{"id":133022,"date":"2010-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010"},"modified":"2015-08-06T00:27:31","modified_gmt":"2015-08-05T18:57:31","slug":"sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri Richard Percival D Souza vs Sri C P Tayal S\/O Sri M K Tayal on 14 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Richard Percival D Souza vs Sri C P Tayal S\/O Sri M K Tayal on 14 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 14\"\" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA_  _\n\nWRIT PETITION No.10841\/2910 (Gsx\u00bb1\u00aber$g:):'r-Eff    \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nSri Richard Percival D'Souza,s' \nS\/0. Sri A.Vincent D'Souza,\nAged about 52 years,\nResiding at No.6,\nAswathkatte Road,\nChikkaiasandra,  '  :\nBengaluru -- 560 061.  '  \"\n\n_    .     '  PETITIONER\n(By Sri A.MadijusI;jdhana, Rap, Am)\" \n\n1. Sri C.P':T_aya|,'\"_ . ', \nS\/en, Sri M.i{.Ta.y~aI,\"v.\nA\u00a73edarabout'52'years,\n. '-R\/at..,'No;e--1S, Mar-:'a'sh Compiex,\n. W.\u00a7\\E0.10,, Convent Road,\n V   \n\n  KV..B'ha--.si\u00e9ara Raju,\nS'\/0.\"---Sri\"S.Krishnaraju,\nAged about 37 years,\n\n I .rR_esiding at No.123,\nx_J.F_'.Nagar III Phase,\n\n Bengaluru -- 560 078.\n\nA  \"'(F3y Sri S.Ramu, Adv. for R1)\n\n RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
\nof the Constitution of India, praying to quash the
\nimpugned order found at Annexure – G dated 8.3.20-10 in<\/p>\n
IA No.8 in O.S.l\\\u00a3o.3076\/1999 passed by the Learnedr~.,_1iJ,,_”‘<\/p>\n
Additionai City Civil Judge, Bangalore.<\/p>\n
This petition coming on for preliminary  M<\/p>\n
group this day, the Court made the fo|lowin_g:—-\u00bb.._.<\/p>\n
QRDERE,<\/p>\n
Petitioner is the aiaiintitt in,Cos.r:itdf’.:s,e.?\u00a7\/1_7999 <\/p>\n
pending on the file of City  The
\nrespondents are the defendarifts  The suit is for
\nspecific performance of agreement of sale
\ndated 17.   i’2′””n’tAdetendant, being
\nthe af|egedof_attovrney holder and also as
\nagreement * 15′ defendant. The 15′<\/p>\n
defendant has_fiie.d’:–wntte’n statement admitting that, he is<\/p>\n
“V’s-..the’-pilvriier ‘of,theftsutttvproperty. However, he has denied<\/p>\n
 in the piaint that, the 2” defendant is<\/p>\n
thepower’ofyattorney holder and there is an agreement of<\/p>\n
“asaie betitieen him and the 2″ defendant on 30.01.1996.<\/p>\n
 defendant has specificaily denied any transaction in<\/p>\n
‘respect of the suit property between himself and the 2″”<\/p>\n
.2<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
La-J<\/p>\n
respondent. He has stated that, he does not know either<\/p>\n
the 2″” defendant or the piaintiff. He has questioned’-._the<\/p>\n
maintainability of the suit and has sought  V.<\/p>\n
suit. The 2″” defendant is stated to have fi|ed”:.t_:he:Vwirittern$_,’i  <\/p>\n
statement on 20.06.2003. Issues,’hav’i’r’ig,_fi:amed,”trial’-h’as”‘.<\/p>\n
commenced. During the course of :examin’a~tion ‘.of–._’t’h..e”~_<\/p>\n
piaintiff\/PW~1 on 24.08.2009, ‘t–h.ev–iagrevei’n,er’.tyof “darted 0<\/p>\n
17.10.1996 was prod,uce_d atid’  Vo’i3j._ection””was raised
\nwith regard to the same ibieiinigavrecei_y.edi_}i.n ‘evidence. The
\nobjection was:oo\u00a7qrrz.;ledA_ on the thjat, the possession<\/p>\n
of the suit \u00a7j4ro’p’erty”\u00b0was’–nof-d\u00e9iiiiyeyrewd’to the plaintiff. The<\/p>\n
ag reement was”‘ma..rked’  Ex’. Pw 1.\n<\/p>\n
2.  1V5″._de’fen’d.ant filed LA No.8 on 17.11.2009<\/p>\n
