{"id":148710,"date":"2009-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009"},"modified":"2016-12-12T20:29:20","modified_gmt":"2016-12-12T14:59:20","slug":"mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mudigowda @ Javaregowda S\/O … vs Chikke Gowda S\/O Doddamllegowda on 16 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Mudigowda @ Javaregowda S\/O … vs Chikke Gowda S\/O Doddamllegowda on 16 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: A.S.Pachhapure<\/div>\n
This RSA is filed u\/Sec. 100 of CPC against the\nJudgement & Decree dated 9 12.03 passed in R.A.\nNo.168f96 on the file of the Addl. Civil ,Judge\n(Sr.Qn) and CJM, Mandya, allowing the appeal sand\nsetting aside the Judgement and Decree dated ESESZB6\npassed in os No.1o6\/93 on the file of the Munsiff\nand JMC, Nagamangala. =1 ' *2 Rs'\n\nThis RSAJ having been heafd\"\"and, zese\ufb01vedssfer\nJudgment, this day Pachhapure_ Jr, 'pronQen\u00a2e\ufb01_ the\nfollowing: '. I * --. .' '. v\n\nJueeeeeue\n\nThe unsuecessfu\u00a7Wglaintiff has apgi\u00e9aehed this\n\nCourt challenging the lJudgme\ufb01t_!end_ Decree of the\nlower appellate: Ceugt \u00e91;eg:5g_ the\u00ab appeal cf the\n\nrespondent5~ gee aeiemieeings the suit filed by the<\/pre>\n
appellant hexein Seeking the relief of declaration
\nand permanent injunction.\n<\/p>\n
L\\<\/p>\n
V’\u00abJ \u00a2.\u00a5JThegfaCt$ relevant for the purpose Sf this<\/p>\n
appeelxareeesfu\ufb01derz<\/p>\n
E eill be referring the parties as per their<\/p>\n
itenk”ubefere the trial Court fer the purpose ef<\/p>\n
.Jcenveeience,<\/p>\n
The appellant herein who is the plaintiff<\/p>\n
before the trial Court instituted the suit seeking<\/p>\n
(Mil<\/p>\n
the relief of declaration and permanent injunction
\nin respect of 3 items of the suit schedule<\/p>\n
properties mentioned in the schedule to the piaint_<\/p>\n
item No.1 is Sy. No.}3l\/11A measuring 2 ggntae; item *<\/p>\n
No.2 is Sy. No.123\/14 measuring”~3p guntaegt ohereas<\/p>\n
item No.3 is Sy. No.l23\/16 meahurino 2 guntaS;T_fhe<\/p>\n
plaintiff has made an a\ufb01er\ufb01ent in the plaint\ufb01thatw<\/p>\n
Kundachikkegowda, the deceased propoeitus has 3 sons
\nby name Doddamalledoooaiti.e]ih*the’,$ather of the
\ndefendants, ?uttaswamy\u00a7ondapnen\u00a7pt\ufb01nitkamallegowda.
\nApart from \ufb01g\u00e9 ;git_sCheduie properties, there were<\/p>\n
other properties ‘.onned”: hyi the propositus<\/p>\n
KundaChikkegoQda*and his sons i.e., the father of
\nthe defendants and ni\u00a7.brother Puttaswamygowda and<\/p>\n
in a partition the suit schedule properties fell to<\/p>\n
h,vthei share do: Puttaswamygowda, the second son of<\/p>\n
Keneaehegkegewda. The third son Chikkamailegowda<\/p>\n
had aie\u00a3t’_the family long back and was unheard.<\/p>\n
u’VJPuttas#am\u00a7gowda was in possession and enjoyment of<\/p>\n
vi%xthe_soit property till his death and his son by name<\/p>\n
i\ufb02wiw\ufb02oduchikkegowda inherited the said properties and<\/p>\n
\u00e9hwas in possession of them till he died leaving<\/p>\n
behind his wife~Javaramma, who succeeded to the suit<\/p>\n
soheduie properties and soid the same to the<\/p>\n
%g<\/p>\n
plaintiff for a valuable consideration under the
\nregistered Sale Deeds dated 28.07.1993ax and
\n07.11.2994. The plaintiff was put in possessigaahf
\nthe suit properties on the respectivej dates ‘and,<\/p>\n
since then. has been jJ1 peacefgi enjoyment “ofg the”<\/p>\n
properties} The revenue records refeai the heme of
\nthe piaintiff and also his7vendor,”d<\/p>\n
It is further averred that at no pointiof time,
\nthe name of the father\ufb02of’theadefendants was entered
\nin the records and nor the s\ufb01it sohed\u00e9le properties
\nfell. to his fs\ufb01sxe. 7_eutf ‘\u00a3aki\ufb01g.msavantage of the
\nfact that htheretdwasgithe. heme of the original
\npropositus and-thefhoshsnd of the plaintiff’s vendor<\/p>\n
and the l”4\ufb01efendantfs*hame is also Chikkegowda, the<\/p>\n
J”defendaets.are elaiming that they are the owners of<\/p>\n
iothe “saith schedule properties through their late<\/p>\n
father Dodea\ufb01ailegowda. In the revision, the suit<\/p>\n
‘sehednie properties never fail to the share of the<\/p>\n
:fether of the defendants and he is never in<\/p>\n
_ possession of the suit schedule properties.<\/p>\n
It is further averred that Ooduohikkegowda, the
\nhusband of Jevaramma was in possession of the suit<\/p>\n
schedule properties and inherited them from his<\/p>\n
QM” ,,,,<\/p>\n
father ?uttaswamygowda and certain mistakes were
\ncommitted while enteringh the names in the records
\nand the plaintiff’s vendor is Javarammey\ufb01hefo.
\nOoduehikkegow\u00e9a. who is none else than p\u00a3\ufb01eif\u00a7\u00a7\u00a2;*a\u00a3.
