{"id":13287,"date":"2010-12-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010"},"modified":"2014-10-24T08:09:04","modified_gmt":"2014-10-24T02:39:04","slug":"sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri Chandrashekar And Ors vs Sri Ashwathanarayanagowda & Anr on 24 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Chandrashekar And Ors vs Sri Ashwathanarayanagowda & Anr on 24 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.L.Manjunath & S.N.Satyanarayana<\/div>\n
1.\n\n. _] -\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT \n\nDATED THIS THE 24?\" DAY OF DECEMBER.' \" \n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HONBLE MR.JUsT1{:E  \"_ \n\nAND A\nTHE HONBLE MR.JUsi'1\u00a7fE. S.N.SP;iY'FJ\\\u00a3AR;A?ANA\n\nR.F.A.NO. 1787~1.9991.'\u00e9\/W*A--It<FA;QROBEZ1\/2000\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nSR1   \nS \/0 LATE NA"R;AYANAPPA__.. ;.V\n\n 27 'WARS ' "  A  \n\nS\/C.__LATE NARAYANAPPA\nAGED-.ABOU'l'_ 25VYv13ARs\n\n;.iKVU'Iw. SOUBHAWA\n\nM0 [LATE NARAYANAPPA\n\n, V AQEDAABOUT 22 YEARS\n\n 'sM"f.';NA\u00a5aASAMMA\n\nw\/.0  NARAYANAPPA\n\n AGED 'ABOUT 70 YEARS\n\nmi\n\nsiViT.PU'r'rAMMA\n\n'fw\/0 LATE NARAYANAPPA\n" AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS\n\nALL ARE RESIDING AT\nALLALASANDRA, GKVK POST\nBANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 065.\n. . APPELLANTS\n\n{SR1 M.S.RAJ.ENDRA PRASAD, ADV.)\n\n-w"2;'\\d.\u00a7\n\n\n\nAND :\n\n1. SRI ASHWATIMNARAYANAGOWDA\nS\/O LATE NARAYANAPPA\nAGED MAJOR\nR\/A ALLALASANDRA VILLAGE \n\nGKVK POST  . A \nBANGALORE NORTH TALUK -- 560 \n\n2. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTIJ__RAI, SCIENCE3S"   \nHOUSE BUILDING CO\u00abOPE--RATIVE SOCIETY I;TD".;\nHEBBAL, BANGALORE -- 560 024., ' I" \nREP. BY ITS SECRETARY. --.    \n\n'     I     _..RESPONDENTS\n\n{BY SRI SHASHIKIRAN SI%IEI1*IY_I~'(;)R Mm\/'S SIIETTY AND\n\nPIEGDE ASSTS., vADVS._EVOR.VR2_ j'  V  ., \n\nSR1 C.S.HIREI\/LA'I*I,I, AI;)v_,' POR R.1~}__ -  *\n\nTHIS1RFA_'F51LED"'~\u00abU\/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE\nJUDGMENT I A'\u00a3xT13_  DT.I5.12.98 PASSED IN\nO.S.NO.'4903\/93, QN THE-II'ILE OF XX ADDL. CITY CIVIL\nCOURT, "BAl'I{GALORE,I_ .."DISMISSlNG THE SUIT FOR\nDECLARATION, 'PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION\nIN RESPECT OF.E_XB_T.D1 AND DECREEING IN RESPECT\n\n V'  . OIr~T'PIAT REMAINING PORTION ETC,\n\u00bb R'FAICROB--.<2,1~~,\/2000\n\n UI'\\?:IVEfESITY OF AGRICULTURAL\n\n   EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE\nI SOCIETY LTD,\n= I-IEBBAL, BANGALORE -- 560 024.\n\n"REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.\n\n...CROSS OBJECTOR\n\n'  {SR} SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY FOR M\/S.SHE.I I St AND HEGDE\n\nASSTS. , ADVS.]\n\n\n\nAND :\n\n1. SR1 CHANDRASHEKAR\nS \/O LATE NARAYANAPPA\nAGED ABOUT 27 YEARS\n\n2. SR}. SEETHARAM \nS \/O LATE NARAYANAPPA\nAGED ABOUT 25 YEARS _\n\n3. KUM. SOWBHAGYA \nD\/O LATE NARAYANAPPA \u00ab\nAGED ABOUT 22 YEARS \n\n4. SMTNARASAMMA __  .\nW\/O LATE NARAYANAPPA '\nAGED ABOI.:-T 70 \n\n5. SMfT.PUT:*;AIM1y1A   _ _\u00ab\nW\/O LATE N'A.RAYANA_1?EA\nAGEDVVABOUT 63' YEARS \n\n6. SET. ASWATHANARAYANA GOWDA\nSA'\/O LATE NARAYANAPPA\n_ 7LM.AJ_ORV%_  _____ ..\n\nI " .IALL"'A.REVI'REE\u00a7-IDING AT\n\n._  GKVK POST\n' EANGALORE -- 560 065.\n ; . 4- ...RE'.SPONDENTS\n\n  {SR1 M.S1.RAJENDRA PRASAD. SENIOR ADV., FOR\n  A  DJGANGADHAR, ADV.,)\n\n._  THIS CROSS OBJECTION FTLED {U0 4}. RULE 22 OF\nCPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DT. 15. 1.2.98\n\n " '-'PASSED IN O.S.NO.4903\/93 ON THE FILE OF XX ADDL.\n\nCITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE DISMISSING THE SUIT\nFELED FOR DECLARATION. PARTITION AND SEPARATE\nPOSSESSION.\n\n\n\nTHIS APPEAL AND @1303. HAVING BEEN HEARD\nAND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT 'i'HiS..__ DAY\nSATYANARAYANA J PRONOUNCED THE EoLLowo;'o';\u00bbt.\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
The plaintiffs in OS.No.49O3\/1993_.on:”‘t.he:.A_i’i*ie’_ of <\/p>\n
City Civil Court, Bangalore liaas tip-I’i.n.:_.:thisV:”appeal T.<\/p>\n
challenging the judgment. _andv4’de’Cree d}a”.te’\u00a2l” *15;:2′;*19’9–8p<\/p>\n
passed in the aforesaid  wherein for
\npartition of suit schedule “rrletes fancixbounds and<\/p>\n
granting 5 \/7:11 share int.”ail’-V\u00bbd):fe\u00a2.Lfite’in’s’_;_of suit schedule<\/p>\n
pi*operties_}i-sf  part and the prayer for
\ndeciaratiopn’that:”the’e\u00bbaaieideed dated 16.1.1987 executed by
\nfather piaintifffs V1′.to’f3-~’iand also their brother, 15′ defendant<\/p>\n
ivn-ifavourpof Qi\ufb01drdsvefenvdant is not binding on them is rejected.<\/p>\n
  _   –Z?.I”*\u00a2’ defendant in the said suit has filed cross<\/p>\n
.’ .ohjectiontfso.A1’1’ar as the finding on issue Nos} and 2 holding<\/p>\n
that  scheduie item Nos.I to 3 properties are joint family<\/p>\n
if  if properties of plaintiffs and 13* defendant and seeking to set<\/p>\n
 that portion of judgment which declares that suit<\/p>\n
H schedule properties are joint family properties purchased by<\/p>\n
‘-. \/u
\n1,\/’iv: a’?\n<\/p>\n
-5-<\/span>
\ninvesting sale proceeds of the properties beloijigiiig to<\/p>\n
plaintiffs’ grand father situated at Tippur Village…._””_\u00bbl.l:  ”<\/p>\n
3. Both the appeal and cross objecti..oVn’=.are.:’takei1%’ti_pD*__<\/p>\n
together for consideration. For th_e4’sa};e*’of.__Coiiyeiiience ‘<\/p>\n
parties to this appeal as well as cros’sV.objecti!m: “are referred.<\/p>\n
to by their respective rank in’V”‘t11:e~o1’iginal._suitV-iwherein all the
\nparties to the appeal   objecltion are parties.\n<\/p>\n
4. Brief facts leadiihligptolvthis  and cross objection<\/p>\n
are as tU;nd.e”1j:\n<\/p>\n
:”‘._Pl’aii1tiffs’l:’i….1io _;1$.t defendant are children of late
\nNarayariappa. ll3’l_aiAn_tiff is 15’ wife and Si” plaintiff is 2nd<\/p>\n
V.\u00bb\/i\u00e9fg of late “Na.r_ayanappa. Plaintiffs case is that suit<\/p>\n
 No.1 property, agricultural land bearing<\/p>\n
H  lrrieasuriiig 10 acres 34 guntas, item No.2,<\/p>\n
 property bearing Sy.No.108 measuring 4 acres<\/p>\n
