{"id":128977,"date":"2008-10-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-18T12:03:01","modified_gmt":"2016-10-18T06:33:01","slug":"s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"S S M And Sons vs Nanjamma Since Deceased By Her Lr on 15 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
S S M And Sons vs Nanjamma Since Deceased By Her Lr on 15 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
 \n\nIN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA A? EA\ufb02\u00e9ALoaE5\n\nDATED THIS THE 1S\" DAY of og\u20acpk\u00a3:if2c\u00a78 _ \n\nBEFpRE' A_\nTHE HON'BLE MRs.Ju\u00e9T:\u00a2z_B V nga\u00e9a\u00e9gnna\nHRRP Nos.39i2Qo2;\ufb01\u00e9if2Q\u00e92.& 4622602\n\nBE TWEEN\n\nHaayf\u00e9\u00e9\/0\u00e9f_,\u00a7 \n\n1 s S*M & SONS\" \"w*\nCARRYING ow BUSINESS IN HOSIERY\n.MIN pREM:sEs*No1102 {OLD NO.lO0)\n.5 LAKsHMI\u00abapILuING, BALEPET\nV-\u00ab ~' BAN@ALoRE+S3\nv, .32? BY ITS PARTNER SRI.KHIMCHAND\n'--'= ~'a 2 ... PETITIONER\n\n(af%sRI $0k VASANTH, ADv.,)\n  AND ,_ .\n\n-.4-an-\u00ab.4-u\n\n'\".'\" -_j} MANJAMMA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR\nT' V G.H.PREMAKUMARI, 56 YRS, 9\/0 LATE\nNANJAMA W\/0 M.BASAVARAJ, R\/0 No.7\n\n\n\n_ 2 ,\n\n5TH DIVISION, GIRLS SCHOOL ROAD\nCHICKBALLAPUR\n\n2 RAJANNA SINCE DECEASED BY LRs,mjf 'C'\n\nA)SW%RNAMMA\nW\/O LATE RAJANNA\nMAJOR ;_\nR\/O ca:cKBALLAPUR'.fm\n\nBBIEIRISH s\/0 Lars RAqAB&A'r_ -\nMINOR, REP BY_M0THER_swaRNAMA\nR\/O CHICKBALLAEUR * *' VYn =\n\nC3 HARISH s\u00a2Q_LA?E\"R3sAM$A \n\nMINOR} h\ufb01E;BY HdTHER,S\ufb01mRNAMMA\n3\/0 CHT3KB3LL59\"5 .;\n\nD)R\ufb01JNITH'S7\u00a7fiATEwRAJANNA\nMINOR; REP BX\"MQTHER SWARNAMMA\nA.R\/0 CHICKBALLAPUR\n\n \".maz\u00e9\u00a7buIums 3k;a'4 A38 numsrnn V70\n=_.a$,_3,4,29e2_\n\n. . . RESPONDENTS\n\n{BY SR: A KRISHNA BHAT. ADV.' FOR R-1;\nsR1~3 K SHETTY, Anv., FOR R{A-TO D);\n\n.\" \ufb01\ufb01nR&3 a~4 ARE DELETED v\/o DT. 3.4.02)\n\nx _  ' THIS HRRP IS FILED U\/S.50{1) OF KRC ACT\n\"j.wRJw.sEc.46(2) or KRC BET p\u00a3AIN9r THE COMMON\n\"= ORDER DATED 11.12.2001 PASSED ow IA No.10 IN\n\n\n\n-3-\n\n\u20ac.X.P.NO.86l1\/93 ow THE: FILE! 0:? xi:-.'}:~.DDLT.%_\".1~:c;-Q8611\/93 on THE FILE or THE II ADDL.\n\n'Snag; CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING IA\nV_ Nb;X FILED U\/O 21 I2 97 TO 101 cpc CLAIMIM3\nJ\"ff?ExANcy RIGHTS.\n\n\n\n_ 7 -\n\nTHESE HRRPs COMING C\u00bb: R\ufb02k \ufb01EA\u00a71\u00a7e\"i%istg\n\nBAY, THE COURT MADE THE FeLzew1Nq:_\"\n\nORDERt'\n\n..._.._.............--........._\n\nThese three feyisie\ufb01e \ufb01etitie\ufb01\u00e9 ate filed\nby the app1tcantsLe\ufb01ethed \u00a3@i\u00e9\u00a7\ufb021.A.Nos.X, XI\nand XVI ;'\u00a7\u00a7\u00a3or\u00e9_ ;t5e'vw\ufb016u\ufb01tE':below, being\naggrievee eb\u00a7\"*th\u00a2*5$ism\u00a7\u00e9gg1' of the same by\nordetHeetedt\ufb01iet\u00e9e\u00e9\ufb02\ufb01txie Execution Petition\nNo.8\u00e911?l993;e}e\"\n\n-\n<\/pre>\n
‘ 5?. V The Htelevant facts \u00abof “the case are<\/p>\n
t’.thattenefS\u00a2t.Nanjamma and her son Sri Rajanna<\/p>\n
‘ I<\/p>\n
who ,a:e? since deceased and Rajanna being<\/p>\n
 ‘x;epteeented by his legal representatives, had<\/p>\n
t{tfiied an eviction petition in HRC No.2844\/1981<\/p>\n
~ against the tenants in respect of premises<\/p>\n
bearing No.100 and 102 which shall hereinafter<\/p>\n
be referred to as the ‘scheduletjpre\ufb01ieee’h,<\/p>\n
under Section 23_<1)(a), \u00a7'fi')';'-.(_hr.; .;.-:\ufb01;iih1(:p-;l'\u00aba\u00a7$~\u00a7<\/p>\n
the Karnataka Rent CQntrel_ Bet, i;961\u00ab.a\u00a7n,it_<\/p>\n
then existed, before the Court of Smaii Causesi<\/p>\n
at Bangalore. By ;the;kb\ufb01aer Wjate\ufb02h"28:3.1987,
\nthe said evictioh pe:i:i\u00a7n:\u00a7a\u00a7 allowed under
