{"id":133634,"date":"2010-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-08-01T19:17:39","modified_gmt":"2018-08-01T13:47:39","slug":"c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"C Ramesh S\/O Late Chowdappa vs V N Rajkumar W\/O Late Nyatha Reddy on 22 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
C Ramesh S\/O Late Chowdappa vs V N Rajkumar W\/O Late Nyatha Reddy on 22 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.S.Bopanna<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 22?\") DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010\nBEFORE\n\nTHE'. HUMBLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA\n\nREGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2451\/2007 (INJ)  \n\nBEIWEEN :\n\n1 C RAMESH\nS\/O LATE CHOWDAPPA   \nAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS '\n\n2 R UMESH S\/0 C RAMESH _\nAGED ABOUT 22 YEARS  \nBOTH ARE R\/AT NO. 329 '2\nSm CROSS, HULEMAVU _\nSANNERGHATTA I{_OA_D  _ .,_ , \nSANGALoRE-- 560 \"076. a_ 2-. ;   APPSLLANTS\n\n{BY SRTM V ANVOROP-~\nSR1 TM 'V';3NKATAVRE~I)DY*\"& SR1 M NAGESH, ADVS.)\n\nAND:V__\n\n \"    --- ~ \"\n\n~ . A AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS\n T W\/'  1'\u00ab%YA'I'I~IA REDDY\n'-'_1R\/A'3\"\"I5:_O;.V2.7, 2ND CROSS\nA ' B.C.C\u00a7'LAY OUT, 2ND STAGE\n\"\"VIJ\u00a3iYFEAGAR\nBANGALORE -- 550 040\n\n I    GOVINDU\n\nA  AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS\n\n \n\n\n\nS\/o C RAMESH 3\n\nR\/AT No: 329\n\n5'1\" CROSS, HULIMAVU\n\nI3ANN\u00a7+:RC1-IATrA ROAD\n\nBANGALORE A 560 076  RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
(BY SR1 M ERAPPA REIDDY &
\nSR1 G NARASI REDDY, ADVS FOR R1
\nNOTICE TO R2 DISPEZNSED WITFI)<\/p>\n
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U\/O 41 R 1 OF C9C:__Ac:AIN.S’I**-. ‘ I.
\nTHE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED ’05.o9;2007
\nPASSED IN o.S. NO. 9417\/2005 oN TIIE FILE’O’F.:’FHE\u00bb}G[1I
\nADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, EANG,AL_o.RE.;\u00ab _{CCH~”1w6)
\nDECREEING TI-IE SUIT FOR PERMANENT AIINJUNCTION.  A<\/p>\n
This Appeal coming OIE’:\ufb01’;3..I_f he.0ar.ing,V t11.iSA..da.y,H 1:’3heV0<\/p>\n
Court delivered the following :\n<\/p>\n
   defendants in
\nO.S.No.0″4I10’7\/ in question was filed by<\/p>\n
the reS_ponde’nt_\u00a5p1aivntiff Seeking judgment and decree of<\/p>\n
‘ v’pe1*n;1Iahei-it injunCiiioI’1″Vto restrain the defendants from<\/p>\n
 ‘peaceful possession and enjoyment of<\/p>\n
  the \u00bbSIz.it  property. The trial Court after<\/p>\n
 {he rival Contentions has decreed the Suit<\/p>\n
0  \/:.\u00a7Af’)V’VJ~fV’ifS:fjL1dgfnCI1f. dated 06.09.2007. Only two among<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
<3<\/p>\n
4':\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\nthe three defendants claiming to be aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
said judgment. are before this Court.<\/p>\n
2. The parties would be referred to in the same
\nrank as assigned to them before the trial Court for'”?_he<\/p>\n
purpose of convenience and Clarity.<\/p>\n
3. The plaintiff contended that<\/p>\n
purchased the property described, inthe  Ru<\/p>\n
under a sale deed dated 2O.1O.;2OG’\u00a5l”froh1 <\/p>\n
Anitha. T he Vendor of the    the<\/p>\n
property}   Srikvadrivtaswamy by sale deed
\ndated  Sri B.C. Srikantaswamy<\/p>\n
had purchased’-theproperty from Sri M. Rarnesh, under<\/p>\n
 ‘sale dated 1V\u00a7.Ht)l2.1988. After purchase of the<\/p>\n
 secured change of khatha from<\/p>\n
 the “City”Mtflriicipal Council and also obtained the<\/p>\n
sian<:t'ior1Ve'd plan for putting up ctonstruction. At that<\/p>\n
 defendants No. 2 and 3 being the sons of<\/p>\n
%.\n<\/p>\n
we<\/p>\n
4<\/span>
\nthe first defendant interfered with the peaceful<\/p>\n
possession and enjoyment of the suit. schedule property
\nby the plaintiff, the plaintiff was constrained to \ufb01le a<\/p>\n
suit seeking for injunction.\n<\/p>\n
4. On service of suit sumnions, ‘4 <\/p>\n
appeared and filed their writteryv..sta’tehm’ent”V::a_nci:;_Ad<\/p>\n
contended that the suit is liable-..to be’~dismis*s;ed.; <\/p>\n
