{"id":112353,"date":"2009-09-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-08-27T02:04:38","modified_gmt":"2017-08-26T20:34:38","slug":"the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Divisional Controller vs Smt Nagamma on 14 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Divisional Controller vs Smt Nagamma on 14 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: A.S.Bopanna<\/div>\n
HQTHEI\ufb02C%1COURT(MTKARNATAKA,\nCHRCUTFBENCHIUTDHARWAD\n\nDATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 20o9_j\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE A\u00bb;S._BOPANVN1 \u20acj\u00bb   % \n\nMFA No.21594(2oo8_ \nMFA N0.21595\/2008 AND 2 3._596i'-2068 \n\nIN MFA N0.21594\/2009  'A  \"\n\nBENNEEN\n\nTHE DIVIS~I'O'NAL; COP:ITR'OL\u00a3.ER,\"--*v\u00bb.... \n\nKSRTC, I>S1vISIOI~:'E~o.1?EICE%,'RAICHUR DIVISION,\nRAICHUR,'~_DIST:' RAIC~H'U.R',=._ * S_\n\nPRESENTLY VVREPRESENTED BY\n\nTHE CHIEF LAW OFF._IC'EF<*,...-NEKRTC,\n\n_C3EN'i'R\u00a3_;L" OFFICE, _GULBARGA.\n\n  %   ...APPELLANT\n(BY__ SRI'.'R1\u00e93l'[VI'Vv'; HQSAMANI, ADVOCATE.)\n\nAND\n\n. I ' SjMT".NACAMMA W\/OFAKEERAPPA\n"AGE. _32}YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,\n\n  ::ISsT: KOPPAL.\n\n-R,\/O-IUPPAR ONI, GANGAVATHI,\n\nJ\n\n'a\n\n".RESPONDENT\n\n\n\n2\n\nTHIS MFA IS FILED U\/S 173(1) OF MV ACT\nAGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED\n16\/O8\/2008 PASSED IN MVC NO.4I0\/2007 ON THE\nFILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) 3; MACT, AT:\n\nGANGAVATHI, AWARDING COMPENSATION \nRS.3,05,456\/- TO THE PETITIONER TOGETHER W*I',I:'ItI_ \nTHE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF' 8% RA.   \n\nDATE OF' THE PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.\n\nIN MFA N0.21595\/ 2009\nBETWEEN\n\nTHE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,  E'     = \nKSRTC, DIVISION OFFICE, RAICHI_.IR.DIVISION~,... \nRAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR;"'\u00ab. j  V  ~  \nPRESENTLY REPRESENTE'i)_AI:3Y'    ~ _\n\nTHE CHIEF LAW OEF'ICER,. NEKRTC,   \n\nCENTRALI1O_FF4ICEI,v'G'LI:LBIAI\u00a7GA_I I\n   _   I  APPELLANT\n(BY SRLRAVI  HOSIAI\/I.AN\u00abI,~IADVOCATE.)\n\n1.A  ._ \/O.I<UPFAvvA\nACE; SQIEARS, OCC: COOLIE,\n\n SINCEDECEASED REPRESENTED BY\n*  RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5.\n\n  'AIILINOAFFA S\/OXANKAPPA\n\nAGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN,\n\nI\n\n4'\n\n\n\n3. MANJAMMA D \/ O .YANKAPPA\n\nAGE: 16 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTEID.I_I'-~._\n\nBY HER FATHER RESPONDENT NO. 1.\n\n4. CHIRANJIVI S \/OXANKAPPA \n\nAGE: 12 YEARS, SINCE MINOR.REPEiE'S'EI5\u00a7ETEID.4_'_3  \n\nBY HIS FATHER RESPONDENT NOFSI   , VI "\n\n5. RENUKAMMA D\/O.YANKAPPA'~\u00ab I'~..  \u00bb ', 1\nAGE: 10 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED A\nBY HER FATHER RESPONDENT NO'.-3 Ij I  \n\nALL ARE R\/O.BHA_GERP.LTHNAfjAR\u00ab,.SINDHANUR,\nNOW R \/A.UPPAR ONI_,' GAN?OAVATHI*, .\n\nDIST: KOPPAL. ,,,,,   I. " ~ \n\n  I _   _ .  ";;:'RESPONDENTS\n(BY SRI.B.SHA'RA.NAI3ASAwA,. ADVOCATE, FOR\nRESPONDENT,.NO.;2 TO' ._  \n\nTHIS MFA'..;ISgFILE'DI._U\/S 173(1) OF MV ACT\nAGAINST"=_ THE _J{}DGMENT. AND AWARD DATED\n16\/08\/2003 p.ASSEDI'IIN*\u00bbMvC NO.409\/2007 ON THE\nFILE OF THE CIVIL 'JUDGE (SR.DN.) 85 MACT, AT:\nOANGAVATHI,  AWARDING COMPENSATION OF\n\nRSA.3,*v5I.4\u00b0sQQO,'\u00bb,: TO""*--'-'H-*IE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 5\nr_TOOETIIER 'NITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8%\n\n OF THE PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.\n\n IN MFA I~zO.2is96\/2oo9\n\n.  4'_'fIfHEIVDIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,\n   ---._KSR'I'C, DIVISION OFFICE, RAICHUR DIVISION,\nI  I  ~RA'ICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR,\n\nI\n\n5\n\n\n\nPRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY\nTHE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NEKRTC,\nCENTRAL OFFICE, GULBARGA.\n\n(BY SRLRAVI V. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE.)\n\nAND\n\n1. TIMMANNA S \/O.KUPPA1%INA.. _\nAGE: 27' YEARS, OCC: COOALIE,\n\n2. SMTERAMMA W\/O'.'TIMMA}$IA?\u00ab Q\nAGE: 25 YEARS, OCC;'HOU?SEWIvF'E.AND COOLIE,\n\nBOTH ARE Rf\/O. \nNOW R \/A.;UPEAR Q"--NI;;_GA1\\}'GTA'VATHI,\nDIST:      \n\n AAAA    I   RESPONDENTS\n\nTHIS MFA _IS.V""AFI'LED,_'\u00a7}\/S 173(1) OF MV ACT\nAGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED\n16\/08\/2008 PASSED 'INHMVC NO.