\nPuttaswamygowda and not the 1″J\u00a2efendant:EmThere_was”
\na criminal complaint and ahtieipato;p4~p\u00a7;i% Wes
\nobtained by the plaintiff- and hothers; age Lin: the ;
\ncircumstances, the defendahte’_$tarteo’Eihterfering
\nwith the plaintiffM’;~5._  and
\nenjoyment of the suit sche\ufb01\ufb01ie properties having no
\nright title fore interestg ox gg\ufb01ateoever title an\ufb01
\nhence he i\ufb01stitetee_th\u00a7Jsuit praying for the relief
\nof declaratiQhfthat_heDis the absolute owner of the
\nsuit sche\u00e9elep properties: and consequent permanent<\/p>\n
injunction re$train:ng’ the defendants front causing<\/p>\n
‘, anyr obstruction to the peaceful possession and<\/p>\n
ehjoymemtfQf.\u00a3he suit sche\u00e9ule properties.<\/p>\n
The defendants appeared before the trial Court<\/p>\n
:ane*filee written statement denying the allegations<\/p>\n
_;m\u00e9e\u00e9 hand it is the specific contention of the<\/p>\n
; defendants that the deceased Kundachikkegowda, left<\/p>\n
“his only son Doddamaiiegowda, the father of the<\/p>\n
eefendants and. that the suit schedule properties<\/p>\n
e\u00e9tcn<\/p>\n
were in exclusive possession of their father after<\/p>\n
the death of Kundachikkegowda. After the death of<\/p>\n
their father, they have partitioned theaisuit<\/p>\n
schedule properties and that the vendor p5fT\u00ab\ufb01he*<\/p>\n
plaintiff had no right or title of whatsoe\u00a7er’titleh<\/p>\n
over the suit schedule property. f?hey;also \u00a25ntena<\/p>\n
that the name of the 1” defendant_eas in the recordlt<\/p>\n
of rights and a false information Qasrgive\ufb01 to the
\nRevenue Authorities intorming he is dead and in the
\ncircumstances, a complaint his “saidtato have been
\nfiied in ecaf\u00e9\u00e9sgii\/i._99;:g pfzaintiff and<\/p>\n
his vendor and the case is pending investigation.<\/p>\n
They also conteed that the suit scheduie properties<\/p>\n
are the ancestral properties of the defendants and<\/p>\n
they got divided famiiy members in the year l9?5 and<\/p>\n
“yVafugg” partition, the suit scheduie properties and<\/p>\n
seme other preperties were fell to the share of the<\/p>\n
i”‘ defendanti and that the E” defendant ends his<\/p>\n
i’V family inembers are in possession and. enjeyment of<\/p>\n
i*–the suit properties as absolute ewner. They aiso<\/p>\n
d*cicontend that the plaintiff has not acquired any<\/p>\n
ittitle to the suit scheduie properties under the<\/p>\n
alleged registered Sale Deeds and in the<\/p>\n
circumstances, sought for dismissal of the suit.<\/p>\n
On the basis of these pleadings, the trial<\/p>\n
Court has framed the following issues:<\/p>\n
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that
\nis the absolute owner in lawfuldt”\n<\/p>\n
possession and enjoyment of tshitfi
\nproperties? ll<\/p>\n
2) Soes the piaintiff proves alleged:
\ninterference? ‘ 3 x W<\/p>\n
3) Does the plaintiff’ entitled dthe
\nrelief of permanent injunction?\n<\/p>\n
4) What Order or deeteeikjp<\/p>\n
Thereafter, “the ‘plaintiff was examined as
\nP.W.l, the_ witness ‘E:wsf2 tc> 5 and his vendor as<\/p>\n
P.W.6 and in his evidence got marked the documents<\/p>\n
.Exs.?li tC~’\u00a75. The 1m’ defendant. was examined as<\/p>\n
‘D,W,1i* the iwitnesses D Ws.2 and 3 and the 2″d<\/p>\n
defendant. nae examined as D.w.4 and in their<\/p>\n
f*_m evidence got marked the documents Exs.D1 to 13, The<\/p>\n
d’ ‘tiiai\ufb01 Court after hearing the counsei for the<\/p>\n
‘”parties and on appreciation of the material on<\/p>\n
fxxecord heid that the suit schedule properties had<\/p>\n
fallen t0 the share of Puttaswamygowda i e., the<\/p>\n
second son of Kundachikkegowda and they have<\/p>\n
,2’<\/p>\n
hi<\/p>\n
succeeded by Ooduchikkegowda; the husband of
\nJavaramma i.e., the vendor of the plaintiff_ and<\/p>\n
therefore, it came to the conclusion that! the<\/p>\n
plaintiff under the Sale Deeds has acquiz\u00e9a[*a\ufb01~<\/p>\n
absolute title to the suit schedule pro\u00a7ertiesL_ Itd<\/p>\n
is in these circumstances, the trial Court granted a<\/p>\n
decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring him asdz<\/p>\n
absolute owner of the suit sehedule*9ro@erties and
\nalso granted permanent iiinjunotion against the
\ndefendants. Aggrieved hy the Judg\ufb01ent and Decree,<\/p>\n
the defendants’iV..f};}”ed__  ‘”Nro–.:_”lv6_8__\/jl996 before the<\/p>\n
Civil Judge [33, bed] and>after=hearing the learned<\/p>\n
“I<\/p>\n
counsel fer the p\u00a7r:ie\u00a7;.:he lower appellate Court<\/p>\n
allowed. the “ap@eel; and; dismissed the suit of the<\/p>\n
V appel\ufb01aht herein by setting aside the Judgment and<\/p>\n
“yVD\u00a2c;\u00a7\u00a2 holding that the suit schedule progerties<\/p>\n
Qeref the goxoperties of the defendants and that<\/p>\n
Java\u00a3emma’ ifeu; the vendor had. no title over the<\/p>\n
u” suit sehedule properties to convey the same to the<\/p>\n
‘.i@laihtl\u00a7f. So, aggrieved by the reversal ef the<\/p>\n
