{"id":167467,"date":"2010-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-18T05:07:40","modified_gmt":"2016-03-17T23:37:40","slug":"b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"B Muddegowda S\/O Bettegowda vs Puttaramegowda S\/O Mari Gowda on 27 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
B Muddegowda S\/O Bettegowda vs Puttaramegowda S\/O Mari Gowda on 27 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana<\/div>\n
IN T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE Q'? 1\"\" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010\n\nBEFORE\n\nTI-E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE s.N.sATYANAR4iYA.izg_a.'._jj  A' \n\nREGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2122 or 2oQ5..1\ufb01Bc :3'; am   \u00bb \n\nBETWEEN :\n\n1 . Blvluddegowda.\nS \/ 0 Bettegowda,\nEx--Chajrman.\n\n2. Chaiuvegowda,\nS\/0 Singrigowda.\n\n3. S.Swamy, _ '   H\nS\/0 Singrigowdagf '\n\n4. P.Jay;1ram_u,'  '  \nS\/0 Pape:g0wda.=._\n\n5. De\\:ar9gu, . A' '\n 'o\ufb01late Childcainaiigowda.\n\n ' .Ai\u00bb1,a:fe 1\\\u00ab\u20acajo_f\"and\nA Viisrsitie\ufb01-1:.\u00e9O'f Melapura Village, '\n'~Kaswaba'H'_ebhf; V\nSrjrangapa\ufb01ria Taluk,\nIVIAVDYA DISTRICT. .. APPELLANTS.\n\n  \"{I3y_.S:;iV\u00a7'M.R.Vijay Kumar, Adv.)\n\n\n\nAND:\n\nPuttaramegowda, 3\/O igaw\u00e9a\nSince deceased, by his L.Rs.,\n\n1.\n\nSmt.Kempamma.\nW\/0 late Puttaramegowda.\n\nSmt.Nagaratna,\nW\/0 Narayanappa,\nAged about 45 Years.\n\nResiding at 18\"\" Cross,\nRamanuja Road,\nMYSORE.\n\nSrnt.Latha.\nW\/0 late B.Ramachandra,\nAged about 40 Years,  -\n\nResidirzg at Anehekere Beed.i.\n\nSRIRANGAPATNA.\nM.P.Ramegowc1a,\" \n\nS\/0 late Putta,ran:eg%,owL:\u00a3a,s.j_p' 1 \"\n\nAged about 39 Years.\nR\/0 .Me1apura Viliaggefw V\n\n1Smt.J'anakj:;' -~  VA  \n\n \nAgedabout 35' Years,\n\n_ . R\/0 Y'az:_ag&nah\u00e9iAh,\"'\n _\"_M\u00a7;soRE.v._. __\n\n:\u00b03\u00a7'%r:1:t;V\"P:a,drna, \"\"\" H\n 'H.M.._Someg0w('ia,\n\ndd \"  about 34 Years,\n' R\/o.\"1\\\/Ieidahalll.\n\nT.1\\Eara.s1pura Taluk,\nMYSORE DISTRICT.\n\nS,:i1t.1\\\/Iamatha,\n\nW\/0 M.D.[)evara]u,\n\n Aged about 32 Years.\n\nR\/ 0 Yaraganahaiii,\nMYSORE.\n\n\n\n8. Vajkuntegowda,\nS \/ 0 Docidaidegowda.\n\n9. Bettegowda,\nS \/ 0 Chaluvegowda.\n\n10. Srinivasegowda,\n8\/ 0 Kullegowcia.\n\nNos.8 to 12 are resident of \nMelapura Viiiage, \nKasaba Hobii,  _\nSrirangapatna Taiuk, '  ..\nMANDYA DISTRICT.\n\n11.. Chief Secretaryg \nGovt. of Karnataigai'--\nVidhana Soudha.\nBANGALORE.\n\n12. Tahsiigiar,\u00ab.._f_'\u00ab _ 1 \nSrirangap\u00e9\ufb01itnea Tal.ui::,V _ _ V V\n      .. RESPCNDENTS.\n\nmy i\\u\/I\/ts.'A'V.Q..&..soe_iates,.tAd\u20ac\/s.\nVfovr 1.: to 13:7} .\n\n'1* e *':\u00ab**:_*\n\nThis Apf\ufb01-:_\u00a711t is 'r':i_e'\u00a3iA1:un,.\u00a7i'\u00ab;~r' Section 100 of the Code of Civil\nPr   {Decree dated 28.10.1999 passed in\n\n the \ufb01le of the Additional Civil Judge {Sr.Dn..),\n\n. 0 '--\u00ab . ._ .Sri.t_fangapatn'-a.\n\n  Appeai having been heard and reserved for Judgment,\n\n  day, the Court pronounced the foliowingz\n\n\"Vi\n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
This second appeal is by the defendant Nos.3, 5 and 8 to 10
\nin O.S.No.12\/1990 on the \ufb01le of the Additional Civil\ufb02iudge<\/p>\n
[Sr.Dn.), Srirangapatna, chaiienging the Judgment <\/p>\n
dated 25.07.2995 passed in R.A.No.1\/2000 on dad siefofi  <\/p>\n
Additionai District Judge, Mandya, whei*ei1’i.ttte J<\/p>\n
Decree dated 28.10.1999 passed in o.s.i~Jsd.:1–2}’1990_._}m.,the <\/p>\n
the Additional Ci\\n’l Judge (st-.oa.),V sddaegaeatna,y\u00a7as”1–e\u00a7ers’ed.\n<\/p>\n
2. For the sake of convehi.ence.”the in thisappeal are<\/p>\n
referred to by their ranking in\n<\/p>\n
