{"id":128029,"date":"2008-07-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008"},"modified":"2019-02-13T18:13:12","modified_gmt":"2019-02-13T12:43:12","slug":"b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"B Mruthyunjayappa vs Gurumurthy on 2 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
B Mruthyunjayappa vs Gurumurthy on 2 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Arali Nagaraj<\/div>\n
1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED T113 THE 211:! DAY OF' JULY 2008\nBEFORE\n\nTI-IE Hownm nm.Jus*r1cE ARALI naaanpsgr %  ff f 1  \ng_1v_g nsvrsxon rmmogg z\u00a2<),83z29s_::_*\u00a7j%k   C  _ V': %  \n_      " .  \n\nB MRU'i'%~iYUNdAYAPPA\nS,\/O.MAL.LAPPA,\n\nAGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,   \nR\/A'i'.3:3HEEMASAND1{A' *\u00a2;LL.AGE,%% ; V\nCHITRADURGA TALUK Az~:z1;1  *   \n\nB M s0MAsHEKARza3?1?A..jT-\u00ab-%%V   " _    \n8\/o.MRu'1'HY.um;aYAP12A;. a  }\nAGED A\u00a3s0"mi'5G Yi9Af\u20acS'}.,\u00e9"'-  "\nR\/O.b1iG NO. 16,~:;:,1-.u;)'V.M'A1re,%.%% % .\n\n2ND STAGE,.I"x'MV "1:2oLLo1*~zs QOLONY,\n\nBAN<3ALoRE--94.  %   \n\n Pi\u00a3'i'\u00a3'i'1{,)N19i<(S)\n\nW-s\ufb01 71;:1\u00e9A*z'1L, ADV )\n\nv -..-.:w;..'.,...\n\n-v'\u00ab4___GURUMt\u00a5__F<'1'HY\n  \u00a75._f\u00a3};\u20ac}H1NNAVl\u00a3NKA'l'APPA,\n\n'   ACiED ABOUT 67 YEARS,\n'-\u00abR.\/'{,).V.PALYA VILLAGE,\n\n  -.I_zI1I:EGUNTANUR 11031.1,\n"=,CHi'i'RAL)Ul-\u00a3(.'rA ' 'ALUK.\n\nBASAPPA\nS] 0. CHLNNAVEN KA'1'APl:'A,\nAGED ABOUT $3 YEARS,\n\n9"-V--.\u00a7"*""""""\n\n\u00ae\n\n\n\n9 S M SWAMI\n$1 ().SiDDAPPA,\nAGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,\nR\/0.Dl,NDAi)Ai~iALLY VILLAGE,    3 \nCIIYFRADURGA TALUK AND I)IS'I'RIC'I'.   M j   %\n\n10 S M SWAMI\nS\/o.s11)DA1~'PA,\nAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,,* \nR\/QIJINDADAHALLY vu,LAQ:~a:, ._   \nCHITRADURGA TALUK ANn*m 3TRIc1*.-- .% 'T   % \n\n11 SMTJAYAMMA  J   \nw1o.Gu1<Am\u00bbA,   \nAGED ABOUT53    \nK\/o.u1NnAm\u00a2s:;uw \\(\u00a3L,LA{}};\u20ac;j'~_VV % \nCHI'I'RADI.IRG\ufb01fTALUK'ANI)..D\u00a7S'TRIC'I'.\n\n    M\n\nAGED ABOUT.39'YEA\u00a7:3.,* %\nR]O.D;lN,DADAfi3?&LL'\u00a3.__V\u00a3LhAGE,\nCIIITRA}_7_UI?,GZ'-. T"ALUK;AND mswmcr.\n\n_,;3 *i'.\u00a3\u00bb\u00a7\u00a7Z2XGARAJA...V:v\n\n \u00e9SfO_wRA\u00abPPA' .. %%%%% ..\n A VVAGED 'ABQUT 59 YEARS,\n ' K-,\/0..1);.Ni).A!)AHALLY VILLAGE,\n* CE~IITIQA--!3U1?GA TALUK AND I)ISTRIC'I'.\n\n 14 mm % J '=J1'XI?.1\n\n _ S\/O.(3URAPPA,\n VAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,\n Vi\ufb01\/.\u00a3).DiNDADA1*lALLY VILLAGE,\nfCIII'i'RADURGA TALUK AND DIS'I'I"\\'IC'I'.\n\nV V " ,  M 'mg: 'I'AHS1l..DAR\n\nCl-11' YRADURGA TALUK,\nCI IITRADURGA.\n\n ,RESPON1)EN'l'(S)\n\n{By Sri S NAGAKAJA -35 OMKAR G FOR R1-K4)\n\nr\u00a7""\\--\/~\/'\n\n\n\nCR1' FILED U \/S 1 15 OF CPO AGAiNS'l' THE Oi{DE.if.{"'}e)'l'.\n8.2.08 PASSED ON IA IN OS N0. 127\/O2 ON THE \n\n'i'i-.ll:s) own, JUDGE (seem), Ci-i1'1'KAJ.)Ul<GA, i)_i:~:'sM1if5$:\u00a3S:{,}\n\nT111": IA FILED U\/O VII RULE 11 (a) 83 (d). \n\n'm1s }:'E'i'1'i'l0N COMING ON *1?H.1s._o \n\nmy, me COUl~\u00a3'i'.MAD11Z'\u00a3'HE m1,Loxvmc_;;'% is \u00ab\n\n\nPetitioner Nos. 1 and    i'espective1y\ndefendants} and 2 in  'ehailenged the\norder dated    by the learned\nCivil Judge  (hereinafter\nreferred to   for short) rejecting the\napplication of  under Order 7 Rule 1 1(a)\nand (d)  ~ of plain: in the said case.