 to V_i\u00bbi*\u00a7~i.po_i1nd the”–ag__ree-ment of saie dated 17.10.1996 –~<\/p>\n
 ‘E\u00a7..\u00bb~,1 ..on..the’vground that, it is not duiy stamped. The<\/p>\n
.pia.ii1t’iffuVf’il’Ae’d statement of objection contending that, there<\/p>\n
 is no d\u00e9iivery of possession of the suit property under the<\/p>\n
 “..\ufb01.axgre.ement of sale and as such, the payment of stamp duty<\/p>\n
 ascontemplated under Article 5(e)(i) in the Scheduie<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
y<\/p>\n
appended to Karnataka Stamp Act (for short ‘the Act’)<\/p>\n
does not arise and that, the stamp duty already paid on<\/p>\n
the instrument in question is in accordance with ~’iIa’v1}”g’g;}Zt,4<\/p>\n
was also contended that, the document  ”\n<\/p>\n
marked as Ex.P-~1, Section 35 of the Act comvestlinto \u00bbpjl,ay., if<\/p>\n
and the application is <\/p>\n
application and the objectionVang:d”~.upon”h.ea’ring.:the”i’earned ” ‘<\/p>\n
counsel, the trial court de–sp.i”te”‘*\u00bb-noticirigvv…that, the
\npossession of the property a.’ctu_a.l,:ldy handed over to
\nthe plaintiff un,ci:ei’..__the_””agreem’enyit,,_ bvutlthere is a clear
\nrecital witlf.””‘i’eg5ard_V “t’o_.,,.__lagreernent\u00bb to handover the
\npossess.lon~. of  ‘to the plaintiff, by referring<\/p>\n
to the dec’is__ion_ repdi’t.e’d.:ki’_n ‘ILR 2007 Kar 4752, has held<\/p>\n
 that,\u00a7;the’~agreement drawn on stamp paper of 22200\/- is<\/p>\n
 insufficivent-aind __ by determining the deficit stamp duty at<\/p>\n
 penalty at 10 times being 32,98,000\/~,<\/p>\n
V –V direc’ti.ngLth’e.V’ plaintiff to pay 33,27,800\/~ as per Section<\/p>\n
  of the Act, by impounding Ex.P–1, has allowed LA<\/p>\n
–   Aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this writ petition.<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
\/_<\/p>\n
3. Sri A.Madhusudhana Rao, learned advocate<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioner, firstly contended that, E3 SecondIyg,j’vthey4d’eci’sion it<\/p>\n
reported in ILR 2007 viiiagr 4752′  applicaticon to the
\ncase on hand. The agreement-i.dated::~’ii.7i.:1’G’i__1996 — Ex.P~1
\ndoes not contaizaiiariy  the possession
\nof the propertyciha\u00a7z_ing~:,jhe’e.n_Vie-itherdelivered earlier or
\nhavingigbeenidelivered~b.h’u*nde”r the instrument to the
\npurchase\u00abr’.E:_’The’  only recites about the<\/p>\n
agre.eme*iat holvderiagreeing to handover the possession of<\/p>\n
 site\u00bb:  purchaser ie., at a future date. Since the<\/p>\n
 is insisting for execution of the<\/p>\n
V –g con’v’eya..hAce,”‘V’with which the possession of the property has<\/p>\n
it he delivered, there is no liability to pay the stamp duty<\/p>\n
f  u.hde’E Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule to the Act. Thirdly,<\/p>\n
 “without noticing the material facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
L2”\n<\/p>\n
the case, on account of the misdirection adopted, the
\nimpugned order has been passed, which is irrational, ,il’legal<\/p>\n
and hence, interference is called for.\n<\/p>\n
4. Sri S.Ramu, learned advocate  <\/p>\n
the 1″ respondent, by taking me th”rou’gh the agre’erhen-t~’oi”‘.<\/p>\n
sale dated 17.10.1996 \u00bb- EX.P-1A:4(A>fi*r]t3XUIi\u20ac\u00a7j’vF\u00a7)’v<\/p>\n
referring to a contention advan-c\u00e9d, whi|e–.”order
\nof temporary injunction” not to””aitie’i1aVt’e.thelsuit property,
