\nO.S.No.349i\/1982. R.F.A.No.129\/2005 is by the p.la:inti’.fff’ir1
\nO.S.No.3489\/1982. First defendant in O.S.No.<\/p>\n
1:, V’<\/p>\n
plaintiff in two other suits. All these.;thVr.ee&  <\/p>\n
same person, questioning the eoninaori ju\u20acigriient.~.arid cipecaifeexiivn<\/p>\n
o.s.No.11o5\/1983, 3491\/1982 a1id~..3489yf 1,932 ::.aAt\u00e9\u00ab;1″‘s.9.–i2oo4’V.l’<\/p>\n
passed by the 1 Additional (__2ity CiVyil___d:udge_.,V Bangaloreif\n<\/p>\n
2. For the purpose lot’  parties will be
\nreferred to as per t.he:i’rW 3  trial court in<\/p>\n
o.s.No.3489\/;.ss*2,__  * l\n<\/p>\n
3. f’lI’aintifi”so:u\u00a7Vl1iili\u00b0orll’d._elelai*ation that he is the absolute<\/p>\n
owner of ‘A’ slehedule -prc;plerfy of which an area encroached by<\/p>\n
eonstijuetioii. as dCb\u20actilfZ.\u00a71″‘i31 ‘B’ schedule, which forms part and<\/p>\n
l’pa1’ee.l”ol’ ‘Ai lsel1edt1_le and for possession and also to declare that.<\/p>\n
the ‘sal’e.7deed–iexeeuted by legal representative of first defendant<\/p>\n
 in favohiirpofiseeorid defendant dated 28.8.1998 and the sale deed
\n   the second defendant in favour of third defendant
\n 2l4.5.200.1 as not binding on the plaintiff and for<\/p>\n
‘4..ii’3’andat:ory irijunetion directing the defendants to remove the<\/p>\n
construction unauthorisedly put up by them on the portion of ‘A’
\nschedule property as shown with \ufb01gure ‘I’ in the survey sketch,<\/p>\n
which is described as ‘B’ schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
4. Plaintcill’ claims t.hat he purchased the <\/p>\n
propert.y bearing Sy.No.8l \/4 under a registered deed   <\/p>\n
18.1.1969. The suit schedule proper:tyAA9iA?a’s <\/p>\n
enjoyment of his vendor prior to thel’.sa’ie_. Devfendant;’=.yvho’\u00ab.V<\/p>\n
claims to be the purchaser of the   ‘A’
\nschedule property has illegally overV”‘A””V\u00a7schedule
\nproperty and has put   inspite of
\nresistance put  by  the defendant
\nundertook to  inmorcier to locate the
\nproperty that  “defendant failed to get the survey<\/p>\n
conducted an’c’.4_inspit”e_olf.resistance by the plaintiff, they started<\/p>\n
_VconstrnL_\u00a7tio1i. wo1*l{‘–about 9 months ago over a portion of ‘A’<\/p>\n
vhschyediille  Plaintiff got the land survey sketch prepared<\/p>\n
f1\u00b0ori1,_co._1I}petent_ svAi_.l:i’1″Vx”‘r’eyo1′ on 4. 10. 1982.<\/p>\n
5; I\u00e9laintift in O.S.No.1.105\/1983 is one Chikkaboraiah.<\/p>\n
U’A\ufb02ay,clairnedwldeclaration and mandatory injunction in respect of
\nS_y.No.l8I:\/3 measuring 14 guntas from whom the other<\/p>\n
~l.d’efendai1ts in O.S.Nos.3489\/}982 and 3491\/1982 claim to have<\/p>\n
purchased the property. Sy.i\\los.8l \/4 and 8} \/3 both are
\nsituated at Agrahara Dasarahalli, a jodi village under the control<\/p>\n
and management of the then Inamdar D.R.Nagaraj. Sy.No..f3l \/3<\/p>\n
was adjacent to Sy.No.62. After the Inams AbolitioirAet’;._the<\/p>\n
land vested in the Government. in 1959.\n<\/p>\n
registered as an occupant of Sy.No.8_l,\/~3.__’   an id<\/p>\n
agreement to sell a portion of the land m.,eas’nrilng  <\/p>\n
shown in blue colour annexed toihe sketchwith =\u20ac3the–..wrtitten’V.i’<\/p>\n
statement. Defendant p1irchase_d__ ‘the v. propertyv V _ for  valuable
\nconsideration. Defendant.”‘s :”prope1%{t’y ‘i’s.VjsLii’1’rounded East by
\nhouse constructed by  ‘Board; West. by<\/p>\n
private road; No_1fth  and’dV.So1.:ithv’byVacant land. Plaintiff<\/p>\n
is neithergthe’Aovttner of the suit property.
