{"id":162574,"date":"2010-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010"},"modified":"2019-03-08T15:51:54","modified_gmt":"2019-03-08T10:21:54","slug":"kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Kempamma W\/O Late Dodda Hanumaiah vs Sarvodaya Education Society on 22 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Kempamma W\/O Late Dodda Hanumaiah vs Sarvodaya Education Society on 22 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ravi Malimath<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN(3!f\\E.,\u00bbORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 22\"\" DAY OF EEBRUANV2'05i0'\u00b0-.\nBEFORE   ~  \n\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE RAVI_MA4LI.MA\u00a7TH:_\nREGULAR SECOND APPEAL. \u00a7\\_}_O.1fJ79 OF\u00bb200l_2g \n\nREGULAR SECOND APPEAL I1\\_|_U~.'114~5_O_F\u00bb 2'oag,%Aee.RL\n\nR\u00a7A.NQ.1Q72[Q2:\n\nBE'.fwE_E.A:;;T'%'v.\"VV...,__7.O = \n\n   \nW\/0 Iate\"~.[)o'd.cfVa'v._Ha--,Dumaiah\nDgeactby her._I__R\n\n  R_,VGO__vEnda\"ia~h ---- \nVA u_S\/0 \"Ia te_ Dodda Hanumaiah\n- 'AgLAe'd.\u00bbaAb,OuVt' 57 years,\n\" . \"-T'Residi'r:ag_ atjS\"reeram Nagar,\nV .T'\u00a3;ml<.:,.J'r'.~'i__  ' ...APPELLANT\n\n(ByvSti K.G.Raghavan, Senior Counsel for\n\n A 'AM\/s.'v"Lawyers Inc, Advocates)\n\n"'\u00bb--.AA}D:\n\nI Sarvodaya Education Society\n\nGandhinagar, Tumkur,\nrepresented by its Secretary,\n\n\n\nSrHr*\n\nThis RSA f\u00e9led under_._se'c,t_io~~n 100 \"CPI? set aside the\nJudgment and Decree dated A3t9,20.O2 in R.A.No.61\/1994\non the filed of the !eartned'--Pr3\u00a3:--,.'LjTiviljuydtge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM at\nTumkur, as also the J'fud\u00a7m--e.nt-.f;a__n~d Decree dated\n23.9.1994<\/pre>\n
 inQ.S.N’o;’35.f3\/O’9.fa.on th.e”=fiIe of the iearned
\nPr|.C%vii Judg’e\u00aby:.(3-r.D=n.); Tum”\u00bb<u'r;-7\u00ab___,i<\/p>\n
Sarvodaya 'zEdVI.'Icati~i)'n"S'9ociety
\nG;ando.hinaga.r,V_ Turnkur,<\/p>\n
re<prEeyser}ted by  Secretary,
\n Sri K.S.Na.n}'undaiah
\n' – "S\/o''K.'Sh'iyVaramaiah
\n. "-tl_-Rgeti \u00a7\u00e9':"Qout'v3"3 years
\nW R'\/at Som_e.s\u00a7wara Extension,<\/p>\n
T–um..E<'tj r-.  ..,APPE LLANT<\/p>\n
 .. ,(_.By  Prof.Rav\u00e9 Varma Kumar, Senior Counsei)<\/p>\n
 AND:\n<\/p>\n
Snot. Kempamma
\nW\/o late Dodda Hanumaiah
\nDead by her LR<\/p>\n
O\u00e9w<\/p>\n
…7s_<\/p>\n
Eiiegaiiy trespassed into the suit property anc!v’~s:i:’ri_ce_Vvthen<\/p>\n
has been in occupation of the same; that{thief”Vd’efeynd’anbt<\/p>\n
has no right, titie or interest an.d__insp_-i’te””or:’.’thV\u00e9’~ p’_’i.aint_Viff’su<\/p>\n
repeated request having fai|ed}”gthe_”pieinitiffwas:’co–m’\u00a7\u00a7eiied’H<\/p>\n
to fiie the suit for decia_ra~tion, A’r’=eco\\\/er’\u00a7,{ of’-vposisessiori’,<\/p>\n
mesne profits and costs. _ _ __\n<\/p>\n
7. The defe’ndan_t’ in_h-er wr–i.tten statement states<\/p>\n
that her iate husbandDowciciavhanu~rriaiiiar;’.’–purchased 2 acres<\/p>\n
37Kguntas’i’i”ci\u00a7,it_::’of Spy’;-E\\io.–22\/2(c) from its originai owner
\nHakeiiemy\u00e9i AbdulVS.a’in4a’d._nSab by virtue of a registered sale<\/p>\n
dee”dr..dated..;t4V\u00a76–:i946 and consequently he was put in<\/p>\n
  the same. Subsequently, the said Survey<\/p>\n
“-i’:u;i’n~,ip*g.;y%vies” renumbered as Sy.i\\|o.22\/2(C) 2(a) in the<\/p>\n
K;—ear._”i94i7. On the death of said Doddadundaiah, his wife,<\/p>\n
 A. the defendant, continued in possession and enjoyment of<\/p>\n
‘”.V'”ti’ie same. It was therefore contended that eversince the<\/p>\n
date of the sale nameiy, 14~6-1946 the defendant and<\/p>\n
earlier to that her husband have been in continued<\/p>\n
i3g\\,….\u00bb–\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-11..\n<\/p>\n
the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records with effect<\/p>\n
from 197071 onwards. The defendant without”anyttight,<\/p>\n