\ncontended that, Ex.P–1 is’%t;d\u00bb-ta-redid’by{Att.t\u00a2’Ie_, 5(e)(i) of the<\/p>\n
Schedule to th_e.A;ct-,. siriice ,th;ere,,Vi’s.’.l’g,..glaiih lvmade regarding<\/p>\n
posses:;VionlVoft~th_e having been delivered. Learned
\ncounsel ‘contend’e_d’t_hat,’the, trial court upon consideration<\/p>\n
of the _ material Vaspects\ufb01of the case, has passed the<\/p>\n
 order, vvh’i’cn’vbeing just, no interference is caiied<\/p>\n
it  f_o”r ,’  ” ‘<\/p>\n
 “Keeping in view the rival contentions and the<\/p>\n
drecotrd ofthe writ petition, which 1 have perused, the point<\/p>\n
. for consideration is: X<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
Whether the trial court is justified in allowing<\/p>\n
LA No.8? V.\n<\/p>\n
6. The aileged agreement of sale executed..VE:\u00a7y._4th_e<\/p>\n
2″” respondent in favour of the petitioner has been”rnaLri\u00a7eid__._” .<\/p>\n
as Ex.P\u00ab1. A copy of the saidWVdocume’nt–.::i’ea’s-1been’<\/p>\n
produced as Annexure–D. In the  docurnen’t;<._.ttie_i<\/p>\n
recital with regard to the possessioniiofithe pilrVo'p.erttyVVre'\u00a7adVs <\/p>\n
as foliows:\n<\/p>\n
“Whereas the said’*\u00ab.agr_eeme;g:t hoitietll hereby agreed to<\/p>\n
hand over the posysessioirli  site to the<\/p>\n
purchaser.  this <\/p>\n
 _  the 15″ respondent that, he is
\nnot awareof_the._\u00e9i\ufb01respio’-‘i’dent and he has not entered<\/p>\n
into an-ytytransaction viithxihim. The 2″” respondent is not<\/p>\n
.'”theV'””ov\\i’ner'”‘of the iiii “suit property. Unless deiivery of<\/p>\n
  15’ respondent to the 2″” respondent had<\/p>\n
taken pviaceigiithere cannot be any handing over of<\/p>\n
Z””‘-hppssesisvioh of the property by the 2′” respondent to the<\/p>\n
 _”pe’titi.oner. For the purpose of construction of a document,<\/p>\n
Vh   true nature of the document has to T ascertained on<\/p>\n
 futtsre act.\n<\/p>\n
reading the recitals in the document. The document in<\/p>\n
question does not indicate the delivery of posses.zs_’io.r’1f”-._l:)y_’<\/p>\n
the vendor -~ 2″” respondent in favou”r’– <\/p>\n
petitioner\/purchaser. The docume.nt~ was  “i”r.4_’t~het-,_V <\/p>\n
evidence of PW~1 on 24.08.2009  O1\\5J’\u00a33.ulA’Al’LJ:’l:ii’l?0<\/p>\n
objections, by specifically notVilci_,n’g..V_thefact  no ‘~ 0′<\/p>\n
delivery of possession of  ptQperty–…un_der the
\ninstrument. Even in  trial court
\nhas specifically,.:fo:,s_nd of the suit
\nproperty w:as–…hVa’nd:ecl  to the plaintiff
\nunder    ailsohoticed that, the recital
\nin the  the possession of the suit<\/p>\n
property t”(j–..t.l1G, pVl’a.int.iff,ttaereby meaning that, it will be a<\/p>\n
V   ~4’i”o.:p_ass the impugned order, the trial court has<\/p>\n
de.’._i_4’\\}%ecl Vs1J’pp_ort from the decision reported in ILR 2007 Kar<\/p>\n
34752.” The trial court has failed to notice the material facts<\/p>\n
‘-f_w.hic’iA_: fell for consideration in the said decision and the<\/p>\n
 fatio of law laid down therein. The facts which fell for<\/p>\n
‘t<\/p>\n
9\/<\/p>\n
consideration in the said decision are that, the plaintiff filed
\nthe suit for specific performance of an agreement and for
\npermanent injunction, restraining the defendant from<\/p>\n
interfering with the possession and enjoyment of<\/p>\n
property. The plaintiff claimed that, he was_;’_’a’l’re.aV-d:v__V’:
\npossession of the property prior to the date—o.–f:fa.greeihenVt”
\nas a permissive occupier. The cioavurt,-.haiviung’:<\/p>\n
