{"id":184117,"date":"2009-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-08-12T18:25:34","modified_gmt":"2016-08-12T12:55:34","slug":"james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"James D’Souza vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
James D’Souza vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V.G.Sabhahit & S.N.Satyanarayana<\/div>\n
are TKE HEGK 69132:? are Ksaaxamga A%2*\"\u00a73'IA1'%\u00a7\u00e9:;;.\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7;\u20ac>'_?\u00a7%e.';E  u \"\n\nmama TI-HS TI-IE 131959455? o\u00a7%.'Me'\u00a7-'Kw, 290:?  7 '\n\n?RE%Ei%.'\u00a7\" . V   \n'YES \u00a5\u00a7$1\u00a7'B\u00a7.E M\u00a7\u00a2g.J::a:';*\u00a7'at:;\u00a3f\"%z\u00a7a.s;&--a;\u00a7~\u00a7g%;\u00a7\u00a7\u00a3':*1,\nmas i-iagg\ufb01m :%\u00a7I--';.e\u00a7\u00a7}$T\u00a7$fEE\u00a3' $:\u00a7.:'}\u00a7\u00a75$.i%TY.;\u00a7\u00a7\u00e95\u00a7;%$Y,&\u00a7:%.\n\nWm? .\u00a7;P?m;   \n\n % \n1 ii\ufb01g\u00e9   _  V.\n355: %':E%. .;'5$:{}\u00a7}?;E':   '. '\n   \n\nR?;f'{} a\u00a7A\u00a5\"Q;--\u00a7.:\u00a7:f;\u00a7z\u00a7 a*:gf;\":xs:\u00a7\">::}z;\u00a7:sz\u00a3%\u00a7\n%:m--,{:~<3'\u00a72: 'i~IA\u00a7~E\u00a7;\u00a7\u00a7A?\u20ac\ufb01;\u00a3Z?_i " _\ns\u00a7i'g\u00a7.\u20ac%E.i\u00a7-@'.f'1f%!\u00a5.'_'i$;A}E;:',\u00a7.V:' 'E'*-,;\u00ab%'\u00a7Li3'  "\n\nBK  I  \n\n 2 ,.}i\u00a7~35gE:,,\u00a7?$@\u00a3\u00a7zA'V\n\n.  :2;;,::\u00a7 J'{}\u00a7\u00a7E'% <;;%"'E:'{:;\u00a7:\u00a7..,L;*2:~s*;*$\n\n 5s:\u00a7_;'$;:;_g\u00a7a:~\u00a7m SE,\u00a7{}?_\u00a7\u00a7\\~2'SE\u00a7L mg 35%;. ga: 9 gs:\n _$;~';'i\u00abRj\u00a7f}\u00a7\u00a7;E\u00a7E & V.?%LJAC\u00a7A\u00a73E%ESH, \u00a7;E}\"2f\u20ac}C&\"i\"E:S. ;\n\n.    'FE-{E S';\u00a7'?:\"?E G?' \u00a7ig'\u00a7R\u00a7~\u00a7z%'\u00a7\";%E\u00a7E\\\u00e9{3_\n\nMA?\u20acGALGRE 3 ii\nRE? 8? \u00a7'E\"S Cl?\u00a3.e'3:\u00a7\u00a7?v'\u00a7}\u00a7?\u20ac\n\n3 WEENEFREE \u00a7'SOE..\u00a7EE';2'1 \n. '~25!\/G EEQBERT D'S{}i}Z\u00a32 '--  'L\n\niviagsme \"  \n\nRji} Rzk\ufb01\u00e9iifd\u00e9i ;;\ufb01;%\u00a2\u00a3{A'r\u00a7;2;Lf::  . \n?\u00bb?1F;P\u20acGALi3\u00a5\u20ac?\";ffALU_I{i  \nL75: *   ~ ~   \n\n4 Mags\"LE\u00a7;%~:A:_;:;;>'$a:%,:;:':\u00e9;\u00e9;%--A '- 1' V\n:~2}\u20ac_0 :5:;af\u00a7\u00a7t\u00a7\":%?:\u00abv..;:;a,:s\u00a7::;\u00e9\u00a7:'*s;a:3: I\n.:~\u00ab1A;a:GAL<.:m~%;fza:,;'u;\u00a7:'*--- \nme:  -   _ \n\nC31\n\n "';s,:gg,_}:;,:sg ..... .. .\n._  ;%;"1c:f imzggaz E{AE*\u00a7}{\u00e9'g\u00a7~%.\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7\n" \u00bb Mi%.\u00a7'\u00a7g'\u00a7;\u00a7RE TALLEK\n\n'V  37 vs: j\u00a7}"::::<1;~'R;\u00a7~{:'%:'.  R%:E:'?{}E*~\u00e9{1'r;5;?:\u00a7*\u00e9'\u00a7';'E\u00a7\n\n:;:<;:2S;~:pI\u00a7: yge\u00e9gzg\n\n{By-sy:;  Asaia\ufb01iiy ma QXFES; SR\u00a7.\u00a7%\u00a7\u00a7'i"{z3 S\ufb01?\u20aci\u00a7%\u00a7%\n\n fE?Gf\u20ac  ;'33RE.SRi\u00a7HAR H\u00a7REiVi\u00a7.'}"\u00b0Pi FREE"? \u00abRE AEQEE "Z,\n V5:\u00a7Rf\u00a7.\u00a7}.S.%f?7}{}E$\u00a7--\u00a7 KEEMAR F11??? R5. }\n\nV' %::\u00bb:\u00a7$ Wm' 3;F?'EA\u00a3 \u00a38 FELEEB 3,13 4 3%' '?E\u00e9\u00a7;\n\n :\u00a7';A\u00a72N5ATAKA HiGEri t';\u00b02{3UR'\u00b0\u00a3' act? PRAYENG TO 33? \u00a3Si:'}ELi\n'=_':"Hf\u00a7; (JRDEER PASSE\ufb01 it\u00bb: Tag Wm? P;s:;';'m@;\u00bb:\n\n :~J\u00e9::}.2:855;2aa4 mrrgz} gggggg-$394.