their contention that they are .o_wn_ers..of property
\nbearing Sy.No.4\/2 of  though the
\nplaintiff contendsthat he”lia}sj   site situate<\/p>\n
in Sy.No.,4\/1.  does not indicate so and in<\/p>\n
fact. the  ” Vpitarchased the site situate in<\/p>\n
  withndregaijdtyto which vendors of the property<\/p>\n
‘no right’..\u00a7(fi1a.tsoeve1*. It was further contended that<\/p>\n
ifi’–1\u00a7espe\u00a7t  property bearing Sy.No.4\/2, he had<\/p>\n
Calready.   suit for partition in O.S.l\\\u00a7o.8’78\/2004\u00bb a.nd<\/p>\n
   the injunction sought for by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
” ‘rcaiginoti be granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.<\/p>\n
framed as<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
The trial Court noticing the rivai contentions<\/p>\n
many a.s four issues for its consideration,<\/p>\n
which reads as hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
Whether the plaintiff proves that he isf”””iTn<\/p>\n
lawful possession of the suit sclieduie gro_f43e1ftyt:4’or’1V”\u00ab2<\/p>\n
the date of suit ‘?\n<\/p>\n
Whether the plaintiff fL}I’U’],-3I'”‘pi-‘OV\u20acS’_’ that “c1efenVdan.tsViV.,<\/p>\n
are interfering with tiis”-posse’ssiori~. of. the<\/p>\n
schedule property?\n<\/p>\n
Whether the piaintiff i>$V”‘V\u00e91’j.’\u20acVV}-Vt\/3-e(}.ti.:’.:#11-6 injunction
\nprayed for’? V A<\/p>\n
WT1a’t..Orc13e1′ or Decree”-\n<\/p>\n
“idn  the burden cast on the<\/p>\n
parties, t.he~-.his-isiVnt:iif’._exafnined hirnseif as P.W.i and<\/p>\n
V’   ‘ i<\/p>\n
‘V..Vmari\u00a7e.d3___?docume’f1’ts …. at EXhs.P1 to F12. The first<\/p>\n
 himself as D.W.i and marked<\/p>\n
 E.Xhs.D1 to D7. The trial Court on<\/p>\n
i.\n<\/p>\n
as<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
analyzing the said docunients held that the suit is to be<\/p>\n
decreed and accordingly, granted the injunction.<\/p>\n
7. Learned Counsel for the appellants xvhile<\/p>\n
assailing the judgment of the trial Court  <\/p>\n
that the trial Court has not properly  .the:”  <\/p>\n
evidence available on record. It is the yeontei1.tio.n’ ‘ofithe; e .l<\/p>\n
learned counsel that even though thVe”‘salea.deVeds. wjerel<\/p>\n
produced and marked before\ufb02ithe trial: the
\nschedule indicated in the sale;_d.eed’v.does not indicate<\/p>\n
319 SUTVEY number :’D1*gE{,’\u20acTf}}’\u00a7v_  is therefore<\/p>\n
contended ‘-thatllin-~,1th.eV”-su*hsequent documents, even<\/p>\n
assuming Vxforhh a m_oment.7’ that the survey number is<\/p>\n
.–.\ufb01menV_ti~3;3ned, ‘then is without basis and without<\/p>\n
-site number being allocated in the said<\/p>\n
survey nurnfi:}e.i”‘. As such the documents in any event<\/p>\n
‘does “riotlsprove the case of the plaintiff. It is also<\/p>\n
   that even though the RTC record was<\/p>\n
 _._wp1’o%dL1ced and marked at Ex.P7, the same does not refer<\/p>\n
Q’<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
-W<\/p>\n
to t.he details of the property and as such, the trial<\/p>\n
Court could not have relied on the same. The learned<\/p>\n
Counsel further contends that. when the  <\/p>\n
have \ufb01led a suit for partition relating to  the  it<\/p>\n
same is pending in final decree ‘\u00bbproe.:eedirigs~, lthett-r_ial:1VaA<\/p>\n
Court could not have granted~..the linjlunctiovn to<\/p>\n
defeat the right of the   ‘–.l_Il%l_enc?e, the
\njudgment of the trial Co”urt.. i”.equi,rels\u00ablcIl0iplbepset aside and
\nthe appeal is to  allow’ed’.* ii”: V<\/p>\n
8., ——–  learned  for the plaintiff-
\nrespondent that the very perusal of the<\/p>\n
judgment llwouldl  that the trial Court has<\/p>\n
-“‘~a_VrefeI’fr’l’edE the lenti.re.vora1 as well as the documentary<\/p>\n
eVidence._available on record. In this regard, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel  to each of the documents to point out<\/p>\n
‘that t’h_e”:. property purchased in fact is situate in<\/p>\n
  “‘il-S_’jy.l\\l.oA_\u00ab4\/1 regarding which there can be no dispute<\/p>\n
  whatsoever. It is further contended that the property in<\/p>\n
8<\/span>
\nSy.i\\io.4\/1 was purchased by one Sri Ramesh who<\/p>\n