V ”  gulhtas and item No.3 house list No.44 measuring about 7<\/p>\n
 Pinlianas are the ancestral and joint family properties of<\/p>\n
‘T Narayanappa. themselves and IS” defendant. Suit schedule<\/p>\n
item Nos} t.o 3 properties were purchased by selling the<\/p>\n
‘w_ I ‘)1\/E<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
. 7 .\n<\/p>\n
5. In the year 1987 Narayanappa died. Even after his<\/p>\n
death suit schedule properties are in joint possess_i”on”*.and<\/p>\n
enjoyment of piaintiffs and 15′ defendant. Pla;in~tiff’S::l<\/p>\n
during the last days their father late  Wash. <\/p>\n
addicted to vices, as such he wa:s”gno–.t_’ protecting. the\u00bb:V’fi’ntVerest<\/p>\n
of joint family. Though therenwas no’-occasion  to sell<\/p>\n
suit schedule properties, due..to’indu_cement. of 253 defendant
\nhe entered into certainiftransactio’ns:”wi’th respect to portion<\/p>\n
of suit schedule vproperties}  _thei_r that besides suit<\/p>\n
schevdule~-pr’operti:e’s there areseveral houses on the northern
\nside item ” said properties are all in joint
\npossession and -en}oyni~ent of plaintiffs and 1st defendant.<\/p>\n
 tranVsactiAo11.which ES’ defendant and their father late<\/p>\n
‘ ,V’Narayanappa._have entered into with 2″” defendant is not<\/p>\n
” genuine even if it is genuine, the same is not binding on<\/p>\n
plaiintiffsr Item bios} and 2 of suit schedule properties are<\/p>\n
if ‘still vacant land except for construction on the northern<\/p>\n
 side. It is their case that immediately on coming to know of<\/p>\n
sale deed dated 16.1.1987 said to have executed by their<\/p>\n
father iate Narayanappa and 13’ defendant in favour of 2*?”<\/p>\n
‘A?\u00bb’;\n<\/p>\n
W” V’;\n<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
-3-<\/span>
\ndefendant they iiled P.Misc.N0.288\/1989 challeriginlg the<\/p>\n
said sale deed. Since there was no irnmedi-ate._eth_reat,Al no<\/p>\n
interim relief-‘was sought by them in the  It <\/p>\n
is averred in the plaint  subsec[u_entiy_;:  <\/p>\n
OS.No.423\/1992 seeking relief of partition an-\u00e91.thel’saine<vvasrp<\/p>\n
withdravm with liberty tollii.1:e"i\u00bba fresh 7_'fhereafter,
\npresent suit is filed c'io'n.tend'inlg_"thjatilsupit schleld-u\ufb02le properties
\nare joint family properltiesltheir father late<\/p>\n
Narayanappa' 'byVy:'disp:osingg..bf of their grand father<\/p>\n
situated' –vil'lage. Alte1"'Ct)ml11g to know of sale deed
\ndated'  taken steps to prevent 21*'
\ndefendalritl frorn-__ disturbing their possession over suit<\/p>\n
 prolpe-rties; In this behalf they had initiated<\/p>\n
' ;l'proceedings"against 2"" defendant before Government, EDA<\/p>\n
* and  of Cooperative Societies and other authorities.<\/p>\n
6. In the said proceedings, on service of notice 15*<\/p>\n
2 it defendant. though served, did not \u20acI’lt\u20aci’ appeaiance. 2″”<\/p>\n
l”\u00a7dei’endant. House Building Cooperative Society entered<\/p>\n
l appearance and filed its wi~1’tten statement contending that<\/p>\n
entire litigation is stage inanaged by 15? defendant: through<\/p>\n
…’__ K\/t <\/p>\n
– 9-\n<\/p>\n
plaintiffs. They admit relationship of plaintiffs and Isl<\/p>\n
defendant. However, it is contended that since  of<\/p>\n
5th plaintiff with late Narayanappa has taken’ <\/p>\n
the subsistence of marriage with ..\/W’  ‘sam4ej&is”not’ . <\/p>\n
a valid marriage and plaintiffs ‘IS   <\/p>\n
cannot claim to be the member’s’ of fj.oin.t””*~fa:ni1y of<\/p>\n
Narayanappa. They admit pyurcAh.ase.._V of ‘ex_tent of 7 acres
\n14 guntas out of   Sy.No.l05 and 2<\/span><\/p>\n
acres 5 guntas out.014:acr’esfl,3Q..Vguntals in sy.No.108 of<\/p>\n
Al1alasari’dr\u00e9;,villa-ge. lBangalore”I\\lorth Taluk, Bangalore. They
\ncontend .that_   have any right over remaining
\nextent “e..forv’esai_d At~<y'o'survey numbers and item No.3 of suit<\/p>\n
sfLcl'1e\u00a71_ule_p_properti.es..\u00ab '<\/p>\n
  _  case is that aforesaid extent was purchased by<\/p>\n
 'l sale deed dated 16.1.1987 for Valuable<\/p>\n
corrsideration of Rs.6,01,662.50 and said land was acquired<\/p>\n
  lbyythem to form a residential layout for the benefit of the<\/p>\n
 members of 2*"; defendant society, who are employees of<\/p>\n
University of Agricultural Sciences. In all 1458 employees of<\/p>\n
said University are the members of 2nd defendant society,<\/p>\n
k,.;i..\u00ab'1<\/p>\n
..][j..\n<\/p>\n
with their money portion of suit schedule property is
\npurchased. Along with said land they have also purchased<\/p>\n
other lands totally measuring to an extent of about’<\/p>\n
for formation of residential layout. They pu1’c}iasedfy 4_<\/p>\n
extent of land in suit schedule~~ite_1n  .2j_af:zerV’f <\/p>\n
verifying that the same is self<\/p>\n
Narayanappa. They deny s’an’i’e…as joint family properties, in V<\/p>\n
this behalf they issued pL1bl_i.cu:notice and”i.n_ reply to that<\/p>\n
notice Narayanappa is’sue.d legal}notiC’::’through his counsel<\/p>\n
to state”   stilriedulellvproperties are his absolute
\nproperties, In of the same his wife, 4″‘ plaintiff
\nand his  “l~’%’p  have also affixed their signature<\/p>\n
as\u00b0eon_sen__ting Witnesses. It is also alternatively contended<\/p>\n
‘  eyenjifilflsiiit schedule properties are assumed as joint<\/p>\n
 the same are sold by late Narayanappa as<\/p>\n
a  of joint family for the family necessities and for<\/p>\n
2 Afthcnjbenefit of the members of joint family. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
 by late Narayanappa is binding on plaintiffs and ls’<\/p>\n
‘H defendant.\n<\/p>\n
-11-<\/span><\/p>\n
8. It is the case of 2″” defendant, suit seliiedule<\/p>\n
properties were converted for non agriculturalNp”u1fpo.se and<\/p>\n
thereafter, it was conveyed in their favour b’j,r__lll\\larayanap_gpaV’ <\/p>\n
after securing permission from G’oy>ernme’.nt Vidle” orderfdated T<\/p>\n
4.8.1984, No.HUD 82 cEc.\u00e9\u00a73_.\u00b0-.’lr”i1e ‘.SVGl.Ci..Tby<\/p>\n
Narayanappa was in excesls*.olf”~t_he Urban  and<\/p>\n
Regulation] Act, 1974-,’ Event-‘othperyri-\u00bbse, the landl would not
\nhave enured to the belriefitro1’1.fal’inily\u20ac’  for the Government<\/p>\n
