{"id":173005,"date":"2005-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005"},"modified":"2018-03-21T04:11:04","modified_gmt":"2018-03-20T22:41:04","slug":"suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005","title":{"rendered":"Suresh vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava &#8230; on 16 February, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Suresh vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava &#8230; on 16 February, 2005<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Lakshmanan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ashok Bhan, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  308 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nSuresh\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\nRESPONDENT:\nMahadevappa Shivappa Danannava and Anr.\t \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/02\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nAshok Bhan &amp; Dr. AR. Lakshmanan \n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3306 of 2004)   <\/p>\n<p>Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>The present appeal was filed against the final judgment and order<br \/>\ndated 17.02.2004 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in<br \/>\nCriminal Revision Petition No. 932\/2000 dismissing the said petition filed<br \/>\nby the appellant-herein (accused No.1).\n<\/p>\n<p>The short facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are narrated<br \/>\nherein below:\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent No.1 is the complainant.  According to the complaint, the<br \/>\nappellant herein had executed an agreement to sell dated 25.12.1988 in<br \/>\nrespect of the house premises bearing No.120, K.H.B. Colony, Agrahara<br \/>\nDasarahalli, Bangalore in favour of the wife of the complainant<br \/>\nRenukamma and as per the said agreement a sum of Rs.1,25,000\/- was paid<br \/>\nas advance out of the total consideration of Rs.2,50,000\/- and the remaining<br \/>\namount was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed.  It is stated in<br \/>\nthe complaint that the second accused being the father of the first accused,<br \/>\nthe appellant herein was a member of the Karnataka Housing Board, who<br \/>\nnegotiated the transaction among the parties and in spite of several requests<br \/>\nand demands made by the complainant it did not yield any fruits and that the<br \/>\nfirst accused had sold the said property in favour of the wife of the fourth<br \/>\naccused.  It was further stated that the complainant approached all the<br \/>\naccused persons several times for possession of the said premises and was<br \/>\nready to pay the balance sale consideration, but all the accused persons<br \/>\nfailed to discharge the obligations of the contract.  Certain other averments<br \/>\nhave also been made in the complaint in regard to the receipt of Rs.5 lacs<br \/>\nfrom one Uma Belagavi and Nadigar for vacating the said premises on filing<br \/>\ncivil cases with which we are not presently concerned in this appeal.  A legal<br \/>\nnotice dated 11.07.1996 was also issued by the complainant calling upon the<br \/>\nappellant herein to execute the sale deed in respect of the premises in<br \/>\nquestion.  The appellant herein on 18.07.1996 replied to the said legal<br \/>\nnotice.  He denied the very existence of the alleged agreement to sell.  He<br \/>\nalso denied that he had ever received Rs.1,25,000\/- as consideration amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>According to the complainant, all the accused persons committed<br \/>\noffences attracting penal provisions of IPC under Sections 196, 209, 386,<br \/>\n403, 406 and 420.  The complainant requested the Chief Metropolitan<br \/>\nMagistrate, Bangalore to take cognizance of the offence against the accused<br \/>\npersons and punish them in accordance with law in the interest of justice and<br \/>\nequity.  This complaint was numbered as PCR No. 453\/1999 dated<br \/>\n17.05.1999.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant denied the execution of such an agreement or received<br \/>\nany advance from the complainant or his wife.\n<\/p>\n<p>The IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed the office to<br \/>\nregister the case as PCR and refer the same to the sub-inspector Kamakshi<br \/>\nPalya P.S. for investigation and submit a report as per Section 156(3) of<br \/>\nCr.PC by 27.08.1999.  This order was passed by the Magistrate on<br \/>\n17.05.1999 (Annexure-P2).  On 04.08.2000 the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan<br \/>\nMagistrate passed the following order:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;ORDER<br \/>\nPerused the record.  Cognizance of the offence alleged against the<br \/>\naccused is taken u\/s. 190(i)(b) of Cr.P.C. Office to register the case in CC<br \/>\nregister and issue SS to accused by 30-9-2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                               Sd\/- 4-8-2000&#8243;\n<\/p>\n<p>Aggrieved by the order dated 04.08.2000 passed by the IV Addl.<br \/>\nCMM, the appellant accused preferred a criminal revision under Section 401<br \/>\nCr.PC praying the High Court to set aside the said order.  The said revision<br \/>\nwas dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 17.02.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>We have perused the entire pleadings and the order passed by the<br \/>\nHigh Court in revision and heard the counsel appearing for the appellant.<br \/>\nThough notice was served on the first respondent, no one has entered<br \/>\nappearance on his behalf.  Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent filed vakalatnama on behalf of the State but has not filed any<br \/>\ncounter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2  &#8211; State of Karnataka.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is pertinent to notice that the alleged agreement to sell was executed<br \/>\non 25.12.1988.  A legal notice was issued to the appellant herein on<br \/>\n11.07.1996 calling upon the appellant to execute the sale deed in respect of<br \/>\nthe premises in question.  Thus the complaint was submitted after 7 1\/2<br \/>\nyears of splendid silence from the date of the alleged agreement to sell i.e.<br \/>\n25.12.1988.  It is further to be noticed that the appellant herein responded to<br \/>\nthe legal notice dated 11.07.1996 by his reply dated 18.07.1996 through his<br \/>\nlawyer specifically denying the alleged agreement and the payment of<br \/>\nRs.1,25,000\/- as advance.  Nothing was heard thereafter and the complainant<br \/>\nafter keeping quiet for nearly 3 years filed private complaint under Section<br \/>\n200 Cr.PC before the IV Addl. CMM, Bangalore on 17.05.1999.  The<br \/>\nlearned Magistrate on the same date directed his office to register the case as<br \/>\nPCR and referred the same to the local police for investigation and to submit<br \/>\na report as per Section 156(3) Cr.PC.  A charge sheet was filed on<br \/>\n04.08.2000 by the police against the appellant\/accused No.1 only for offence<br \/>\nunder Section 420 IPC.  