\nSection 21iiy!h)\u00a7 eireeti\ufb01g_ the tenants to
\nvacate the pre\ufb01ieegihithih six mnths frem the<\/p>\n
date of_thegor&er. Being aggrieved by the said
\noraer,t'..V_CR:9 ':sz\u00a7'.'~1\u00e9:'3:}:iA! i'987 and CR? 550.1262\/1987<\/p>\n
wag preferre\u00a7"hy the tenants. This Court, by<\/p>\n
 '*e:;._rderWeiate\ufb01remi$es to the landlords viz., Nanjamma and<\/p>\n
“i*~~\u00a7ajanna. During the pendency of the said<\/p>\n
revision petitions, Rajanna died on 30.10.1987<\/p>\n
\u00a34.\n<\/p>\n
-9-<\/span>
\nand his legal repreaentatives were brought on<\/p>\n
record.\n<\/p>\n
3. Subsequently, on _Hw}8,iQ:i\u00a793t!Fr<\/p>\n
execution petition was fiied \ufb02y agxy the iegai<\/p>\n
representatives of \u00bb:Rajanna= in. .Execution=<\/p>\n
Petition No.8611\/1993.”*:t is \u00e9ig\ufb01ifiegnt that
\nthough Nanjamma’Qas sh0\ufb01\ufb02ta$”3 petitioner in<\/p>\n
theaexec\ufb01tion\u00a7petition,oehe had not signed the
\nsame apd_tn\u00a2tei\u00a7:\u00a7 had not joined the legal<\/p>\n
representatives of Rajanna in preferring the<\/p>\n
\ufb02”.saicVexecptionwoetition. During the pendency<\/p>\n
E= oi the Said execution petition, an application<\/p>\n
has \ufb01ile\ufb01 by one Maganlal under Order XXI Rule<\/p>\n
i”_97 to 99 CPC {I.A.No.2) contending that he is<\/p>\n
‘Xithe son of one of the tenants in respect of<\/p>\n
. the schedule premises. During the pendency of<\/p>\n
the said application, Nanjamma died on<\/p>\n
2&4<\/p>\n
J1<\/p>\n
-19..\n<\/p>\n
28.8.1996. I.A.No.2 came to be die\ufb01ieee\ufb02\u00a7hy_<\/p>\n
an order dated 16.11.199;;6A._   <\/p>\n
challenge made to the said other and \ufb01enee\u00a7<\/p>\n
the same has attained’fina1it\u00a7. V<\/p>\n
4. Subsequently; :gR}Ne.8 was filed by
\nthe petitioner,g””G.H.?:eeeke\ufb01efi in HRRP<\/p>\n
No.21\/2QQi un\u00a7er~$eetion :51 of CPC seeking to<\/p>\n
imleadl\ufb01ereei\ufb01–eeLone of the decreemholders
\nan t\ufb01g_g;ouge teat she was one of the legal<\/p>\n
representatives of Nanjamma and also a legatee<\/p>\n
l”.gnde\u00a7l the will’ executed by Nanjamma dated<\/p>\n
:=l2i.1.i9g\u00e9;.} The legal representative of<\/p>\n
Rejanna who is one of the joint decree-holders<\/p>\n
l”_in the eviction petition objected to the said<\/p>\n
iviap\ufb01lication and the Court below dismissed the<\/p>\n
esaid application.\n<\/p>\n
,2\u00ab\/,.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
– 11 –\n<\/p>\n
5. Being aggrieved by thg”i$ai\ufb01:~@rder rr<\/p>\n
passed by the Executing C\u00a7\ufb01r\u00a3;’$R$*\ufb010;6$9]1\u00a797<\/p>\n
was filed before this ic\ufb01urt _wn;\u00a2n i\ufb013s;r<\/p>\n
however, dismissed bf”;\u00a7rderV”d\u00e9t\u00e9d i\u00a7ri.1997V<\/p>\n
confirming the i\u00a7rderi:\u00a7a$$\u00a7&_ by it\ufb01e trial<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
6.\u20ac  W\ufb01e\ufb01wimaf\ufb01\ufb01rsar\u00e9fpo\ufb01 thus, I.A.Nos.X
\nand XI Q\u00e9rewfiie\u00a7R\u00a7y_t\ufb01\u00a7 petitioners in HRRP
\nNo.3\u00a772GO2″a\ufb01dCH\u00a7R\u00e9”\ufb02b.40\/2002 under Order XXI<\/p>\n
Rule _ 9? . CFC .7r$ising objections to the<\/p>\n
i”.\u00e9X\u00e9c\ufb01\u00a3i6n by \u00e9\ufb01\ufb01tending that they were tenants<\/p>\n
i*iw\ufb01\u00a7 $r\u00a7”i\ufb01d\u00a7cted into the schedule premises by<\/p>\n
the ;;e’t.i.:*iioner in HRRP No.21\/2002.<\/p>\n
7. I.A.No.XVI was filed by the<\/p>\n
rpetitioner in HRRP No.21\/2002 under Order XXI<\/p>\n
Rules 97 to 101 C90 raising objections to the<\/p>\n
&’<\/p>\n
…1_2_<\/p>\n
execution petition. By’ an;”\u00a2r\u00a7\u00a7f\ufb02<\/p>\n
by the said order, the \u00a7\ufb01pl;c\u00e9\ufb01t:i\ufb01 I;A.No.XVI
\nbefore the Cour\u00a37_b\u00e91q\u00a7i”hg%r_preferred HRRP