\n\n'i'iioi1g\u00a7h'\u00abtf;ie  listed for admission it is taken up for\n\n _fi11al  of the learned advocates for both the\n\nVdsides   are heard. All the documents\n\n.1 ~- Vwihe Iespecdve parties to this revision petition\n\n impugned order are perused.\n\n V    Stated in brief the facts leading to the present\n\n xfevision petition are as under:\n\n(\\_\u00a7'"'\\...----#"-\u00bb\/r\n\n\n\n(H)\n\nThe first petitioner herein namely\n\nB.Mruthy1_1njayappa \ufb01led O.S.No.\n\nrespondent No.2 Baeappa  <\/pre>\n
that he has been the  ovener   t
\nof the land sy.No.2s which gebseqggeney so %<\/p>\n
be sub-divided as  “ofV’:Di?i2\u00a7.dstdahaHiV<\/p>\n
village of  \u00ab*1’aluk’AAaiJad District
\nChitradiurga   A  inj unetion<\/p>\n
arid,’  V. _’i’he”  suit came to be<\/p>\n
    vdudge by passing the<\/p>\n
 d”‘e’.’:1_’ee.’oI1 27.1.2005. Aggrieved by<\/p>\n
 *   .- \ufb01rst petitioner preferred<\/p>\n
 e+e<.y'.A';1?gs*'7\/o5 before this Court. on 24.9.07<\/p>\n
  the said appeal was pending before this
\n  the \ufb01rst petitioner (appellant therein)
\n""v.witt3drew the said appeal and also 0.8.179\/96<\/p>\n
 with liberty to \ufb01le \ufb01esh suit.\n<\/p>\n
However, during the pendency of the said RFA, on
\n18.6.07 the \ufb01I’St peti\ufb01oner herein \ufb01led, along with
\nhis son as plaintiff Nos. 1 and ‘2 respectively,
\nanother suit, 0.S.No.\u20ac:6\/07, against as many as 9<\/p>\n
defendants, who are respondent Nos.5 to 14 in<\/p>\n
(-\u00ab–(\\”””\\._..—\u00bbx__,,<\/p>\n
6<\/span>
\nthis revision seeking the very same relief of<\/p>\n
declaration that he is the absolute ownerV.Vof’_:l_thve<\/p>\n
very same property that was    _
\nO.S.No.179\/96 including the same:   ‘ *
\nannexed to the plaint herein.\n<\/p>\n
relief of declaration assassins title to s r<\/p>\n
the petitioner ,.aiso regightrror the afeiier of
\ndeclaration that  Deed dated
\n10.4.20\u00a3)4;;’exectited’l\u00e9sy Nos.2 to 9 in
\nfavour’ “~No’.”V_1′:”.therein in respect of a
\n  was null and void and<\/p>\n
    Respondent No.2 Basappa<\/p>\n
:. was  A  as a defendant in the said
\n \u00ab:.(3.;’ii$.No:66\/67;”il’l’he said suit came to be decreed<\/p>\n
  the learned Judge by his judgment<\/p>\n
 and  dated 29.9.07 as all the defendants<\/p>\n
tiiereixi (who are respondent Nos.5 to 14 herein)<\/p>\n
‘  remained absent despite receipt of summons.<\/p>\n
After ceming to know of the said ex parte decree
\npassed in O.S.No.66\/07, the second respondent
\nherein namely lrsasappa, his two brothers viz.,<\/p>\n
respondent Nos. 1 and 4 respectively Guruznurthy<\/p>\n
(~—-.\u00a7-\\”‘_’\\_–\u00bb’-‘\\_—-\n<\/p>\n
(<1)<\/p>\n
  rejection of the plaint therein.\n<\/p>\n
and Bheemappa, and also third respondent<\/p>\n
Smt.Lakshn1a1I1ma being the wife of iate <\/p>\n
another brother of 2″” respondent,
\n0.8.127\/07 before the same   V
\npetitioner Nos.1 and 2   .’<\/p>\n