\nSy.No.81\/4x\u20ac’is not  northern side of Sy.No.8l\/3,<\/p>\n
as shown in the” sketch. A’The”:sket.ch is a got up document with<\/p>\n
 connixgancepp of the”‘”RVevei1ue Inspector. According to the<\/p>\n
   situated adjacent to Sy.No.62. The house<\/p>\n
    defendant is situated in Sy.No.8l \/3. which is
\n away ~.f’rornVSy.No.8l.\/4. Defendant has got right. title and
\n  the property. it is denied that the Sy.No.81\/4 or
\n    ever suiveyed by anybody. ‘B’ schedule property does<\/p>\n
 u”13yot form part of ‘A’ schedule property and it forms part of<\/p>\n
Sy.No.81\/3. On these pleadings, defendant alleged that, there is
\nno cause of action for filing a suit for declaration and mandatory
\ninjunction. Similarly other defendants also \ufb01led written<\/p>\n
stiat,en’1ent insofar as the extent of land they had <\/p>\n
denied the claim of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
6. Plaintiff in O.S.No.llO5\/1983-is’conce_rned{“h’e claifrned.’ V<\/p>\n
declaration of his title and for mandatory also.<\/p>\n
permanent injunction to demolish._tjii.e shed .sn0_ym_ as:V’PCwiin the”<\/p>\n
schedule sketch. He clairned :”Sy.I’\\l.o.81l\\5vas_Aadjacent to
\nSy.No.62. He was enjoying’ more than 50
\nyears and on abolition of th’e”in:anV1′,’  ‘rights had been
\ngranted in his li-.<_372.:.\u00ab73,, thellslaid plaintiff did not
\ncultivate the  growth of city and formation of<\/p>\n
sites. Plaintiffentered_ tutor'  agreement with defendant Nos.2<\/p>\n
'__to 9 anidllaccordingly. he: executed a sale agreement; in their<\/p>\n
1i1_Ellt.he.my-ear 1976. They denied the possession of<\/p>\n
delfendant [nl'atntift' in other cases) and the encroachment<\/p>\n
H .V and in"'t–t1rr_;"claini1.ed that. the defendant No.1 has eneroaehed on<\/p>\n
-. , ..  Dl\ufb01opertylshown as ‘A’ schedule measuring 10 ft X 9 ft.<\/p>\n
l7.h”7.”:Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed 8<\/p>\n
times in o.s.No.iio5\/i983, 12 issues in O.S.No.3489\/1982<\/p>\n
and 7 issues in O.S.No.3-49}.\/1982. The issue was as to
\nwhether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the
\nsuit: schedule property, whether he is entitled for rnandatory<\/p>\n
injunction and possession against the defendants~\u00ab.V'””in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.3489\/1982. Similar issues are
\nO.S.No.3-4191 \/1982 against the__…\u00bb.._del’endaii’i:l..’:v\u00bb   in<\/p>\n
O.S.l\\lo.1lO5\/1983, the issues were wl3.eth’err~’thellplaintiff <\/p>\n
that he is the owner of the suili”’59hedu~Wl firstpl’<\/p>\n
defendant therein has trespassed _i_nltoj_his_ land  whether he
\nis entitled for Possession “i-and’ \u00a311ai}Alat0lrl3′.:llirlllinction and for
\npermanent injunction. lnsjoii’a\u00bbr_  Vissuesllinv&lC\u00a7\u00a7_Sl.Nos.3489\/1982<\/p>\n
and 349}\/1982i._are:;1ia’eonoernedl; Vtfislti””eourt held that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has   titlellmthe encroachment and has
\nfailed to prove’-thatVjhellistltentitled for possession and also held<\/p>\n
that the suit the p.1ainti.fflli’s” liable to be dismissed. However,<\/p>\n
 trial court held that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
‘therein’has.j_:p;:oiield–..that he is the absolute owner of the suit<\/p>\n
  schedule’  bearing No.81\/3 and proved that the<\/p>\n
lli’–\u00ab._.ude_fendant vh:gslenc1’oached upon the said land and proved that<\/p>\n
 llentitled for mandatory injunction for demolition of shed<\/p>\n
l’*-jeonstructed over it and for possession and for permanent<\/p>\n
V ‘* “injunction.\n<\/p>\n
-16-<\/span><\/p>\n
8. To support the case. plaintiff had examined two
\nwitnesses as PWs–l and 2 and produced EXs.Pl to P12 through<\/p>\n