Order dated 4.8.1984:’tlie’er1ti_re\u00ab.ll1andlV’in,tiuestion would have<\/p>\n
vested Witiri; ‘:r;j}oye1if1ime’nt”-under’the aforesaid Act, 1974. it is
\ntheirV”cgoritentiorilthlat..piialritiffs have no manner of right to
\nseek partitioi’i of land  is already sold in their favour.<\/p>\n
V   itis their”c’ase that in P.Misc.288\/ 1989 proceedings<\/p>\n
9  seelting cancellation of sale deed dated 16.1.1987<\/p>\n
 h_ad9c:l3\u00a7so:ught for declaration and possession of extent<\/p>\n
that’~\\ya:s conveyed in their favour. This would establish that<\/p>\n
 .Vplla:’_.ntiffs are not in possession of the extent purchased by<\/p>\n
12″” defendant under sale deed dated 16.1.1987 and<\/p>\n
dismissal of said P.1\\\/iisc., on 17.6.1995 is not brought to the<\/p>\n
notice of the Court below. it is also submitted by them thkat<\/p>\n
1’\u00bb\/*;;” \/3
\n2<\/span>
\n1<\/span><\/p>\n
– 12 .\n<\/p>\n
15′ defendant had filed suit in OS.No.1403\/1989 ,-against<\/p>\n
them, wherein he sought for the relief of injL1nct~ion.:ag.ainst<\/p>\n
2″” defendant from forming residential layout”  <\/p>\n
covered under sale deed dated said.4_’_p.rayVer ‘ . <\/p>\n
was rejected by order dated 2.3:}-1  <\/p>\n
defendant got present suit \u00a3i1ed…through plaififitiffs;”which is ‘a if<\/p>\n
collusive suit. The suit filed__V\ufb01’A{;y. ‘lift defendant} herein in<\/p>\n
OS.No.1403\/1989 subseque.nt}y}disrnisste,d for default. It is<\/p>\n
their case that p1ain.tiffs~hereinhad yyfaiied to secure any<\/p>\n
inteijiarnttterder   e\u00a7ir~ii’er”‘: suit filed by them in
\nos.N:(:,42:3\/’J there was only an order of
\nstat.us–quo,  affect their right over the suit
\n proryetrtives… v<\/p>\n
if if  _  ivficcording to 2″” defendant, much before execution<\/p>\n
.’of”sa1efdfeiedddated 16.1.1987 Narayanappa had executed a<\/p>\n
general: power of attorney in favour of 2″” defendant, 4″”<\/p>\n
 i1j1aintiI1″ and 151- defendant were consenting witnesses to said<\/p>\n
Adidoucrnent. Under the said general power of attorney they<\/p>\n
were put in possession of property and by virtue of said<\/p>\n
power of att:o1’r}ey they got. the land converted from<\/p>\n
x,r,=”\u00a7\/…;\n<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
-13-<\/span><\/p>\n
agriculture to non agricultural purpose by paying a.-sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,06.425.5O and secured approval from BDA–jvi-d_”e._o’iider<\/p>\n
dated 31.7.1991 in Sub.No.2l20 for i’ormatio’n* <\/p>\n
paying a sum of Rs.’7,00,000\/– towards  ciiargelsl ‘ . <\/p>\n
for formation of layout on suit schedulellvprlo~perti’eslarid<\/p>\n
have been paying tax regularly in respect oI’l<'\u00bblV AI1lb__lr'tio.n*':of suitl<\/p>\n
schedule item Nos.i__ and 2_…pi'voperties;l Whvichfhave been<\/p>\n
conveyed to them.\n<\/p>\n
11.  denied avelimgni of l’plair1tii’i’s that suit<\/p>\n
schedule _Apilvo,perties joint family properties and said
\nproperties ygwerel  after sale of the joint family<\/p>\n
prgpertieslllsituated at lippur village. They contended that<\/p>\n
  Efiled”A.againstWthern without issuing proper notice as<\/p>\n
   Cooperative Societies Act is bad in law. The<\/p>\n
s–a_1e_.traln’saction between late Narayanappa and 2″‘<\/p>\n
 defe’nrcl_ant is genuine as it was for valuable consideration i.e.,<\/p>\n
it =  only huge sum of money by way of consideration is paid<\/p>\n
but also lot of money is invested by them to secure<\/p>\n
conversion of same and for permission from Government.
\nBDA and other authorities for formation of layout thereon. It<\/p>\n
a…uV:\n<\/p>\n
‘ .\n<\/p>\n
“‘”m,…\n<\/p>\n
-14-<\/span><\/p>\n
is their case that layout is being formed for the benefit of<\/p>\n
employees of University who belong to middle “:ai’1d’j-rloi.?ver<\/p>\n
middle strata of society and large number of   4_<\/p>\n
attenders, peons, drivers and iab’ ~-a.ssis_tants’Wor lteaehiers  l<\/p>\n
working in the university arlq <\/p>\n
monetary savings for pu1’Chasle~V.of a site to be fo__rfneu”:in the V<\/p>\n
layout.\n<\/p>\n
12. With these ‘:~_;_va1’ the Court below<\/p>\n
framed the following <\/p>\n
 1.._ —  the’v..p1aintiffs prove that the suit that
\nA pp ” M therV_s’uit. schedule properties are the joint family
\n p’rQp\u00a7*rties  the plaintiffs, defendant–l and<\/p>\n
deceased shri. Narayanappa ?\n<\/p>\n
 ;’\u00ab\ufb01lWhether the plaintiff further proves that the suit
\n ‘schedule properties have been purchased by
\nit  investing the sale proceeds of the properties
\nbelonging to the grandfather of the plaintiff s–1<\/p>\n
to 3 and the I defendant ‘P\n<\/p>\n
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the alienations<\/p>\n
of the suit schedule items–l and 2 by deceased<\/p>\n
shri.Narayanappa and the I defendant infavour<\/p>\n
” ‘. 5.\n<\/p>\n
-15-<\/span>
\nof II defendant under the sale deed dated<\/p>\n
16.01.1987 is not for legal necessitypliapncl the
\nsaid transactions are not bindi.:i.g..’_.o-nj’ fthe<\/p>\n
plaintiffs’ share ‘?\n<\/p>\n
Whether the plaintift’s\u00bbV bp1’oVe’:_that\ufb01theyvare”iii if<\/p>\n
ossession and enio rnent offall , t’i1e’._ suit
\nP Y . l V .. ~. _<\/p>\n
schedule properties on tneldatelfilingpthie suit?”<\/p>\n
Vifhether the  proV’e–..th\u20ac:1t they are
\nentitled V’t~o_zV:partlitiQ–n . and  separate possession of<\/p>\n
their 5\/?” share in_~\u00ab._lvall.:’V.~.the suit schedule<\/p>\n
” \u00ab .V<\/p>\n
* VWhether”the’\u00bb\u00ab[lI\u00bb~”defendant proves that the suit is<\/p>\n
.i i3arredA”ay’t.}de law of limitation ?\n<\/p>\n
Whetherl the II defendant proves that the suit is<\/p>\n
‘\u00ab.hn__ot: maintainable as notice under section 125 of
\nf.:tvh’e Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act has not<\/p>\n
 1- ‘jbeen issued prior to the filing of the suit ‘P<\/p>\n
What decree or order “P<\/p>\n
Thereafter, the matter went into trial. The plaintiffs in<\/p>\n
 support of their case examined 151 plaintiff as PW.l and one<\/p>\n
-15-<\/span><\/p>\n
Venkatararnanappa as PW.2 and produced and marl_<'.e__d in all<\/p>\n
30 documents. On behalf of 2"" defendant, twijl'\\e.it<ii.esAses<\/p>\n