title or interest interfered with the pos4’s:essi’o’nf'”of.””‘–ithie4_<\/p>\n
plaintiff and forcibly took possess.i.on   <\/p>\n
property in the year 1977. Insplite   i<\/p>\n
made by the plaintiff, since:;t~h_e defe.nd~ant~.di”d;v”n’o~t ‘ouit the
\nsuit schedule property thepyp-res_Gnt–\u00bb.suit’hasvbeeh filed. It is
\ncontended that by v~th’e.Vsuit property was
\nacquired andtne narrie’ the defendant as<\/p>\n
welig as_ his7vIendo.r r’aa_rhe_iy, [Hakeem Abdul Samad Sab was
\nshowni.._a’sriow’nei’s”an’d._”persons in occupation of the suit<\/p>\n
syciheduieapropertyyi The suit schedule property was<\/p>\n
 ._ip’i”iqi’naily”described as Sy.No.22\/2(c) measuring 2 acres 37<\/p>\n
   Survey Department at the time of sub-\n<\/p>\n
divid.i’n’g~,. ‘divided the said Survey Number into various Sub-<\/p>\n
 .. Vpivisiroins and 22\/2(c) was renumbered as 22\/2(c)2(a). The<\/p>\n
“”._V”‘i;:~o”undaries shown in the acquisition Notification vide Ex.P–<\/p>\n
: 3 and the boundaries as shown in the suit schedule are<\/p>\n
one and the same.\n<\/p>\n
Mr<\/p>\n
 \u00a2r,a;eiM’
\nn~~\u00e9%\u00a7’;’~’\u00ab”3′<\/p>\n
-12..\n<\/p>\n
12. In view of the dispute regarding th;e”ide_I’?tiifric.ation<\/p>\n
of the property of the plaintiff and that_.of–\u00bbtb:e..<\/p>\n
Commissioner was appointed \\}yrho:.htas s-ta.’te’d’–in~th-is report”-<\/p>\n
that the property under aCqu_isit\u00a7\u00abonV_”a’ndV  of
\ndefendant are one and  ‘Vfh’etefore’:Vhe contends
\nthat the case of’   _ilI–founded. It is
\ncontended that even_.in:.th.ei.”sVaiie deed”:Vve’x’ecuted in favour of<\/p>\n
the defend’:a4n\u00a7:”s.’_hu:sb&indL  the manner in
\nwhich   property was, and how
\nit  mentioned. Reiiance
\nwas ‘Aa!.s_o placed-i:.’Qn:_4″theclaim for enhancement made by<\/p>\n
 husbaanvd”‘of ‘the? defendant on acquisition of the<\/p>\n
 _ vs’che’duie’i.p.roperty’i By piacing reliance on the record of<\/p>\n
 ‘iris-pcontended that eversince the date of the
\nart-ca-Www*-=icV   <\/p>\n
___ . ‘5? .~  195*;\n<\/p>\n
i’31.JfCba’S\u20ac\u00ab-“‘nam\u20aciY, 1213- the piaintiff has been in<\/p>\n
 to Vypos.s’e\u00abs”sion and was dispossessed by the defendant in the<\/p>\n
\u00e9W._V*ye\u00e9ar 1977. To this effect the records substantiate this<\/p>\n
if position.\n<\/p>\n
it is contended that the suit be<\/p>\n
V\/<"""'""\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,<\/p>\n
-14-<\/span><\/p>\n
Government. Hence, in the absence of compiiante of the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 1?, regarding  of<\/p>\n
possession, it is to be heid that the posse’ssiovn”rwvvas <\/p>\n
ever taken, on acquisition by the’ Gove’rnmre.rjt.\u00ab__ The*ref’ore,7_ <\/p>\n
when the identity of the peropertv,\/__
\nbeen estabiished and whe’n:t’here.V.is to show
\nthat the possessEon”‘:n.as  a\ufb01cc;Vu’isi’t:ion, the suit
\nof the plaintiff   He therefore<\/p>\n
contends that..:Vt\u00a7’oth lthe cou:’\u00abts”‘he.iovv;fcommitted an error in<\/p>\n
decreeindff of._t’he__ plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
“fhepaper–ho_ok~.-fiied in these appeais are incompiete<\/p>\n
 s.orn,e of tvhev—d–c\u00abcuments are not completely reproduced.<\/p>\n
‘  ‘”r’.e_n’ce,* ti1e’origina| records were minutely considered and<\/p>\n
 $14. Heard the iearned counsels and referred to the<\/p>\n
V ” reco rd 5.\n<\/p>\n
15. The triai Court framed 6 Issues for<\/p>\n
determination. It came to the conclusion that the suit iand<\/p>\n
\/,<\/p>\n
‘\\_\/<\/p>\n
_15_<\/p>\n
was originally numbered as Survey
\nall measured about 18 acres 12 guntas
\nnames of various persons including
\nof Hakeem Abdul Samad Thielrsaid
\nsold the land bearing Sy.No.2\u00a72\/:_:(c)eV_\u00bbto lthtgdejfenydant to an
\nextent of 2 acres 37  o–f_’L’$iu’rvey Number 22\/2.