PW–l and EXs.P1 to P19 through PW~2. O11 behalf7oli”e.the<\/p>\n
defendants, DWs–1 to 5 were examined and Exs.D1 <\/p>\n
produced.\n<\/p>\n
9. Trial Court on appreciation offthe edzideiipeelpheld’ that<\/p>\n
plaintiff has failed to prove that he  ownerloii the’: <\/p>\n
schedule property bearing Sy.No.lE\u00a7’i1.:\/Til and lfaile’d-lto .lp:1’ol\\l\/he that
\nthe defendants had  failed to
\nprove that he is entitled for  held that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has failed”toL’p1’o{:e   for permanent<\/p>\n
i.I1junctior,;l ‘iii-ial.iVje_ourft.ideereed thelsluit in O.S.No.1105\/1983.
\nIt is against’ the clorr1_Ii1oj\u00a7i.jlu’el,cgjfi*:eea1t in three suits, the plaintiff in<\/p>\n
O.S.Nos.V3489\/l4l9S2e.andA”v.3?i\u00a7Q1\/1982 and first defendant in<\/p>\n
“o~_.s.Ne[{\/ L983 has\ufb01fiield all these three appeals.<\/p>\n
  learned Counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
  appeliants  that, defendants have not disputed the
\nentitle of t,he_pI1aintifi’ in Sy.No.81\/4. Though remotely it is alleged
\n .A._thla_t,AA.theplaintiff is not the owner, however, to support that the<\/p>\n
  is the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.8l \/4.<\/p>\n
rp1aintit’i’ has produced registered sale deed EiT.x.P2 dated<\/p>\n
,\u00bb- E<\/p>\n
18.1.1969, executed by one Hotteppa in favour of father of the
\nplaintiff. Accordingly, the name of the father of the plaintiff was
\nmut.at’ed in the index and also R.T.C. Insofar as encroachmerlt<\/p>\n
is Concerned, it is the speci\ufb01c Case of the plaintiff:.:”‘t.liat.<\/p>\n
defendants eneroached upon the plaintiffs land   ‘<\/p>\n
shed in 1982. To support the same,\u00bbAA\u00bbVpl_aintjtftlhas’;ll<\/p>\n
EXP4 — survey sketch and the Surveyor lias *-‘.55V11ollvu’nA”thl’e <\/p>\n
eneroached by the defendants. ‘1f1e~~.Valso relied 7; andf’<\/p>\n
18 -~ Tippani and survey settleme1f1t”to_ show ltliatllanel bearing
\nNo.81\/4 was measuring “1.i7aCrep   Though these
\ndocuments Coupled .with  ‘one of the legal<\/p>\n
representatives  pla.ir1:l’;_ii;i; etlearllyil”establishes that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff   the.l_property bearing Sy.No.81\/4 and
\nalso proves’\u00abene1″oae.hraenlt”blv'”defendants at various places as<\/p>\n
indicated in  vliowelverfllthe trial court observing that the<\/p>\n
 land is-.a:’1’1iinamlalid arid’ the plaintiff has not sought for regrant<\/p>\n
of   trial court has held that. the plaintiff has no<\/p>\n
  gitlelltontlie  He submitted that, Ex.Pl0 is ad copy of the
\nVlie~.i___p1l1o_,tiee  13y Surveyor to the defendant and it is after the
\n jlofnotiee, Ex.P4 has been prepared. EXP4 Clearly proves<\/p>\n
  of the plaintiff. lie also submitted that, during the<\/p>\n
ul”p.endency of the suit, plaintiff had filed an application in<\/p>\n
I.A_No.l5 producing the gazette notification to show that
\nSy.No.8}\/3 in its entirety i.e., 14 guntas has been acquired by
\nthe B.D.A. and the award has been passed and as such, there is<\/p>\n
no existing land as 81\/3. However, the said applicatton’p”.vvaiys<\/p>\n
rejected by the trial court. Had that app!-icatioln<\/p>\n
considered, the plaintiffs case WOLllC_l~’l’}3_\\{‘\u20ac been”dee1’ee.d;; as V<\/p>\n
there is no land available in Sy.No.8l  an_d’*subi11iAtted <\/p>\n
trial court committed an error in  app’1’-eciatingv ti}_e”ve\\,rid:ence’V. ‘<\/p>\n
and not considering the ap_plicatioyn__land ‘furt.hei”‘ s.ubn1itted that,
\nthere was no justification to ‘decree  1983 as there
\nwas no material to Show that; {was the owner of<\/p>\n
the property   had. lithe property to the<\/p>\n
