{"id":159537,"date":"2009-06-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009"},"modified":"2017-11-07T10:19:53","modified_gmt":"2017-11-07T04:49:53","slug":"ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ramaswamy @@ Chinaiah vs The Bangalore Developmet … on 24 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Ramaswamy @@ Chinaiah vs The Bangalore Developmet … on 24 June, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Anand Byrareddy<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT 0:: KARNATAKA AT '   \n\nDATED THIS THE 24\"\" DfA*k\u00a7F..VJ{}N:E'   (I \n     .  \n<\/pre>\n
THE HONBLE MR. 1UsT1<:\ufb01A1{;aND
\nREGULAR FIRST 336% I l (SJ)<\/p>\n
BETWEEN:\n<\/p>\n
      V
\nS\/o.Pern1;;a Ia;:;);a;’ \u00a5:.,____ ”  ”
\nSince df\u00e9ceas\u00e9d by Iai\u00e9i 4F.ag’a1.’Repmset1mtives<\/p>\n
Sfo.RaIxiI:.swaxny _  ”\n<\/p>\n
Residing at” a9.3-04B,
\nAgiyappa Gazdim, ,Sha*a1l1inagar,<\/p>\n
 V.  – A V\ufb01angaicr\u00e9’ 3560 027<\/p>\n
 2-.   V 9′<\/p>\n
‘ S’\/i3.Ran:a.’\u00a7*s:_:::i}I1y
\nResiding 2:i;”no.30-B,
\nAyyappa Garden, Shanthinagar,<\/p>\n
 .. Bgng3i’0re –. 560 027<\/p>\n
3}. R\ufb01reenivas<\/p>\n
?S!o.Ramaswamy<\/p>\n
‘ 2  Residing at rm.3(}\u00abB,<\/p>\n
Ayyappa Garden, Shanilainagar,
\nBangalore ~ 560 02’?\n<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
4. R.Kri:~:hna
\nS\/o.Ramaswamy
\nResiding at no.39-B, I
\nAyyappa Garden, Shanthinagar,
\nBangalore -\u00ab 560 027<\/p>\n
5. R\ufb02hanpal
\nS\/0.Ramaswamy
\nResiding alno.3\u20ac)-B,’   _  ”  _’
\nAyyappa Garden, Sha\ufb01\ufb02ii\ufb02agagf;-.  ~ ‘    _
\nBanga1urta—\u00ab56O 027       APPELLANTS<\/p>\n
1 (By Shri.G.R.I*;_&(\u00a7ii,+\ufb01,_   if  x <\/p>\n
AND:\n<\/p>\n
–n–:-n-nnn<\/p>\n
1. The Bangalovr\u00e9 D*:Airc.1,u’p::ienl’Aul}unily
\nKumara Park  . ‘
\nBangal:3i~::_4 ” _ V’  ”\n<\/p>\n
Represented ‘by \ufb01ts C\u00e9mmissioner<\/p>\n
‘  ‘D\u00a7o.iat\u00e9.Rmj\ufb01a\u00abswamy<\/p>\n
  % -.A;g’ed-v4@.,vye2\u00a3r:;–“‘<\/p>\n
VN\u00a2.3314;.a;p;yamddy Palya,
\nB”ang5\u00a7lora””  RESPONDENTS<\/p>\n
‘ H H u  4′”V.-..\u00bb(Shfi:I.GI3’7achehinam&th, Advocate for Rc$pond::n1Nu.I)<\/p>\n
  Regular Firs! Appeal is \ufb01led under Section 96 and<\/p>\n
 pride: 41 R}. of Lode” of Civil Pr(>cedure,1903, against me
\n  Judgement and Decree dated {l-4.10.200! passecl ia
\n” ” OS.No.7979.\/91 by the XVI Addiiiunal City Civil and Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge, Bangalore City, dismissing the suit \ufb02ied by the
\nAppellant\/Plaintiff for pcnnancxxt injtmc-lion.<\/p>\n
S<\/p>\n
This Appcai coming on for   C;<Jiii'l?4 <\/p>\n
delivered the following:\n<\/p>\n
JUnGgE11T}7
\nHeard Ihc CounscI fotr_.  the respondents.