\nNo.21\/2002.randr~t5\u00a2vr\u00a7\u00a7n\u00e9\ufb01r\u00a7ijQho are the
\napp1icahf%!\u00a2\u00a7%:.$.\u00a7.#r\u00a7;\u00a5 \u00e9\ufb01d; xx before the
\ncourguv\ufb01e;\u00a7\u00a7;_\ufb01\u00a7\u00a7\u00a2rF\u00a7\u00a7\u00e9\u00a7\u00a7r\u00a7\u00e9\u00a7 HRRP No3.39\/2002
\nandt\u00e9\ufb02\/\ufb01d\ufb01zgrr\u00e9p\u00e9grively.\n<\/p>\n
\ufb01t Sihr\u00e9 \u00e9\ufb01g getitioners are aggrieved<\/p>\n
by \u00e9=com\ufb01o\ufb01 or@er dated 11.12.2001, all the<\/p>\n
. rrgvisionrapetitions have been connected and<\/p>\n
: .HeardFtQg@fher and disposed of by this order.<\/p>\n
“9. 1 have heard Sri A.Krishna Bhat,<\/p>\n
r:i\u00e9\u00e9rned counsel for the petitioner in HRRP<\/p>\n
“TNo.2l\/2002, Sri H.K.Shetty, learned counsel<\/p>\n
3:.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-u—.._<\/p>\n
– 13 –\n<\/p>\n
for the respondent\/ legal represent.e_t’hiVVe:s ._ of”
\nRajanna and Sri K.K.Vasanth, <\/p>\n
who appears for the pe’ti_tio\ufb01’e_rS iiotifxei <\/p>\n
two revision petitions shae’-.  the
\nsubmissions of Sri  it<\/p>\n
10. it: ieii$hb\ufb01itt\u00a7\u00a7\u00a5ho\ufb01”woeha1f of the
\npetitioherehthet sigh; hhmeti, the petitioner
\nin   _’ other than the
\nnaturaii who is one of the<\/p>\n
joigt”decree\u00a7ho1ders in the HRC petition and<\/p>\n
 the legatee under the will and<\/p>\n
i”‘t_hoje\u00a7;h’4:”her:”‘vr:ight is through Nanj amma, during<\/p>\n
the pehdehcy of the execution petition, she<\/p>\n
it 1-“3C1_ obtained possession of a portion of the
\n“”:~fVVc’he:<;iule premises and thereafter let out the<\/p>\n
"same to the petitioners in HRRP Nos.39\/2002<\/p>\n
and 40\/2002 and therefore, they being in<\/p>\n
:\u00a7\u00a34t<\/p>\n
-14-<\/span><\/p>\n
possession, the decree could not fhave. been<\/p>\n
executed against them. Its -is, ifurtnezii.<\/p>\n
submitted that on an apniication filed \ufb01n\ufb01er<\/p>\n
Order XXI Rule 97 or’gnder!Rule;\u00a7\u00a7iQ?C; the;<\/p>\n
Executing Court ought to hold an en\ufb01uiry and
\nthat the proced\ufb01fe undef”Qtcer XXI Rule 100
\nCFC applies and it is angibgo\ufb01s to a suit and<\/p>\n
therefore; \u00e9tneitconftieheiowi erred in not<\/p>\n
holdino en e\ufb01quirg on their applications and
\nsumme;i}y:’dis$issing= the said applications.<\/p>\n
He therefore reqn\u00e9sts this Court to set aside<\/p>\n
\u00bb.c-At5\u00a7 impugneo order and direct the Court below<\/p>\n
“tcV;ecohd evidence on their applications and<\/p>\n
thereafter, pass orders in accordance with<\/p>\n
 law”._H_ 3<\/p>\n
11. Per contra, it is submitted on<\/p>\n
behalf of the respondents that subsequent to<\/p>\n
\ufb02\u00bb<\/p>\n
, ;5 _<\/p>\n
the order passed by this Court in too \u00a2i\u00a7i1<\/p>\n
Revision Petitions confirming theilordofn of “.<\/p>\n
eviction, the legal repres\u00e9ntati\ufb01es of Roj\u00e9nna<\/p>\n
who is one of ‘the joint ‘q\u00e9c\u00a7ee4h\u00a2iae:\u00e9 fh\u00a7d,<\/p>\n
filed. the exeoutioni”. p\u00e9tition\ufb01iioo\u00e9otingw<\/p>\n
possession of the sch\u00e9duio pgemio\u00e9s ond the
\nother joint decree;holdeE5boi\ufb01g late Nanjamma<\/p>\n
under whom tho potitionof in HER? No.21\/2002<\/p>\n
viz.g Pr\u00e9m\u00e9_KuoarjRgs said to have derived her<\/p>\n
title could’notfha\ufb01\u00e9”maintained an application<\/p>\n
under ofoeg XXI R\ufb01ie 97 to 101 cpc and that<\/p>\n
ii” when her stato\u00e9 \ufb01as that of a joint decree-<\/p>\n
i\u00bb\ufb01oidefpii$ho~ was not a stranger to the<\/p>\n
prooeedi\ufb01g although she had not joined others<\/p>\n
t\u00bbin tho execution of the said decree and that<\/p>\n
udttho application filed by her viz., I.A.XVI was<\/p>\n
R””tM_not maintainable and that she had no locus<\/p>\n