3. The e;sVsentia!?facts:’fVleading to  appeal are that the suit in<\/p>\n
0.S.No.12\/1Vd99(‘)\u00ab.was by one Puttarame Gowda. 8\/ o<\/p>\n
Mari Gowda,  McEa;i;.t1i*a’Viiiage of Srirangapatna ‘faiuk. The<\/p>\n
iiied by Vhim—-seeking declaration that he is the owner<\/p>\n
Of-v.S’lli\u00ab1i.4:ii”(VCIIl Nos.1 and 2 and also for an order of<\/p>\n
in”\u00bb,___perrna;nei1t  against the defendant bios} to 12 therein,<\/p>\n
“awiio are uresident of I\\\/Ieiapura Viiiage. The suit schedule item<\/p>\n
 i:\\1o’s;~iiarIti’2 are agricuiturai land situated in Meiapura Village. So<\/p>\n
   No.1 is concerned, there is no dispute by any of the<\/p>\n
“‘1<\/p>\n
defendant regarding title, possession and enjoyment of plaintiff
\nover the same. The dispute is only in respect of suit schedule item
\nNo.2, which is situated on the eastern side of suit schedule item<\/p>\n
No. 1 and western side of cauvery riverbed.<\/p>\n
4. Admittedly suit item No.2 is Government <\/p>\n
Cauvery River measuring to an extent of approximately’=.:1=ac3f_e.”=<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs case is that his family has been in posisessioti;’*-cultivation<\/p>\n
and enjoyment of suit schedule item No’.:2_ ‘sincea.”1V’93.(:)_,.  has’.<\/p>\n
document. to show that he has paid tax  Tail’-;te tax] in
\nrespect of suit schedule  No.23. ._y_the’\u00ab.years M 199933, 1939
\nthereafter in 1976 and subseq_uen_t1y\u00a7;V__lhids  grown several<\/p>\n
trees in the:’-,_sai_d–  Hala and Neraie, the said
\ntrees are more  seventy  old. it is his \u00e9ase that defendant<\/p>\n
Nos.1 to_;12 are disposed towards him, they are bent<\/p>\n
  trying to forcibly enter into suit schedule<\/p>\n
Nosii: aindx  the crops grown by him and remove the<\/p>\n
AAVV’standing\u00ab.trees  ‘form a drainage in suit schedule item No.2.<\/p>\n
 ..ir1_.the”*’origi1n1a} suit, all the defendants were duly served.<\/p>\n
 ini.tia;1_iy’~r-iefenciant Nos.1, 2, it and 12 \ufb01led written statement,<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
“W:\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
wherein they a(lmjt.t,ed most of the averments of the plaint and
\ndenied the allegation of being inimically disposed towards plaintiff
\nand making attempt to enter upon the suit schedule Item Nos}<\/p>\n
and 2 to form drainage tliereon. it is further stated K injtheir<\/p>\n
statement that they are peace loving people of village,_  not<\/p>\n
joining other defendants, namely defendant   l_() 3 i’n._ <\/p>\n
disturbing the possession, cniltivation  genjoyme:n’t
\nplaintiff over the suit schedule property. 2<\/p>\n
6. Defendant Nos.3 to 10 \ufb01ledvuuseparatea written statement,
\nwherein they denied each every  of the plaint right
\nfrom plaintiff’s claim regaifding  .. ctiltivation and<\/p>\n
enjoyment. of the s1iit.”=sci1edt1:lev—- item No.2 and also the claim of
\nplaintiff havirigs\ufb02paid  charges and kandayain for the years<\/p>\n
19313,  and l9l7’5_V_Van(l also planting of Honge, Hala and Nerale<\/p>\n
2. trees byVllltlielianeestors of plaintiff in suit schedule item No.2. It is<\/p>\n
their .sp’ecifi’e’T’case the suit schedule item No.2 is government<\/p>\n
 ll-and ideally sitaateri to be utilized for burial ground and presently<\/p>\n
2′ ”  is’beir::g used as burial ground by the villagers. It is also<\/p>\n
 tiieir cas-srthat, plaintiff is not in possession of the same. Drainage<\/p>\n
‘i’1as_b_eer1 formed in the said land. for flow of water. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
“”1<\/p>\n
plaintiff is not in possession of property, question of granting
\npermanent injunction either against the defendants or anybody<\/p>\n
else does not arise. They also raised objection <\/p>\n