\nThereafter, theAwholevb.f..the  22\/2 was sub
\ndivided intoi: Survey Number
\n22\/2C was   Number 22\/2(c)2(a) as
\nstatedin_voa’rar_~f3_.__o’f.’tt:e””‘w_rit.ten statement. However, the
\nsame ‘was _  the defendant. Hence a<\/p>\n
Con’i;mvisAsion.ei*\u00bb  abpointed as P,W.4 who submitted his<\/p>\n
  :”E’:<_:P\u00bb19. The Commissioner on conducting a<\/p>\n
  by referring to the title deeds came to<\/p>\n
the-\u00abi._'conC'iu.s'i'on that the land of the plaintiff originally<\/p>\n
u"'"'=.:'"beVarin.g=-~"Number 22\/2(c) came to be renumbered as<\/p>\n
 Number 22\/2(c)2(a) and further that the land<\/p>\n
 claimed by the defendant is the very same land with the<\/p>\n
Vsame boundaries bearing No.22\/2(c)2(a). Hence the<\/p>\n
V4"\n<\/p>\n
._16._<\/p>\n
commissioner report that the land acquired vi’dlef.l_E’xv.P-3,<\/p>\n
the suit schedule land and the land of the ifs—pii%.e<\/p>\n
and the same. They are not__differen’t*:’.l;Van’cls’_’_:.Aatr-_ali._<\/p>\n
Therefore there is no variation the”pl_ain’\u00a3?’5chelduie <\/p>\n
property and the propertyV:V”c\u00a7airn’e’d  tdefelndlant
\none and the same.  Coymlmivssionerlsl repnortsnaving been
\naccepted the contelntilon counsel for the
\ndefendant are’ n__ega:ti’v”e’d  if <\/p>\n
 dle_f”e.ln_d–ant contends that on land being<\/p>\n
acquired’ by tVhe”‘.Sta”te,yV’ltnere is no material to show that<\/p>\n
p-os’sessioVn”fhaVsVtbeen taken. It is therefore contended that<\/p>\n
  v’Ee\u00e9v.r_’of_ non–compliance of Section 17, of possession<\/p>\n
“-lliavirvig._2_noVt’-“been taken, Ex.P-2 namely, the sale deed<\/p>\n
le-xec.ute:lf’in favour of the Company and the consequent<\/p>\n
 .. ,saie”in favour of the plaintiffs vide Ex.P–1 does not show<\/p>\n
Vlpossession has been taken. The trial Court while<\/p>\n
i considering the same came to the conclusion that even<\/p>\n
though there is no direct evidence to show compliance of<\/p>\n
rt’
\n\ufb01r  Vggcs<\/p>\n
ef’5’JV$9{‘\u00a3’3\ufb02\/’ “”‘”E\u20ac”f
\namt “if W<\/p>\n
“.17-\n<\/p>\n
the provisions of Section 17 and as to <\/p>\n
regard to taking of possessionmby th.e”‘Go:vver’i1rn’eVnt;_ifthen-.AV<\/p>\n
recitals in Ex.P–2 would also;ha;ve_3to”ee.be. Vcon”:di’d_ered to”<\/p>\n
conclude that possession’ -was   witiii
\nlaw. Ex.P–3 discloses that under
\nSection 6 read With:”ST.\u00e9’Ct’idV:n  “t-h’e.lA’;:5ossession of the lands
\nwere directedto  of 15 days from
\nthe date4’Vt3:f’l\u00a7.i;~i:’h p:\u00b0u.bii::e:e’ti\u00a7j.h5L”‘Vrh:”a:erms of Ex.P-2 it has
\nbeen  of the lands were handed
\nover  18-1-1949 and by virtue of Ex.P–1
\n l V ‘    i ‘Q ?i.;is?.:j:’*i,.i\u00a5::”3″*<\/p>\n
in favourlioyf   Therefore, the<\/p>\n
Court. carne.__t’o’1thVe conclusion that the contention with<\/p>\n
  totaking of possession by the State in pursuance to<\/p>\n
V=Jt_he has stood proved by the plaintiff. The<\/p>\n
‘I’earn’e’d-counsel appearing for the defendant submits that<\/p>\n
 .. Vino presumption could be drawn in terms of Section 11-4–E<\/p>\n
V”‘o.VAthe Indian Evidence Act. The defendant contends that<\/p>\n
 the records and documents alone wouid have to be looked<\/p>\n
into and in their absence, no presumption could be drawn<\/p>\n
G5:\/—\n<\/p>\n
in terms of Section 114-5 of the Evidence ..Aetjt4–.th–e’t all<\/p>\n
judicial and official acts have been regulariy” <\/p>\n
(b) In support of his contention t.he.c_d’:efen_da.nt re:.ies”V.__<\/p>\n
on the Judgment in the caselof  <\/p>\n
vs. KUMTA Co~oPERAT1vi=___. AR:-c’A–NuT
\nreported in ILR 1992 KARn”Aftg\u00a7’KAV t:3:’;;.tipaie-te. In the
\nsaid Judgment at pa_r’a.~1Ci_;ii.t:VisVl’:s:tatVed.thatthefpresumption
\nunder Section 114  ii-“t\u00a7c_\u00bbt’-’twill come to aid if<\/p>\n