standi to file that application by contending<\/p>\n
\ufb01x<\/p>\n
-15-<\/span><\/p>\n
that there was obstruction in the exeeutien\ufb02efih<\/p>\n
the decree en the ground that she has ebteine\u00e9\u00abV<\/p>\n
pessession whereas, such an;apnlication:eeuld,<\/p>\n
have been nmintainad eniy twee: deereeeheiderh<\/p>\n
against a stranger g”an\u00a7nh:thetefore} the
\napplication was riehtl\ufb01xfejeete\ufb01 by the Court<\/p>\n
below. He~Ljfu\ufb01thef\u00a3 issbmitsr that the<\/p>\n
applicatierins—.V”I’\u00a7V’A.\u00a7N-Q’3:;’\u00a7\u00a34.. _x3: filed by the
\npetitioners in HRH? hosts?\/2002 and 40\/02 who<\/p>\n
claim right; tiege and interest through Frema<\/p>\n
Kumari co\ufb01ld net have Haintained the same as<\/p>\n
. w_t5\u00e9\u00a7 had {m2 hetter right or \u00a31 higher right<\/p>\n
Ewthan’tErema=LKumari and hence. the Executing<\/p>\n
Ceurt_risht1y dismissed the said applications.
\n.12s Both the counsel have relied upon<\/p>\n
i tfeettain decisions which shall be adverted to<\/p>\n
(I<\/p>\n
13.
\nsubmissions, the points _that atis\u00e9j fog. my”<\/p>\n
consideration are as follonsrfio 1V.o,’ g\u00a2-7f
\n_Qiin’ %HRRP;L<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
-17..\n<\/p>\n
Taking note of<\/p>\n
Whether the _ petitioner<\/p>\n
No.21\/2002 and rpetitionefs  :hi HRRPi<\/p>\n
No.39\/2G\ufb012_and HERE No.40\/20\u00a22 could<\/p>\n
‘”noyo\u00a7nain\ufb01\u00e9ine\u00e9 an application under
\n‘iord\u00a7:fnxxi~\u00bbRu1es 97 to 101 CPC
\naia@ainstVnnother joint decree holder?<\/p>\n
“,If ‘\ufb01\ufb01\u00e9i answer to point No.1 is in<\/p>\n
%’iLno negative, whether ting Executing<\/p>\n
~i\u00a7Court was justified in dismissing<\/p>\n
the applications filed by the<\/p>\n
revision<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
petitioners in these<\/p>\n
petitions?\n<\/p>\n
tn\u00e92″f7:i\u00a7ai~<\/p>\n
-18..\n<\/p>\n
14. The relationship between_.t_Pj1″e.V.piarti\u00e9a<\/p>\n
in these cases are not in  <\/p>\n
Raj anna and Prema Kumazi a1:’e the Ch’ii.icir”en1–. of V’<\/p>\n
late Nanjamma and Nanj’;”i\u00e9eartV;:.r.i1z3_ an\u00a3.’i~.V_  had
\nfiled the Q;-esooottvvvof the
\nschedule premises  an order
\nof evictiorg”   this Court,
\nexecution:    only the legal
\n      No doubt , Nanj amma
\nwho * the’  decreeholder had not<\/p>\n
p1:ef.e.I:1:edu”a_\ufb01vexeoution petition. It is also<\/p>\n
‘V “not~-tiir\ufb01disput\u00e9vwt\ufb01at Prema Kumari, apart from<\/p>\n
“\ufb02<:i,a_i.1ghter of Nanjamma, has also<\/p>\n
1n<2\u00a7penae%;:\u00a7-.tiy ciaimed right, title and<\/p>\n
Z"'~.__V"*iAnte:5e.at in respect of the schedule property<\/p>\n
'A  T:."V\u00bbb13'.,_*}irtue of a will said to have been executed<\/p>\n
 Nanjamma on 21.1.1987. At this stage, it<\/p>\n
is relevant to mention that Enema Kumari had<\/p>\n
&.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-19..\n<\/p>\n
preferred I.A.VIII in the <\/p>\n
petition with a prayer to~'”impl&e;’3d as<\/p>\n
one of the decreeho1ders._A.h~e1:’\u00ab. <\/p>\n
from Nanj arruna and alisolliigayn the ‘  the’<\/p>\n
will executed by  lganj ‘1  . The
\nsaid application   the ground
\nthat she Vf.3\u00a3-‘.LI’1_u’>t    on record as
\nNanj amma-f     execut ion petition
\nand   partition suit pending in\n<\/p>\n
0.  the validity of the<\/p>\n
wi1,l..wae””tobde iadijdudicated and that Nanjamma<\/p>\n
‘  ‘made.  enquiry held with regard to<\/p>\n
  by one Maganlal in the<\/p>\n
Ex.ecqtihr}*AiCourt that she had not executed any<\/p>\n
  The said application for impleadment<\/p>\n
 dismissed and the same was upheld by this<\/p>\n
V. ,_._*:”.’ourt, by its order dated 4.2.199′? in CR?<\/p>\n
No.689\/199′? which has attained finality.