thereafter formed layout and sold sites. Since the City
\nMunicipal Council had by then issued khatha numbers<\/p>\n
in respect the property, the same were indicated in'”the<\/p>\n
sale deed. As such. the trial Court was  V.<\/p>\n
conclusion and the same does not call for interferefnee. C’<\/p>\n
9. In the light of  has been  if<\/p>\n
the respective learned counsel”a:i”1’divn yiiew the
\nissues framed before  trial  perusal of the
\njudgment keeping in Vi\ufb01withve.’lf\u20acC01″ti’S.. s~ec–u1″ed from the<\/p>\n
trial Court  that the plaintiff while
\nexamininglvlliiirnselt’.as;_P.Wi;1 has at the outset relied on<\/p>\n
 the _s’a:1e: deed as The documents of his vendors<\/p>\n
 produced and marked at Ex.P2. It is no<\/p>\n
doubt that said documents do not indicate<\/p>\n
Vb”‘–\u00ab.__4’xreference*;_to Sy.No.4\/1. However, the fact. that the<\/p>\n
   in question is situate within the City Municipal<\/p>\n
 –..bwCo%unc:i1 of Bonimanahalli at this point in time. is not in<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
is<\/p>\n
iv.\n<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
dispute. In that regard, the document at EXP4 viz., the
\nendorsement which is issued by City Municipal Council
\nwould indicate that in addition to the khatha number.<\/p>\n
the property number also refers to No. 4\/1, thoL1.gr:,pit<\/p>\n
has not been speci\ufb01cally mentioned as SurVe},.t…nu.rr1b’_\u20acrV” <\/p>\n
as against mentioning No. 4\/1.\n<\/p>\n
10. Further, to point: out  the of <\/p>\n
larger extent measuring S\ufb02lllvgluntas l”w.a:si’V’:situ\u00a7ate in
\nSy.No.4\/1, the doCurner_1.tp\u00ab.at i_i’.X.\u00e9’?’ Rrc isrelied on.
\nThe column No.9 of \/indicates the<\/p>\n
r1ame  the Ramlesh. Though the learned<\/p>\n
Counsel for__the_ appellan:t”_.~eontended that the same does<\/p>\n
 not iijrdicate survey number, a perusal of the same<\/p>\n
 would indioa_te.that the survey number is mentioned as<\/p>\n
  number as 1. As such the said<\/p>\n
‘.VdocurnentV would indicate that one Sri M. Ramesh was<\/p>\n
 lciwner of the property bearing Sy.l\\lo.4\/ 1. In that<\/p>\n
 if the oral evidenria of the parties is taken into<\/p>\n
{<\/p>\n
we<\/p>\n
H}<\/p>\n
consideration. it is seen that the piaintiff has referred to
\nthe fact that the layout has been formed by Sri Ramesh
\nand thereafter the said property was sub~divided into<\/p>\n
plots being soid to different. site owners. It is i1″1.p’t’hat<\/p>\n
regard, one of the plots which was demarcate.d._’4″inl’tfie*V.<\/p>\n
said property was sold to the vendor of they     <\/p>\n
thereafter the plaintiff had purchazsedthe  p_ <\/p>\n
ii. In the light of what._Vhadl’belen  <\/p>\n
plaintiff as P.W.1, a perusalof”-the__cross–zigisgiarrifination<\/p>\n
portion of D.W.1 wou1d–lin.di’cat\u00a7e :the_ said Witness<\/p>\n
has admittedlltiieij’ifao’t.i:_:””tl1’at the property bearing<\/p>\n
Sy.No.\u00e9i\/  by Sri M. Ramesh from one<\/p>\n
  .a_11dv thereafter he had formed layout.<\/p>\n
”  also admitted with regard to the<\/p>\n
distaiicelb\u00e9vtiw\u00e9a\u00e9h Sy.Nos. 4\/1 and 4\/2 being about 100<\/p>\n
lprntis fronreach other. If the docurrientary evidence in<\/p>\n
 ._ “\u00abti:eVba_ckground of the said oral evidence is kept in View<\/p>\n
  also considering the fact that after purchase of the<\/p>\n
2″”\n<\/p>\n
is.\u00bb<\/p>\n
1 1<\/p>\n
property. the plaintiff had also secured the change of
\nkhatha in his name and also obtained the plan for
\nconstruction and paid tax as per documents at Exhs.P4<\/p>\n
to P12. the said evidence would indicate thatffthe<\/p>\n
plaintiff after purchase of the property is in  <\/p>\n
and enjoyment of the same. Mere1y_.Vb.e’c–aus_e’ l._ti1e’l<\/p>\n
defendants contended that theyzilhaye ;filed:l_a–..:<\/p>\n
O.S.No.878\/2004 and theV.a’\ufb01_nall”c1_eeree cypirgfee\u00e9diigsl<\/p>\n
relating to the same are    itself
\ncannot permit the de.fenda~nts– .lVto..c__’in”terfere with the<\/p>\n
peaceful possession and..enj.oyInentl”olf property by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff.’ p _ c\n<\/p>\n