The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the<br \/>\nalleged offence under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.PC and issued summons to the<br \/>\naccused\/appellant herein.  Aggrieved by the aforesaid process order dated<br \/>\n04.08.2000 passed by the Magistrate, the appellant accused preferred the<br \/>\nabove criminal revision which was dismissed by the High Court for the<br \/>\nreasons stated therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>We have also perused the Annexures P1-P3 which are copies of the<br \/>\npleadings\/documents which form part of the records of the case in the High<br \/>\nCourt against whose order leave to appeal was sought for in this appeal.  We<br \/>\nhave carefully perused the order passed by the High Court.  The High Court,<br \/>\nin our opinion, has passed the order in a mechanical way without applying<br \/>\nits mind.  A perusal of the complaint would show that the entire dispute<br \/>\nraised by the complainant is based on the alleged agreement to sell dated<br \/>\n25.12.1988 nearly 11 years prior to the filing of the private complaint on<br \/>\n17.05.1999.  The existence of any such agreement or any advance taken has<br \/>\nbeen specifically denied by the appellant by way of his reply dated<br \/>\n06.07.1996 in response to the legal notice dated 11.07.1996 sent by the<br \/>\ncomplainant through his lawyer.  For nearly 3 years from the date of reply,<br \/>\nthe complainant kept quiet before filing his complaint on 17.05.1999 before<br \/>\nthe Magistrate.  It is stated that even as per the police report, no offence is<br \/>\nmade out against accused Nos. 2-4.  Despite this, the Magistrate issued<br \/>\nprocess against accused Nos. 2-4 as well which clearly shows the non-<br \/>\napplication of mind by the Magistrate.  A perusal of the complaint would<br \/>\nonly reveal that the allegations as contained in the complaint are of civil<br \/>\nnature and do not prima facie disclose commission of alleged criminal<br \/>\noffence under Section 420 IPC.  The Magistrate, in our opinion, has not<br \/>\nconsidered the report filed by the police under Section 156(3) Cr.PC<br \/>\njudicially.  Irrespective of the opinion of the police, the Magistrate may or<br \/>\nmay not take cognizance under Section 190(1) of Cr.PC.  In the instant case,<br \/>\nas could be seen from the records, that the police has given a clean chit to<br \/>\naccused Nos. 2-4.  In our opinion, the Magistrate ought not to have taken<br \/>\ncognizance of the alleged offence against the accused No.1, the appellant<br \/>\nherein and that the complaint has been made to harass the accused No.1 to<br \/>\ncome to terms by resorting to criminal process.\n<\/p>\n<p>As already noticed, the complaint was filed on 17.05.1999 after a<br \/>\nlapse of 11= years and, therefore, the very private complaint filed by the<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 is not at all maintainable at this distance of time.  It is the<br \/>\nspecific case of accused No.1 that he has not executed any agreement to sell<br \/>\nor received any advance payment.  In our view, the complaint does not<br \/>\ndisclose the ingredients of Section 415 of Cr.PC and, therefore, we have no<br \/>\nhesitation to set aside the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance<br \/>\nof the offence alleged.  It is also not clearly proved that to hold a person<br \/>\nguilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or<br \/>\ndishonest intention at the time of making the promise.  The order of the<br \/>\nMagistrate and of the High Court requiring the accused No.1 appellant<br \/>\nherein to face trial would not be in the interest of justice.  On the other hand,<br \/>\nin our considered opinion, this is a fit case for setting aside the order of the<br \/>\nMagistrate as confirmed by the High Court of issuance of process and the<br \/>\nproceedings itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and of<br \/>\nthe Magistrate.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed on the question of<br \/>\ninordinate latches on the part of the complainant himself.  Viewed from any<br \/>\nangle, we do not find any good reasons to maintain the order passed by the<br \/>\nlearned single Judge of the High Court confirming the orders of the<br \/>\nMagistrate.  Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed and the judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 17.02.2004 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 932\/2000 of the<br \/>\nHigh Court of Karnataka at Bangalore is set aside.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Suresh vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava &#8230; on 16 February, 2005 Author: . A Lakshmanan Bench: Ashok Bhan, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 308 of 2005 PETITIONER: Suresh RESPONDENT: Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava and Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/02\/2005 BENCH: Ashok Bhan &amp; Dr. AR. Lakshmanan JUDGMENT: J U D G [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-173005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Suresh vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava ... on 16 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suresh vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava ... on 16 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-20T22:41:04+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Suresh vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava &#8230; on 16 February, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-20T22:41:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1553,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005\",\"name\":\"Suresh vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava ... on 16 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-20T22:41:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suresh vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava &#8230; on 16 February, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Suresh vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava ... on 16 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suresh vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava ... on 16 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-20T22:41:04+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Suresh vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava &#8230; on 16 February, 2005","datePublished":"2005-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-20T22:41:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005"},"wordCount":1553,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005","name":"Suresh vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava ... on 16 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-20T22:41:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-mahadevappa-shivappa-danannava-on-16-february-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suresh vs Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava &#8230; on 16 February, 2005"}]},{"@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\/173005","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=173005"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173005\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}