defendants. lll*lo\\r;?leVve_t’:’3.’the.:trial coiirtlalieging that the plaintiff
\nhas not disputed  Survey No.81\/3, has decreed<\/p>\n
the suit_cont1’al1ly to  elvidenee on record. He also submitted<\/p>\n
 vvli’ei2,t*-a.Atlr1veAi’e  lr1’o”‘i11ate1’ial to show that there is any<\/p>\n
enc1’oa_cl’irnerit-‘by the plaintiff, there was no just:.ii’ication to<\/p>\n
‘ ”   dec1*ee_the Slllt’:ll)1;;1na\ufb01daiOYy injunction in O.S.No.1 105\/I983.<\/p>\n
 11.” the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
  submitted that, plaintiff is not claiming any right,<\/p>\n
‘  and interest in respect of Sy.No.8l \/3. Plaintiff has relied on<\/p>\n
  Ex.P4. HOW(;’.V\u20acI”. EXP4 is not ajoint survey or survey conducted<\/p>\n
 l””E’urther, they relied on the evidence of PW~2 to show that PWw2<\/p>\n
_]g_<\/p>\n
with due notice to the defendants. The said documents neither
\nprove the ease of the plaintii’f of encroachment nor disclose that
\nthese defendants have encroached upon the land of the plai_nt.iff.<\/p>\n
Except showing some portions marked in blue eolou.r’;:l’tl’1e’rg”‘.iys<\/p>\n
nothing to indicate that the said property has beeri:”eIv1eroalehueda ”
\nby the defeI1dants. There is 11othir1g\u00bbAA\u00bbto.4indieat\u00e9fnat  it<\/p>\n
defendants have eneroached upon   tilt.  .\n<\/p>\n
the defendants that, Chikkaboitala.h was ir1\u00aband’~l<\/p>\n
enjoyment of Sy.No.81\/3__ and it,___vJa.,s”Vj_odi hland along with
\nSy.No.62. He applied for it regranted in his
\nfavour and thereafter he entered  of sale in<\/p>\n
favour of defenlC1a1’2fts.._V . ‘There _w.’-is l nVo””‘notiee before the<\/p>\n
preparaticyn ‘is notice issued to the
\ndefendants} VTn’al ‘Cpouifjt.’thasiA”eategoriCally held that, EX.PlO is<\/p>\n
not legible, there  rloiihitngltio indicate that it is a notice issued<\/p>\n
 Apdefendants. As far as EXP}? and P18 are<\/p>\n
iafrpe only Tippani and survey settlement in<\/p>\n
l   respeetllof  But these survey settlement or Tippani
\n also liotprepared after notice to the defendants nor it prove
\n   AV  of the plaintiff over Sy.No.8l\/ 3 or against<\/p>\n
 ___”(lfhil{l{ahoraiah. No relief is also sought against Chikkaboraiah.<\/p>\n
-20-<\/span><\/p>\n
at more than one place has admitted that he does not know the
\ncorrect extent of Sy.No.8l\/4, he does not know what is the
\nencroached area, he does not know the correct I11\u20ac&1S111’\u20acI’Vl.’:’\u20ac_f1l, of<\/p>\n
encroachrneni and in turn he admits that, his father”:h’a-sp:’sold<\/p>\n
the property and constructions have Come up. In fact, *e’c;~..u’-“c V’<\/p>\n
Commissioner was also appointed, however’, he retiur-i1edV’with “a<\/p>\n
report that since the entire area is ic\u00bbov\u00e9:}ed’  <\/p>\n
developed. it is not possible to rnakep any””;:urtreyi._V P’:1._2:1i’ntifi; hasw f<\/p>\n
not disputed the title of ChikkabQl%ii\ufb01h”.,QV\u20ac1′.’Sy\u00bb.NAO.Vf\u00a7\u00a71\/ 3. Its<\/p>\n
extent is also not in dispute, 7.p\u00a3iefendants.,, have purchased<\/p>\n
‘_different piots of different :dri’11icn:sion.s’;i,_  admitted that<\/p>\n
the construction.s’..Vhave_.conie_u:p. i\ufb02ejhas also admitted that, he
\ndoes not   hasencroached to what extent.\n<\/p>\n
When the plaintiff has the encroachment, when the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is not fdispvvuting thetrttle to Sy.No.81 \/ 3 and the evidence<\/p>\n
does rio_t\u00b0di_scIose theHar”e”a’encroached, the trial court apart from<\/p>\n
ap_prce_iating_ithattthere is no regrant in favour of the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
  also.’  that plaintiff has failed to prove title and
\n _4en_croac’hmie’nt.io the suit schedule property and application \ufb01led