were examined as DWs.1 and 2 and <\/p>\n
marked in all 100 documents as EXS\u00bb..D'1  <\/p>\n
13. The evidence on behalf pllaintiffs <\/p>\n
PW.1 who is 15′ plaintiff reiterated” the _plaintj”‘aver:ment’s\u00bb.f’<\/p>\n
However, in the evidence he…cllarifie_d rega*rdiAng_ithe date of
\npurchase of propertiesfpbyl’. irgranidlpffasther Mariyappa at<\/p>\n
Tippur as in the year”:’that his mother 5th<\/p>\n
plaintiff rnar17″i.ed_:’Naraynappa in the year 1952 Le. prior to
\nHindu wlV4larrilag,e  into force which prohibited<\/p>\n
secoild m;\u00a7m~:.a’gef ‘l”.hereby plaintiffs tried to establish that<\/p>\n
  is legitimate wife of late Narayanappa. Plaintiffs<\/p>\n
it upon the pleadings by stating that there was<\/p>\n
threat Di1’ectors of 2″” defendant society to the life of their<\/p>\n
 AA pfat.her\u00ab:’i.e., they assaulted their father and forced him to<\/p>\n
* .e>_\u00a7ecute sale deed in favour of 2″” defendant. He reiterated<\/p>\n
 plaint averment that suit schedule properties are joint: family<\/p>\n
properties and recital in the sale deed dated 16.1.1987 that<\/p>\n
they are the self acquired properties of Narayanappa is<\/p>\n
– .17 –\n<\/p>\n
incorrect since the sale deed was prepared by 2″” defendant<\/p>\n
and as their father was not knowing English <\/p>\n
at-‘\ufb01xed his signature. Therefore, no title has\u00ab’.__pa.ssedtoilgn\u00e9sx<\/p>\n
defendant society in suit prop’ertie’s..& “..pln_:.the._eoursexljofbi’ it<\/p>\n
evidence he also produced the d’oct’1rnents”i..e.’;,sale,_’deeds,<\/p>\n
EXs.P7 and P8 whereunder_w}g..iS grand’ .fgtthel’:vV4’Vpurehasedl<\/p>\n
properties at Tippur and also”‘prodii(;-ed certiiledwcopy of sale
\ndeed whereunder his grand properties which are<\/p>\n
at Exs.P9 and P10 ‘sale deedlvlunder which suit<\/p>\n
schediile*t.p:f\ufb01opei?ti’es””were ‘purchased and the revenue<\/p>\n
docuvfnerits  their claim that they are joint
\nfamily properties;V._ A<\/p>\n
  is an independent witness and<\/p>\n
V  ‘from Tippur Village has given evidence to<\/p>\n
 that properties at Tippur Village belonged to<\/p>\n
grand {either of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 15? defendant. He also<\/p>\n
  to the extent of saying that pressure was put by<\/p>\n
 Directors of 2″‘ defendant society on Narayanappa to sell his<\/p>\n
property to the society.\n<\/p>\n
-13-<\/span><\/p>\n
15. As against this, President of 2% defendant is<\/p>\n
examined as DW.1 who is also Associate Professor of the<\/p>\n
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore}<\/p>\n
reiterates the defence taken in written i.nr”his.<\/p>\n
evidence. He further clarifies i’hat._on1ylportion\ufb01of <\/p>\n
schedule item Nos.1 and 2 are purchasedlffby'”2l:l” <\/p>\n
2″” defendant is in possession of said _ext_en-t, –‘i\\leither’<\/p>\n
plaintiffs nor 151- defendanty_hafve_ any rilghtoveri the same.<\/p>\n
The entire property   N’ar’ayanappa as it was his<\/p>\n
self Vaclc\ufb02ireitl  total extent of land of 19 acres
\n33 <;giin'tasl "Narayanappa, only a portion is<\/p>\n
purchasedlbvyy\ufb01flfi fdeiendant and remaining land continued<\/p>\n
to'3'\u00ab:.be__pAy'i1<i_possession of plaintiffs. He st.ates that plaintiffs<\/p>\n
' ,.fi'iavev.__i'r1ialfinitiated three proceedings earlier to this i.e.,<\/p>\n
*i=;Mi\u00a7c.\u00e9's8}%=1989, OS.No.423\/1992 and os.No.7s32\/1995.<\/p>\n
Besidveyshthe aforesaid proceedings 1" defendant had filed a<\/p>\n
 if 'ls-Liit  OS.No.1403\/1989 and also got \ufb01led public interest<\/p>\n
 "Z litigation through one Lalithamrna in writ<\/p>\n
petition.No.15267\/1994, which was dismissed. DW.1<\/p>\n
further sated that from out of sale consideration received by<\/p>\n
~20-\n<\/p>\n
defendant, which are answered in the ?,1fl”i1’I”1″1{3.:t_’i’w’.\u20ac’_’.”‘ Thiifd<\/p>\n
issue is with regard to sale deed dated  <\/p>\n
by Narayanappa in favour of 2″(*;defendan\u00abt a’nd:_iWhi3t:her_ti1e it<\/p>\n
same is for legal necessity and Whether :s’a1\u00b0ne’;is’anotp<\/p>\n
biding on plaintiffs’ share a1″idVdV..’bu1’den” .o:f”pAro\\riiig the same
\nwas put on p1aintif;ts.’~~.__ “Ih_e”sa1d’:\u00a2i.sjsi’u._e is an’s\\i}ered in the<\/p>\n
negative against the piaii-it’1_ffsi.’  <\/p>\n
17:  Vregiarding possession and
\ne11joym_.evntV~.oi’spit  and plaintiffs right to
\nsee1{,v_sepai’ate’.{3\u00abartitionjavn_d– possession to the extent of 5\/71″
\nsharein suit ‘1te4In’.Nos.1 to 3 are answered partly in<\/p>\n
af;\u00a7i’1″mative andpa1’tiy in negative for the reason that court<\/p>\n
 \u00ab.heio\\i}’i:’pi1as\u00ab._eon\ufb01rrned the sale of an extent of 7 acres 14<\/p>\n
 q  SyNo.105 and 2 acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.105 i.e,<\/p>\n
suit s’e’h.ednie item Nos} and 2 in favour of 2*!” defendant<\/p>\n
 _ and with reference to the said extent which is sold in favour<\/p>\n
V’ =of.:’2*1<3 defendant. it is held that 2"" defendant is in possession<\/p>\n
F of the same and plaintiffs and 1" defendant. are not in<\/p>\n
possession of said portion. as such they are not entitled to<\/p>\n
share in the said properties. However, it is held that the<\/p>\n
– 2.1. —\n<\/p>\n
remaining extent in the said suit schedule item_..Nos.tl’  2<\/p>\n
Continued to be in possession of plaintiffs   V’ <\/p>\n
and item No.3 of suit schedule  also held’ h_e_iVn:l’th.e’i1″<\/p>\n
possession and it was held that eachlof theni1_’i_iAhaVe~ in<\/p>\n
the said property which has to. decided’ in  decree<\/p>\n
proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18. So far as   ‘it is in respect of
\nlimitation.    The same is held
\nin the defendant holding that the
\nsuit:’filec__l  period of limitation. 7″1
\nissue  in   maintainability of the suit for non<\/p>\n
issue _of anoticlell under Section 125 of the Karnataka<\/p>\n
 \u00ab_CoopEei’atiVe_Societies Act. In the said issue burden to prove<\/p>\n
 ‘V ‘l;l_1\u20ac’1   on the defendant and the same is held in<\/p>\n
ri\u00abegat_ive.pa~’gainst the 2″” defendant. As a result, the suit of<\/p>\n
 AA plaintiffs is decreed in part holding that plaintiffs 1 to 5 have<\/p>\n
l’–ri\u00a7nt to seek partition of suit schedule item Nos.i and 2<\/p>\n