maintainability of suit in respect of suit schedule iteii:  <\/p>\n
g0V(3i’I}.I1’l\u20ac1’1t karab. I  _<\/p>\n
7. It is seen that subsequently plaintiff   <\/p>\n
Secretary and Tahsildar of Srirangapvatna  and . 9′<\/p>\n
14. Defendant No.13 has filed theApwi4iit_eti.._stateri1ent. yeherein in
\nprinciple the written statein\u00e9nt\ufb01led  in Similar to the
\nwritten statement filed by  In addition to
\nthat, he has also.    hairing more than ten
\nacres of  same village is not entitled for
\ngrant of suit    his favour and that he is in<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
u.na1ithorijz’e’di.occupation and possession of the suit property and<\/p>\n
   land is required for the public purpose, the<\/p>\n
same  in favour of the plainti\ufb01’. It is also his case<\/p>\n
 that a n’c=ticeV__was.:’issued by him for eviction, which was the subject<\/p>\n
_. _. f of \/1989-90 and also an order has been passed to<\/p>\n
  –that land under Section 71 of the Land Revenue Act and to<\/p>\n
, ml<\/p>\n
resewe the same as burial ground for the bene\ufb01t of general public
\nI<\/p>\n
of Melapura Village.\n<\/p>\n
8. With these rival contentions, the Trial Court prcrieeti’e\u00a7:l”‘vto<\/p>\n
frame the following issues:\n<\/p>\n
1. Whether the plaintiff promss “his “title.  V
\nrespect of item No.1 of  sehedule   <\/p>\n
property?\n<\/p>\n
2. Whether plajritifl proves was in
\npossession of sui.t.”prop.t_\u00a7rtiesl” vonthe date of<\/p>\n
suit’?\n<\/p>\n
[and _oei*m.ane.nt ‘i.nju_r1ctien in respect of suit<\/p>\n
schedule  _ <\/p>\n
4. 5.  ‘  had issued notice to
\n_  \u00ab;A1efendant’s”}–3–\u00aband 14 as required u\/s.80 of
\n t ‘C4?-C?””v u<\/p>\n
A Adcli\ufb01unal issues:\n<\/p>\n
1. it , Vsfliether the Court fee paid is insufficient?<\/p>\n
H Whether plaintiff proves that he has acquired<\/p>\n
31:0 .3′<\/p>\n
title to item No.2 of suit property by adverse<\/p>\n
“‘1<\/p>\n
possession’?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9. Subsequent to framing of issues, evidence was reeorded.V_by<\/p>\n
the tnal Court. Plaintiff examined himself as  _<\/p>\n
documents, Exs.P–1 to P~17. On behalf of V. <\/p>\n
witnesses were examined and Exs.D–1    the<\/p>\n
said proceedings, certain documents were aiso”sumna’oi:1.ed froin tiie” ,<\/p>\n
Government and the same were  as  to\u00a5\u00a7C~9. On
\nappreciation of documents ‘recorded  the Trial
\nCourt, the Trial Court’Nos.I to 3 in the
\nafiirinative, issue No\u00e9iligin’   w.in_V:\u00a3*espect of additional
\nissue No.1 decla\u00a3ing:’4th.alt”:’it  for consideration and
\nwhile answering’   in the negative, partly
\ndecreed th(3:zs.I’Ju”‘t as the owner in possession<\/p>\n
of suit schedule~..ite::n   granting permanent injunction<\/p>\n
 defendant VNGs…1~to 12 only from distprbing his peaceful<\/p>\n
poss’essi’on_ ands en_io3rment of suit schedule item No.1. Regarding<\/p>\n
  gpsuit schedule  declaration of title and also consequential<\/p>\n
 relief of perinanent inj unetion was dismissed.<\/p>\n
 110;? Piaintifi challenged the same in R.A.No.1\/2000. In the said<\/p>\n
V”  proceedings, though all the defendants were served. oniy<\/p>\n
“W1<\/p>\n
E O<\/p>\n
respondent. Nos.3, 5, 8 to 10, 13 and 14 appeared through counsel,<\/p>\n
respondent. Nos.1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 1.1 and 12 remained absent. After
\nI<\/p>\n
securing the entire Trial Court records, the First Appellate Court<\/p>\n
proceeded to frame the following points for consideration:<\/p>\n
1. Whether the plaintiff\/appellant has pro3.ze__ri”u.
\nthat he was in possession and enjoymestt’ of
\nthe suit schedule property.’ __for _-‘o\\ker.:’_’:a’V””
\nstatutory of period of 12 yearspiad\u00e9rers\u00e9ly
