{"id":15185,"date":"2012-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2012-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012"},"modified":"2016-12-05T03:49:31","modified_gmt":"2016-12-04T22:19:31","slug":"smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012","title":{"rendered":"Smt Saraswathi Gopinath vs Smt Uma Ram on 16 April, 2012"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt Saraswathi Gopinath vs Smt Uma Ram on 16 April, 2012<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.G.Ramesh<\/div>\n<pre>                                      CRP.No.282 OF 2011\n                           --1-\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\n       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2012\n\n                        BEFORE\n\n        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH\n\n        Civil Revision Petition No.282 OF 2011\n\nBETWEEN:\n\n       SMT. SARASWATHI GOPINATH\n       AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS\n       W\/O LATE SRI B.R. GOPINATH\n\n2.     SRI ROHITH\n       AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS\n       S\/O LATE SRI B.R. GOPINATH\n\n3.     SMT. SUSHMA\n       AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS\n       D\/O LATE SRI B.R. GOPINATH\n\n       ALL ARE PERMANENTLY RESIDING\n       AT NO.27\/2, 1ST MAIN ROAD\n       JAYAMAHAL\n       BANGALORE 560046\n                  -\n                                          .   .   .   PETITIONERS\n\n       (BY SRI K.P. ASOKUMAR, ADVOCATE)\n\nAND:\n\n       SMT. UMA RAM\n       AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS\n       D\/O LATE SRI B.R. RAM\n       R\/AT NO.27\/2\n       1ST MAIN ROAD\n       JAYAMAHAL\n       BANGALORE 560 046\n                  -\n\n\n\n\n2.     SMT. RAJANI RAM\n       AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS\n       D\/O LATE SRI B.R. RAM\n       R\/AT NO.27\/2\n                                      CRP.No.282 OF 2011\n                          -2-\n\n\n\n\n      iSTMAIN ROAD\n      JAYAMAHAL\n      BANGALORE 560 046\n                 -\n\n\n\n\n3.    MRS. VEENA KUPPALI\n      AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS\n      W\/O SRI HEMACHANDRA\n      R\/AT NO.3785\n      GROVE AVENUE PALO\n      CA 94303, USA\n\n4.   SMT. PRABHA\n     AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS\n     W\/O SRI L. VISHWANATHAN\n     R\/AT 1ST BLOCK\n     JAYANAGAR\n     BANGALORE 560 011\n\n5.   SRI S.T. SUBBU\n     AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS\n     S\/O LATE THAMMAIAH\n     R\/AT BULL TEMPLE ROAD\n     BANGALORE-560018\n                                      ..   .RESPONDENTS\n\n     (SRI N.G. SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR\n                                      Ri TO R5)\n\n   CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC. 115\n                               OF CPC AGAINST THE\nORDER DATED 22.9.2011 PASSED\n                             ON ISSUE NO.11 IN O.S.\nNO.6732\/06 ON THE FILE OF THE\n                               XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL\nJUDGE, BANGALORE, NEGATIVELY\n                                HOLDING THE ISSUE\nNO.11.\n\n\n    CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,\n                                 THIS DAY, THE\nCOURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:\n                                        CRRNo.282 OF 201 1\n                            -3-\n\n\n\n\n                        ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p> H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):\n<\/p>\n<p>       This revision petition by the<br \/>\n                                     defendants is<br \/>\n directed against an interlocutor<br \/>\n                                 y order dtd. 221d<br \/>\n September 2011 passed by the<br \/>\n                              trial Court, namely,<br \/>\n the Court of the XXII Addi.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                    City   Civil Judge,<br \/>\n Bangalore,   in the suit in O.S. No.6732\/200\n<\/p>\n<p>                                              6.     By<br \/>\n the impugned order, the trial<br \/>\n                               Court has held Issue<br \/>\nNo.11 in the negative by holdin<br \/>\n                                g that the suit was<br \/>\nnot barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    I have heard the learned counse<br \/>\n                                     l appearing for<br \/>\nthe parties and perused the impug<br \/>\n                                  ned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   Sri K.P. Asokumar, learned cou<br \/>\n                                    nsel appearing<br \/>\nfor the petitioners\/defendants<br \/>\n                               submitted that the<br \/>\ntrial Court having indicated tha<br \/>\n                                 t Article 113 of the<br \/>\nLimitation Act, 1963 (&#8216;the Act<br \/>\n                               &#8216; for short) would apply<br \/>\nto the present suit for partiti<br \/>\n                                on, has not recorded<br \/>\n                                         CRP.No.282 OF 2011<\/p>\n<p>any finding as to when the right<br \/>\n                                 to sue accrued to<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs and whether from tha<br \/>\n                                   t date the suit<br \/>\nwas filed within three years.      