document, noticed that, ‘.r.-he vendor has”‘v’i’agreedT\u00a7 to<\/p>\n
handover possession of the provp’ert*y’.VwithoLIt:fekecigiting the<\/p>\n
conveyance. l–iaving_”‘:g\u00ab–  “.._the”\u00ab.,_said fact, by
\ndistinguishing the decisi.o_n’_’i.n  c’a’se”:pif—‘fbanappagouda<\/p>\n
Fakkiraigouda . Vfifatii-yes,:i<.a'fnalawwa, reported at 2005(4)
\nKCCR 243'9,__, it was ,h"e:,a asjfollows:
\n..4.i."lnf'~the presen_t___t7ese. the agreement speaks of delivery
\n of." iipossgession without executing a conveyance.
\nif '  'this decision is not appiicabie to the facts of
\n case."\n<\/p>\n
[Emphasis supplied}<\/p>\n
if  The Trial Court, unfortunately did not discuss<\/p>\n
  the factual aspects and by merely placing reliance on the<\/p>\n
“‘1?\n<\/p>\n
.\/’<\/p>\n
E0<\/p>\n
decision reported at {LR 200? KAR 4752 has held that,<\/p>\n
deficit stamp duty and penalty has to be paid.<\/p>\n
Reliance on the decision without looking <\/p>\n
factual background of the case before <\/p>\n
impermissible. As is too well settled, by all”iea4te’iia_j;.of., V<\/p>\n
decisions of the Apex Court, a decisiornlis <\/p>\n
its own facts. Each case presents its.”ov__vn .f_eatu’r_:es’;w it is ” V<\/p>\n
not everything said bya’Judgge,-~–w.h:i–le”givingl\u00a7ud.gr\ufb01\u00a7ent that
\nconstitutes a precedentl.’T\u00a7i_ef’.=Vgn’4|W’,tgh,in’\u00bbgV in a Judge’s
\ndecision bincling.la…party’V’i’sH:the:’upon which the
\ncase is  is important to<\/p>\n
analyseya –.<:lecis'i"otfi'-..arlid"ils,ol'ate "from it the ratio decidendi.<\/p>\n
What is e'ss_eince'"in"a. decision is its ratio and not every<\/p>\n
 obsetvation fourldlitvherein nor what logically flows from the<\/p>\n
 va'rious_:"A0i;sVe"rv_ations made in the Judgment. The<\/p>\n
enunciaVtio"ri\u00bb–ofgthe reasons or principle on which a question<\/p>\n
–V before a:’.Co”urt has been decided is alone binding as a<\/p>\n
it”4′:–,p’i’ec.edeVnt. The Judgment in the case reported at ILR 2007<\/p>\n
.  “$1752 has been rendered merely by having regard to<\/p>\n
 “the fact situation obtaining therein, which unfortunately,<\/p>\n
la<\/p>\n
II<\/p>\n
was not noticed by the learned Trial jiudge and thu-shas<\/p>\n
misappiied the said decision to hold that the docuinleintgihas<\/p>\n
to be impounded on the ground of the  ”\n<\/p>\n
insufficiently stamped.\n<\/p>\n
10. Mere marking ofVEx,_P~1is._n’ot   <\/p>\n
there is no delivery of possession of the under
\nEx.P~1, which is clearifromTtheiiVptoicyeedings  the trial
\ncourt dated 24.0\u00a73.2009_an’d  para 8 of the<\/p>\n
impugned
\n:1; ….  :p”\u00abe:ti.:ia”‘l’:5r::V”ia’y~–..fii.i.n~\u00a7; the suit for specific
\nperforrnance  relief of directing the<\/p>\n
defendantsyto exlecu\u00e9te deed of conveyance. The said<\/p>\n
 aspectlv has notv…pe_e_n, kept in view while passing the<\/p>\n
  There is no delivery of possession of the<\/p>\n
llsuigltepiropelrty  Ex.P~1 in favour of the petitioner, in<\/p>\n
V . vieufof there is no liability to pay the stamp duty<\/p>\n
 Article 5(e)(i) of Schedule of Karnataka Stamp Act,<\/p>\n
.’  i’9:S7′;: The trial court has acted illegally in holding that,<\/p>\n
T “the requisite stamp duty has not been paid on the<\/p>\n
\u00a32<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
instrument — Ex.P–1. Ex.P–1 being a simple agreement,<\/p>\n
without effecting deiivery of possession or acknowi.ecl_iij’ing<\/p>\n
the deiivery of possession of the property prior__tfo’tine-.ciet:e4_ _<\/p>\n