\n   was dismissed long back on 9.9.2003. Even if the
\n ___”e’.1’1tireevidence is reconsidered by this Court. as first court of<\/p>\n
if  9 if there is nothing 10 show that the plaintiff is the owner of<\/p>\n
the suit schedule property nor the plaintiff has made out any
\ncase for mandatory injunction. in turn, even the schedule<\/p>\n
mentioned to the plaint does not disclose the correct boundaries<\/p>\n
and identity. in these circtimstances, even looking at “fro:{i”–ai1y<\/p>\n
angle. it does not call for any interference.\n<\/p>\n
12. In the light of the above subrniseions, <\/p>\n
arises for consideration in these appealsist’. A’<\/p>\n
Whether the plaintiff in ‘o.”a_Nos.3.2s9,\/Vias:2r.j’\u00a2ma”
\n3491 \/ 1982 has made out a ctiselfor dectaration Qgfl his
\ntitle and has made out a case-of”mandatory irgrinvzftion
\nin respect of ‘B’ schedule (7Lnd_ h”t}~S Vn1’c:-ode out a case
\nthat the judgment aria’ decifee; in ‘O.lS.No,_i 105\/1983<\/p>\n
cattsfor interference? H ”  .\n<\/p>\n
13. FE1C’LS,_V’3.?.lvfl’1i’%;ll’_’.I:l.iT\u00e9:”I1(lt _displute”‘are, that: Plaintiff is
\nclaiming  “C:’>y’.No.8i\/4 measuring 1 acre 13<\/p>\n
guntas in ptirsuancle_of.:E:rli?2l dated 18.1.1969, a sale deed<\/p>\n
_Vexecutectl\u00a7y2l”Iotte\u00a7i)p.a:in favour of plaintiflg father. It is not the<\/p>\n
“‘cas’e’iofl iplainigiff that. he has any interest in Sy.No.81\/3.<\/p>\n
Det’ei_1″danits’:lals_o’l.:’do not claim any interest in Sy.No.81\/4.<\/p>\n
it Defeiidl\u00e9tntsfi ‘specific case is that. Chikkaboraiah was the
\n sold the land to Subrainanya, Erappa and other
\n and they have constructed the buildings over the
\nljlpiroperty purchased by them. it is also not in dispute that the<\/p>\n
“”(‘3ourt Commissioner appointed to make a local inspection has<\/p>\n
_ “7’? A4<\/p>\n
returned with a report that it is not possible to survey or make a<\/p>\n
local inspection and give a report about the enc1’oachment._<\/p>\n
14. To support the case, plain.tii’f relies on l<3x.P-'\u00a7~…lj <\/p>\n
a survey sketch produced by the plaintiff. No    <\/p>\n
that there are some markings. but it doesnot7shoxv:that._these<\/p>\n
rnarkings are the encroachment by the'.defendants\u00a2,Al' th'ey'=–4o'rllyl'-<\/p>\n
identify some construction. Wlietlier  shad
\nencroached upon the Sy.NQ;.8R1\/4 been 'ascertained. if
\nthe plaintiff had sought  and
\n81\/4. It is not thecase there was a joint
\nsurvey. Howe*ve'rl" 'i..relieciilV_:on_ '\ufb01lil.PIO to show that
\nthere was fa.n.otilc\u00ab?:lblutdool\u00e9ilrigat 0, it does not even show
\nwhether ithwas'  any one, no particulars are<\/p>\n
forthcoming in "'lf:tl2.\u00e9'_E:}'{.P4 is prepared without notice,<\/p>\n
defendanitsl againstnlwhiom encroachrnent allegation is made and<\/p>\n
V. in theiabsence evidence of the Surveyor, it cannot be held that<\/p>\n
t',heil"plairitiff'  'Alp1*oved the alleged encroachment. Further,<\/p>\n
 lVExs.Pl'7"'—-anci'\\Plv8ll are the Tippani and survey settlement. They<\/p>\n
_. , .,  do not prove the plaintiffs case of any encroachment.<\/p>\n
'J5. It is in this background, it is necessary to consider the<\/p>\n
lll"—-._glplaili1tiil's evidence particularly PW\u00ab2 only, as PW–l did not<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
su.bject himself for crossexamination. PW–2. the only oral<\/p>\n
evidence which is available on record, and has categorically
\nadmitted at more than one place that he is totally ignorantabout<\/p>\n
the encroachment, extent and sale transaction and in..'t'urr;,"he<\/p>\n
categorically admits that it is his brother was loolging  *<\/p>\n
case. If this evidence is considered, it _is..li1ardly.lot"'any and <\/p>\n