 excluding the extent of land which is sold by their father<\/p>\n
Narayanappa in favour of 2″” defendant and they have right<\/p>\n
14,, ‘\\,.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\u00a7<\/p>\n
-23..\n<\/p>\n
to seek partition in item No.3 by initiating proceedings in<\/p>\n
final decree.\n<\/p>\n
19. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by of the
\ncourt below so far as it pertainsfto haye 1<\/p>\n
filed the present appeal chal\ufb02lengiriglthe upvliollding ‘\u00a3;)i’f’sa1et.<\/p>\n
deed dated 16.1.1987 in  portion’iovf  schedule
\nitem Nos.1 and 2 in;fav_our_L:ofV_;2″‘l._d<%lEf1dE111tHi511Vvthe ground
\nthat appellants 1 to and  are the brothers<\/p>\n
and sisters.;_"Appp:ellan3ts 4 rVth_eifr mothers. That suit<\/p>\n
Wasifiled 'parftition and separate possession
\non the=.g1'ound V  suit schedule properties were<\/p>\n
ppugrchasedu E'ff)1fV1'1V Voutlof the joint famiiy funds 1'.e., from the<\/p>\n
   oflllltfippur viliage properties which were
\nA    name of grand father of appellants 1 to 3 and<\/p>\n
 respondent, who died in the year 1955. Thereafter, their
\n to ggrand\ufb01rnother Akkayyarnma decided to shift her residence
\n1'  Tippur to Allalasandra atong with her son<\/p>\n
Narayanappa. From out of the sale proceeds oi'Tippu1'<\/p>\n
prope1'ties they purchased suit schedule properties as<\/p>\n
supported by Exs.P7. 8 to 10.\n<\/p>\n
e\/t’eL_\/3<\/p>\n
.23-\n<\/p>\n
20. It is also their case that properties acquired by
\nSrnt.Akkayarnrna and her son Narayanappa are 7].oiii.t]i’a_mily<\/p>\n
properties in which appellants have  <\/p>\n
properties being agricultural properties and—-h.gjps3e’properties p <\/p>\n
are included in the schedule of the suit l<\/p>\n
separate possession of plaintiffs. llitpis theiVrv~l’–i;_;;a,sel.thlat<\/p>\n
have right and claim over  _jpoint’iarrnilv properties. In
\nthat behalf they filed:  t’p.arti’tion after  death of<\/p>\n
Narayanappa, in which 2’ml_re”spond–ent’AA–h*erein is also a party.<\/p>\n
The visalCi”St:fit is7I’deci’ele’d inllrespeci. of the suit schedule
\nproperties andl1’einain_ingplc.1aim is dismissed. It is also their
\ncase that’a2″<l defen~:la'n.t'lherein is taking advantage of the<\/p>\n
 Claim over..t.he suit properties. The trial Court did not<\/p>\n
' ,lappreciate\u00ab..t:he_same in proper sense. On the contrary it has<\/p>\n
" shhownl1"av*ou\u00a7ritis111 to 2"' defendant in wrongly appreciating<\/p>\n
the z pleadings, documentary evidence and submission<\/p>\n
2  it supporting their claim which are at i31xs.P}, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9,<\/p>\n
  ii. The trial Court has also not properly appreciated<\/p>\n
"the fact that Ex.Pl4, the registered sale deed in favour of 2""<\/p>\n
defendant has come into existence in iiiegai and improper<\/p>\n
-24-<\/span><\/p>\n
manner and the legality of said sale deed is also questioned<\/p>\n
by the plaintiffs is not properly appreciated. Ther_e\u00bb.i_s-\u00abal*s_o an<\/p>\n
error in appreciation of facts, staternents_.~\u00a7and’V.’e’vtdez1ce<\/p>\n
including the depositions of witnesses. .’Co1:–sequentih , ,_th’e. <\/p>\n
finding of trial Court on issues isialso-er2?oneous}”<\/p>\n
21. Though the courfbelow a’11s\\’2vered’Vi’sst1e, _l\\l0s.1 <\/p>\n
2 in favour of appellants 3″‘ issue hueingfdisputed} fact raised
\nby 2nd defendant is no1;hprop–\u00a7erlyanswered. Inasmuch as, 21361
\ndefendant did not proyethey tra1rsaction’:is—-for legal necessity.<\/p>\n
Though ‘l’ex\/idence against the officials of 2nd
\ndefendant the sanie’  appreciated in proper sense. The<\/p>\n
admission ‘V of _ 2’15 defendants witnesses going against the<\/p>\n
  ofagnd defendant is ignored and over looked by the<\/p>\n
 trial -C’o:;r’i: affecting minors’ interest. The order passed in<\/p>\n
earlier”C)S.;l\\lo.423\/1992 and in P.Misc.288\/1989 are not<\/p>\n
 A appreciated in proper sense and the Cornmissioner’s report<\/p>\n
“in the said suit is also ignored. The court: below did not even<\/p>\n
__\u00a7consider the option of ordering return of the funds if any<\/p>\n
paid by 2″” defendant to them and to save the suit schedule
\nproperties for the benefit of the minors whose interest was<\/p>\n
my\/iv’;\n<\/p>\n
\u00a7
\n7<\/span><\/p>\n
-25-<\/span><\/p>\n
over looked. There is no proper appreciation of the finding
\ngiven by the High Court in a public interest litigpa1i;\u00bbioon in<\/p>\n
W.P.No.15267\/1994 in respect of same p1*opertiesp\u00bb..of<\/p>\n
the fact that appellants having established    <\/p>\n
partition and separate possession of ‘the7.su:it– pr0.p.eVr’ty and ‘d<\/p>\n
that the suit properties are jointlfaniily propjerty. ‘ <\/p>\n
Court has ignored the”‘v.rsame.    the
\nappellants\/plaintiffs’ *h~.a_ve chaliclngegd-.the disrnissal of their<\/p>\n
suit on all the ai”o1’esaidlbaifailab:le:V <\/p>\n
  t’li\u00e9’V’2.r.’_d defendant being aggrieved by the
\n\ufb01nding ‘thelc’oui*i;l’bellox2\u00a7}’ far as it pertains to issue Nos. 1<\/p>\n
and 2 _hO1Cl\\lI’lg_ that the suit schedule properties are the joint<\/p>\n
 ., A \u00a2fa’1ni1\u00a7\u00a5’lpy\u00a7jpe_rties olflate Narayanappa challenged the same in<\/p>\n
  on the ground that though the suit of the<\/p>\n
p*laint_iifs_:fisA dismissed the contention raised by the 2″”<\/p>\n
 AA defendant to the effect that the sale proceeds of Tippur<\/p>\n
 “village is only to the tune of Rs.1,500\/–, whereas the suit<\/p>\n
fschedule properties are purchased for Valuable consideration<\/p>\n
of Rs.2,50O\/\u00abM and the difference of Rs. 1 ,OOO\/M as on the date<\/p>\n
of purchase of suit schedule properties being sizable. it is<\/p>\n
it\/1.\u00bb;\n<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
-35.\n<\/p>\n
also contended that Narayanappa father of plaintiffs’ 1 to 3<\/p>\n
and if” defendant. being gainfully employed has incolrn\u00e9eof his<\/p>\n
own. which was sufficient to acquire the<\/p>\n
properties by him in the name of his  hinzseif. <\/p>\n
which has course on record infthe:..forrri’–_oi’_pieadingsw.,and l<\/p>\n
evidence. Further facts and circumstances _under whlgchithle;<\/p>\n