\nThe particrz\u00e9i\u00e9j are   mg before the ma;<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
2: T}:*-.-:1  ksgal representatives of the uriginal<\/p>\n
pzainan’  as 13;; %g;:m;j%%%%k The suit was filed fur pcnnaneni<\/p>\n
  ag;.1:IEl\u00a3!iS!.______l_}_)\u00a3s Bangalurc Dcvcluptnenl Authority<\/p>\n
   to as ‘the EDA’ for brevity), a sialulory body<\/p>\n
cc$a’:.-:iiiAu1\u00a2d  the Bangaiurc Dcvclopmcnl Azztho\ufb01ly Act,<\/p>\n
 _1976,” \u00e9fiiercina\ufb02cr rcfcmtd in as ‘the BDA Act’ for brevity)<\/p>\n
   the defendant and its reprcseniafivezs Bram interfering<\/p>\n
‘  with the possession of {he suit prupcriy bearing survey 110.39 uf<\/p>\n
 Ak_kithimmanahalI\u00a3, Bangalore: measuring cast to west 42 feel and<\/p>\n
S<\/p>\n
north in suulh 170 feet or Exam demolishing  <\/p>\n
lht?1’60I1.\n<\/p>\n
It was contended that the   i.\n<\/p>\n
uf the suit property having puntixag.-d    L,<\/p>\n
sale dced dated 4.4.1924 and  upux\u00a7”s::1;:_.h’: p\ufb01rchasc, I126
\nproperty was made out in–   in [he rcvcnuaz
\nmcurds. It is furihgar mgnl\u00e9nc\ufb01gly ‘i.h_if:i_.’  ?..~$aslc1*n side: of the
\npmpcrij\ufb01 “iVll1r’:–   lo’  his cattle by cunslruciing
\nsheds.  which initmdcd to acquin: the suit<\/p>\n
prupgriy in   197’8,  rcalisatiun that the area sought ‘to<\/p>\n
.’ V.   included the appcllanfs land and in<\/p>\n
Vg.it%”$i\u00a7( :31” being in posscssiun and having constructtxl<\/p>\n
H Vv _  lhereun, by an andorsemcnl daiod 19.11.1974<\/p>\n
.\/94\/74-75 had agroed in m–c{.mvey the suit<\/p>\n
—   in \ufb02avour of {he plaintiff and was ualltxl upon to pay at<\/p>\n
”  uf Rs.l,33,330\/-~ inwards lhc purported lay-uni charges and<\/p>\n
this was paid by the plain ‘ to the EDA. The: pluin\ufb01\ufb01 had also<\/p>\n
surrsndcred the uriginal documents uf title relaiing _\u00a3u..\ufb01s.\u00a7_\u00e9’~\u00bb;-;uil<\/p>\n
property to the BDA. Subsequently, the BDA  <\/p>\n
conveyed the property in favuurj’ ‘6f’–.Lhc-‘_”   vi\ufb01<\/p>\n
uon\ufb01nnaiiun of the: same, had issued a pp3s:;$5iun”tmrtifrea{v.–‘\u00a7XIIis<\/p>\n
on aucuuni of the property bcing Tali}; ,dcv{:Iop\u00a741; <\/p>\n
was carried nut by the def\u00a2i:rJan\ufb01’A
\nIt is   ;ila\u00a7\u00a5:i;II”s daughter Sml.
\nPapamrfial  hear family members in a<\/p>\n
purliun    is provided with all basic<\/p>\n
amen;iEics.such  Walef connection and electricity supply. It is<\/p>\n
V.   .a,i1\u00e9r_ Vre-conveyance of [he suit properly in favour uf lhc<\/p>\n
 in the year 1974, it was in the year 1989<\/p>\n
 l}1al.44’lhc of the BDA visiltzd the suit property, expressed<\/p>\n
A Ii2\u00e9ii’~._in1enliun to dcxnuiish lhc structure standing thereon and<\/p>\n
  cialled upcn {ha plainiiff and his \ufb01mlily members to vacate the: suit<\/p>\n
pmpcrty. it is with di\ufb02iculty that the plaintiff had resisted the<\/p>\n
pro ‘ed autism and ihcma\ufb02 had laken st by itssuin *
\nP05 f “F3 E:\n<\/p>\n
ncctrssary statutory notice before instituting a suit for ptzfmancnt<\/p>\n
injunction.\n<\/p>\n
The trial court initially granted an ex-parts” V’ <\/p>\n
of temporary injunction on  ‘1 it<\/p>\n
upun appcsaracnca: of the defendant.-BD.At’   ,<\/p>\n
their ubjectiuns to the applicatiuxfvtvt\ufb02uf: till thc:
\ndisposal cf the suit.  it; ~–BDA fur
\npurposes of form::.lipn gyflayuul, issued at<\/p>\n
prelimi1t’a:y’ ‘ttcdlaratiun under Seutiun 6 of the<\/p>\n
AcquisitiunEtAt:t= in’  1963 and an award notice under<\/p>\n
 ‘~   gt’   Anquisitiun Act, 1894, was also served<\/p>\n
   4.7.1963 and that pu:~.=scssim2′ had beer: taken<\/p>\n
  It was ftt\ufb02h\ufb02f alleged that the dmmased pIaintitT<\/p>\n
  “h2;1dT  application under Section 13 of the Land Acquisititm<\/p>\n
A    st-asking enhancement of cumpctrsatinn and that the<\/p>\n
  -lsaszds stead vcstvd with 111:: BDA fret: from encumbrances an<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
ace-uuni uf the-st: pnnzcdums having been cumplicdf <\/p>\n
lhcnsfurc, the piain\ufb01ff was not cntilied to any  V    <\/p>\n
The [rial Court, after having :is:\u00a7k2.t;’:s- c5n  \u00e9\ufb01fval<\/p>\n
conlcnlions, has dismissed \ufb021e*:\u00a7_u\u00a71__pf {he <\/p>\n
I1 is in this background  the  appcai
\nThe Cuunscl for ahg’appc11g1ga.  5,-;buu:: um: reliance:<\/p>\n
placed an Exs.I_)~:I: lt,:_     acquisiiien of<\/p>\n
land in I963 was complete and
\nlhemfurv.:;;\u00ab!}ie  nut bv: accepted, was while<\/p>\n
ncgaiin 1. Ll11e4″4i:n\u00a7vi’t:12i..2ihi\u00e9’- d\u00e9\u00e9uments that were produced by the<\/p>\n
.    the contcniiun that notwilhstamiing the<\/p>\n
1  pmpcrty was rt:-wnvcyud in \ufb01avcaur of the<\/p>\n
 _ plaii\ufb01i\ufb02l was evidenced by scvcrai ducttmcnts produced at<\/p>\n
H H u    “P-I 2. And in the fact: of a witness, DW~2, whu was an<\/p>\n