\nthe interest of the true owr1c_r1’a_r1ci thereby ‘~ it it
\nperfected his title  of V _atlV_ei’ise’*VV <\/p>\n
possession’?  . _ , ,’ ‘<\/p>\n
2. Whether the plaintiff\/appe1lsilt;’:ihas proved<\/p>\n
that  irifpossession of the suit<\/p>\n
‘schedule. prc})e1=t\u00a7 the date of the suit?<\/p>\n
3. __Whether the plaintiff\/appellant has proved<\/p>\n
  defefrtlantsp. tried to interfere with the<\/p>\n
_ possession of the item No.2 of the suit
\n = ;s”c.hevdi1l.e”_:property?\n<\/p>\n
 \\fJhether the plaintiff\/ appellant has proved<\/p>\n
” that he has issued notice to defendants 33<\/p>\n
if I  and 14 and complied Section 80 of CPC?<\/p>\n
‘Wt<\/p>\n
11. The Judgment and Decree of the First Qkppellate Court is
\nchallenged by defendant Nos.3, 5 and 8 to 10 in this appeal.<\/p>\n
Regarding other defendants, since they did not challenge\ufb01the<\/p>\n
Judgment and Decree, they are made as formal  <\/p>\n
aPDea1 as re5P0ndent Nos.8 to10. At the time of after, <\/p>\n
hearing the learned counsel for appellants  on <\/p>\n
Judgment and Decree of both the Courts  this  i<\/p>\n
the following substantial question of _
\n ,<\/p>\n
1. Whether the Firzst, i?\\…p;\u00a7ei_latef Court was
\njustified in grantinhgt decree “of V “permanent<\/p>\n
injunetionaiti the light of  point for<\/p>\n
:._eonsid’eratjon.V 1egar_ding– adverse possession<\/p>\n
being held plaintiff’?\n<\/p>\n
:l?hereaft.er_ this court” secured the records of both the court below<\/p>\n
 p;ror.:eedVed_ tohhear the arguments of both the plaintiffs and<\/p>\n
defendai1t.s,VV'”veh\u00bb9_  respectively respondent, Nos.1 to 7 and<\/p>\n
 appellants beforefl this Court and this Court proceeded to answer<\/p>\n
 ‘thee,sa_rne in the af\ufb01rrnative, for the following:<\/p>\n
REASONS<\/p>\n
who are contesting the suit by denying all the plaint averments.<\/p>\n
The defendant No.12, the Taiisilriar has also joi.ned4.the:rri.__in<\/p>\n
denying all the plaint averments. It is rather ir1terestin;\u00ab\u00a7”to–\u00ab’s’ee  _<\/p>\n
defendant No.12 in his anxiety to deny the titie a.nd..possessiori o1″–\u00ab .. <\/p>\n
suit schedule item Nos.l and 2, has gone  <\/p>\n
revenue document which originated’ from the Fievenpue A\u00a7)epart:m’e11t.”\u00bb ~’<\/p>\n
of State Government from 1930 till dateV’hacce;)tifig’&ti1at the plaintiff
\nhas been in possession of:so.me_’Ahportio.n,\ufb02lo~f. the  situated<\/p>\n
adjacent to his property on the <\/p>\n
14. Though in   it is Seen that
\nthe extent of   by him varied from
\n1933, i939:’:and of filing of the suit from 1 acre 1
\ngunta, the   and his ancestors were in<\/p>\n
possession ofthe su~it__sched’ule property, as could be seen from the<\/p>\n
“revenue xrecor:ds_’pr_oduced by them and ofcourse as stated earlier,<\/p>\n
evici;io11.l’_notiee’–\u00ab by defendant No.12 also presupposes that<\/p>\n
xwvlthere is”‘s0m__e’  in the contention of the plaintiff that he has<\/p>\n
 in possession of certain extent of land, situated adjacent to<\/p>\n
 his\u00ab’pArope:rty, on the banks of river cauvery. It is not in dispute by<\/p>\n
  the parties that suit schedule item No.2 is Government<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
E5<\/p>\n
Karab and the  land is situated on the bank of river cauvery.
\nthe land, which is feeder} by alluvial soil, the most fertile soil<\/p>\n
brought. by river in its eourse of movement and the said’ land_ is<\/p>\n
ideally suited for cultivation. For the purpose of  _<\/p>\n
f ‘4 ,<\/p>\n
ground in the village could be utilized. A valuabl~e.–Alar;1d*\u00ab.. <\/p>\n
could not be wasted for the purpose  bur\u00e9iaj.
\nwould be ideally utilised for the  purpose;lagricigltvare:’activity. l<\/p>\n