5103.1 and 2 and ‘defeiidante “jthe e %<\/p>\n
relief of ca11ceB–,a\u00a7ion eef  in\n<\/p>\n
0.S.No.f)E>\/O7 o\ufb01   Saree court;<\/p>\n
seeking.   and also the<\/p>\n
,9;ft\u00a2-:4 e     to be \ufb01led by the<\/p>\n
1-. the petitioner Nos. 1 and ‘2<\/p>\n
_   therein appeared before the
\n and  their application under Order 7<\/p>\n
    e :1 and (d) read with Section 15; eye<\/p>\n
The<\/p>\n
 AA   Judge, by passing the impugned order<\/p>\n
 Fdated 8.2.2008 rejected the said appiication. The<\/p>\n
correctness of the said order is ehajlenged in this
\nrevision petition.\n<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
3. Sri Ashok B.Patii, learned counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supret:1e\u00bb-<\/p>\n
in the case of ‘.r.A:-zuandandam u. r.v.sa;ggaml”i~i is <\/p>\n
another reported in AIR 1977 so 2421 smong13\u00e9l[ is <\/p>\n
_…_,r-…._,,..\n<\/p>\n
that on meanin ul – not formal-real! din ;oi’.. :’the_’aver5tiei;ts*?1in<\/p>\n
the Plaint it could be seen ‘-they”  iiotteoiistituize V01’: *<\/p>\n
disclose any cause of aetion a,_;fest)or:dent:5plaintiI’t”s
\nagainst the defendants  _  to the reliefs
\nsought for in the said   counsel for
\nthe respondents,    decision of the
\nHon’b1e sopr\u00e9me\ufb02   Hagar [H.K.) Ltd. 3.\n<\/p>\n
ors. us.    M.V.Fortune Exprws 8\u00bb
\nare. repoxftedx iii  1828 submitted that if the
\n   eause of ac\ufb01on which requires<\/p>\n
  Court the plaint cannot be rejected<\/p>\n
 under’ .7′  1 1 ope and, whether the plajnt discloses<\/p>\n
‘ ” ia’\u00ab<\u00a7a1tse of setion, is a question of fact to be gathered from the<\/p>\n
V   made in the entire plaint and therefore, if they are<\/p>\n
 it could be seen that the plaint discloses cause of<\/p>\n
 ,__,4JaCtion to the Iespondentnplaint\ufb01fs against petitioner-<\/p>\n
' V. defendants.\n<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
4. Before considering the rival contentions of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the parties I feel that it would be to<\/p>\n
extract the relevant portions of the judgments in   <\/p>\n
cases. In AIR 1977 so 2421  z\u00e9.  ‘~ <\/p>\n
T.V.Sa.tyapal and anotheza the Hon:’t)1e:\u00a75*s\u00a73xerse’ <\/p>\n
observed at para Nos.5 and 6 as iixiderz ”<\/p>\n
“The learned Muns\ufb02 must    ofi a<\/p>\n
mea1:ai;ngful —- not fo1’ma_1}~ It’adiI71.g”Qf the plaint it is
\nmanifestly vexatious,  In-sritless’,\u00bb. fin the sense<\/p>\n
of not disclosing a clear   sa,1e’,*~ Ij\ufb02e should
\nexercise his power u1{1de_,r11,7’CPC taking
\ncare to  .,groi,md _Is.entioI1\u00e9d therein is
\nful\ufb01lled. iAnc3′,~. ‘  has created the
\nillusion of  of ‘s.etioI1,_ nip\u00a7 it in the bud at
\nthe    ex\u00e9niirting the party
\nseareiiingly urxdeaf “U.  C90. 3 An activist Judge is
\nthe answer to law suits. The trial
\nCourts would iIisist.im;5era\ufb01’vely on examining the
\nparty at the \ufb01xsi:  so that bogus litigation
\n  shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal
\nA’  is: also resoiireeft\ufb02 enough to meet such
\n .mer_1, ((.)h,}~\u00a3i)”and must be triggered against them.”