\n\/’<\/p>\n
_ go _<\/p>\n
Therefore, the status claimed by Brema Khmari ”<\/p>\n
was in fact as as decreefholeer although she<\/p>\n
was not permitted to be_im\ufb01leaded, Sash EeinoV\u00bb<\/p>\n
the case, the question for consideration is as
\nto whether Prema’k\ufb01mari;;hein\u00a7aa joint decreer
\nholder, could hayeisfile\ufb01 ,g\ufb01f\ufb01a\u00a7p1ication in
\nI.A.No.XVI sneer erder \ufb01\ufb01l Rule 97 CFC raising
\nobjection to the eg\u00a7\u00a7u\u00a3isn’\u00a7\u00a3 the decree on
\nthe graundighgg she had ohtained possession of
\nthe la\u00a7heau:\u00a77jr\u00a7g\u00a7\u00a2\u00a7ses and had inducted
\nt&32n\u00a7erl’ V<\/p>\n
ul’l$ae \ufb01t \u00abthis stage, it is relevant to<\/p>\n
rater to the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97<\/p>\n
V”\u00bbto lOl so as to answer point No.1 with regard<\/p>\n
xletoilthe maintainability of the application<\/p>\n
E”.__fi1&d by the petitioner in HRRP No.21\/2902.<\/p>\n
Order XXI Rule 97 CFC deals with resistance or<\/p>\n
\/451\/.\n<\/p>\n
_ 22 _<\/p>\n
16. On a conspectua readingjiofhitheeea<\/p>\n
provisions, it becomes, _eleag- Mghatio 35*.”<\/p>\n
application under Rule 97 of Gide: xi: nan he<\/p>\n
maintained. only’ by Q; person_ who, claims an.<\/p>\n
independent right and nQ\u00a3aa=;;ght”either under
\nthe judgment dehtot-otjaioeoneeholder. This
\n13 the Settie\ufb01 P\u00a75iti\u00b0\u00a7=\u00a7\ufb01 ia\u00a7\u00a7h But, in the
\ninstant ca3g\u00a7;\u00a7s\u00a3;angei\u00a7; tag application has
\n  claims to be a
\njoint=Ideere\u00e9;5\u00a71eeraWin one breath and an<\/p>\n
indepenoent person who has let out possession<\/p>\n
‘ *- of the sohednie premises to tenants in another<\/p>\n
‘7, breath, 7 .33 already’ noticed, an application<\/p>\n
wae fiied by Prema Kumari contending that she<\/p>\n
t~Ais uaeijoint decreeholder along with Rajanna<\/p>\n
W ‘Claiming right, title and interest through her<\/p>\n
_ mother Nanjamma. Such being the position, she<\/p>\n
could not have maintained an application under<\/p>\n
I}; .\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-23..\n<\/p>\n
Rules 97 to 99 of Order XXI  ef \ufb02C$\u00a2R”hYia<\/p>\n
contending that she was a sttaagerfahdeha\ufb01 an<\/p>\n
independent right bye viftee of\ufb01ibeihgiVin,<\/p>\n
possession of a portien of” the? eteeertyt<\/p>\n
Hence, in my opi\ufb01ion?N\u00a3\ufb01e_%\u00a7?1iC%\u00a3i5\ufb01 itself
\nwas not nmihtainabie ah@ eee\ufb01tito have been
\ndismissee\ufb02iiei iimihe th\u00a7tvthei Court below.
\nSimilafiygiethe\u00bbEe\ufb01eiieat\u00e9ehs filed by the
\n   ‘\u00a7::\u00a75;39\/2002 and 40\/2002
\n since they claim<\/p>\n
right, titieeane ihterest through Prema Kumari<\/p>\n
\ufb02”._\u00a7he;Y\ufb01ia_ not “have tttt the locus etandi ‘or an<\/p>\n
-inde\ufb01ehdent right to maintain such an<\/p>\n
application. Therefore, the said applications<\/p>\n
V”_;ale0a ought to have been rejected at the<\/p>\n
i*threshe1d. Therefore, point No.1 is held<\/p>\n
} against the petitioners for the aforesaid<\/p>\n
reasons and the applications filed by them<\/p>\n
-25-<\/span><\/p>\n
application filed by one Maganlal. <\/p>\n
said order dated l6.ll.996, the o\u00a7u:\u00a3f\u00a3ei\u00a7wV\u00ab<\/p>\n
has recorded that the teVidenceolon_lrecordi<\/p>\n
establishes that there wee a colineion between<\/p>\n
the applicant (MaganlalT,and”P,W,\ufb015f\u00a7aeatarajd<\/p>\n
ohusband of Prema_xumarii]a\ufb01e_Naajammai(p.w.3)
\nwho was under tne camera; oi FfWO2U It is<\/p>\n
further stated Nanjamma was not in a position<\/p>\n
to mote a\ufb02oat au\u00a2*\u00a3\u00a2 patalytic stroke and day-
\nto–day,*her healtn had deteriorated and that<\/p>\n
in 1989 itself, s\ufb01e was not in a position to<\/p>\n
ll”-‘pet fvhet Signature and therefore, the<\/p>\n
‘i,$eignateteeL}at Ex.P.1 to 9 could not be<\/p>\n
acceptedgl The Court below also observed that<\/p>\n
t\u00bb the etidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on I.A.No.II could<\/p>\n
ll*not be believed and that the applicant<\/p>\n
f(Maganlal} was not an independent tenant under<\/p>\n
Nanjamma, the first decreeholder and that she<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
_ 25 _<\/p>\n
was not in possession of the schedule”-._prem.i’e-es.,1 V’<\/p>\n
having an independent right; i0h. the’ <\/p>\n