said property was acquiredi’i=.,and_ how-.  arnount was
\nmobilized are not p;roperl;_;}l appreciated before answering
\nissues 1 and 2 against\ufb02the  <\/p>\n
  –t.hlewlcase\u00b0o’f cross objector that by a perverse<\/p>\n
finding theiicolurtl  strangely held that purchase by<\/p>\n
Narayanappa ., the name of his mother is benami<\/p>\n
 \u00abtransalctidrnshould have been mentioned in the said sale<\/p>\n
 ‘V deed i.rz..t’he absence of the same, the said contention<\/p>\n
cannot’ accepted, is Without basis. That as on the date of<\/p>\n
 AA salezof properties in Tippur, suit schedule properties were<\/p>\n
  l’alr_leady purchased by father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 15*<\/p>\n
ddelendant, which is totally ignored by the court below.<\/p>\n
Therefore, in the light of that question of suit. schedule<\/p>\n
properties purchased from out of the sale proceeds of Tippur<\/p>\n
‘{\/K’\/'{,_,\/1
\nE<\/p>\n
-37-<\/span><\/p>\n
properties is totally ruled out. It is also its case that despite
\nall these material facts available on record the Vtrial”Court:<\/p>\n
has not appreciated the same in propei: perspectij\/e._,: <\/p>\n
has resulted in the erroneous finding on~the”2part: of court <\/p>\n
below on issues 1 and 2, which, is requtired”to*be=.set aside. ‘<\/p>\n
Hence, the 21″ defendant has\ufb02filedfthe”cross.o~hj.elctdion:’;on <\/p>\n
aforesaid grounds. _\n<\/p>\n
24. In this procpeedidngsfV\ufb02defendants i and 2 after
\nservice of notice entered” a,pplela:}bance.’ counsel. The<\/p>\n
cross  21″‘ defendant. Thereafter, the
\nentireltrialttCot1rt””rec.ords’were secured. On going through<\/p>\n
 grounds”appe’al and as well as cross objections and<\/p>\n
   the court below with reference to issue Nos.1<\/p>\n
 ‘V to   court below, the points that arise for<\/p>\n
c’o_nsid’ei*ation in this appeal and cross objection are as<\/p>\n
V pp und er: s<\/p>\n
1) Whether the finding of the court below with
\nreference to issue Nos.3, 4 and 5 holding that sale
\nof portion of suit schedule item Nosl and 2 in
\nfavour of 2″” defendant is for legal necessity and<\/p>\n
‘~e~u<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
-28-<\/span><\/p>\n
that p1ai.nti.ffs are not in possession of portion of
\nsuit schedule i.tem Nos} and 2 over ar’n”‘\u00bbrextent<\/p>\n
covered under sale deed dated <\/p>\n
same is in possession of 2″‘ defe’ndani”~ and the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are not enti.tl:edHVto”see’i'<_ s-hare'–i_ij. said T.<\/p>\n
properties is just and vprolper or does 'itv'.:a.l1'f'orp<\/p>\n
interference in th.is''appeal? '\n<\/p>\n
2) Whether tl*ieV_ fiilciilnglfthe cotirtdbelow with<\/p>\n
reference to issue Nos\ufb01l andf2.vso__ far as it pertains<\/p>\n
“toiefnatufre ofgsuit schedule properties is just and
\nl._propeix”‘oIf'”does_i: call for reconsideration in the
\nfc.ro’ss objeictiori?\n<\/p>\n
  is necess–ai*y’ to mention that in this appeal also 15′<\/p>\n
V .V.re’spoi1den’t:TWho i.s lst defendant in the court below though<\/p>\n
ilientered ‘appearance through counsel did not participate in<\/p>\n
the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
Heard the Counsel for appellant and 2″” respondent in<\/p>\n
“iappeal and cross objector and contesting respondents in<\/p>\n
cross objection. perused the findings of court below on<\/p>\n
‘W\/av,-5
\n‘E<\/p>\n
-29-<\/span><\/p>\n
issues framed for its consideration in the light of oral and
\ndocumentary evidence available on record.<\/p>\n
On reappreciation of the pleadings..’_or_aii’V.j’ and<\/p>\n
documentary evidence of court below with__yr’eference< to the <\/p>\n
aforesaid points for consideration this 'court 'ans__Vwei'V they said '<\/p>\n
points 1 and 2 for consideration7i.n:"t.he affirrrnatifvev<\/p>\n
following:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
25. On reappreciationf” of documentary<\/p>\n
evidence’ –a,yailalj:lie”on’–record”clearly disclose that there is a
\nconsisten\u00e9t erf\u00a7a’r;\u00a3dI’;;.:;  of plaintiffs and 15′ defendant to
\nsome  see  th.a’t’\u00ab.t.”transacti0n entered into between<\/p>\n
Ncfifayaliappa i”.’e._.___father of plaintiffs and 151 defendant with<\/p>\n
‘ K2’??? dVefenda”nt_ is set aside. As could be seen from the<\/p>\n
* of an extent of 9 acres 19 guntas in all in suit<\/p>\n
sohediulehvitent Nosl and 2 is conveyed by late Narayanappa<\/p>\n
  ” infaxvrour of 2″” defendant under sale deed dated 16.1.1987.<\/p>\n
 transaction has not come into place in one day. It<\/p>\n
Hfcomrnenced in the year 1983 when property was an<\/p>\n
agricultural land. In the year i983~84 itself Narayanappa<\/p>\n
:__ any E
\n\\<\/p>\n
-39-<\/span><\/p>\n
has entered into an agreement for sale of said land to 2″”
\ndefendant. In connection with that he has e11te1’ed:”into an<\/p>\n
agreement of sale and as well as executed a gene1\u00a7a1.p’oi7.rei’.. of<\/p>\n
attorney in favour of 21’I(l defendant authoifising get  <\/p>\n
land converted from agriculture {to non agific’t1ltu1’aipurpose. ‘<\/p>\n
so that it will be convenient to getfthe sarn.er’A’regist’ef,g.d in<\/p>\n
their name for the purpose ovfifoifrnatiori._of’*residential layout<\/p>\n
thereon.\n<\/p>\n
  2115 “‘defendant is a registered
\nCoopleratiye’ Society  the employees of University of
\nAg1\u00b0icultu’1=al  It is also not in dispute that<\/p>\n
transaction pertaining to purchase of 9 acres 19 guntas in<\/p>\n
‘ yfsuit –sVci1ed_ule.._item Nos.1 and 2 from Narayanappa by 2″”<\/p>\n
” defendaiit  the purpose of formation of a residential<\/p>\n
layout.th.e4i’eon. The agreement of sale and General Power of<\/p>\n
  if Attorney initially executed by Narayanappa in favour of 21″‘<\/p>\n
Zsdlelfendaiit is not in dispute. Incidentally to the said<\/p>\n
 documents is’ wife of late Narayanappa ie., 4″‘ plaintiff and<\/p>\n
elder son of Narayanappa ie., 1591- defendant have joined as<\/p>\n
x.-La\u00bb;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-3.1-\n<\/p>\n
eonsenting witnesses. It is necessary to note that they are
\nnot the Vendors along with Narayanappa.  the<\/p>\n