However, the learned<br \/>\ncounsel    appearing for the       respondents \/ plaintiffs<br \/>\nsupported the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    It is relevant to refer to the follow<br \/>\n                                            ing reasoning<br \/>\nof the trial Court at para 20 of<br \/>\n                                 the impugned order<br \/>\nwhich reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;20. It is un-imaginable to hold tha<br \/>\n                                          t a suit<br \/>\n     has no limitation under the<br \/>\n                                           Indian<br \/>\n     Limitation Act. Every suit sha<br \/>\n                                      ll have a<br \/>\n     limitation.    The recurrence of cause of<br \/>\n      action is dfJ\u00e8rent from having lim<br \/>\n                                           itation or<br \/>\n      no limitation for launching of a<br \/>\n                                         suit, by a<br \/>\n     party. I am of the clear opinion<br \/>\n                                        that a suit<br \/>\n     J\u00f6r partition shall also have lim<br \/>\n                                       itation and<br \/>\n     there is no question of suit<br \/>\n                                     for partition,<br \/>\n     having no limitation. If the variou<br \/>\n                                          s articles<br \/>\n     of Limitation Act do not appiLl to a<br \/>\n                                          suit for<br \/>\n     partition, to the situations not<br \/>\n                                          covered<br \/>\n     under Articles 109 &amp; 110 of the<br \/>\n                                        said Act,<br \/>\n     there is alwaiis residuarq Articl<br \/>\n                                         e under<\/p>\n<p>                               (<br \/>\n                                           CRP.No.282 OF 2011<\/p>\n<p>       Article 113,     which shall be applicable<br \/>\n                                                       ,<br \/>\n        admits no confusion. Articl<br \/>\n                                        es. 108 &amp; 109<br \/>\n        comes into picture when a co<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                                          -parcener has<br \/>\n        been dispossessed either by<br \/>\n                                           the other co<br \/>\n       parceners or by the purch<br \/>\n                                       aser of a joint<br \/>\n      Jthnily property. In the ab<br \/>\n                                       sence of these<br \/>\n       two circumstances, definite<br \/>\n                                      ly, it is Article\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       113. which comes into pic<br \/>\n                                     ture. To me, it<br \/>\n       looks that this is the an<br \/>\n                                       alogy that is<br \/>\n      available in the citations rfe<br \/>\n                                       rred to by the<br \/>\n      defendants. In A.I.R 2004<br \/>\n                                          SC 1206 at<br \/>\n      para -22 it is held under<br \/>\n                                     old Article. 120,<br \/>\n      which is equivalent to<br \/>\n                                      Article. 113 of<br \/>\n      Limitation Act, 1963 that the<br \/>\n                                        starting point<br \/>\n      of limitation for a suit for pa<br \/>\n                                      rtition is when<br \/>\n     the right to sue accrues<br \/>\n                                     i.e., when the<br \/>\n     plaintiff has noticed of his<br \/>\n                                       entitlement to<br \/>\n     partition, being denied. It<br \/>\n                                    stress the word<br \/>\n     denied&#8217;         used       in       the      said<br \/>\n     citation<\/p>\n<p>                (Underlining supplied)<\/p>\n<p>    It is also relevant to refer<br \/>\n                                 to para 25 of the<br \/>\nimpugned order:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                                          CRP.No.282 OF 2011<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                             -6-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>         &#8220;25. Under the above circu<br \/>\n                                    mstances. I am<br \/>\n        of the clear opinion that the<br \/>\n                                          suit is well<br \/>\n        within time and the plaintiff<br \/>\n                                      s got the right<br \/>\n        to sue only on the deat<br \/>\n                                    h of Ram on<br \/>\n        30.9.2001 and oniy when the<br \/>\n                                       ir demand j\u00f4r<br \/>\n       partition was specifically<br \/>\n                                    denied by the<br \/>\n       defendants, either implied<br \/>\n                                  ly or expressly.