their partvxplh:;v.eVs\u00ab.th’e_faCt that the judicial or official act has
\nbeen”iriheffe’c’t~.done:orripelrformed. The performance of an<\/p>\n
a;:t’3’udiciat”or’official will have to be proved first and if it is<\/p>\n
  tr’.e_n the presumption arises that the said act was<\/p>\n
‘-“\u00a33elrfo4t’r*n:edn.i’V\u00a3nfaccordance with law. Without proving the act<\/p>\n
‘h.aving’ -been performed the party cannot ask the Court to<\/p>\n
 .. Vscraisethat presumption. Section 114–E of the Evidence Act<\/p>\n
V”*re’fers to a presumption. A presumption arises on the<\/p>\n
V inability to prove that an act has been actually done or<\/p>\n
performed. On the inability to establish by material of the<\/p>\n
‘ic\u00e9w<\/p>\n
…..]_9_<\/p>\n
performance of an act, the provisions of <\/p>\n
the Act wiii come into play. However, if”th=e.:sai’dr.,act h_asV~inV’,<\/p>\n
effect been done or performed,,_-~th1e:i=_the”‘-same”wouid””<\/p>\n
amount to an act having’. been
\ndone, the question of  pr_esurnputi_o.jn under Section
\n114 does not arisect’:’*S_ecti05.7’\\ the Evidence Act
\narises oriiy  been done and
\nhence a   Therefore, the said<\/p>\n
judgment no   defendant.\n<\/p>\n
 Reiwiiaxrice’wLa’s:p}_.aced in the case of UNIVERSITY<\/p>\n
or AGRICUtTUi~’}’\\L~.~”‘i’ SCIENCE EMPLOYEES HOUSE<\/p>\n
,_i\u00a7o1i,ii\u00a7:2\\ic; c’o~~o..9ERAT1vE SOCIETY vs. SPECIAL LAND<\/p>\n
‘ .9.”j’AcQi,iI*s,1T::o–rN OFFICER AND OTHERS reported in ILR 1999<\/p>\n
  4597 to contend that a presumption can be<\/p>\n
drawn oniy if there is atieast some mark of evidence on<\/p>\n
 niirecord to show that the officiai acts have been purported<\/p>\n
 to be done. However, in the decision reiied upon it is to be<\/p>\n
noted that the originai records in the said case were<\/p>\n
summoned to ascertain as to whether the public notices<\/p>\n
K?\/Z\\W,<\/p>\n
…..20…\n<\/p>\n
were effected or not. In View of the availapijie’i”‘e_c’o:rds___anvd<\/p>\n
on facts, the court declined to draw <\/p>\n
presumption drawn was basedvion at\/ai3lable ‘mate’ri:a.l__. ‘in_nthe'”<\/p>\n
instant case, since therea.sed on the other
\nmaterial on record. t_he..j”u.d’grne>nt does not support<\/p>\n
the defendant’s case~\u00bb–as._i:n the:i.repoirtec;jcase.<\/p>\n
(Ci.’)’H    in the case of THE
\nPRQVINcur\u00a7’::oF”‘E5:ENC5Al;—vs.”M’otJLv1 MD. YUSUF reported in
\nA1R:”‘(_3o_i_ 1’94’3~7Ca%lctittoiiygz. to contend that on acquisition,<\/p>\n
the rnateriai Vin, tli.eNotification alone would have to be<\/p>\n
.,t_a<E<e_n: into co'ns\u00e9—d-ei'ation and not the annexed plan to the<\/p>\n
V.-noti"fi.cat:i'orfi:;The annexed plan substantiating the<\/p>\n
7 Va'cquis.itid_nn:cannot be considered in the absence of material<\/p>\n
in ixlotification itself. By piacing reliance on this<\/p>\n
jJ'u_dgment it is contended that the report of the<\/p>\n
 Commissioner vide Ex.D-14 and other documents material<\/p>\n
cannot be looked into, in order to substantiate the<\/p>\n
acquisition of the defendant's iand. The Notification per se<\/p>\n
l' ' \u00abatlas  <\/p>\n
..21_.\n<\/p>\n
vide Ex.P–3 would have to be considered by the__Court to
\ndetermine as to whether the property is the s.u~i.t:”s.ch.edule<\/p>\n
property or that belonging to the defenda_r.’t–.. <\/p>\n
also placed on the unreported…Judgrnent–:’_ofV”thi_’s.\u00a2 C-ou”rt_<\/p>\n
dated 1-4-1999 passed in Writ  It<\/p>\n
was held therein that neitlhei-..,iV1n the
\nnor in the final Notification:Vd’eta’i!..sz of.’the,,._’l,an,tl its Survey
\nNumber, area, etc’;’,..V:\u00e9’are–  Once these
\nparticulars or.t_he  acquired are not<\/p>\n
me}f1tio_’n.ed’l’l”\u00abi.’tV..i,s:”\u00bbdee,rhe.d that such land is not acquired.