12. ”  Therefore;  circumstance, where the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has only established that a plot had been<\/p>\n
  lijiythe plaintiff but had also established that<\/p>\n
 isin  and enjoyment of the same, the trial<\/p>\n
V _ Court was jxistii’ied in granting injunction in favour of<\/p>\n
if the plaintiff. Hence, inga suit for bare injunction filed<\/p>\n
,9.\n<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff, the tria} Court in fact has appiied itseif<\/p>\n
in an appropriate manner to consider the evi(je.1_i<:e<\/p>\n
relating to the said aspect of the matter and   %<\/p>\n
the decree in favour of the appeliaigt. I1'1.~1'iif,7'.: the   <\/p>\n
said judgment does not caii foixj ir3:te:3;eu1*'e.1"ic.\u00e9"" .'<\/p>\n
hands of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the  ?.;.be1f1g=.:CieVo1d of merit<\/p>\n
stands disposed ofwith-‘f1’0*ei’jde1*,as te’.ee’s.ts.<\/p>\n
         Sd\/-4<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court C Ramesh S\/O Late Chowdappa vs V N Rajkumar W\/O Late Nyatha Reddy on 22 September, 2010 Author: A.S.Bopanna IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22?”) DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010 BEFORE THE’. HUMBLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2451\/2007 (INJ) BEIWEEN : 1 C […]<\/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-133634","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC Ramesh S\/O Late Chowdappa vs V N Rajkumar W\/O Late Nyatha Reddy on 22 September, 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\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C Ramesh S\/O Late Chowdappa vs V N Rajkumar W\/O Late Nyatha Reddy on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-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=\"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-01T13:47:39+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C Ramesh S\\\/O Late Chowdappa vs V N Rajkumar W\\\/O Late Nyatha Reddy on 22 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-01T13:47:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1701,\"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\\\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010\",\"name\":\"C Ramesh S\\\/O Late Chowdappa vs V N Rajkumar W\\\/O Late Nyatha Reddy on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-01T13:47:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C Ramesh S\\\/O Late Chowdappa vs V N Rajkumar W\\\/O Late Nyatha Reddy on 22 September, 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":"C Ramesh S\/O Late Chowdappa vs V N Rajkumar W\/O Late Nyatha Reddy on 22 September, 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\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C Ramesh S\/O Late Chowdappa vs V N Rajkumar W\/O Late Nyatha Reddy on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-01T13:47:39+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C Ramesh S\/O Late Chowdappa vs V N Rajkumar W\/O Late Nyatha Reddy on 22 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-01T13:47:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010"},"wordCount":1701,"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\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010","name":"C Ramesh S\/O Late Chowdappa vs V N Rajkumar W\/O Late Nyatha Reddy on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-01T13:47:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-ramesh-so-late-chowdappa-vs-v-n-rajkumar-wo-late-nyatha-reddy-on-22-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C Ramesh S\/O Late Chowdappa vs V N Rajkumar W\/O Late Nyatha Reddy on 22 September, 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\/133634","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=133634"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133634\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=133634"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=133634"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=133634"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}