\n  .   4 *  (Para 5)<\/p>\n
‘ “‘i’h.-e trial  in this case will remind itseif of
\nL S.35~A;,C.P.C. and take deterrent action if it is
\n  “”sAatisf1ed” that the litigation was inspiied by
\nQxrvexatious motives and altogether groundless.”<\/p>\n
2  * (Para 6)<\/p>\n
 skssw%::1&t.eg;:eTcase of Mayer (H.K.) Ltd. and others mm 2006 so<\/p>\n
 the Honfble Supreme Court has observed at para 11 as<\/p>\n
under”.\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span>
\ni:3.M.Somashekarappa (defendant No.2 in the said suit) that<\/p>\n
since no decree is passed in 0.S.No.\u20ac>6\/0′? against<\/p>\n
plaiI1t1′:ff\u00a7,\ufb01\u00bbno cause of action has arisen for the   <\/p>\n
e–~5″”‘”\n<\/p>\n
institute the present suitand theI’efor\u00a3:pj:t>1e  ‘{iV.<:.e:," " = 'V<\/p>\n
0.8.127\/O7) for cance\ufb02a\ufb01on of V\u00a7iatt%.eji_:A<\/p>\n
29.9.07 passed in o.s.eo\/07 d'o\u00a2's~._not"'sz\u00a3revive',::fo:j'warit of <\/p>\n
cause of action and, the  of p\u00e9ira 15 is
\nfalse and  x A V  .\n<\/p>\n
6_ Order 7 R1u\ufb02\u00a2o.} 1.\n<\/p>\n
\"The plain;    cases:\n(a)  of action;\n(b) Where \"t'E1\u00e9 V. undervalued, .\n<\/pre>\n
(C) \\\\{here_\ufb01e3I’%\u00e9\u00a7  is property value-d….<\/p>\n
 “v..[d)”\u00a7hero the oiiitkppears from the statemant
\n . ;’\u00abi;Vx !:_he:pl\u00a7i:;_t to be barred by any laws”<\/p>\n
 ..  (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
 \u00b0\u00bb._\u00ab(.)I1* 3.  of the provisions of clause (a) of Rule 1 1<\/p>\n
 ‘\u20ac.)rd’er*-  and aiso the above said avennents in the<\/p>\n
agaemtof the second petitioner sworn to in support of the<\/p>\n
k eVoeFeoapp1i\u00a2ation under Order 7 Rule 11 cm it could be seen that<\/p>\n
  is not the case of the petitioners that the averments in the<\/p>\n
plaint in the said suit do not disclose am; cause of action; on
\n(.\\__~j’*’\u00b0-‘\\…~—-“\\..-2’<\/p>\n
l2<\/p>\n
the other hand, it is their case that ‘no cause of acticn has<\/p>\n
arisen to the plainti\ufb01’ to institute the said suit Ma”<\/p>\n
action averred in the plaint at para 15 is false  _  <\/p>\n
What is required to be averted and as.sei’ted  <\/p>\n
defendant in such petition under Order i’?__A.l<11le 1A'(a}' <\/p>\n
' the plaint does not disclose "cf V-'t that
\n' cause of action avetrred      and
\nimaginery ' or that ' the    of action to
\ninstitiite the suit     is done by the
\n  On perusal of para
\n15 of the   the plaintififs have
\naverred therein! "action has arisen to them in
\nthe third geek    when defendants\u00bb-I and :2,
\n other  by canvassing in the village<\/p>\n
that stheyii  ed the decree in respect of the suit<\/p>\n
  application for change of katha on the<\/p>\n
 of decree and therefore the plai11ti\ufb02's enquired<\/p>\n
 advocate and looked into the court records and<\/p>\n
   t  -the applications in the Tahsildafs o\ufb02ice \ufb01led by the<\/p>\n
'defendants for change of katha of the suit schedule property.<\/p>\n
7. As laid down by 1-:1on’ble Supreme Court in the case<\/p>\n
of Hagar (H.K.) Ltd.’s case (AIR 2006 SC 1828} refemed to<\/p>\n
13<\/span>
\nsupra the Court has to read the entire plaint as a whoie and
\n\ufb01nd out whether it discloses the cause of action for the<\/p>\n
plaintiff. Furt.her, as observed by the Hon’ble Suprexrke<\/p>\n
in the ease of turtuandandam (AIR 1977 so  <\/p>\n
is also referred to supra, the reading _oftt_1e piairitii  ” ”<\/p>\n
‘meaningful ‘ but not ‘formal 1 on pgmsai eragafa <\/p>\n
the plaint it Could be seen tnaitng piam\ufb01es  <\/p>\n
thus:\n<\/p>\n
“The land b\u00e9a\ufb01ing stuvey No.2V3~”of…}JiI1dadahalii
\nvillage   30 iaeI_es 29 guntas,
\nearlier  to””o11e’oe}:3e;i:ig’ara% Kariyappa. The
\nsaid Ka-Iiyaj3pa’s”‘ aneygtezit of 17 acres 6
\nguntaas in ‘fa1r_ou1’\u00a5.Vof . 4’ Meke \u00abHanumanthappa on
\n4.1.1941 ‘who is the  father of plaintiffs No. 1,
\n2 and”  _ mutation” been accepted in
\nM.R.No.4G~s.-‘%}1vvdt.3 1.3’. 19441″<\/p>\n
 , “‘l’he’:., p”iaini;i\ufb01”s”-V  the successors and in
\n\u00b0-po”s;sesEe”io1i’..of the said land continued to be in ‘
\n ‘;;;oe~seesion\u00ab “and enjoyment of entire survey
\nie..Nge.23\/22 ‘ <\/p>\n
iv  is further  at paras 4 to 6 of the plaint as zmder;<\/p>\n
 “–C\ufb01uefendant No.1 filed a. suit 0.3.179\/9e in the
\ncourt of Pr1.Civi1 Judge (3;-.on.) at Chitradurga.<\/p>\n
_   the 23*’ plaintiff herein for a declaration<\/p>\n
  ” and injunction relating to the Land bearing
\na. “”Sy.No.23\/23:3 of Diddadahaiiy village. On full trial
\n the IIon’bie Court dismissed the suit holding that
\nthe defendant No. 1 herein was not the owner in
\npossession of the said land which was the subject<\/p>\n
in dispute in O.S.No.179\/96. The IIon’b1e Court:<\/p>\n
{__~f”~\\\/”\u00b0~._.,,,.–\u00bb–\u00bb-\u00bb<\/p>\n
\u00a34<\/p>\n
also held in the said suit by accepting the
\ncontentions raised by the plaintiff-2 herein.”