‘ha Judgment and Decree of the trial Court hy the lower<\/p>\n
Eappeilate Court, the plaintiff has approached this<\/p>\n
Court in appeal. \ufb01f<\/p>\n
3. This Court has framed the following<\/p>\n
substantial question of law for consideration:
\nWhether the iower appellate Courtpoh<\/p>\n
is justified in reversing the Judgment dVhi
\nand Decree passed by the trial Court by[“R’
\nignoring the xaterial documents reiiedV
\nupon by the trial Cohrtlpwheniitheopii
\nalleged. ?alu Patti which gistzconte\ufb01ded:
\nto be drawnr up at’ the time: of Lesai,W~
\npartition was set up he defendants to
\ncontend that the properties are defined<\/p>\n
in the said Palu Patti? ;}<\/p>\n
4. I have heard the learned counsei for the<\/p>\n
appellant and the respq\ufb01dents.\n<\/p>\n
5. it is the contention of the learned counsei<\/p>\n
~,for the appeilant that ____ there is ampie material on<\/p>\n
“oreoord to prove that the propositus~Kundachikkegowda<\/p>\n
had 3 song i;\u00a2\u00a7} the eldest son So\u00e9eamaliegowda {the<\/p>\n
.father <dof"; the defendants}, the second son<\/p>\n
.u*\u00a7sttaswam\u00a7gowda and the third son Chikkamallegowde.<\/p>\n
i,lt is also his contention that there was a partition<\/p>\n
R"=between Deddamallegowda anui Puttaswamygowda in the<\/p>\n
eyear E975 and the suit schedule properties feli to<\/p>\n
the share of Puttaswamygowda i,e; the second son of<\/p>\n
, X<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
10<\/span>
\npropositus~Kundachikkegowda. The said properties
\nwere succeeded by his son Ooduchikkegowda, who died<\/p>\n
leaving behind his wife Javaramma and it is she who<\/p>\n
sold the properties to the plaintiffgiundsr* the,<\/p>\n
registered Sale Deeds dated 28IU?;l9\u00a73 \ufb02 and”<\/p>\n
0741,1994. \u00a3~\u00a7e submits that $3 mj_–st;\u00e91x\u00e9,.t-h\u00e9- \u00a7fa;the’r;fs<\/p>\n
name of Ooduchikkegowda_ wag’ mcntiqned: Was”<\/p>\n
Doddamallegowda instead Ho\u00a3i’_mentioning:\u20ac it as
\n?uttaswamygowda and p thedphpdefendantsux taking
\ndisadvantage of this fest inat\ufb01snfeeord of rights
\nare making’ sv’\ufb01slse: claim v$\u00a7\u00e9:._t\ufb01el suit schedule<\/p>\n
propertiesf 39 s\ufb02bmi\ufb01gpthst there was a partition<\/p>\n
between the defendants in the properties fallen to<\/p>\n
the share”of*Doddssalleqowda, the eldest son and the<\/p>\n
V mutationu.entr\u00a7:_hss ‘been produced. at Ex.Pl7 which<\/p>\n
u\ufb02 revesls the properties fallen to the share to each<\/p>\n
of the defendants. He also submits that there are<\/p>\n
many doouments which-reveal that Puttaswamygowda was<\/p>\n
u”t the father–in–law’ of Javaramma and. another’ son of<\/p>\n
Vupropositus~Kundachikkegowda viz , Chikkamallegowda<\/p>\n
a~l had left the house and he was unheard of. So, it is<\/p>\n
iphis contention that as the plaintiff had purchased<\/p>\n
the property from Javaramma, who succeeded to the<\/p>\n
said properties on the death of her husband<\/p>\n
it\/'””\n<\/p>\n
-….u,,,<\/p>\n
ll<\/p>\n
Ooduchikkegowda, the plaintiff acquired an absolute
\ntitle and. the defendants have no right, title or<\/p>\n
interest in the suit schedule properties.<\/p>\n
Therefore, he submits that the trial Court on proper *<\/p>\n
appreciation of the evidence on record had oranted a<\/p>\n
decree and that the lower 7appellate .CoprtK hp<\/p>\n
ignormg the material docLim\u00a7-n..ts iike VE>{9t.\u00a3”T%\u20ac–\u00bb\u00bb.a;:jd 17′-‘<\/p>\n
and also the documents prodnced by the_defendants,
\ncommitted an illegalityrin dismissing the suit.<\/p>\n
respondentsg”lksth\ufb01itspolxthate _’the propositus–
\nKundachlkkeoowda had.left sonly son Doddamallegowda,
\nthe father’ of’ thez defendants and. that after the<\/p>\n
death _of Knndachi\ufb01kegowda, the properties were<\/p>\n
J’succeeded: by the ~father ———- of the defendants and<\/p>\n
htherea\u00a3ter}ptdthe defendants are engoying the<\/p>\n
properties7 after partition. 80, also it is<\/p>\n
‘contended that the record of rights also revea; that<\/p>\n
‘the *nameN of the 1″ defendant and. his father all<\/p>\n
_a:\u00a2n\u00a7 land that 3avaramma, the vendor of the<\/p>\n
g plaintiff’ had no right, title or interest in the<\/p>\n
“suit schedule properties and. has not conveyed any<\/p>\n
title txp the plaintiff. Renee ii; is submitted by
\n\/”\n<\/p>\n
l2<\/p>\n
the learned counsel that the lower appellate Court
\non proper appreciation of the material on record has
\ndismissed the suit and that the appellant has not<\/p>\n
made out any grounds to call for any interference; ‘2<\/p>\n
6. I have carefully scrutinized “t\ufb01\u00e9g materialv<\/p>\n
placed on record in the contest of the suhmissiens<\/p>\n
made by the learned counsel for the parties. jfhe”<\/p>\n
first and foremost point that has to be taten into
\nconsideration is .f\\Whether~; ithe ubroposituse
\nKundachikkegowda had left the en;\u00a7 sch or three sons<\/p>\n
and to substantiate this contentionf’it is necessary<\/p>\n