the said findings, I.A.:1.iwg\u00e9,<ais@:ssed"\u00bb\u00a7na*.<\/p>\n
there being no chal1enge""t\u00abt}3. the  it
\nhas attained finaiityif\ufb02a\ufb01t\ufb01t#eoset\u00a7etions of
\nthe Court below'   lends
\nsupport to   on account
\nof the"; f;5\u00a2is\u00a2a;":j\u00a7\u00a7,j~:.A.uo.::, the
\n  and XVI were also
\nrej ecteeti  an enquiry. In my<\/p>\n
\\\u00e9'iex.,:–,.e j tfie Court vbelow was justified in<\/p>\n
 thevvii\u00e9b\ufb01alications *-I.A.Nos.X, XI and<\/p>\n
tutti *\u00a3i1\u00a2\u00e9} \ufb01nder Grder xx: Rules 97 to 99<\/p>\n
wi*t__hotri;~  an enquiry thereon.<\/p>\n
 1.8. I aim supported in my View by the<\/p>\n
.,V_..cEie<.:ision of this Court reported in ILR 2003<\/p>\n
KAR 660 in the case of (SR1 RAMACHANDRA vs<\/p>\n
&.\n<\/p>\n
..27..\n<\/p>\n
sMT.KEMPAMMA AND cmnans) wherehi it it helc t.<\/p>\n
that Order xxx Rule 97 cpc in ap\u00a71tca\u00a71g to a.<\/p>\n
person. who claims ant independent_ right tnot*,<\/p>\n
either under the judgnent _debtor:tor@ucecree
\nholder and that genyf t\u00a7ttg5″.c1atmiat right
\nunder the. decree _holde# gagj er iessee cannot
\ninvoke the n\u00a7o\u00a7i$tQu\u00a7fyf \ufb01nder \ufb01x: Rule 97 of
\nCPC. Fron the \u00a75ot\u00a7?\u00a7t\u00a2tsion; it becomes clear
\nthat an anglicent \ufb01gs t5 have an independent
\nright \ufb01in_ snag; it\ufb01r maintain an application<\/p>\n
under_Oraer XKI Rule 97 C90 and not either as<\/p>\n
\ufb02’.a”d\u00e9\u00e9te\u00e9.ho1d\u00e9\u00a3 or a judgment debtor. In the<\/p>\n
” instant c\u00e9se, however, it is ununderstandable<\/p>\n
as.  a joint decree holder could have<\/p>\n
Vatmaintained an application resisting execution<\/p>\n
i> of the delivery warrant by contending that she<\/p>\n
. had put tenants in possession of a portion of<\/p>\n
the schedule premises. Kg\ufb01\/\u00a2,<\/p>\n
-28..\n<\/p>\n
19. In the case of  Vie <\/p>\n
KANNAN AND erases reported’-,in;”‘JTi\u00a7’ 2064″<\/p>\n
the Hon’b1e Supreme Cc;t_1_1′:s*;.. was\u00bb.efVti1e”A.3rj<._ew _i\u00a7thVet._'\u00b0.<\/p>\n
when there is ne  pf irewsiiziengce from
\nthe side of V   }#?$5:_r\u00a2iGiCf-Qioniistvs, the
\napp1ication'.V.unde35– 97 of CPC
\neught te"   of the above
\nreasoning   this judgment,
\n * instant case, has not
\npredueeei so show that she was in<\/p>\n
pd~tsseeeion"~.eAf the suit schedule premises and<\/p>\n
';"f:,;rtheAr.:'"\u00a3:h_et she is entitled to maintain an<\/p>\n
 under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC and<\/p>\n
suheviieehi\u00e9ng one of the joint decree holders and<\/p>\n
it  iiiew of the finding given earlier by the<\/p>\n
ti'-Zitrial Court while disposing of I.A.No.II,<\/p>\n
it can be safely held that on the basis of<\/p>\n
\ufb01e.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-29..\n<\/p>\n
the decision of Hon’t:-le
\npetitioners herein failed,..iizfou\ufb01.;e.1,ibet~a’nt’ti.atei<\/p>\n
their plea that .\u00bbf:h_ey v”x;{e’re <\/p>\n
possession of the scheciuiv1e_VV premises ‘fin their
\nown right and hm-2_zrf)’–ce f(;r.i’.”~t_h,e’\u00ab.M3aid reason, a
\nfurther enquiry with’=.rec;arci’to”w–.that aspect was<\/p>\n
not nece_$%~;ar5y._. . ”\n<\/p>\n
 <fah'~–"also be placed on
\nanother_  Hon' ble Supreme Court
\nin_the'i<:.asve ofA'$iI;\u00a7?'ER FORUM PVT. LTD. VS RAJIV<\/p>\n
 ANDAAVANQTHER reported in (1998) 3 sec<\/p>\n
 it has been held that a third<\/p>\n
'party 't:o.t:;the decree who offers resistance or<\/p>\n
obstruction to execution of the decree would<\/p>\n
  within the ambit of Rule 1.01. of Order 21<\/p>\n
GCPC, if an adjudication is warranted as a<\/p>\n
consequence of the resistance or obstruction<\/p>\n
\/%<\/p>\n
-39..\n<\/p>\n
made by him to the executienof th’e’v*cie<:jfee*._ i'Jr_<':'-" <\/p>\n
doubt if the resistance  "tem'ac'ie' <\/p>\n
transferee pendente Viite  <\/p>\n
debtor, the scope of  tfould be
\nshrunk to the ".v:q1;1\u00bbe:etVi.'eAn"whether he is
\nsuch a trans.fveree.VV–~–a.\u00a7,n:ci  in the
\n the execution
\ncourt   has no right to
\nresist clear language contained
\nin Rule  cpc. Exclusion of such<\/p>\n
a t:;':'ar'ssferee__f'rom' raising further contentions<\/p>\n
 the salutary principle enunciated<\/p>\n
 52 of the Transfer of Property '<\/p>\n
.215 The Court further states that under<\/p>\n
V' 'ff\u20ac2x!Vrtier 21 Rule 9?, CFC the question which<\/p>\n