\ni-Ience\u00bb._it is ‘c’ohteri.ded,,:”that in the instant case aiso, the<\/p>\n
details are “n.,ot’fortl*icoming and hence the acquisition itself<\/p>\n
i,,,i”Ex7;’P-3 is the Notification issued under Section (4)<\/p>\n
 .. or\/w”Section 17 and the Notification under 6 of the land<\/p>\n
“‘~._VV”ac\u00e9quisition Act. Not only the schedule lands but various<\/p>\n
if other iands were sought to be acquired by the said<\/p>\n
Notification. So far as the suit schedule land is concerned,<\/p>\n
iii e<\/p>\n
_22_<\/p>\n
the name of the original kathedhar that is. -Abdul<\/p>\n
Samad Sab, namely the vendor t.o'””t.he..9″def’eVnd.cant’s’*–_<\/p>\n
property the name of ‘anubhavadh,ar’4″–\u00a7od’da’h’a:n.,t$maiiah,'”‘<\/p>\n
namely, the husband of.>th-eydefendlant,  of
\nland, the boundaries of  land”.etcf:\ufb01ha:Vve all been
\nmentioned not onlyJ-in:”their:No_ti.fic–at\u00a7.o:’nissued under Section
\n4 r\/w Section 17, ‘Vblotification issued
\nunder   Act. Substantial
\nparticulars’i5ia:’%{\u00a7\u00a7  nnr\u00e9entioned in the notification.
\ni-lerice,__ reliance placed on both the<\/p>\n
3udgnnientis are u’n’stlsta_inable.<\/p>\n
  is the sale deed executed by the vendor,<\/p>\n
 V_  Samad Sab in favour of the husband of the<\/p>\n
defendanft. In the recital, the full extent of the originai<\/p>\n
 .. Survey Number 22\/2., its various owners and the actuai<\/p>\n
V\u00b0e><.P–3.<\/p>\n
(3\/Z—r-\n<\/p>\n
…23..\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, the contention of the defendant thatthe Eands
\nunder acquisition and the lands owned by the  by<\/p>\n
virtue of Ex.D-8 are different, is erroneous’..’:a’ndi.io:pi-oose’_d utoyu<\/p>\n
the facts. Further, D.W.1, the”‘so–n.yof7_:the.”defc>ndaint;’-.has’ <\/p>\n
stated that, except the schediile
\nowned by the defendant;-.I:yt”‘~~i.s ais”o._statAeld_: “when the
\nCommissioner was ,-appointed.'”in\/”Vt-h_e Clourtiian\ufb01d he visited
\nthe lands for  at that time.\n<\/p>\n
Exp-40 indicates l~’l.ijs’C:e_!–lanieoiis case No.13\/51-52<\/p>\n
was fiiedAhoyDodd’ah’a.n_u.maiah seeking enhancement of
\ncompe=.nsaition~. Hloweyer, no other particuiars are<\/p>\n
fort’l1r;omi.vng._i:n”1Ex.v\u00a7’–4O. Ex.P\u00bb~35 is the letter written by<\/p>\n
 ltliie  Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner<\/p>\n
 V_  the acquisition of lands for M\/s.Mysore Lac<\/p>\n
Va-nd..__”Pain’t Works Ltd., and the details of the entire<\/p>\n
 .. Viacquislition proceedings thereof. It is stated therein with<\/p>\n
‘Regard to the details of the Government Orders, the date<\/p>\n
if of handing over possession and the names of the owners<\/p>\n
of the lands acquired. The name of Doddahanumaiah has<\/p>\n
Q\/\/was<\/p>\n
E\/}””*M<\/p>\n
-24..\n<\/p>\n
been shown as the person from whom the land’-‘ha-s been<\/p>\n
acquired. It is also noted that in so far as ji:”ne.fa\u00a2_q\u00a3Ji;_s4ition<\/p>\n
of the land of other land owners are .of”–.._<\/p>\n
Sri T.C. Rajasekhar Aradhya  V<\/p>\n
their respective cases were,__.refer’r_ed to
\nadjudication. However,  of’D.o,_ddaha’numaiah, by
\nreferring to the  “stated that
\nDoddahanumaiah  16-9-1950 for
\nenhancerne:~n’t’:,;’\u00bb,:,1″‘pgnd.A   exceeded the
\n {the Sub-Lludge, the case of
\nSri transferred to the District Court,<\/p>\n
Bangalore,’*9928-11-1951. Consequently, the District<\/p>\n
   passed orders on 12-3-1953 by fixing the<\/p>\n
  Ex.P-35 discloses that Doddahanumaiah<\/p>\n
Vfi-adv-__’s’o-utght for enhancement. DW.1 states that the<\/p>\n
 .. ,clefe’ndant does not own any other lands except the land<\/p>\n
 E><.D.8. Therefore, Ex.P-40 namely, the application<\/p>\n
9' seeking enhancement even though does not disclose the<\/p>\n
Survey Number of the lands, it can be presumed that the<\/p>\n
__25…..\n<\/p>\n
defendant not only accepted the acquisition but had gone a<\/p>\n
step further in seeking enhancement of thou’-\u00aba’rnount<\/p>\n
awarded. In the light of these materials, the  <\/p>\n
the defendants that Ex.P-4O..lacl.<sA  <\/p>\n
there is no material to show that  '<\/p>\n