consenting witnesses to said transac_tion;”\u00bb~d.’jwf1e.rein<\/p>\n
Narayanappa projected hirnslef as absol–utev~ of said, <\/p>\n
properties sold in favour of 2″” defendant4\u00a7’ate.’i’i1’e”-e\u00a7:eV(\u00a7u_tion\u00bbfof if<\/p>\n
agreement of sale and Generai Powerof Attcrrneyiivs not at <\/p>\n
challenged in the suit. Whatffisieilallengedfiis only execution
\nof sale deed by plaintiffs 1 to 3\u00a7V._a,re\u00ab.adrnitted1y minors as
\non the date when the said  place. Before<\/p>\n
proceedmg;”further  neeessfary to see the conduct of
\nparties w4i1e11_saie~ commenced in the year 1983
\nwhich efulfminatedf’, in…~7″t11e execution of sale deed by<\/p>\n
Nafaytgfi\ufb01ppaff”i11v…favour of 2″” defendant in 1987 under<\/p>\n
‘ uregiystered’\u00absale deed dated 16.1.1987, which is EXP14. It<\/p>\n
” app’earsf*.V–a*i1VA’tiie problems have started thereafter to the 21″?<\/p>\n
defendant’ society.\n<\/p>\n
 Initially the suit to challenge the sale in favour of<\/p>\n
“”–2′”‘;~1″;’l390. it is seen that thereafter said<\/p>\n
case was not pursued at all as he failed to secure an exparte<\/p>\n
‘ d.er’vQl’*te1njj’orary injunction against 2″‘ defendant who was<\/p>\n
“thesole\ufb01ef\u00e9ndant in the said suit. it is also seen that<\/p>\n
plaintiffs pill to 3 \ufb01led P.Mise.288\/1989. Certified copy or said<\/p>\n
it  xpletition is at Ex.D14, wherein plaintiffs 1 to 3 sought for a
\nutptayer to set aside the sale deed dated 16.1.1987. in the<\/p>\n
said proceedings they did not succeed to get any exparte<\/p>\n
interim order. Thereafter, plaint\ufb01fs filed OS.N0.423\/1992<\/p>\n
-33-<\/span><\/p>\n
against 21″‘ defendant with reference to same property,<\/p>\n
wherein after failing to obtain an interim order _t.’h__ey <\/p>\n
the same. It is also seen that a  <\/p>\n
W.P.NO.i5267\/1994 was also [i1ed'”i’:1_&_the .;gu.\u00a7ise1\u00a7t’-~1;;ul511c’i’<\/p>\n
interest litigation to promote the  oflpl_ain.t.iffs <\/p>\n
defendant in this suit.  p\u00e9tinon..,gi’i_s5″*:e\u00e9i:h\u00e9 to be
\ndismissed, wherein p.oszsessio’n  -9ll”ac1’es al\ufb01guntas of suit
\nschedule item Nos.1  b3r_i21}l1′  is confirmed by<\/p>\n
order of this Court  V’St;bVsequer1tly it is seen<\/p>\n
that,Vthere’~ anloltl;er’\u00abi.:suit filed in OS.No.7632\/1995 by
\nplaintiffs ‘-agairiystijy\ufb02yilcl’–~._defendant and others. Again the<\/p>\n
exparte inter_in1.o.rde*; secured therein by them was Vacated<\/p>\n
 czonterst bylV”:7;1’i<l defendant. herein by order dated<\/p>\n
     failure in the said suit, present suit is filed.<\/p>\n
' V'28u_;'_v\u00bb.ln',the court below, wh.ere the relief sought is for<\/p>\n
pa"i'\u20ac;iti'o:n  the ground that suit schedule properties are<\/p>\n
.   njoriunt farnily properties and plaintiffs 1 to 5 and 13* defendant<\/p>\n
 a share in the same. wherein, it is urged that the<\/p>\n
-“transaction for saie of a portion of suit schedule properties<\/p>\n
K4}.\/3,<\/p>\n
-34-<\/span><\/p>\n
by late Narayanappa in favour of 2″” defendant is not for
\nlegal necessity of the family, it is against the interest of<\/p>\n
plaintiffs and the same is required to be set..~\u00ab~\u00a3’-…’:.”\u00bb_ip’u:l,e.’=,h’_t\\-.m’;h\u20ac<\/p>\n
present suit, they have also gone to the eX_t.Ven:”t~.ofthatf <\/p>\n
their father Narayanappa Was   ~’.r1p\u00a2:s”i;1_ the it.<\/p>\n
later part of his life and with anintention :1ioAfsqtiari=de;: the<\/p>\n
properties of joint family he”‘so’l’d the  :.Hei”,CefVthe said
\nsale is not for the benefit of”the'”fan1ily and’its members<\/p>\n
and the same is not the.rr’1.:_’;v.Ttiey also contended<\/p>\n
thatentireresult.’iifsfehefdule properties being purchased from
\nout of sale proee_edls”–.re”eei:=Ved by sale of properties of their
\ngrand fatfherfu~n.derA’E;\u00a7s’.:P9 and P10, suit schedule properties<\/p>\n
are acqufiredffunder EX.P11 is joint family properties.<\/p>\n
V   father Could not have sold the same against<\/p>\n
‘ ‘ their 1_r1t’e:\u00a7i.%_e\u00a7t.\n<\/p>\n
 29 “The entire plea of plaintiffs was neither denied nor<\/p>\n
 .. ,s_upp”orted by 1*” defendant. The conduct of 15′ defendant in<\/p>\n
f  ‘filing Various suits in his inctivictual capacity contending that<\/p>\n
 sale deed dated 16.1.1987 vide EXPI4 is not binding on him<\/p>\n
‘\u00bb\/M\/1<\/p>\n
-35-<\/span><\/p>\n
has subsequently chosen to stay away in this proceedings.<\/p>\n
This clearly indicates that present suit is filed byypllaiylntiffs 1<\/p>\n
to 5 in collusion with 1st defendant who <\/p>\n
but did not choose to either deny or the case’<\/p>\n
plaintiffs. The evidence available onirecfordp ivdVi.scl.ois.es<\/p>\n
that property of plaintiffs grand   <\/p>\n
under Ex.P6 to P8 at Tippur  was Narayanappa
\nand his mother Akkayyarrixna  vthe  1956″ tinder Exs.P9
\nand P10 for Valuable  .1–l;500\/–. However,<\/p>\n
the  3 are purchased by them
\nunder;E1x.’P11’forva1i1abl’e\u00abconsideration of Rs.2,50O\/W. That<\/p>\n
is by payiizglva11otherlRs.1,000\/– over and above the sale<\/p>\n
‘1 V’  _ c-o.nsid-eravtion that”‘i’sreceiVed by them.<\/p>\n
 what is to be seen is the defence taken by 211’!<\/p>\n
if   2″” defendant in their written statement<\/p>\n
have pleaded that Narayanappa was an employee of KSRTC.<\/p>\n
1 ” He had his own income with which he has purchased suit<\/p>\n
lsschedule items along with his mother. Therefore, it is clear<\/p>\n
“that though there is joint nucleus, apart from the sale<\/p>\n
at ”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-36..\n<\/p>\n
proceeds of joint family properties Narayanappa had also<\/p>\n
invested his self earned money in acquisition.ffof”-suit<\/p>\n
schedule properties. Further it   <\/p>\n
Smt.Akkayyamma in whose name..p_rope’rty”is:’_pu’i’chaseedV  _ <\/p>\n
also a si nato to sale deed, which ‘was ‘e:<ec.i1te'df.Ab<\/p>\n
Narayanappa in favour of Zij\ufb02dzefendant. V  if A A<\/p>\n
31. Now what  be  Aiwhether Narayanappa<\/p>\n
sold portion of iternVAl\\los,i- and=._2 vsuitllproperties for the<\/p>\n
benefit of’ .for..’_’his  The evidence on record
\nclearly disclosesltliaftl’~Iaray’anappa is not at all a squanderer.