15. Infact, Section 92 of the   liict clearly
\nstates that such kind of  *–be.”allowedAAto go waste.
\nThe authority could put  by offering It to
\nthe neighbouringglande-zvner:’–at5 all to be fixed. If it is<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
not agreeable to hint”‘t1ien’ton’dispose of the same in a manner<\/p>\n
prescribed under    Revenue Act, for such price<\/p>\n
as the authtirities “de_erns fit. in any event. Section 92 does not<\/p>\n
pervn1i’t.ethe  to be utilized like any other land available<\/p>\n
either or 91 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.<\/p>\n
 dFu1*tl1er;'<\u00ab.il; is"seen that the internal rivalry between the members of<\/p>\n
i\u00a2"tthe'village.appears to be the reason for denying the possession,<\/p>\n
 cult;vation and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule item<\/p>\n
 As could be seen, nearly 22 witnesses have given evidence<\/p>\n
WW<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
against the plaintiff. Infact, most of them are younger in age, than<\/p>\n
the period in respect of which they say regarding the usage<\/p>\n
land as burial ground by the villagers. There app_e\u00a7ai*s _<\/p>\n
concerted effort by major section of the villagers in  Vtoidepiiye –\u00ab .. <\/p>\n
and deny the use and enjoyment of the suit <\/p>\n
the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
16. The plaintiff in supporyttof  has   he has
\nbeen in possession of the  as such his
\npossession should notlbe distufbed  of law, as
\nlaid down. by the 5:.r:_::o;:_n~l flossme Gowda (D) by
\nLrs. Vs.   and another 111.12 2006
\n at -‘ paragraph 11, the settled<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
possession is ciearl*ly de\ufb01ned…  ‘<\/p>\n
vV1”’?..y_ En_faiet,v_tl1e rati”o”enun;eiated in the above decision squarely<\/p>\n
a’p.plies’toVtl2e ‘facts”‘-and circumstances of the case in hand. in any<\/p>\n
  vevent;’if1j..t5heseVi\ufb01lvIhe}:’e every piece of land is required to be put<\/p>\n
 to’ bettei: use for increasing the agricultural productivity, an<\/p>\n
 atteniptfby asection of village and also the revenue officials being<\/p>\n
  guided by such anti development elements, should be<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
deprived. in any event, this observation does not mean that<\/p>\n
defendant Nos.13 and 14 in the Trial Court, who are respondent<\/p>\n
Nos..1l and 12 before this Court are to be guided _<\/p>\n
occupancy rights of this land to the plaintiff (since  by –\u00ab .. <\/p>\n
‘L.Rs.l. However. it will suffice to say that the fi\u00bb1~’i”a–ssappellate-..sCoi\u00a7rt<\/p>\n
after going tl:u’ough the entire records and_vevidenr:e’iA avajlahjlell<\/p>\n
record, has rightly come to the coriciusion that-.t_hef’:plaintiff is in
\npossession and enjoyment the s.uit:_sc’iiedule.\u00a3tem  property
\nand as such he shall be perrnitted  possession and<\/p>\n
cultivation till he is “dispossessecl  due” process of law.<\/p>\n
18. There is..neither’    in the \ufb01nding given
\nby the Firstfz\ufb01ippellateiCourt’inflreversing the Judgment of the Trial
\nCourt and granting pe:maim{1t—- injunction in favour of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
so far asggjitem No.*2.._ofVthe’ suit schedule property is concerned,<\/p>\n
 _defen.dant\u00abNos.1 to 10 only. It is also necessary to add that<\/p>\n
 of the plaintiff on his application for grant<\/p>\n
 suit se.heduleite1n No.2 in his favour, defendant Nos.13 and 14<\/p>\n
if ” ‘:”iierebyzd,i-rected to be guided by the provisions of Section 92 of<\/p>\n
 the  Land Revenue Act. which deals with disposal of<\/p>\n
  Suit schedule item No.2 is the land which is the recipient of<\/p>\n