does not even support the case of the ;:3'lai.ntiff.._   he:<\/p>\n
admits admission that; the buildings'-..ha'-Je  in-. L'<\/p>\n
Sy.No.8l\/4 about 25 years earlier.llhe:_d-oes not\u00ab.:l_;r1owl}the area
\nencroached by the defendants'; Elle ~-:1'ot,"giye the particulars
\nof the area alleged__to i1a{m..,i\u00a7eenV..\u00a2;:;c14;5a.\u00a2hV\u00a2i;1."' What is the<\/p>\n
encroachment area is\u00a3al_so_r;otltorthconii'ng;*""Apart from the fact<\/p>\n
that the evidence'   no  the plaint schedule also
\ndoes not disclose theylcor"rect.:en.r:roachn1ent. Neither there is a<\/p>\n
pleadingnor the're_b1s..a1–nevidence to show that the defendants<\/p>\n
,f'lh'ad Apinto\ufb02thelvland bearing Sy.No-8l\/4 and have<\/p>\n
"in.tl1i'l'ding. Plaintiff having made such allegation<\/p>\n
  __and   the burden was on the plaintiff to prove
\n the evidence produced by the plaintiff oral as well as
\n  do not establish his case nor the encroachment of
\n  'schedule property. Even the necessary party like<\/p>\n
 Chilikaboraiah is not been impleaded in the suit as. through<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
Cliikkaboraiah, these defendants have purchased the property.
\nThe sale deed of Chikkaboraiah is not in question. The title to
\nSy.No.8l\/3 is not the subject matter of any dispute. There is<\/p>\n
elaborate cross~eXaInination of PW–2 and the evidencetofi<\/p>\n
only shows that he is ignorant of the transaction  ~<\/p>\n
case. On the other hand, defendants haveled the'  and <\/p>\n
have produced sale deeds Exs.D2, 3, 4.7._i4;an.d <\/p>\n
establish that they have purchased the'-..plroperiyl'iQf…\u00a2different–.lli'<\/p>\n
dimensions from their vendor and –._thei.r' \u00abcase lfiis that,
\nChikkaboraiah was the orig-i_ri:al_  favour land was
\ngranted' and all these docurhents. A epstah.lilsh}_*~ that they have<\/p>\n
purchased the   property'  it Sy;No.81\/ 3. It .is not<\/p>\n
the Case of  have encroaehed on the
\nland of thel'\u00abplaini;iiT._.l'lt;is*~al'so~"noi: their case that they have<\/p>\n
constructed on""Sy.No}81i}'.4ll"': Their specific case is that, the<\/p>\n
 are standing"o'1'i'the property bearing Sy.No.8i\/3 and<\/p>\n
  registered sale deeds, there is nothing to<\/p>\n
   disbelielve t.h.isl'lefvide1iCe. as it is not the case of the plaintiff that
\n,'..9;i\u00a7 also his land. The trial court on appreciation has
\n  the plaintiff having failed to prove his case and
\n _'11'a5e1a~;di;1fits having shown their title to the property by virtue oi'<\/p>\n
 llmgilstered sale deed and there being no dispute as regard to the<\/p>\n
-25-<\/span><\/p>\n
title of Chikkaboraiah, there remains nothing to prove the
\ndefendants’ title and there is also nothing on record to prove the
\nalleged encroachment. It is in these circumstances, the trial<\/p>\n
court on proper appreciation of the entire evide\u00abnc.e”‘–._has<\/p>\n
categorically given a finding that the plaintiff has fafiedly i-<\/p>\n
his case of deciaration, mandatory injunction a_n’dl’p’o,s’ses’siVon. –I it<\/p>\n
do not find there is any error in the said,jud’grnenf’t.andl’decree,ll7T_A<\/p>\n
16. insofar as O.S.No.i10l5\/lli~993 is VcoI1cl(‘\u00e9lI7ni’3:di”rrlearned” if<\/p>\n
Counsel for the plaintiff, who is  1\\lo1’1.,,iAn_this case,
\nsubmitted that, the evidencekwhtch  by the plaintiff
\ntherein also do not;i’establish”\u00bbalnylencroachrnent, however, the
\ntrial court has    it   thelcase of the plaintiff
\nthat, the e.nci’oachrne’n_tliisl”c],a’irnled in Sy.No.8i\/4. Assuming<\/p>\n
that the evidence doeslln.o’t_ls_how the clear encroachment, the<\/p>\n