of its execution, the stamp duty of ‘<'.2QO\/.+."_:'ipsaitii is   <\/p>\n
accordance with iaw.\n<\/p>\n
In the respit, I pass the\u00bbc’fo_l.IowingJ:””
\n0Ro1ru\u00a7’iR:_V”V’ _ V
\nWrit petition is  th_e,,i”i’mpugn’eciAvvorder is
\nquashed.    it  it i<\/p>\n
No        ‘<\/p>\n
KSJ\/-V. _<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Richard Percival D Souza vs Sri C P Tayal S\/O Sri M K Tayal on 14 December, 2010 Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 14″” DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA_ _ WRIT PETITION No.10841\/2910 (Gsx\u00bb1\u00aber$g:):’r-Eff BETWEEN: Sri Richard […]<\/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-133022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Richard Percival D Souza vs Sri C P Tayal S\/O Sri M K Tayal on 14 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-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Richard Percival D Souza vs Sri C P Tayal S\/O Sri M K Tayal on 14 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-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=\"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-05T18:57:31+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=\"10 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-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Richard Percival D Souza vs Sri C P Tayal S\\\/O Sri M K Tayal on 14 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-05T18:57:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1931,\"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-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri Richard Percival D Souza vs Sri C P Tayal S\\\/O Sri M K Tayal on 14 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-05T18:57:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Richard Percival D Souza vs Sri C P Tayal S\\\/O Sri M K Tayal on 14 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 Richard Percival D Souza vs Sri C P Tayal S\/O Sri M K Tayal on 14 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-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Richard Percival D Souza vs Sri C P Tayal S\/O Sri M K Tayal on 14 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-05T18:57:31+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Richard Percival D Souza vs Sri C P Tayal S\/O Sri M K Tayal on 14 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-05T18:57:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010"},"wordCount":1931,"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-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010","name":"Sri Richard Percival D Souza vs Sri C P Tayal S\/O Sri M K Tayal on 14 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-05T18:57:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-richard-percival-d-souza-vs-sri-c-p-tayal-so-sri-m-k-tayal-on-14-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Richard Percival D Souza vs Sri C P Tayal S\/O Sri M K Tayal on 14 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\/133022","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=133022"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133022\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=133022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=133022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=133022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}