   Qifgigiai of the: dsfcndani, BDA having admitted am it had passed<\/p>\n
”  ‘fcsoluliun for 11:-conveyance of (ht: farzd in survey 3:05.39 and 41<\/p>\n
In the plaintiff and other family mtzmbers and fux\ufb02mr, that the<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Bangalore Dcvclopmcnl Authority had rt:-conveyed  _<\/p>\n
yards and the further admission that si.lqno$.72?75;7%{ = <\/p>\n
not alloiled lo the piainiiff as pm’ (He B331\u00a7’r\u00e9;cord$;.,’ 11131;;-\u00a7ira\u00ab.’i;\u00a2r:;;.~;<\/p>\n
variance between the plcadingsV\u00bbiux1_L:”ih\u00a2 wfiiton’ of EDA- <\/p>\n
and thc evidence pal forth; ffhis  ova:-r\u00a7,s..>:;ked by the
\ntrial court in uagaliving  and it is in this
\nfashion that me o\u00a29u;:sc1  .u;m  Court through the
\nreasoning .    material on record lo
\n  V made a short-shri\ufb02 of the<\/p>\n
ialainliff’ arid.  negated the documents which<\/p>\n
 am of}!  dofcogianl-EDA and would submit that the<\/p>\n
    and the suit doomed in favour of the appellant.<\/p>\n
 2  for the EDA Shri Gauhchinmalh would<\/p>\n
  the appeal and would submit that the very<\/p>\n
 \u00bbdAo<'?:umco'\u00a3s rtslicd upon by the appciiaul are spurious and that he<\/p>\n
  pI'Udt!Ut'5 the original record from 111:: Bangalore:<\/p>\n
 Dcwslopmcnl Authority. Tho mallet having stood adjourned on<\/p>\n
this note, Sh\ufb01 Gachchinmath has, howovezr, failed in produce any<\/p>\n
\u20ac<\/p>\n
into account by the trial smart in the mun-zc of its addrtazz\ufb01iiilg    V"<\/p>\n
material an accord. The u\ufb02icc is directed in      <\/p>\n
the trial court forthwith. The: parties sha11 %a;aa;n;ain \u00a71g_ii;sn-gm'  <\/p>\n
during lh\ufb02' pcndcncy of the sail.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Ramaswamy @@ Chinaiah vs The Bangalore Developmet … on 24 June, 2009 Author: Anand Byrareddy IN THE HIGH COURT 0:: KARNATAKA AT ‘ DATED THIS THE 24″” DfA*k\u00a7F..VJ{}N:E’ (I . THE HONBLE MR. 1UsT1<:\ufb01A1{;aND REGULAR FIRST 336% I l (SJ) BETWEEN: V S\/o.Pern1;;a Ia;:;);a;’ \u00a5:.,____ ” ” Since df\u00e9ceas\u00e9d by Iai\u00e9i 4F.ag’a1.’Repmset1mtives […]<\/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-159537","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamaswamy @@ Chinaiah vs The Bangalore Developmet ... on 24 June, 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\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramaswamy @@ Chinaiah vs The Bangalore Developmet ... on 24 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-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=\"2009-06-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-07T04:49:53+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramaswamy @@ Chinaiah vs The Bangalore Developmet … on 24 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-07T04:49:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1181,\"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\\\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Ramaswamy @@ Chinaiah vs The Bangalore Developmet ... on 24 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-07T04:49:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramaswamy @@ Chinaiah vs The Bangalore Developmet … on 24 June, 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":"Ramaswamy @@ Chinaiah vs The Bangalore Developmet ... on 24 June, 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\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramaswamy @@ Chinaiah vs The Bangalore Developmet ... on 24 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-07T04:49:53+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramaswamy @@ Chinaiah vs The Bangalore Developmet … on 24 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-07T04:49:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009"},"wordCount":1181,"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\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009","name":"Ramaswamy @@ Chinaiah vs The Bangalore Developmet ... on 24 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-07T04:49:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramaswamy-chinaiah-vs-the-bangalore-developmet-on-24-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramaswamy @@ Chinaiah vs The Bangalore Developmet … on 24 June, 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\/159537","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=159537"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159537\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159537"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159537"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159537"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}