 legally arise for determination between the<\/p>\n
\ufb01x<\/p>\n
.x
\ncinna-\n<\/p>\n
.. 31 ..\n<\/p>\n
parties only will have to be determined by the
\nExecution Court. In other words, the Court is<\/p>\n
not obliged to determine a question_t~V~1fee_<rely<\/p>\n
because the resistor raised it.
\nheld that the third party;,…..:gho _'{:i'ti\u00e9';'etVio\ufb01S'..the"".
\nvalidity of a transfer  <\/p>\n
holder to an assignee,_v"'*~cannotV c1eiim\u00a7._'tv!–'zeti the,"<\/p>\n
question regarding it_svVV:'q\\_Ia3:idit"y.:_should be<\/p>\n
decided _A  proceedings. It is
\nfurther 4' held' Z-t'he_it._:"edjudication mentioned in<\/p>\n
Or\u00a7i'evr_  ,V"Ru.ie9;7(2} need not necessarily<\/p>\n
 .in*Ici5IteVVi'A~e deteiiied enquiry or collection of<\/p>\n
 : Court can make the adjudication<\/p>\n
on a.dr'ui?t'ted facts or even on the averments<\/p>\n
 .An3ade".–i:;ay the resister.<\/p>\n
22. Learned Counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
has relied upon the dictum laid down by the<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
-32-<\/span>
\nSupreme Court in the case of BRAHMDEO
\nCHAUDHARY Vs RISHIKESH PRASAD JAISWAL AND<\/p>\n
ANOTHER reported in AIR 1997 supamma ceugrrass<\/p>\n
in order to highlight about the f\u00e9g\ufb01\u00e9mg.<\/p>\n
enunciated in the statutory~provisid\ufb01fof,Crderr<\/p>\n
21 Rule 97 to 103 cpc whieh ash; eompigg\u00e9igaae<\/p>\n
for resolving all Vdisputes_ pertaining tea<\/p>\n
execution of decree fer pessessidn ebtained by<\/p>\n
a idecreegheider}a_and-W whose attempts at
\nexecutihg ‘the -3316\u00bb decree meet with rough<\/p>\n
weatherr Eh this Secision, it is stated that<\/p>\n
\ufb02” _ehee*freaistahee is offered by a “purported<\/p>\n
runstra\ufb01ger%Fto the decree and which comes to be<\/p>\n
Anote\u00a7’b\u00a7 the Executing Court as well as by the<\/p>\n
iAAQeeree–holder, the remedy available to the<\/p>\n
‘gideeree-holder against such aux obstructionist<\/p>\n
-;is only Order XXI, Rule 97 sub-rule (1) and he<\/p>\n
cannot bypass such obstruction and insist on<\/p>\n
y<\/p>\n
-33-<\/span><\/p>\n
issuance of warrant for passe-esionAzdder’-..Crder”  <\/p>\n
21, Rule 35 with the help ‘gf p\u00a7g1;i’c\u00bbe”.rfofeeV,._’t’e;s:’<\/p>\n
that course would amcunt  <\/p>\n
circumventing the proce’ci:3:V’;:fe_VV  under
\nOrder 21 Rule 97′  retrieval of
\nobstruction Aef   to the
\ndecree.  View on
\nthe   by the Hon’ble
\nSuprezhe   decision in no way
\nassists  petitioners, inasmuch<\/p>\n
as, they c}-..aAAizn”‘t.1;ir<::Ltgh a joint decree holder<\/p>\n
 aririlication under Order 21 Rule<\/p>\n
 as strangers to the decree,<\/p>\n
which  already held are not maintainable<\/p>\n
VV"a3_ti'1.ere is no person who is a stranger to the<\/p>\n
."d_Vecree who is alleged to have obstructed in<\/p>\n
…the execution of the decree. Rather, in my<\/p>\n
view, these applicants, who are the<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
-34..\n<\/p>\n
petitioners, infect are causing obstruction in
\nthe execution of the decree obtained by Late<\/p>\n
Nanjamma and Late Rajanna and which deoree is<\/p>\n
being executed by the tegal represehtatiVeefof*<\/p>\n
Rajanna. .~w-_<\/p>\n
23. Learned Cbunsel for the \ufb01wiitionerea<\/p>\n
has also relied upon enotherideeieion in the
\ncase N.S.S. NARA\u00a3f;\u00e9mp.  Vs M\/S.<\/p>\n
GOLD\u00a7_I’O\u00a3~\u00a7_E’.’ __'(\u00a3’>) LT\u00a3).,. AND OTHERS<\/p>\n
reporte<i–,ii'nV'P;IR._ SC 251 to contend that<\/p>\n
.~M. Order 21 R\ufb01ie 93 to 103 CPC is a clear scheme,<\/p>\n
'~Qhereifr"the legislature has 'veetedr right in<\/p>\n
ithe Exeeuting Court to deal with all issues<\/p>\n
relating to such matters and. that in the<\/p>\n
i'_inetant ease, the Execution Court ought to<\/p>\n
ehave ordered that an enquiry on the<\/p>\n
applications filed by the petitioners herein,<\/p>\n
e.\n<\/p>\n
..35..\n<\/p>\n
rather than,<\/p>\n
applications without recordinqjthenevideneer<\/p>\n
The proposition laid, dawn Tin’ thier.\u00a7ecieionio<\/p>\n
have to be harmoniouslfh reao*.Qithl\u00a7another
\ndecision of Hon’hle-S\ufb01ereeeeeourt referred to
\nabove viz., _repoArt_e_dtV   3 sec 723,
\nwherein, “iit}D bee ieheenihisteted that the
\nadj  of Order 21 cpc
\nwoulovtetetgleee only when the question raised