to look the a\ufb01erments made by the plaintiff in para
\n2 of the plaintih it is stated that Kundachikkegowda<\/p>\n
had 3 sons sis]? eldest son Doddamallegowda, second<\/p>\n
J”son .\u00a7\ufb01ttaswamygow”a” and last son Chikkamallegowda.<\/p>\n
hAsathe third sen left the family long back and was<\/p>\n
unheard, lathe’ suit schedule properties were<\/p>\n
‘partitio\ufb01ed between the eldest son and the second<\/p>\n
‘$On’VandN that the defendants are the sons of<\/p>\n
hpoddamallegowda i.e,, the eldest son of propositusw<\/p>\n
aikuhdachikkegowda. Though this averment in the<\/p>\n
V\u00e9splaint has heen denied by the defendants, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff–P.W.l in his evidence has stated about<\/p>\n
2*’;\n<\/p>\n
, \/ \/’A
\n11?\u00bb;\n<\/p>\n
MW<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
this fact and P.W.2 states that the suit schedule
\nproperties were in possession of Javaramma, the<\/p>\n
vendor of the piaintiff and that she succeeded to<\/p>\n
the said properties through her husban\ufb01 \u00e9ah\ufb01’ Hist<\/p>\n
father Puttaswamygowda. He ialso states. in”_the”<\/p>\n
evidence that Kundachikkegowdajhadv\ufb01’sohsxvir\ufb01;_K1}<\/p>\n
Doddamelzegowda i.e., the.7f.atherA._o’f thjei”uglepfenrliahtsi.<\/p>\n
(2) Puttaswamygowda and (\ufb01)wp\u00a2hikkamaiieooe\ufb01a. So
\nalso, P.W.3 supportshfheire\ufb01sighmof the other two
\nwitnesses as far as the g\u00e9hea1Qgyri%Dponcerned and
\n?.W.4, who is \u00e9\ufb01j\ufb01i\ufb02ing ohher of the suit schedule<\/p>\n
properties states that Javaramma was in possession<\/p>\n
of these properties tiil=she soid the same. P.W.5<\/p>\n
is the at\ufb01estin\u00a7’Qitness for the Sale Deed produced<\/p>\n
_ at E$rP2. da\ufb01e@HvG7;1l.l994, P.W.6mJavaramma, the<\/p>\n
l\ufb02 vendor :or_ the suit schedule properties to the<\/p>\n
piaihtiffrpstates in her evidence that her husband<\/p>\n
Ooduohikkegowda was in possession of the properties<\/p>\n
‘p”3ouring his life time and had succeeded in the suit<\/p>\n
‘ Vusohadule properties through his father<\/p>\n
E’a:?u\ufb01taswamygow&a and she has produced’ Rxs,P2G and<\/p>\n
:P2l, the patta book and revenue receipts<\/p>\n
respectively in respect of the suit schedule<\/p>\n
4*\u00bb<\/p>\n
\/
\n. _ xx”\n<\/p>\n
properties. ykww<\/p>\n
1%<\/p>\n
7. Ex.P29 is the “Dana Pathra”, executed by
\nJavaramma on 26.12.1979. This is a registered
\ndocument and has come into existence at a t;me\u00a7\ufb01hen
\nthere was no controversy between the de\ufb01endents end.
\nJavaramma and therefore, thew contents? \ufb01t: this”
\ndocument can be looked into as th%”\ufb01ete:;e\u00a7”ciece#of
\nevidence. The name of the exec\ufb01tor has teen shown?
\nas Javeramma; wife of dodech}khegonde,dEson of
\nPuttaswamygowda. So elso\ufb02 gt \ufb01\ufb01djis the ieqistered
\nSale Deed dated O9.0ls;$tQ egecutedegyhjavaramma and
\nshe has heenih descrshedevtashlhthe wife of
\nOoduchikkegond\u00e9h son cf Putteswemygowda. Ex.P3l is
\nthe cettified *\u00a75\u00a7Y dot .the “Dana Pathra” dated<\/p>\n
28.12.1979 and :a\u00a7a:a\ufb01ma, wife of Ooduchikkegowda,<\/p>\n
V son of Euttaswa\u00a2ygoQda, has executed this document<\/p>\n
a} i\ufb01.f\u00e9\ufb01ont of defendants 1 to 3 and she has stated in<\/p>\n
th;s deed thet the defendants are the sons of the<\/p>\n
senior dwcle?of her husband. So, if the contents of<\/p>\n
u'” these degtments are looked into, they cleaxly go te<\/p>\n
Q*ve3tabiish that Kundachixkegowda had left behind him<\/p>\n
E~.this\u00a7 eldest son Doddamallegowda ands the second” son<\/p>\n
4:Puttaswamygowda. Though there is run reference of<\/p>\n
the third sen Chikkamallegowda, as he left the house<\/p>\n
and he is unheard since then, as the gartition<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
between the eldest son and second son as aiieced bf
\nthe piaintiff, the fact as to whether
\nKundachikkegowda left behind him his third eon by<\/p>\n
name Chikkamallegowda does not assume. fany<\/p>\n
importance. But, anyhow, these docu\ufb01entaH would h<\/p>\n
prove that Doddamallegowda and P\ufb01ttaswamyoowda are<\/p>\n
the two brothers and the defencants are the So\ufb01e ofe<\/p>\n
Doddamallegowda and oodu.\u00a2’hi;;xe\u00a7;cwda._  ‘V the”<\/p>\n
husband of Javarammai~”–\u00a7aahg. the” . eon of
\nPuttaswamygowada. As thege_a\u00a7;\ufb01\u00a7\u00e9htg have come into
\nexistence at tb\u00e9 time \ufb01hen there wee no controversy
\nor allegatioA,het@ee\ufb01i?he partieeh the contents can<\/p>\n
be accepted to p\u00a3ove_theVaverments in the plaint.<\/p>\n
8. hxow, as _con\u00a7d be seen from the oral<\/p>\n
_ evidence ‘of \ufb02fW-l__ire(, ____ the 1″‘ defendant, in the<\/p>\n
hgchief&examination he states that his father was the<\/p>\n
only eson\ufb02atoi his grandfather. In the croasw<\/p>\n
_examinationf’ though it is suggested that his<\/p>\n
.u*\u00a7randfather had three sons by name Doddamaiieqowda,<\/p>\n