\nOut; of the”icovtalextentfoff 19 acres 33 guntas owned by him,<\/p>\n
 only  ‘acres 19 guntas to 2″” defendant retaining<\/p>\n
 n_orl.h’ern..”‘t’pyoi’t.ion of suit item Nos} and 2 property<\/p>\n
“m\u00e9asuri’r1g’ nearly 10 acres. The evidence on record clearly<\/p>\n
disc~loses that he has developed said property by<\/p>\n
 yyconstrticting 28 houses thereon. Even assuming that he is<\/p>\n
 an employee of KSRTC. his salary, income and savings would<\/p>\n
definitely not provide the funds required to construct 28<\/p>\n
houses. Obviously he has utilised the income derived from<\/p>\n
-37-<\/span><\/p>\n
sale of a portion of suit schedule properties for development
\nof remaining portion. The development of reniainirlgpart of<\/p>\n
suit schedule properties by constructing sev.e4ral’_’r-hjouses<\/p>\n
thereon is not disputed. It has also come on  <\/p>\n
said development plaintiffs andl$i”de_fe<ndant:_"arelearning T.<\/p>\n
huge income of Rs.l8000\/is to RsL5.._'-O:0QnO\/*  <\/p>\n
clearly negates the allegation'–\u00abni'ade  the  the effect
\nthat their father Narayana'pp'af'isl'"*a_ squariderer, a man<\/p>\n
addicted to vices and a person' wh_ohas "taken a decision to<\/p>\n
disp;osellot"V.suit  properties for his personal vices
\nthan 'for the ?:\\ene_titleof._;:jeo~ini family. The evidence available<\/p>\n
onprecorcl' clearly d'i.scl'oses that Narayanappa was a wise<\/p>\n
rrii.an.i,.A'-eHe"~–had nolintention of squandering any portion of suit<\/p>\n
V  s_c'he:cl'uLle \u00bbvp'11o:p_crties even assuming that they are joint family<\/p>\n
l'propertiesl\u00a7.V_  Nodoubt said Narayanapa has utilised his<\/p>\n
savings. and also utilised proceeds from sale of ancestral<\/p>\n
 _pr"o_perties which stood in the name of his father and<\/p>\n
itherefore, his earnings and savings has also gone into<\/p>\n
acquisition of the same.\n<\/p>\n
Edvi,\/1<\/p>\n
.33.\n<\/p>\n
32. Therefore, t.he entire property cannot be considered<\/p>\n
as self acquired property. At best it could be co1_is~i:dered as<\/p>\n
property acquired by him from out of joint  4′<\/p>\n
also investing personal funds Which._will  f <\/p>\n
benefit of the joint family. Therefore,1’_th*e <\/p>\n
court below that suit sc’hed~ule item  ‘*:and.. 2 have<\/p>\n
partaken the nature of joint_u”fa_1fnil.y propexftiesis correct.
\nHowever, it is seen  sale  in favour of 2″”\n<\/p>\n
defendant is for theA”benjefit*.yof_  consisting of<\/p>\n
plaintiffs til”  4″>r’..’_’deferr_dfant along with Narayanappa
\nand the fact that’ ‘uti’lised the entire proceeds thereon<\/p>\n
forV.deve1ao’pInent..’oft rernaining extent of suit property,<\/p>\n
 V’  . th.e{re\u00a3ore,’vi–iAt canno’t”be held that the sale is bad in law.<\/p>\n
  1 “.33.  iis-also seen that at the time of execution of sale<\/p>\n
“deed   1.1987 possession of entire extent of 9 acres<\/p>\n
l9″gunt.as is delivered to 2%” defendant by Narayanappa, his<\/p>\n
2  if 1’fS*'<.wife and eldest; son 13'' defendant in the court below. The<\/p>\n
 is evidenced by documents which are produced by<\/p>\n
'society. In the court below Court Commissioner was<\/p>\n
'\u00bbi \u00abE<\/p>\n
appointed to inspect and report the status and possession of<\/p>\n
property in dispute. The Court Commissioner With..d:n.otice to<\/p>\n
all the parties to the suit has conducted__–inspeciZioi1f'7and<\/p>\n
submitted his report. The Cornrnisbsioneri's"'1'eport'=W'hich his<\/p>\n
prepared and submitted by none
\n{Vigilance}, High Court  is
\ndiscloses about the formatiovnddf of the
\nsites with roads,   drains to confirm
\nthat the possession pof..:'t_lj1e   under sale deed<\/p>\n
dated    the purchaser, the 2"'; defendant
\nsociety it   way back in 29.9.1995 itself there<\/p>\n
is an observation" offlthisf court in W.P.No. 15267\/1994 so far<\/p>\n
 aslpoysvsession olf"9"'acres 19 guntas is with 2"" defendant.<\/p>\n
9   not been challenged by plaintiffs and 15*<\/p>\n
 clearly establishes that aforesaid extent. is<\/p>\n
with' _2l*%." defendant on which they have formed layout and<\/p>\n
 .vall"otted the sites formed thereon to its various members.<\/p>\n
9971' herefore, the contention of plaintiffs regarding possession of<\/p>\n
entire extent of suit schedule item Nos} to 3 with them is<\/p>\n
rightly negated by the court below while answering issue<\/p>\n
\u00ab\u00ab.,-mt<\/p>\n
-40-<\/span><\/p>\n
Nos.4 and 5 which cannot be gone into in this appeal and
\naccordingly said point for consideration is answeredyin the<\/p>\n
negative.\n<\/p>\n
34. In the result, it is seen that b<\/p>\n
plaintiffs and 151 defendant is ayAAycbonso1f’t’ed”*joint”=effO1’t.vton’<\/p>\n
deprive legitimate right of 2″” defendant’ tor ‘portiloriie—of”<st1it<\/p>\n
schedule item Nos.l and 2'lV_v'vhVich  morefL1;lly.i:described <\/p>\n
EXP14 measuring to an extentcf  acresl\u00e9i gnfntas under<\/p>\n
the g'tii'se'ithTat "sa'mye'-is joirit' Iamily properties which has
\nbeen"-sold_ "fprhhis personal vices and not for
\nthe benefit of joint  is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
 ” 35.  cross objection filed by 2″” defendant so<\/p>\n
 .V’f’:’gt1″  on issues 1 and 2 is rejected the sale deed<\/p>\n
  executed and registered in its favour by<\/p>\n
N’arayarial’}5pAa is held to be valid and subsisting and the same<\/p>\n
 is  eitectited by him for the benefit and Welfare of the minor<\/p>\n
if -..Vf’c.hi5idren, which has been concurred by his 15* wife and major<\/p>\n
‘Lav;\n<\/p>\n
.41-\n<\/p>\n
son by joining him as consenting witnesses to the said sale<\/p>\n
deed at E3x.Pl.4.\n<\/p>\n
36. With these observations the appHe_alVfil_edl:\u00bby<\/p>\n
plaintiffs is dismissed and the cross 0bject1’on <\/p>\n
defendant is also dismissed witl’1″”\u00a3h’e\u00ab .afores:–.xi_d*obsenraiionbT<\/p>\n
that the sale deed executed inbA:’i.hei._fz’fa\\rou_f is \u00abvall:id..Vband<\/p>\n
binding on plaintiffs 1 to 5 land defendan\ufb01g  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Chandrashekar And Ors vs Sri Ashwathanarayanagowda & Anr on 24 December, 2010 Author: K.L.Manjunath & S.N.Satyanarayana 1. . _] – IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DATED THIS THE 24?” DAY OF DECEMBER.’ ” PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUsT1{:E “_ AND A THE HONBLE MR.JUsi’1\u00a7fE. S.N.SP;iY’FJ\\\u00a3AR;A?ANA R.F.A.NO. 1787~1.9991.’\u00e9\/W*A–It<FA;QROBEZ1\/2000 BETWEEN: SR1 S […]<\/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-13287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Chandrashekar And Ors vs Sri Ashwathanarayanagowda & Anr on 24 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Chandrashekar And Ors vs Sri Ashwathanarayanagowda & Anr on 24 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-12-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-24T02:39:04+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=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Chandrashekar And Ors vs Sri Ashwathanarayanagowda & Anr on 24 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-24T02:39:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":6487,\"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\\\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri Chandrashekar And Ors vs Sri Ashwathanarayanagowda & Anr on 24 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-24T02:39:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Chandrashekar And Ors vs Sri Ashwathanarayanagowda & Anr on 24 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sri Chandrashekar And Ors vs Sri Ashwathanarayanagowda & Anr on 24 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Chandrashekar And Ors vs Sri Ashwathanarayanagowda & Anr on 24 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-24T02:39:04+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":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Chandrashekar And Ors vs Sri Ashwathanarayanagowda & Anr on 24 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-24T02:39:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010"},"wordCount":6487,"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\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010","name":"Sri Chandrashekar And Ors vs Sri Ashwathanarayanagowda & Anr on 24 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-24T02:39:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-chandrashekar-and-ors-vs-sri-ashwathanarayanagowda-anr-on-24-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Chandrashekar And Ors vs Sri Ashwathanarayanagowda & Anr on 24 December, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13287","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=13287"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13287\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}