therein and the defendi3n:vi;~-…are A"or.i_ei  "th'e-~s'ame,"'is<\/p>\n
therefore unsustainable anid—liayb.le'–~to reiectedgi\n<\/p>\n
18. Ex.P–3 srih5wys’–ytii,at Number 22\/2(c)<\/p>\n
standing \ufb01tfi:’i’e ‘\u00b0na”me'”_”o’F””:Abdul Samad Sab, the
\nanu:b_hav_ada.rVolfv.lDo.dd-atjhanhumaiah, that is the defendant’s<\/p>\n
hu_sbahd’-\u00ab.,along_ the boundaries and the extent of land<\/p>\n
._yii3’as;\u00bb_s:ou.yght tob-e–\u00abacquired under the provisions of Section<\/p>\n
‘ shatvar’i’d:_”Sie’ct:i’on 17. Ex.P-2 is the sale deed executed by the<\/p>\n
  in favour of the Mysore Lac and Paint Works<\/p>\n
inci’~~icua;ting not only the schedule property but various other<\/p>\n
 iproperties. Further it also discioses not oniy the schedule<\/p>\n
 property but various other properties were sought to be<\/p>\n
acquired. Ex.P-2 wouid disclose that the scheduie property<\/p>\n
as well as other properties having been acquired by the<\/p>\n
Qtfszfmm<\/p>\n
ii\ufb01u<\/p>\n
 <9'?'\u00a3:=ffL\u00a7')"\n<\/p>\n
saga; 4:..-e~eo\/rs<\/p>\n
-25..\n<\/p>\n
Government under different awards and the Company
\nhaving paid amounts to the Government, the pos’s:escsion of<\/p>\n
the schedule iands were handed over to <\/p>\n
18~1~1949. Ex.P–1 would show that  in <\/p>\n
handed over possession of the ia_ngdsin’1gues’ti.o..fi”tVgg;a;heV..,<\/p>\n
piaintiff on the date ofV,ath4_e<\/p>\n
registered _s’a-lief: deeii “dated
\n:t:~_a?~-X\u00e9rrm  ” ‘ ~   ” ”\n<\/p>\n
19. The defegndiant .r_el{eS~”o.n”t:h:Ve’–V’evidence of P.W.7<\/p>\n
to C_:ont_e_nd’f’it.ha.tft\u00abhere”ha’s been no acquisition. He contends
\nthat ‘P..,_W.i7 ‘h~a’s”:~.nQ;t’~.\/.i5’:t”ated anything with regard to the<\/p>\n
af_”q’ui_siti0an iantds or with handing over possession<\/p>\n
 lanid the evidence being that of the then Assistant<\/p>\n
 Incharge of land acquisition, the same<\/p>\n
‘wou!_d’iia:ve to be seriousiy taken into consideration to hold<\/p>\n
 .. _t_hat”~the iand of the defendant has not been acquired and<\/p>\n
iands are concerned.\n<\/p>\n
VV”th’at no possession has been taken so far as acquiring the<\/p>\n
P.W.”? who was the Incharge<\/p>\n
Assistant Commissioner of Land Acquisition has deposed to<\/p>\n
‘ir\u00e9rn<\/p>\n
-27-<\/span><\/p>\n
the effect that comp\u00e9ete records are not available to show
\nthat actual physical possession was taken  the<\/p>\n
State Government. Therefore, it is.\n<\/p>\n
defendant that when the ev.i,d,ence_–“or’~.:t;he”*Asgsistant<\/p>\n
Commissioner itself does not}st\u00a7pport’fir.thle:”cag\u00a7,,,,\u00a75lfli_:the <\/p>\n
plaintiff with regard to theu’a.cquisi’tiori .an’df:p’os<sess3ion, the
\ncase of the plaintiff  O..n":a:V._AApe.r3usal of the
\nevidence of P.W.7V it-..e:capn'\u00e9-.bef&i'e4e'rie,':'t:'ha.t_there is no denial
\nwith regard  the  lands. In view of<\/p>\n
the;acquis'i'lti'onV__v:hav\u00a7.n_g~.._ta-ken place as far back as in the
\nyear"1._9l48,'the""dwi,_t'r'i–ess:J states that no documents are<\/p>\n
ava"iEa.ble..V ,Therefore, the absence of the documents<\/p>\n
  be…_read to hold that the acquisition itself is non\u00bb<\/p>\n
 .i\u00a5{io"reover, the witness has stated so on the basis<\/p>\n
of the available material and has expressed ignorance of<\/p>\n
 .. rnatters which are not supported by documents. Hence,<\/p>\n
lithe evidence of P.W.7 would be of no assistance to the<\/p>\n
if case of the defendant. On consideration of the evidence of<\/p>\n
P.W.7 it can be seen that nowhere does she state of an<\/p>\n
 We<\/p>\n
-28-<\/span><\/p>\n
absence of possession taken by the State. It_4.isV_:si.ta~t_ed by<\/p>\n
her in evidence on more than one occasioTh”tha-t__j’sh.e’is<\/p>\n
unabie to state with regard to the posse’ssioh,being ttak’eny\u00abV’~–_<\/p>\n
by the State in view of the’-._absente\u00e9’aof-.reco’rdsi<\/p>\n
however has stated ciee..rE_y..__withV”‘reoard theuyactiguiysitiofn
\nby the State with yregarditfo-‘..they  property and
\nvarious other propVe”rtiesA,  on the available
\nrecords with her. a\ufb01bvsence of the records
\nand in  by the witnesses
\nwith  over of possession of the Eands