h,?uttas\ufb01amygowda and Chikkamallegowda, he denies the<\/p>\n
h”usaee. But, he admits that the husband’s name of<\/p>\n
eJavaramma is Ooduohikkegowda and her- husband’s<\/p>\n
father’s name was ?uttaswamygowdaL He yieads<\/p>\n
ei<\/p>\n
16<\/span>
\nignorance about the father’s name of
\nPuttaswamygowda. He states that uptil his date of
\nevidence, he did not make any enquiry as to the name
\nof the father of Puttaswamygowda. This conductgon
\nthe part of D.W.l is unnatural and supports fta\u00e9_
\nversion of the plaintiff and the documents referred*
\nto in the above paras. Soap th\u00a7piE\u00e9r\u00a7SF\u00a7t,\u00a7f_ the
\nmaterial evidence made available! by the :plaintiff”c
\nclearly proves that theV: grandfather ftof the
\ndefendants had thfee f\ufb01%\u00a7h$4″Vr f\ufb01h\u00e9n elde\ufb01t
\nDoddamallegowda i e., Wthe fathe\ufb01 t\ufb01p the defendants<\/p>\n
and the secqndk_\u00a7uttaswamygo\u00a7daV_was the father of<\/p>\n
Ooduchiskegowda7iae,kKthe husband of Javaxamma and<\/p>\n
to this ektent, it could be said that the defendants<\/p>\n
_ have put up a false defence of their father heing<\/p>\n
l; the 5n1\u00a7 son to their grandfatherwKundachikkegowda.<\/p>\n
“9. “f:t? is not in dispute that the sutt<\/p>\n
fpropertiesv are the ancestral properties of<\/p>\n
:Kundachihkegowda, the grandfather of the defendants<\/p>\n
.hand father of Puttaswamygowda, who left behind him<\/p>\n
~d his only son Ooduchikkegowda and apart from the suit<\/p>\n
‘ properties, there were other properties as well for<\/p>\n
X”\n<\/p>\n
the joint family. aigmw<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
10. D.W,l in the cross~examination states that
\nin the properties fallen to the share of his father,<\/p>\n
the three brothers have partitioned the properties<\/p>\n
and a mutation entry to that effect ,hasfy\u00a7\u00e9e5,<\/p>\n
certified. In the circumstances, considering”this”<\/p>\n
admission of D.W.l, if the mdtation entry”produm;d<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff at Ex Pl7 is dlooked; into, hit ;<\/p>\n
reveals MR No.14\/79-80 and pertains to the partition
\nbetween the sons v%ft Dodda\ufb02allegowda hi e., the
\ndefendants in the presence of,the%%lderly persons
\nand the 1″ col\ufb01mn in thisdm\ufb01tatioe entry pertains to
\nthe land heldphg the faoilg, \ufb01hereas the 2″d column
\nwhich contains wg\u00e9j\ufb01chedele refers to the properties<\/p>\n
fallen to* the ‘gb\u00e9;\u00e9= ar the 1″ defendant, the Bxd<\/p>\n
_ columh x’WhiCh’p contains ‘B’ Schedule are the<\/p>\n
A; properties fallen to the share of the 3″j defendant<\/p>\n
ahdV {he h4\u00a7’\ufb01column which contains ‘C’ Schedule<\/p>\n
refers to the properties fallen to the share of the<\/p>\n
i”V,2″\u00e9 defehdant. The Revenue Authorities have<\/p>\n
‘. certified that after receipt of the information<\/p>\n
fv referring this partition, a notice was issued and<\/p>\n
;”there were no ob\ufb01ections by anybody and in the<\/p>\n
circumstances, the mutation entry was certified on<\/p>\n
25.06.1980. There is no appeal against this<\/p>\n
s’\/””=~ …. ..\n<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
mutation entry and in pursuance of this entry, the<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
names of the respective brothers i.e.,_ the<\/p>\n
defendants have been enteredi in the recordsg and<\/p>\n
excluding the properties fallen to thei share “of,<\/p>\n
these defendants, it can be inferred.that the other’<\/p>\n
portions of the properties do net: belong “to ‘the<\/p>\n
defendants and that they must hare goneyto the share ;<\/p>\n
of Puttaswamygowda and afteri his “a\u00a75th, hhis son
\nOoduchikkegowda has to inherit then and on his death
\nit was Javaramma, his twifeh succeeded? to the said<\/p>\n
property.\n<\/p>\n
11$ Nowdso far as the.\u00a7roperty in item N951 in
\nthe schedule ige i Sygf\u00a7o:l3l\/11A measuring 2 guntas<\/p>\n
is concerned,i the “mutation entry Ex.?17 contains<\/p>\n
Jdthish\u00a7y1aNQ,l31fllwat S1. No.3 of column No.1 at the<\/p>\n
hbaak page ans it totally measures 9 guntas. Out of<\/p>\n
this revisien survey number in the partitien amongst<\/p>\n
fthe de\ufb01andants 3% guntas as gone to the share e\ufb01 the<\/p>\n
hi% “defendant, no share is allotted to the B\ufb02<\/p>\n
–\ufb02defendant and the Zmi defendant was allotted 3%<\/p>\n
–j’guntas in this survey number’ So, out of the totai<\/p>\n
i area of 9 guntas, the remaining 2 guntas is not the<\/p>\n
progerty ef the defendants as could be seen from<\/p>\n
2′<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
Ex.P17 and therefore, it could be inferred that this
\niand was fallen to the share of Puttaswamygowde and
\ninherited by Javaramma on the death of her hnsband<\/p>\n
Ooduchikkegow\u00e9a and also father–in–law.<\/p>\n
12. Ex.P18 is the record of right bi revisinnu<\/p>\n
Sy. No.131\/11B measuring 3% g\ufb01ntas~and the 5iae’5f<\/p>\n