-404\/2007 ON THE\nFILE OF' THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) 85 MACT, AT:\n\n  AWARDIN G COMPENSATION OF\n'RRS.1\u00ab,75,OOQ,'+A"\u00ab.TO THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2\n\nT'\u20ac)GIE'1'HER:_IWITH" THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 7%\nPA'. FROM  OF THE PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.\n\n I  MFAS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS\n\n VjD:AY, TI~I.EC COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:\n\nI\n\n'0\n\n  I-\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Since all these appeals”arise_.~os4t’::’.Vvof–d.::theav”  <\/p>\n
common judgment and separate awards’:  <\/p>\n
No.404\/2007, 409\/2007 ands’41o\/2oo’7t, these<\/p>\n
are taken up together  diSpos_etl..:()f <\/p>\n
2) Though the appeaistrnrMmNo.21595\/zoos
\nand 21596\/ .t steps, it is
\nseen that _  represented by<\/p>\n
Sri.B.Sh:aranabasava:.,’ leazjned ootlnsel in one of the<\/p>\n
matter thpereforep’ learned counsel appears<\/p>\n
for the;1*espon’de,nts in other appeals as well.<\/p>\n
‘ .3)  No.21595\/2008 the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
claimant is -dsjajri to have expired and the learned counsel<\/p>\n
 for the xuappuellant has filed a memo to treat the<\/p>\n
  ‘rfesxpdondents No.2 to 5 who are already on record as the<\/p>\n
t<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
legal representatives of the deceased. Memo accepted.<\/p>\n
Appropriate endorsement to be made in the cause titl’eiF.<\/p>\n
4) With regard to the contention in  .\n<\/p>\n
appeals, the appellant corporation”  the <\/p>\n
quantum of award in all the three  <\/p>\n
No.4o4-\/2007 the deceased weepVie.i.mieer.i eeeeesoely’<\/p>\n
question is with regard to the correctness or” otheriyise of
\nthe compensation which   The Tribunal
\nwhile noticing thisV’a_spec;tlof  has come to the
\nconclusion th;atll’t\u00abheie.VVthe absence of any
\nevidence Vlwith v4’4ti1e”‘income the other aspect of<\/p>\n
the matter  be assertained. Hence it has held that<\/p>\n
the arpipropriate compensation payable would be in a<\/p>\n
iisuirnliof.-. In a case of this nature I am of<\/p>\n
  the.V*ipeW  said compensation of Rs.1,75,000\/- in<\/p>\n
viii’-\u00ab.y__re_spect ~olft. the death cannot be considered to be<\/p>\n
 eieceissive. Accordingly the compensation as awarded by<\/p>\n
h  —-.llVtlr1e’_l’5I’ribunal is affirmed.<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
5) With regard to the compensation awarded in<\/p>\n
MVC No.40′)\/2007 it is noticed that the deceased<\/p>\n
aged 45 years. The age has been ascertained;frorn’_~..thie;_:u<\/p>\n
document at Ex.P.3 which is the postmorterri~,V ”  <\/p>\n
Though a higher income had it<\/p>\n
Tribunal, taking into consideration that therei.,;w.as nob<\/p>\n
documentary evidence in thisiegard,  the
\nincome at Rs.100\/– per  income reckoned<\/p>\n
at Rs.100\/– per  during.   any case<\/p>\n
cannot be he1d~e;;.o1’bita;nt\u00a2;v Therefore when the<\/p>\n
compensationix’Vbeen.L”awarded taking the monthly<\/p>\n
income at   other parameters have<\/p>\n
_ been ggproperlf  by the Tribunal, even the<\/p>\n
?.1coVrr1p_ensa’tion awarded in the said case does not call for<\/p>\n
interfe.ren’ce”,~\u00bb., ._ <. ' ' ' <\/p>\n
  regard to the compensation awarded in<\/p>\n
2007 the fact that there is amputation of<\/p>\n
 is not in disp\u00e9te since the same has been
\n: 'i<\/p>\n
established before the Tribunal. The document at Ex.P.3<\/p>\n
in the wound certificate which has been referred<\/p>\n
the Tribunal. The claimant was aged 30 years atjthef"  y<\/p>\n
of accident. The avocation as claimed by the i'<\/p>\n
that she was undertaking agricultural.lA.ivor,l.<" it<\/p>\n
tailoring. No doubt there Was=._n0 <\/p>\n
evidence to establish  facty.\u00a7V!4_i:lfIloyvej{erihtlfleivnclaiimants
\nhad relied on the photeg\u00e9aphs  P37 and 13.9
\nwhich indicated herself    avocation.\n<\/p>\n
Though the   ila\ufb01lbellant assailed<\/p>\n
the nature of iconsi.dering”‘*t1f;e_same by the Tribunal, in<\/p>\n
my View thesame is not g_eI=–ron”eous since said documents<\/p>\n
alone y\u00a7re1’e. not Vmaterials considered. In any event<\/p>\n
Zn\ufb01there  material to dispute the claim of the<\/p>\n