\n(Para,   T e <\/p>\n
” Against the said judgxnent and —:__f. <\/p>\n
0.8.179\/96 the defendant No.1 herei1′:.__ \ufb01led”
\nRegular First Appeal before the l~ioI1’i:>’le~~ C ‘i:1’1gl.1 * _
\nCourt of Karnataka, in RFA.No. 1237\/ 3005 .;agaiz1stV  =
\nthe 23\u00b0’ plaintiff herein. The  .. -‘pla’1nti\ufb01’  if
\n0.3.66\/07 have actually misled tI1e”I.Ion’ble;_;
\nand committed fraud in getting the deeree~\u00bb.i.tl’–:at
\nhas been passed in 0.8.66\/0’Z{“t.The defellrdante in
\no.s.ee\/ o7 are colluding  plain\ufb01e meyeid
\nnot appear before t11e”ee_u1’t;;’d” ‘ ~  _  ‘A ll
\n ‘ * ‘  “”1F3i’3S5aBd 5}<\/p>\n
8. on careful” and   of the above
\naverments at   -to 6  thevlplaint filed by the
\nrespondents, in  as plaintiffs, it is
\nclear that itlAis__tl1vei’r–  that their grand. father
\nptuehasenfl the  during the year 1941, get the<\/p>\n
  his favour in the same year and, he had<\/p>\n
    enjoyment of the said during his life<\/p>\n
   ‘after him, these respondents have been in<\/p>\n
.1   enjoyment of the same, and that the first<\/p>\n
 herein \ufb01led his o.s.179\/9e, claiming absolute<\/p>\n
.  V  Ao\ufb01vnership over the said property and the same came to be<\/p>\n
 ildisxnissed and the R.l<'.A.1237\/05 which was \ufb01led by him<\/p>\n
aggieved by the judgment and decree of dismissal of the said<\/p>\n
(.l,._.<*v—–1__~v<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
suit also came to be dismissed as withdrawn and, during the<\/p>\n
pendency of the said RFA he \ufb01led, along with his son,’ <\/p>\n
0.8.66] 07 by suppressing the factum of pendene\u00a7V–\u00ab   <\/p>\n
RFA and without impleading the second   as V’ ‘ <\/p>\n
defendant and thus obtained,   <\/p>\n
defendants therein (who are    the” V<\/p>\n
ex parte decree in the   \ufb02thatwhe is the
\nabsolute owner in possessteeget’  to which he is
\nnot entitle. V  ‘V t 2  2 h<\/p>\n
9. it is  the 1*” petitioner, after
\nlosing his”    Basappa seeking
\ndeclaratioxwrbhht he.  owner of the said land and,<\/p>\n
during   of his  REA that was filed against the
\n: ‘A -. V _,. ,4<\/p>\n
 and  “o\ufb01fdislnissal of his said suit\ufb02\ufb01xed his<\/p>\n
0tS..6t.>_\/ very relief of declaration but without<\/p>\n
En”‘VV’i3nplee.d.it1gv__tE1ehA4Eilii?’ respondent as a defendant therein and by<\/p>\n
h ”  tin the said suit the factum of pendency of the<\/p>\n
  Further, though he had ahead}; \ufb01led the said<\/p>\n
 , he got his K}-‘A and also 0.8. 179\/96 dismissed as<\/p>\n
ddir\u00e9ihthdrawn with a liberty to file \ufb01e-sh suit in respect of the<\/p>\n
V. same property, without diselesing the fact that by then, he<\/p>\n
had filed the said 0.8.66\/O7. Had he disclosed in his<\/p>\n
(..~_:’\\-z-u\u00bb–“\\Z<\/p>\n
16<\/span>
\nO.S.\u20ac>\u20ac>\/07 the pendency of RFA er had he impleaded 2110′<\/p>\n
respondent as a defendant therein he could not have obtained<\/p>\n
ex parte decree in 0.8.66\/()7, because in that event,4.the\u00a7:’i3?d<\/p>\n
respondent could have certainly brought to the   .<\/p>\n
learned Judge the dismissal of O.S.1’_Z9,196   “‘ it<\/p>\n
the said am. Further, as could be seen sen: tiie.jud’gntient<\/p>\n
().S.No.179,\/96, a copy of w11ier1V.i:s-ieeif1ied’set::i_ ti,s;tI127_\/sfz,-as the <\/p>\n
issue No. 1 therein which ‘read VAa_su:”‘.._Whether–.1;he,.Eplainti\ufb01’
\nproves that he has the  properties in<\/p>\n
an auction conducted’ by  during the<\/p>\n
year 194\u20ac>~4rfi”   iiiegative and issue No.3
\ntherein whieh  e  the defendant proves that
\nsons of   name Kenchappa and Dodda
\n\\  of 17 acres 6 guntas of land<\/p>\n
 Rs.\u20ac>()\/- on 4.1.194 1 in favour of Meke<\/p>\n
 As} o.\\\/addara Sanna l:5heemanna “R” was<\/p>\n