the 15″ defendant is entered in the reeerds as per_l<\/p>\n
the mutation entry at EX.P1lT, Ex.Pl9 is the record
\nof rights of revisicn\ufb02’Syi $31131\/l\u00a7C measuring 3%<\/p>\n
‘V . I’:\n<\/p>\n
guntas fallen to the_share of the at defendant as<\/p>\n
per mutation” entryl ati Ex,?lT,M: Thereby, the
\nremaining 2ignntas have been shown in the property
\nextract et<Ex;Pl6Wand it is numbered as revision<\/p>\n
Sy. NQr13l\/ETA and the name of Javaramma, wife of<\/p>\n
Jd09d$\u00a2$ikke9OWda 'was' in record earlier to the<\/p>\n
dp\ufb01rehese bf this property by the piaintiff and after<\/p>\n
the.purchaee. her name has been deleted and the name<\/p>\n
fof the \ufb01laintiff has been entered.\n<\/p>\n
=__i3. So far as the second item cf the property<\/p>\n
i.r:hearing Sy. No.123\/14 measuring 3 guntas is<\/p>\n
iconcerned, it was measuring’ totally 6 guntas as<\/p>\n
shown in the 15′ column of Ex P17 and 3 gnntas of<\/p>\n
land out of this survey numbe* has fallen t0 the<\/p>\n
‘-._,…\n<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
share of the l\ufb02i defendant and no share has been
\nallotted to defendants 2 and 3. So, if this land<\/p>\n
was wholly the land of the father of the deUfe.x:i’dants<\/p>\n
and 6 gutas of total land could_fhafedfheeng<\/p>\n
partitioned by the defendants. mBut,5the?fadt”that”<\/p>\n
the only 3 guntas was taken by the l” defendant and<\/p>\n
the other defendants did.not take eny share in the ;<\/p>\n
property leads to an inference that the rehaining 3
\nguntas of land hadh fallen _he the Ashare of
\nPuttaswamygowdah the father dff\ufb01odhe\ufb01ikkegowda and
\nto substantiatefthis version: Ex p\ufb01h the record of<\/p>\n
rights reveal the nahe\ufb02of.\u00a7a\u00a73ramma, the vendor of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff add her \ufb02ame has been shown in this<\/p>\n
revision Sy;lNo}1\u00a73\/likheasurimg 3 guntas, Ex.P7<\/p>\n
V the reoord of rights reveal the name of Javaramma,<\/p>\n
lg wife of doddchikkegowda to this property and as this<\/p>\n
property is hot mentioned in the mutation entry at<\/p>\n
Ex.PL7,_a’direct inference could be drawn that this<\/p>\n
u'” preperhy fell to the share of Puttaswamygowda, the<\/p>\n
A” second brother of \ufb02oddamallegowdar Exs.P8 to E0 are<\/p>\n
E”e\ufb01the record of rights of revision Sy. No.l23\/14<\/p>\n
\ufb01tpropertyr for the year l988–89 to 1996-95 and the<\/p>\n
name of Javaramma appears in the owners and<\/p>\n
cultivator’s column.\n<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
l4. ?he third item of the suit land is Sy.
\nNo.l23\/16 measuring 2 guntas and as could be seen<\/p>\n
from $x.Pl7, in the 1″ column at the back page? the<\/p>\n
total land measures 2 guntas and this has been sheen<\/p>\n
as the property fallen to the share_:\u00a2f’dfhe ni\ufb02gu’<\/p>\n
defendant. In the circumstances, whenfthe.p\u00a7a;nt;ff<\/p>\n
rely upon documents Ex.P17, they have to adcept theu<\/p>\n
contents of the same and whenmthis*;andEwas only 2<\/p>\n
guntas and it had  the 1″\n<\/p>\n
defendant, 2 am of  piaintiff
\ncannot claim 4any_ interest aid_ thee land. ?he
\nplaintiff  ‘reevordddodf rights in this<\/p>\n
land ate Exse\u00a7LIH to Wi\ufb01w and though the name oft<\/p>\n
Puttaswamygowdax”‘handd;4 his son Chikkegowda<\/p>\n
V {Ooduehixkego\ufb01dajv continued in the records and<\/p>\n
n\ufb02 thereafter dthe “name of Javaramma was shown and<\/p>\n
ekcept the entries in the record of rights, there is<\/p>\n
no materiadf placed on record to show’ that this<\/p>\n
u’* eroperty had fallen to the share of Puttaswamygowda,<\/p>\n
‘V the younger brether of the father of the defendants,<\/p>\n
x*adi am of the opinion that the extent of the land at<\/p>\n
Ditem No.3, the plaintlff has not shown that this was<\/p>\n
given t0 the share of Puttaswamygowda, in the<\/p>\n
partition between the brothers and has no deeume\ufb01ts<\/p>\n
f<\/p>\n
22<\/span>
\nof partition has been produced by both the parties
\nand except relying upon Ex.P17, an inference that<\/p>\n
Javaramma being the successor of this property<\/p>\n
cannot be drawn solely on the basis of the g\u00e9c5rd*af.<\/p>\n
rights produced by the plaintiffp<\/p>\n
15. So far as the property at item_Nos.i and 2<\/span><\/p>\n
of the suit schedule properties are concerned} the,l<\/p>\n
record of rights admitted ins the evidence reveal
\nthat the name of Chik\u00a7egowda,isfolnDoddamallegowda
\nwas entered earlier and under \ufb02\u00a7qP\u20acg”Uavaramma had<\/p>\n
given. a report Eto thei Revenue’ Authorities one the<\/p>\n
death of her’fh\u00a71usE>arxd'”\u00abv!f:’hj_kk.ecf’owda [Ooduchikkegowda]
\nthat she was the*oniy Legal representative and her<\/p>\n
name may be entered in the records. This entry Came<\/p>\n
xdto Eek oertifiedh”by* the Revenue Authorities after<\/p>\n
dnotice{%\ufb01hich has been produced at Ex.P6. It is<\/p>\n
reia\ufb01ant”\u00a7\u00a2:9nete that prior to the name of<\/p>\n