__,encroac.1\u00a7tme1at claimed is: in respect of Sy.No.81\/3. if the<\/p>\n
A’p_la.in’tiff has  his title to Sy.No.81\/3, and encroachment is<\/p>\n
alleg;Ted.._inA  81\/3, as the plaintiff has not claimed any<\/p>\n
ll3’lt\u20acl’\u20acSl””l,I’1 t.he’s’aid property, this suit is decreed on the basis of<\/p>\n
“*.4th,e’ evidence of encroachment, it is in the these circumstances,<\/p>\n
l_lth_e’-tri’al*lcourt has decreed. What is decreed is in respect of<\/p>\n
 and not in respect of Sy.No.81\/4. In these<\/p>\n
I.\n<\/p>\n
_KN1’~\/I\/–\n<\/p>\n
eircumstances, I find that there is no error in the said judgment.
\nAccordingly, I pass the following;\n<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
All the appeals fail and same are dismisseg\ufb01   ~<\/p>\n
bear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Papaiah Since Dead By His Lrs vs Chikkaboraiah @ Balasettappa … on 23 November, 2010 Author: Subhash B.Adi IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 23*”) DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010 BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADI_’…f REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.188\/20o5″”‘ ‘ V-V-..: ;_. EL’ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NOS. […]<\/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-108154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPapaiah Since Dead By His Lrs vs Chikkaboraiah @ Balasettappa ... on 23 November, 2010 - 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\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Papaiah Since Dead By His Lrs vs Chikkaboraiah @ Balasettappa ... on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-12T12:18:54+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Papaiah Since Dead By His Lrs vs Chikkaboraiah @ Balasettappa … on 23 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-12T12:18:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3508,\"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\\\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Papaiah Since Dead By His Lrs vs Chikkaboraiah @ Balasettappa ... on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-12T12:18:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Papaiah Since Dead By His Lrs vs Chikkaboraiah @ Balasettappa … on 23 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Papaiah Since Dead By His Lrs vs Chikkaboraiah @ Balasettappa ... on 23 November, 2010 - 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\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Papaiah Since Dead By His Lrs vs Chikkaboraiah @ Balasettappa ... on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-12T12:18:54+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Papaiah Since Dead By His Lrs vs Chikkaboraiah @ Balasettappa … on 23 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-12T12:18:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010"},"wordCount":3508,"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\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010","name":"Papaiah Since Dead By His Lrs vs Chikkaboraiah @ Balasettappa ... on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-12T12:18:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-since-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-chikkaboraiah-balasettappa-on-23-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Papaiah Since Dead By His Lrs vs Chikkaboraiah @ Balasettappa … on 23 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/108154","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=108154"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108154\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}