  the —-~- A\ufb01imzlativc in favour of the defendant<\/p>\n
it    Thus it is clear that had the petitioner No.1 made<\/p>\n
 second respondent, if not respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 also,<\/p>\n
as defendants in his subsequent suit in ().S.No.\u20ac)6\/U7, the<\/p>\n
said defendant would eertainly have produced copy of the<\/p>\n
(e.___w_r”\u00bb~m\\__,,_<\/p>\n
F?\n<\/p>\n
judgment in O.S.Ne.179\/96 and in that event the teamed<\/p>\n
Judge would not have decreed the said suit in favo 2.? f”t1;i’eu<\/p>\n
first peti\ufb01oner. Whether this conduct of the   <\/p>\n
amounts to fraud committed on the cotirt, as   <\/p>\n
respondent-plaintiffs, has to be decided  A’ <\/p>\n
Therefore, in View of all these facts  it ‘V<\/p>\n
could not be said, as contended   for the
\npetitioners, that the plaint ”   disclose any
\ncause of action and   ought to have
\nrejected the plaiet  (a) ope.\n<\/p>\n
1 1.    counsel for the
\npetitioners   on the decision of Horfbie
\nSupreme    Limited 1:. Debts Recovery
\n  reported in AIR 1993 so<\/p>\n
    contention that the averments in the<\/p>\n
i’  do”\u00abnot,.__vdiscEose the cause of action. On careful reading<\/p>\n
 the said ease and also the proposition laid<\/p>\n
 H.on’bie Supreme Court it could be seen that the<\/p>\n
  V  , V _ ‘  therein, the bank, had instituted the suit against the<\/p>\n
‘l.”‘wtiidefendant for recovery of money on the basis of letter of credit<\/p>\n
allegating that the seller did not supply the goods to the buyer<\/p>\n
<' <\/p>\n
18<\/span>
\nand thereby committed fraud. On those facts the HoI1’bie
\nSupreme Court observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
“An allegation of non-supply of goods by <\/p>\n
sellers to the buyers did not by itself axnount,’
\nlaw, to a plea of ‘fraud’ as understood i13;”–tI_1iS_; ‘, <\/p>\n
branch of the law and hence by    it<\/p>\n
characterising alleged non-movement of..goozls*~as _
\n‘fraud’, the Bank in a suit for recovery on basis or
\nletters of credit cannot claim that T there” _w’as\\.a,_
\ncause of action based “Hon. A’ fI’\u20acii_1_d–._
\nmisrepresentation. There was alsono allegation of
\npresentation of forged or \ufb01r\u00a7a’t3.duler1t__ documents’. ‘<\/p>\n
‘ ‘he nommovement of goods by the sellerjeetiltig be<\/p>\n
due to a variety of tenable.l’er–.i;ntenab1e reasons,<\/p>\n
the seller may be of “t_he”‘eont1’act but
\nthat by itself does not  ya  bank to<\/p>\n
use the word ‘fraud’ in the plaint ‘andget over any
\nobjections thatniay  raisedi”‘liy.  of filing an
\napplica1:ioI1.iincier._.()..”7 “K. 11, GPC.””‘l’hus it could<\/p>\n
be said that’,.”‘there__ _ ieaiase of action even<\/p>\n
from the plaintallezgations, against the applicant
\nand the ‘jplaint \u00a7vo1i1ti.~1)e..c1iab1e to be rejected under<\/p>\n
0.7  11,”CPVC._.,’l’hl.1s””it Could be said that there
\n was no ca1.i’se_V of action even from the plaint
\n‘  . allegations,  the applicant and the plaint
\n._ . wouid_ be -liable to be rejected under 0.7, r.11(a) as<\/p>\n
  applicant.” (Paras 23, 27 and 29).\n<\/p>\n
  sag}  the above decision is of no help to the<\/p>\n
” i,jpetiti.oners’ iziasmuch as the facts of the said case before the<\/p>\n
V   t\u00e9'{1p1’fII31\u20ac Court are quite distinct from those in the<\/p>\n
c }\u00a7i’ES\ufb02Ilt case.\n<\/p>\n
12. Sri Ashok l5.l’atil, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
 petitioners further submitted that the plaintiffs in the said<\/p>\n
\u00a2 <\/p>\n
l9<\/p>\n
suit did not issue notice under Section 80 of CPU against the
\ndefendant No. 13, the Tahsildar of Chitradurga, and therefore<\/p>\n
the said suit was barred under Section 80 0390. As V.<\/p>\n