fJavara\ufb01$a, Vher husband’s name was shown in the<\/p>\n
:re&ords was Chikkegowda, s\/o. Doddamallegowda has<\/p>\n
_ since dead, report to enter her name after the death<\/p>\n
;ld\u00a3\u00b0 her husband. A complaint came to be filed<\/p>\n
‘against Javaramma and the plaintiff for giving false<\/p>\n
information and concocting the Revenue documents
\n\/<\/p>\n
\u00a7$’*\u00ab._$<:::\n<\/p>\n
3\/ “‘<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
stating that Chikkegowda, s\/o. Doddamallegowda had
\nexpired and that Javaramma is the successor heing
\nthe wife of Chikkegowda and it reveals free kthe
\nevidence that a private complaint in this ;\u00a2\u00a7a;a=;gt<\/p>\n
pending. The perusal of Ex 2g reveals, that\ufb02 the”<\/p>\n
report was given to the Revenue Authorities to enter<\/p>\n
the name of Javaramma, as- her ‘husband7s;aname} wast;<\/p>\n
also Chikkegowda, to enter her name in the records
\nof the property bearing .revisiQ4n\ufb02$y~ \ufb01es 131\/11A,
\n123\/14, 123\/16 and  measures
\n2 guntas, Syjd+\u00a5o.li3\/ie5 ma\u00e9gerggf 3 guntas, Sy.
\nz\\zo.123\/16   and Sy. No.}.23\/18
\nmeasur\u00e9\u00e9ol\ufb01 ?ee\u20ac\u00a7ei!ddoVfar as Sy. No.12lfllA and<\/p>\n
123\/14 are concerned there is mention in Ex.P17, the<\/p>\n
_ report uregaxdingi partition between the defendant.<\/p>\n
n\ufb02Vs\u00a7;e\u00a3heEscr\ufb01tiny of the documents reveais that by<\/p>\n
mistake; then; was an entry in the record of rights,<\/p>\n
memtioning_Dthe father’s name of Chikkegowda as<\/p>\n
u'”3\ufb01oddamai;egowda instead of Futtaswamygowda and this<\/p>\n
Vieistahe continued all along till the death of<\/p>\n
.tadCh\u00a3kkegewda and as the husband of \ufb01avaramma i.eH<\/p>\n
$Chikkegowda had died, the repert was given under<\/p>\n
Ex.P\u00e9 to the revenue authorities. The defendants<\/p>\n
have tried their best to take the advantage of the<\/p>\n
(?<"'\u00bb,.;'ii:':g<\/p>\n
24<\/span>
\nname of Boddamallegowda as the father of Chikkegowda
\niooduchikkegowdaj in the records and claiming an<\/p>\n
interest to these properties as well as inherited by<\/p>\n
them though Ex.P17 which has no reference tgatwo,<\/p>\n
these properties as they never tell to the share of”<\/p>\n
their father in the partition between both*the sons<\/p>\n
of Kundachikkegowda. But, insofar as the properties ;<\/p>\n
at item Nos 2 and 2 in thelscheduleu\ufb01roherties are
\nconcerned, there isj ample aeaterial to Ashow that
\nJavaramma was Vthe vPersonr:whQdd}h\ufb01erited these
\nproperties throdgh her husband and his father and so
\nfar as the\ufb02Tthird tsniti schedule property is
\nconcerned,rthongh[there is some evidence, but_it is<\/p>\n
not sufficient to \ufb01rovefthat it fell to the share of<\/p>\n
_ Puttaswamygowda in View of the fact that in Ex.P1?<\/p>\n
l\ufb02 there is mention of this property having fallen to<\/p>\n
theVsharepofhthe }?t defendant, Further though the<\/p>\n
defehdantssciaim that there was a partition in the<\/p>\n
u”V2year l97$, no documents have been produced” The<\/p>\n
a[s3rtition Deed said to have been deyosited in the<\/p>\n
R”g bank has not been secured and Ex.Pl7 is dated<\/p>\n
h25.06.l98G. when the defendants were in custody of<\/p>\n
the Partition Deed of the year 1975, they ought to<\/p>\n
have been produced the same before the court. When<\/p>\n
32′
\nK.\u00bb <\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
Ex.P17 is their own document, they cannot resiie<\/p>\n
from its contents.\n<\/p>\n
16. The trial Court though granted
\nin favour of the plaintiff did
\nconsideration the fact that etne”*plaintifriprelied
\nupon Ex.P17, the HmtationVen\\}y and \u00a3h\u00a7i\u00a2ui\u00a3p\u00a2gem_
\nNo.3 was shown to have fallen to the Share or tne l\ufb01l
\ndefendant jJ1 the p@rtition”wnnilignoring.tnis fact
\nhad relied upon only ptne\ufb01y%eoe#d:*of rights and
\ngranted the relief- {\u00e9uti eo \u00a3\u00a7\u00a5 3% the Property at<\/p>\n
item Nos 1 and E:of’tne suit scheduie properties are<\/p>\n
conoernedp it took into consideration the documents
\nEx.P6 and *1? ‘t\ufb01ep,regordf of rights and. the oral<\/p>\n
eviden\u00a2e and oame to a right conclusion in granting<\/p>\n
xdthe-relief\u00bbof declaration so far as item Nos 1 and 2<\/p>\n
Fof the suit schedule properties are concerned.<\/p>\n
‘y17,*’Ferther, nhe lower appellate Court allowed<\/p>\n
u’V the appeal of the defendants and dismissed the suit<\/p>\n
‘. ignoring Ex.P17 an undisputed. motatioe entry and<\/p>\n
.lWv:aiso the record. of rights pertaining to the said<\/p>\n
;”itena Nos.l and 2 and. committed. a grave error on<\/p>\n
relying’ upon the xnistake committed. by” the Revenue<\/p>\n
Authorities in showing ‘the name of’ the husband. of
\n\/\/*””\n<\/p>\n
e ;’*\\)\u00a5,<\/p>\n
3;\n<\/p>\n
26<\/span>
\nJavaramma as Chikkegowda, s\/o. Doddamallegowda, a
\nmeticulous examination of the materiai placed on<\/p>\n
record would make it clear that the defendants have<\/p>\n