“Wt<\/p>\n
alluvial soil by \ufb02ow of cauvery river water on its eastern side is<\/p>\n
ideally situatecl to be utilized for agricultural purpose, than it<\/p>\n
as burial ground. Nodoubt. a space for burial ‘of the__jdeael’_’i~s:<\/p>\n
essential for the village. Defendant Nos.18 and\u00bb. <\/p>\n
such other suitable land for the said suit.<\/p>\n
schedule Item No.2 land fol1owingV.th<e provisions oVf"'{'5ec:t.ion ':\u00e93f2'fof<\/p>\n
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, keepirzg the"1\u00e9=1gi*1tV':of':1\u00a7laintiff to
\nget it reguiarised in his in favour  his LR's) 4<\/p>\n
Accordingly this appeal' is  {m'tl1_out. a.n\u00a7:*"order as to costs.<\/p>\n
   .ll xj     c  Judge\n\nAGV.\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court B Muddegowda S\/O Bettegowda vs Puttaramegowda S\/O Mari Gowda on 27 September, 2010 Author: S.N.Satyanarayana IN T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE Q’? 1″” DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010 BEFORE TI-E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE s.N.sATYANAR4iYA.izg_a.’._jj A’ REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2122 or 2oQ5..1\ufb01Bc :3′; am \u00bb BETWEEN : 1 […]<\/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-167467","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB Muddegowda S\/O Bettegowda vs Puttaramegowda S\/O Mari Gowda on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B Muddegowda S\/O Bettegowda vs Puttaramegowda S\/O Mari Gowda on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-17T23:37:40+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B Muddegowda S\\\/O Bettegowda vs Puttaramegowda S\\\/O Mari Gowda on 27 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-17T23:37:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2354,\"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\\\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010\",\"name\":\"B Muddegowda S\\\/O Bettegowda vs Puttaramegowda S\\\/O Mari Gowda on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-17T23:37:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B Muddegowda S\\\/O Bettegowda vs Puttaramegowda S\\\/O Mari Gowda on 27 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"B Muddegowda S\/O Bettegowda vs Puttaramegowda S\/O Mari Gowda on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B Muddegowda S\/O Bettegowda vs Puttaramegowda S\/O Mari Gowda on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-17T23:37:40+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B Muddegowda S\/O Bettegowda vs Puttaramegowda S\/O Mari Gowda on 27 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-17T23:37:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010"},"wordCount":2354,"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\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010","name":"B Muddegowda S\/O Bettegowda vs Puttaramegowda S\/O Mari Gowda on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-17T23:37:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-muddegowda-so-bettegowda-vs-puttaramegowda-so-mari-gowda-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B Muddegowda S\/O Bettegowda vs Puttaramegowda S\/O Mari Gowda on 27 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167467","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=167467"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167467\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167467"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167467"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167467"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}