this, Sri S.Nagaraj, learned counsel for the  _<\/p>\n
plaintiffs submitted that since no renefwhstseeve;-s f.s~:sc1_1ght’ as <\/p>\n
in the said suit by the pla:inti\ufb01’s a_gsj:aj1st:’tf1el ‘re’s\u00a7)oif1dei3,t+<\/p>\n
Tahsildaa’, notice under Sectior:lV_\u00a3-H}.  ivas  ><\/p>\n
On perusal of the averments in  ass  Ieliefs
\nsought for therein it could eesees  felief whatsoever is<\/p>\n
claimed against the:’defeeds;:1tiI’;~so; This being<\/p>\n
so, the sutiinlssionof   for the respondent
\nplaintiffs deewes  <\/p>\n
13.; The coiuisel for the petit3’oners also urged<\/p>\n
  _ did  produce all the documents along<\/p>\n
  es-required under Order 7 Rule 14 CPU and<\/p>\n
lllllltherefore the  is liable to be rejected. This submission<\/p>\n
H   cannotwhe accepted inasmuch as none of the clauses of<\/p>\n
 ‘.1 Qrder 7 UPC provide for rejection of the pla\u00e9nt on the<\/p>\n
  that the plaintiff did not annex to the plaint an the<\/p>\n
ldocuxnents relied upon by him.\n<\/p>\n
14. Sri Ashok B.Patll, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners, shongly urged that respondents- 1 to 4 herein,<\/p>\n
\u00a2__,.m..s”‘–‘”x_,\u00bb~–\u00ab<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
who have filed their O.S.No.127\/O7 seeking cancella\ufb01pn ef<\/p>\n
decree passed in 0.8.66} 07 have no right ‘file<\/p>\n
the said suit seeking the said reliefs as    <\/p>\n
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was party to'{5\u00a7S’.”e~\u20ac;f.O7.;.\u00ab’f}}ie_  d<\/p>\n
submitted that the deeiaration obtained byddthe  <\/p>\n
in the said suit in respect of  preperty  the<\/p>\n
parties to the suit but -Qfesgmhdehts who were
\nstrangers to it. He further  t$.1stvAA–b3?d__ViItue of Section<\/p>\n
35 of Speci\ufb01c Reiief ‘get; the ideelsrietien.’.1:tiede under Sec\ufb01on<\/p>\n
0″.\n<\/p>\n
34 in the said b1I1ds”eAriJ;711_yK;pia1*\u20aci1″es to the suit or the
\npersons    _bfutwnet the person who is not
\nparty to it  of Section 3 I of the said Act<\/p>\n
the pxese\ufb01t 1’2.7] eahnet be maintained as, any of the<\/p>\n
 reliefs’   the said suit cannot be granted to the<\/p>\n
15*.   the above submission of the learned<\/p>\n
4_foz9″the petitioners, Sri S.Nagaraj, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
 the ‘i’*es’pT\u20ac>ndents, submitted that as provided under clause (d)<\/p>\n
 ‘   Rijie ll of Order 7 UPC the plajnt may be rejected enly<\/p>\n
 \u00e9when the suit apmars form the statement in the plaint to be<\/p>\n
barred by any law ‘ , but not on the gound that the reliefs<\/p>\n
sought for by the plainti\ufb01’ therein cannot be ganted to him.<\/p>\n
<…._.C"\\"-*"'–\u00a5%"\n<\/p>\n
2:\n<\/p>\n
He further submitted that none of the Sections 3 1, 34 or 35 of<\/p>\n
the Speci\ufb01c Relief Act bars a suit and therefore if mckpgcacti\ufb02’<\/p>\n
succeeds in estabiishing his averments made in  <\/p>\n
may be entitled to such relief as he maybe fea111d.1\u00a71esei’vijVt1g;if\u00ab <\/p>\n
not the reliefs ciaimed in the piajntz. <\/p>\n
15. in support of his conte_,ntions; sr: ;\u00bb\u00a7s};_cs:. Vsniyctiigi *<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petjitoners,\ufb02\u00a7iasV_ep1aoed\u00ab   on<\/p>\n
the decisions in<\/p>\n
(1′) PatasibaiVuand”‘bti:efsV_’r;s;c._1?eita:\u00a7ii\u00e9i2’ { (1990) 2 scc<\/p>\n
(ii)   zvcgenczra Neath Datta and
\n .-another  1′-982 CALCUTTA 163) ;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) n\ufb02lcmaiaii  vcmnc v. State of Andhra
\nprcdc.sn*(,s;1.*e 293.2 CALCUTTA 157; ,-<\/p>\n
 ” oPonn\u00a3i1no:1o’.i  Guruvctmmal and others v.
\n” V’  others (AIR 1952 Madras 552);\n<\/p>\n
  Rameshrwctr v. K.C.Sethia (1944) Ltd.