\nby  under Section 114–E of the<\/p>\n
Evidence Actpfcoufd be drawn with reference to other<\/p>\n
 \u00ab,rhatelfriaivhj.”>.._The other materiai in the instant case is<\/p>\n
 the communication by the Assistant<\/p>\n
SC-om–_r’hisvs’i”oner in favour of the Deputy Commissioner<\/p>\n
 A. .showing the details of the Eahds acquired, the owners of<\/p>\n
“”._VV”th’e Eand, the date of possession, the date of reference of<\/p>\n
if enhancement, the date of LAC cases in aii. Ex.P–3S is<\/p>\n
exhaustive with reference to the cietaiis of acquisition and<\/p>\n
-29….\n<\/p>\n
ail matters connected thereto. Ex.P–4O wouidy..ha_ye,V_to be<\/p>\n
considered in terms of Ex.P–35 and Ex.P–2_.\u00a7_w’ou.Ed-fhlaf-‘v{.\u00e9’ to<\/p>\n
be read as evidence of taking of poss_e~ssEo:ii..:o’fi.:the Stateh-.<\/p>\n
vide Ex.P–3. Therefore, in the :absence ofa~.d’i’rectje_ytdcri1ce”*<\/p>\n
to hold actual possession -.b.eing”i.t_a’i<en,
\nbeing drawn is based on  aivailabfie on record
\nand hence it has   a consequence to
\nEx.P–3, that Aoossessi.on_::in law has been
\ntaken   of the court beiow in
\n basis of Ex.P–1, P–2, P-35 is just
\nvalidilarid aplproorigatie":Hence the substantial questions of<\/p>\n
la;w"in. Rsh  are answered accordingly.<\/p>\n
  namely, the son of the defendant has<\/p>\n
 even though the land Was purchased by his<\/p>\n
fati=ier:.in the year 1946 there are no documents to show<\/p>\n
   from the date of purchase til! the year 1977 the name<\/p>\n
 of the defendant was entered in the records. He has<\/p>\n
stated that it is oniy during the year 1977 that the name of<\/p>\n
the defendant was entered in the records for the first time<\/p>\n
%,.zt.\n<\/p>\n
_30……\n<\/p>\n
not as a owner but as one being in possession. Hence, it is
\nclear that even though the land was purchase,d”‘\u00bbsby the<\/p>\n
defendant in the year 1946, in view of_;t’h’e’.jVa.cqi;ii_\u00a7it.ion<\/p>\n
having taken place the name of not”–.._<\/p>\n
been entered in the records. It is only vslhen’the.’d.tele.nd’ant’-~._ 4]<\/p>\n
forcibly took possession Volythe sVu.i_t”landsuV\u00bbi’n ye;ar’i1\u00a7i?s7
\nthat he got his name entere’d_V1i’r; the record’s as a person in
\npossession of the  <\/p>\n
AV’il’l”l”–‘a,e.\u00ab.._f_:i:i*st’a_p’pe_liat.e Court has decreed the suit of
\nthe plaintiff’toVa’..’gle.s:s’er”extent of 2 acres 25 guntas from<\/p>\n
vvfhats..was decreed by the trial Court to an extent of 2 acres<\/p>\n
 =_3″? g’uArat_asl.._VThe appellate Court by placing reliance on Ex.P–<\/p>\n
 conclusion that the land acquired in Survey<\/p>\n
lriurnfber’:22\/2(c)2(a) being an extent of 2 acres 25 guntas,<\/p>\n
 A. thevsuit could not be decreed to an extent greater than<\/p>\n
VV”what is acquired. Ex.P~3 refers to the acquisition not only<\/p>\n
of the suit land but also of various other lands that has<\/p>\n
been acquired for the purpose of establishing<\/p>\n
we<\/p>\n
Kai aawgraaezef vr\u00e9ff’<\/p>\n
\u00a3FV:9&’7’Y
\nZ?’\/<v-{SW 5120! 0<\/p>\n
-32-<\/span><\/p>\n
:3) gg;r:::\u00a7’\u00a3%  ‘j'(..5′”3’}\u00bb\u00e9z’2\u20ac_.-? _
\nof 2 acres 37 guntas and not 2 acres 27:-gunt\ufb01aws a_s*held by<\/p>\n
the first appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the aforesaid!’reasTons*_it*’iAs~..he-!.d..V:LLfhae_ti’the~.._ V<\/p>\n
suit schedule propertycihas db-e_e’n  ‘and
\npossession taken in acc’ordance “‘wVit”hVVVthat the
\nposession of the su’:iL~~..schedu_l:eVr~:’p._rVo’p-e\u00e9rty  been taken in
\naccordance with law  below were right<\/p>\n
in law in pi’a’\u20acif’-‘IQ reliance o’n:.”t~he._d(\u00a7cuments Ex.P.1, P.2,<\/p>\n
P.3′,.,V P.3S1 oral’-a_’rid other documentary evidence to<\/p>\n
establish that\u00bb ac”c;ui’s.ition, possession, sale etc are in<\/p>\n
a:;:c’or.dance’* law that the possession of the suit<\/p>\n
 \u00ab,:sche’d:lu!e\ufb01troperty has been taken in accordance with law<\/p>\n
   Courts below are justified in upholding the<\/p>\n
ti–tie–..of  plaintiff based on the documentation available<\/p>\n
if A. on record.\n<\/p>\n
in so far as the substantial question of law in RSA<\/p>\n