taken a false defence and they suppressed* the,<\/p>\n
material facts about their father havingdalbrotner=<\/p>\n
by name Puttaswamygowda and the progertiescfalienqto<\/p>\n
the share of Puttaswamygowda lwere not pshown dial<\/p>\n
Ex.P17 and from this material on record, it could
\nhave drawn a direct inferengg that suit item Nos.l
\nand 2 were the properties_which;fe1I so the share of<\/p>\n
Puttaswamygowdag the husbandis father of Javaramma.<\/p>\n
18s Thedilo\ufb01er rapnellate Court had. a duty to
\nscrutinize’the’e\u00a7idenceWproperly and to draw proper<\/p>\n
inference free the e\ufb01idence led by the parties and<\/p>\n
xdit committed. an” error in allowingc the appeal at<\/p>\n
ileast re the extent of properties at item Nos 1 and<\/p>\n
2 of the schedule to the plaint. In that View of<\/p>\n
fthe oateer I answer the substantiai question of law<\/p>\n
:paktiy is affirmative and partly in negative holding<\/p>\n
— than the apyellate Court was justified in reversing<\/p>\n
” ‘the decree of the triai Court so far as item No.3 of<\/p>\n
i the suit schedule property is concerned and negative<\/p>\n
insofar as the properties at item nos.1 and 2 to the<\/p>\n
27<\/span><\/p>\n
schedule are concerned. In that view of the matter,<\/p>\n
I proceed to pass the following:\n<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
The appeal is allowed ix: part. The Jedome\ufb01t”<\/p>\n
and Decree of the courts _below jareV\ufb02modified.u<\/p>\n
Granting the relief as prayed insofar as”itehfHos;1<\/p>\n
ands 2 i.e., property *:bearihg 2 Syi1d:Noal3i\/1lAdd<\/p>\n
measuring 2 guntas and Syd r\ufb01o,l23f14a Measuring 3
\nguntas by the trial Gorrtiis-restored and the claim
\nof the plaintiff\/appe;;aht as redards item No.3 i.e_<\/p>\n
Sy, No.l23\/i\ufb01\u00e9dgeas\ufb01ri\ufb01qd 2″_do\ufb01\u00a7as is dismissed.<\/p>\n
There 1.5., no ‘order’-..a;;  costs.\n<\/p>\n
 ddddd  JUDG<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Mudigowda @ Javaregowda S\/O … vs Chikke Gowda S\/O Doddamllegowda on 16 December, 2009 Author: A.S.Pachhapure This RSA is filed u\/Sec. 100 of CPC against the Judgement & Decree dated 9 12.03 passed in R.A. No.168f96 on the file of the Addl. Civil ,Judge (Sr.Qn) and CJM, Mandya, allowing the appeal sand […]<\/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-148710","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMudigowda @ Javaregowda S\/O ... vs Chikke Gowda S\/O Doddamllegowda on 16 December, 2009 - 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\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mudigowda @ Javaregowda S\/O ... vs Chikke Gowda S\/O Doddamllegowda on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-12T14:59:20+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mudigowda @ Javaregowda S\\\/O … vs Chikke Gowda S\\\/O Doddamllegowda on 16 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-12T14:59:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4964,\"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\\\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Mudigowda @ Javaregowda S\\\/O ... vs Chikke Gowda S\\\/O Doddamllegowda on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-12T14:59:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mudigowda @ Javaregowda S\\\/O … vs Chikke Gowda S\\\/O Doddamllegowda on 16 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Mudigowda @ Javaregowda S\/O ... vs Chikke Gowda S\/O Doddamllegowda on 16 December, 2009 - 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\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mudigowda @ Javaregowda S\/O ... vs Chikke Gowda S\/O Doddamllegowda on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-12T14:59:20+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mudigowda @ Javaregowda S\/O … vs Chikke Gowda S\/O Doddamllegowda on 16 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-12T14:59:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009"},"wordCount":4964,"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\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009","name":"Mudigowda @ Javaregowda S\/O ... vs Chikke Gowda S\/O Doddamllegowda on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-12T14:59:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mudigowda-javaregowda-so-vs-chikke-gowda-so-doddamllegowda-on-16-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mudigowda @ Javaregowda S\/O … vs Chikke Gowda S\/O Doddamllegowda on 16 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/148710","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=148710"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148710\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148710"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148710"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148710"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}