injured. T’he_refoire'” in a circumstance where her leg has<\/p>\n
ibeen  and considering that she could do<\/p>\n
,,4.’\u00ab.”tai:lorin_g, in any event the income reckoned at Rs.l20\/–<\/p>\n
would not be a higher side. Even on that aspect<\/p>\n
“-\u00abofwthe matter I see no 61350? committed by the Tribunal in<\/p>\n
*1<\/p>\n
awarding the compensation by reckoning the income as<\/p>\n
done by the Tribunal. Therefore even with regard <\/p>\n
instant case I see no reason to interfere.  T<\/p>\n
7) The learned counsel for the  T’<\/p>\n
contended that the Tribunal has~”grante’d   V<\/p>\n
interest at 8% pa. Though inthe  circnrnstaniceviiii’<\/p>\n
this Court would not have inter-fe1=ed vsiith Vthe:”_:dis,cretiion
\nexercised by the Tribuna1~.depen’di11g; on-.the factsef each
\ncase, in the instant case it no reasons<\/p>\n
have been.r–assigne’d::;;A_n_o1*.there’i-s…1:hiformity in grant of
\ninterest as the V”av;varded 7% in one case and<\/p>\n
8% in theiiiiotherii  ziience in this regard it is<\/p>\n
“a,ppro_pi!iat_e to rnoidifyathre award to the extent of granting<\/p>\n
i.i’;1te.re’st ciairnants at 7% p.a. The appellant<\/p>\n
  corporationpshaili deposit the balance amount payable<\/p>\n
\u00e9=;:r_1_d whii~evViic1;.rJing so the interest shall be caiculated at 7%<\/p>\n
 ..yp\u00a7i\u00e9;..i\ufb01’n:;.11 the cases. \\\u00a3<\/p>\n
4′.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Divisional Controller vs Smt Nagamma on 14 September, 2009 Author: A.S.Bopanna HQTHEI\ufb02C%1COURT(MTKARNATAKA, CHRCUTFBENCHIUTDHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 20o9_j BEFORE THE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTICE A\u00bb;S._BOPANVN1 \u20acj\u00bb % MFA No.21594(2oo8_ MFA N0.21595\/2008 AND 2 3._596i’-2068 IN MFA N0.21594\/2009 ‘A ” BENNEEN THE DIVIS~I’O’NAL; COP:ITR’OL\u00a3.ER,”–*v\u00bb…. KSRTC, I>S1vISIOI~:’E~o.1?EICE%,’RAICHUR DIVISION, RAICHUR,’~_DIST:’ RAIC~H’U.R’,=._ […]<\/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-112353","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Divisional Controller vs Smt Nagamma on 14 September, 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\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Divisional Controller vs Smt Nagamma on 14 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-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=\"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-26T20:34:38+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Divisional Controller vs Smt Nagamma on 14 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-26T20:34:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":748,\"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\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009\",\"name\":\"The Divisional Controller vs Smt Nagamma on 14 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-26T20:34:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Divisional Controller vs Smt Nagamma on 14 September, 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":"The Divisional Controller vs Smt Nagamma on 14 September, 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\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Divisional Controller vs Smt Nagamma on 14 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-26T20:34:38+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Divisional Controller vs Smt Nagamma on 14 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-26T20:34:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009"},"wordCount":748,"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\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009","name":"The Divisional Controller vs Smt Nagamma on 14 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-26T20:34:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-vs-smt-nagamma-on-14-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Divisional Controller vs Smt Nagamma on 14 September, 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\/112353","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=112353"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112353\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112353"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112353"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112353"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}