\nhave legally e\u00a7isen”between the parties and<\/p>\n
consequently such questions are relevant for<\/p>\n
l’consideretion and determination between the<\/p>\n
t~\u00a7a;\u00a31\u00e9s, Since it has been already held by me<\/p>\n
that sthet applications themselves were not<\/p>\n
“‘maintainable, in View of the circumstance of<\/p>\n
‘gpetitioner viz., Premakumari, who derived such<\/p>\n
i=. right, interest and title over the schedule<\/p>\n
property through one of the joint decree<\/p>\n
\ufb02r<\/p>\n
summarily dismissing ._the, \u00b0<\/p>\n
– 35 –\n<\/p>\n
holder v:i.z., Nanjamma and there  <\/p>\n
obstructor who has been ihnatned.’ <\/p>\n
applications, the Court._belew:”w_as <\/p>\n
not adjudicating the  reeerdingii<\/p>\n
the evidence as  <\/p>\n
24. eyes; the ,a\u00a3oresaie Wreasons, these
\nRevisionuV’E?eti–i?;:i,en.e’  and the Court
\nbe:I.Oi\u00abT  di’i~.e:”<:1Li'es:;1.4"i"If;:<i5"*–.initiate further steps in<\/p>\n
acct) rdaingcze _wit h' .\n<\/p>\n
ii ._.1\\t  stage, learned Counsel for<\/p>\n
1: the ;\u00a7e\u00a7it1\u00a2ne:= in HRRP No.39\/02 and 40\/02<\/p>\n
ei1_bmi..t~:\u00a7_vi”j’..-that some time may be given to the<\/p>\n
_Apet:’Lt._i”oners to vacate the premises and hand<\/p>\n
‘–..V’e.v_er the vacant possession. The same is<\/p>\n
qiobjected to by the learned Counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent. In View cf the feet that I have<\/p>\n
&:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court S S M And Sons vs Nanjamma Since Deceased By Her Lr on 15 October, 2008 Author: B.V.Nagarathna IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA A? EA\ufb02\u00e9ALoaE5 DATED THIS THE 1S” DAY of og\u20acpk\u00a3:if2c\u00a78 _ BEFpRE’ A_ THE HON’BLE MRs.Ju\u00e9T:\u00a2z_B V nga\u00e9a\u00e9gnna HRRP Nos.39i2Qo2;\ufb01\u00e9if2Q\u00e92.& 4622602 BE TWEEN Haayf\u00e9\u00e9\/0\u00e9f_,\u00a7 1 s S*M & SONS” […]<\/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-128977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS S M And Sons vs Nanjamma Since Deceased By Her Lr on 15 October, 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\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S S M And Sons vs Nanjamma Since Deceased By Her Lr on 15 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-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=\"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-18T06:33:01+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S S M And Sons vs Nanjamma Since Deceased By Her Lr on 15 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-18T06:33:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3617,\"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\\\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008\",\"name\":\"S S M And Sons vs Nanjamma Since Deceased By Her Lr on 15 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-18T06:33:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S S M And Sons vs Nanjamma Since Deceased By Her Lr on 15 October, 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":"S S M And Sons vs Nanjamma Since Deceased By Her Lr on 15 October, 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\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S S M And Sons vs Nanjamma Since Deceased By Her Lr on 15 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-18T06:33:01+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S S M And Sons vs Nanjamma Since Deceased By Her Lr on 15 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-18T06:33:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008"},"wordCount":3617,"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\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008","name":"S S M And Sons vs Nanjamma Since Deceased By Her Lr on 15 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-18T06:33:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-m-and-sons-vs-nanjamma-since-deceased-by-her-lr-on-15-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S S M And Sons vs Nanjamma Since Deceased By Her Lr on 15 October, 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\/128977","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=128977"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128977\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}