<br \/>\n       A reading of the plaint an<br \/>\n                                    d plaint alone<br \/>\n       would      not    indicate       any      such<br \/>\n       situation<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p> 5.   In my opinion, the trial Co<br \/>\n                                  urt having observed<br \/>\n that Article 113 of the Act wo<br \/>\n                                uld apply, ought to have<br \/>\n determined the date on<br \/>\n                              which the right to sue<br \/>\n accrued to the plaintiffs an<br \/>\n                              d from that date, whether<br \/>\nthe suit was filed within the<br \/>\n                               period of limitation. The<br \/>\nimpugned order also lacks<br \/>\n                               clarity in its reasoning.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The matter requires to be<br \/>\n                              reconsidered by the trial<br \/>\nCourt as it has failed to<br \/>\n                                determine the date of<br \/>\ncommencement of the<br \/>\n                               period    of limitation.<br \/>\nAccordingly, I make the follow<br \/>\n                                ing order:\n<\/p>\n<p>                                          CRP.No.282 OF 2011<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                              -7-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>         (I)   the impugned order is set<br \/>\n                                           aside; the<br \/>\n               matter is remitted to the<br \/>\n                                          trial Court<br \/>\n               for reconsideration In<br \/>\n                                         accordance<br \/>\n               with law. AU contentions<br \/>\n                                         of both the<br \/>\n               parties are kept open.<br \/>\n       (il)    this order shall not be co<br \/>\n                                          nstrued as<br \/>\n               expressing any opinio<br \/>\n                                        n on the<br \/>\n               merits of the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The Revision Petition Is<br \/>\n                               allowed In the above<br \/>\ntenns.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In view of disposal of th<br \/>\n                               e Revision Petition, l.A.<br \/>\nNo.1\/2011 filed for interim<br \/>\n                             stay does not survive for<br \/>\nconsideration and It stand<br \/>\n                           s disposed of accordingly.<br \/>\n      etwsn allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>BNS\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Karnataka High Court Smt Saraswathi Gopinath vs Smt Uma Ram on 16 April, 2012 Author: H.G.Ramesh CRP.No.282 OF 2011 &#8211;1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2012 BEFORE THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH Civil Revision Petition No.282 OF 2011 BETWEEN: SMT. SARASWATHI GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 65 [&hellip;]<\/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-15185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Smt Saraswathi Gopinath vs Smt Uma Ram on 16 April, 2012 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Saraswathi Gopinath vs Smt Uma Ram on 16 April, 2012 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-04T22:19:31+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Saraswathi Gopinath vs Smt Uma Ram on 16 April, 2012\",\"datePublished\":\"2012-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-04T22:19:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012\"},\"wordCount\":748,\"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\\\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012\",\"name\":\"Smt Saraswathi Gopinath vs Smt Uma Ram on 16 April, 2012 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-04T22:19:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Saraswathi Gopinath vs Smt Uma Ram on 16 April, 2012\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt Saraswathi Gopinath vs Smt Uma Ram on 16 April, 2012 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Saraswathi Gopinath vs Smt Uma Ram on 16 April, 2012 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2012-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-04T22:19:31+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Saraswathi Gopinath vs Smt Uma Ram on 16 April, 2012","datePublished":"2012-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-04T22:19:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012"},"wordCount":748,"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\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012","name":"Smt Saraswathi Gopinath vs Smt Uma Ram on 16 April, 2012 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-04T22:19:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-saraswathi-gopinath-vs-smt-uma-ram-on-16-april-2012#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Saraswathi Gopinath vs Smt Uma Ram on 16 April, 2012"}]},{"@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\/15185","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=15185"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15185\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}