\nn  {AIR 1950 Caicuttc: 702)’<\/p>\n
 3    have carefully gone through the facts and the<\/p>\n
  in all the above said decisions. it is the settled<\/p>\n
.  V    that in a given case, if the plainti\ufb01’ establishes the<\/p>\n
  averments made in his plaint which constitute cause of action<\/p>\n
for him, the C01lI’t,6VCI1 if \ufb01nds that the plaintiff is not entitled
\nr–‘f”‘
\n.r””~'”””‘<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
to the very relief or reliefs claimed in the suit, it may mould
\nthe relief and grant the same to the plaintiff based en the<\/p>\n
established facts relevant to the suit. The plaint, <\/p>\n
cause of action, cannot be rejected on the   <\/p>\n
any of reliefs claimed by the plaint\ufb01fiii.     at it<\/p>\n
granted unless there is any   \u00ab.\n<\/p>\n
entertaining the suit itself in  ofixthe  far’<\/p>\n
by the piainti\ufb02’ in his suit. pf Aiiaiiabad, in the
\nease of Narendra   u. Sukumar<\/p>\n
Chand   1994 Allahabad 1
\nhas observed     ” i h<\/p>\n
“A suit cazmot be dismissed by rejection of plaint
\nfor; not havi.*1g”c1aii;aed correct relief. A relief,<\/p>\n
    a plaint, can be moulded by
\n” the   if the relief, which is claimed by the<\/p>\n
 i  itiet proved, the Court may refuse to
\n .g’i”;4.r1t”vsi1ef;h~.’i’eiiei’, but it cannot reject the plaint
\n‘relief claimed for by the plainti\ufb01’ is not<\/p>\n
_ s\ufb01bstzizltiated by him on evidence. Moulding of
\n relief is permissible under 0.’? R37, CPU. The
\n  ..in.elusien of cause of action in the pleadings is also
\n not~.t.he requirement of 0.7 K11 C.P.(3. it cannot
\n  that the cause {if action has any relation<\/p>\n
it   with the relief claimed.”\n<\/p>\n
xltihas further observed at para 33 therein as under.<\/p>\n
“if there was any defect in the relief clause of the
\nplaint, that could be corrected by the plaintiffs by
\nappropriate amendment. lstvezn new the piain\ufb01\ufb01s
\ncan file an application for appropriate amendment<\/p>\n
(‘A t .. \\_’___x’__~m_<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
and the Court below has to consider the
\ndesirability of allowing them to amend the plair\ufb01,
\nand claim the reliefs which could be gI’a_t11;t:’.C1_4
\nunder Section 14 of the Act. For not articuiatixig.  <\/p>\n
the reliefs properly the plaint Could not be__mjeCteti—-    .<\/p>\n
under 0.7 K} 1(3) 0.13.0. does not eorltain ‘
\nprovision by which a plaint can be_rejer_:ted “for
\ndefect in the relief claimed by the  —  * _  <\/p>\n
17. Following the above vjpd\ufb01eot\u00bb. of  L’<\/p>\n
Court, 1 am of the considered    in the<\/p>\n
present case can not be  (a) or
\nunder clause ((1) of__Rule   Since 1 have<\/p>\n
arnv’ ed at this eonelusioii,   ._i1’ot”discuss in detail the<\/p>\n
above     Hoiflole Supreme Court, High
\nCourts of tlaleutta  referred to supra which are<\/p>\n
relied ugoir by the  counsel for the petitioners.<\/p>\n
    of rxlstforegoing discussion, 1 hold that the<\/p>\n
 j~q\u00bb,;ite justified in rejecting the application<\/p>\n
  of the  herein (defendants in the said suit) that was<\/p>\n
nuI_lder”..0rder 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of ore. seeking<\/p>\n
 r\ufb01eeflionj of the plaint. As such, the impugzed order dated<\/p>\n
 3.2.2003 passed in O.S.No.127\/U7 by the Court of Civil<\/p>\n
 dodge {Sr.L)n.)_. onitradurga, rejecting the said application<\/p>\n
does not call for any interference.<\/p>\n
(_~’MJ_,.–.’\/\\,,..\u00bb-*\\\/’<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
19. Hence the present revision petition is dismissegi as
\nbeing devoid of merits. in the circumstances,  V.<\/p>\n
order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court B Mruthyunjayappa vs Gurumurthy on 2 July, 2008 Author: Arali Nagaraj 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED T113 THE 211:! DAY OF’ JULY 2008 BEFORE TI-IE Hownm nm.Jus*r1cE ARALI naaanpsgr % ff f 1 g_1v_g nsvrsxon rmmogg z\u00a2<),83z29s_::_*\u00a7j%k C _ V': % _ " . B MRU'i'%~iYUNdAYAPPA S,\/O.MAL.LAPPA, […]<\/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-128029","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB Mruthyunjayappa vs Gurumurthy on 2 July, 2008 - 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\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B Mruthyunjayappa vs Gurumurthy on 2 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-13T12:43:12+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B Mruthyunjayappa vs Gurumurthy on 2 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-13T12:43:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3650,\"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\\\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008\",\"name\":\"B Mruthyunjayappa vs Gurumurthy on 2 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-13T12:43:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B Mruthyunjayappa vs Gurumurthy on 2 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"B Mruthyunjayappa vs Gurumurthy on 2 July, 2008 - 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\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B Mruthyunjayappa vs Gurumurthy on 2 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-13T12:43:12+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B Mruthyunjayappa vs Gurumurthy on 2 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-13T12:43:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008"},"wordCount":3650,"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\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008","name":"B Mruthyunjayappa vs Gurumurthy on 2 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-13T12:43:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-mruthyunjayappa-vs-gurumurthy-on-2-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B Mruthyunjayappa vs Gurumurthy on 2 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/128029","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=128029"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128029\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128029"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128029"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128029"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}