No.1145\/2002 is concerned in view of the reasons<\/p>\n
WK”\n<\/p>\n
…33..\n<\/p>\n
aforementioned this Court is of the view that the<\/p>\n
appreciation of the evidence by the first appellatecourt in<\/p>\n
decreeing the suit of the plaintiff to a  2<\/p>\n
acres 25 guntas from a decree granted.V__to’~.an:.Ae’xtent’ofu2*’.._<\/p>\n
acres 37 guntas by the triai Coiirt  p.ei<ye'r'se.._.: " V  V<\/p>\n
In the light of th_\u00e9"~….ansv\\iers .toiv,_the""-Vvsubstantial<\/p>\n
questions of iaw, RSA No.1_0f9\/20.92 is'dismis_s\u20aced.<\/p>\n
RSA No.1145\/2o'o2 ifs'atId1wfed'.i'V_~by'— Setting aside the<\/p>\n
Judgment,'  -'3~9–2002 passed in<\/p>\n
R.A.No.61\/19.94 by-vsVt'ne..':i3–r,i'neipaI Civil Judge (Senior<\/p>\n
vDivision;_)' '&t.cJMV, 'T-d_rfn:\u00a7ur,f AND confirming the Judgment &<\/p>\n
ivdeeree dated 23e9–1994 passed H1 O.S.No.353\/1989 by<\/p>\n
the'  Turnkur by decreeing the suit of the<\/p>\n
if plaintiff; i<\/p>\n
 is .N__o costs.\n<\/p>\n
sdie
\nESBGE<\/p>\n
  Rsk\/–<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Kempamma W\/O Late Dodda Hanumaiah vs Sarvodaya Education Society on 22 February, 2010 Author: Ravi Malimath IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN(3!f\\E.,\u00bbORE DATED THIS THE 22″” DAY OF EEBRUANV2’05i0’\u00b0-. BEFORE ~ THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE RAVI_MA4LI.MA\u00a7TH:_ REGULAR SECOND APPEAL. \u00a7\\_}_O.1fJ79 OF\u00bb200l_2g REGULAR SECOND APPEAL I1\\_|_U~.’114~5_O_F\u00bb 2’oag,%Aee.RL R\u00a7A.NQ.1Q72[Q2: BE’.fwE_E.A:;;T’%’v.”VV…,__7.O = W\/0 Iate”~.[)o’d.cfVa’v._Ha–,Dumaiah […]<\/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-162574","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKempamma W\/O Late Dodda Hanumaiah vs Sarvodaya Education Society on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kempamma W\/O Late Dodda Hanumaiah vs Sarvodaya Education Society on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-08T10:21:54+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kempamma W\\\/O Late Dodda Hanumaiah vs Sarvodaya Education Society on 22 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-08T10:21:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4246,\"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\\\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Kempamma W\\\/O Late Dodda Hanumaiah vs Sarvodaya Education Society on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-08T10:21:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kempamma W\\\/O Late Dodda Hanumaiah vs Sarvodaya Education Society on 22 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kempamma W\/O Late Dodda Hanumaiah vs Sarvodaya Education Society on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kempamma W\/O Late Dodda Hanumaiah vs Sarvodaya Education Society on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-08T10:21:54+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kempamma W\/O Late Dodda Hanumaiah vs Sarvodaya Education Society on 22 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-08T10:21:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010"},"wordCount":4246,"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\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010","name":"Kempamma W\/O Late Dodda Hanumaiah vs Sarvodaya Education Society on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-08T10:21:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempamma-wo-late-dodda-hanumaiah-vs-sarvodaya-education-society-on-22-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kempamma W\/O Late Dodda Hanumaiah vs Sarvodaya Education Society on 22 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162574","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=162574"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162574\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162574"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162574"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162574"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}