\n\nThis Writ \ufb01sgpeai csming an fer lrzsaring gmii regersie\u00e9\nfor judgmm\ufb01 Ehig day? SABHAHE'? J1, <i.<*:3ii\u00a5:are<i 1:311': foiigwirigr\n\n\n\n4_  quanshfzdg ofthc order passed by Land Tribunal,\n   26.9.2003 wherein the: application \ufb01led by\n vdii\ufb01iimsentcd by the petitioners in form No.7\n\n'  _ sedking fpf ed\ufb01ferment of occupancy right under Section 48\u00bb-\n.. cf. \u00e9\ufb01arnataka Land Reforms Act, 196}. (hcreina\ufb01cr\nV d  'the Act') in respect of Sy.No.7'O\/4 measuring 0.19\n  V; .(:e:\u00a31ts, sy.Ne.7o\/5 measuring 0.03 cents, Sy.No.70\/9\n\n xaaasugring 0.08 cents situated in Kankanady village,\n\n.. 3 ..\nJU%\u00a7K$\u00a7"'!'\n\nThis appeal is \ufb01led by the petitioners in Writ petition\nN'o.2185S\/2004 being aggrieved by the judgment-'f .'\n\n1t=:a.rned Singie Judge of this court dated 29.9.2C\u00a5C:4  \n\nthe learned Single: Judge"~  "interfere with the\ncider dated 26._9--.20O3A""pas;\u00a7.cd"    Tribunal,\nMangajlorc     \n\n2., 7Fh\ufb01$esv\u00e9e;i'ij3i  (Sf '-thcv\ufb01\u00e9ase leading upto this\nappeal  as   \n\nThe   \ufb01led W.P.No.21855\/2004\n\nOJ\n\n\n\n1\n-CS3\n1\n\nwhai was leased was the house COI1StI"t1Cf.f:(_3;":\u00a7I1.: "\n\nsaid survey number and there W\u00e9trzit i\ufb01vc\u00e9iv Cp\u00e9oilut' *1i1v'\u00a3:_es:,  f\n\nO.S.No.64\/73 had been \ufb01led agajnst th\u00a7':'\n\nfer his eviction. The   'W133 is pentiing in\nR.A.1174\/8? on ihg i'11:c.=.-"V-;..\u00a7'.   the said\nconten\ufb01on  of the land\nct\ufb01iiivating      not taken in earlier\norders  " gj.\u00e9.VNe.54\/73, 0.3.129\/73,\n0.8. 131 ";31:V:d'  'yroceeding before the Land\n\nT\ufb01buxm\u00e9 cL)1'r:1{\u00a3:'43:":.-;..Tsv%."r'r:':xi*t.:" peiss\ufb01i and rent receipt was produced\n\n "f:;fi\"'f'a;\u00ab.3.'?4 and What was leased was the house: and merely\n\n' ..__ be(:a11s{: there were some coconut trees agrazian anci poultry\n\n ' farming as contencie\u00e9 by the appiicants, the same had\n\nnot been substantiated and there: was no agrarian\n\n\\\/,3;\n\n\n\nreiatienship between the applicant f1\ufb01\u20aci\"the  s.\u00a7:,1d'-, u\n\nwhat was Iease\u00e9 in favour of the 1 \n\nhouse and it was only a msi\ufb01e\ufb01\ufb01al lease' \"\u20ac:\u00a3en\"\"1V'a'x3\":ant \"\n\npurpose of the lease has to bee.1eueiRed\" 'a\ufb01d..Ait,s?as alse\ncontended that in the sgsetu 'feund that there\nwere only \ufb01ve coeex3.pt   had been put\nby the app\ufb01eegies  the date of spot\niespecticv:;1__Viv3.:1  the order passed\nby the  application for eonferment of\noccupaney   and did not call for\n\ninterference is 'the\"\u00a7i7xif' petition. The learned Single Judge\n\n \u00b0g\ufb01eV  eeiisidezjng  contention of the learned counsel\n\n a\u00a7\u00a7e\\a'n'Ae'~e{g-fer ut'.i;Ve:.}paJ:'ties and scrutinising the material on\n\nrecess held  there was no agxexian relationship between\n\n  'the api\u00e9\ufb01esnt and the third respondent~the owner. What was<\/pre>\n
   the house and the appiicent did not euitivste the<\/p>\n
V’  lexid as a tenant, dominant purpose of the lease was the<\/p>\n
” house am} the documents produced was not helpftl}. in<\/p>\n
proving cultivation of the land on 1.3.74 as {he lease deed
\nL}<\/p>\n
..g..\n<\/p>\n
punja and bagayat as observed in Bhamy _<\/p>\n
Shenoy\ufb02s case an\u00e9 merely on the basis of the C.1’l:.’fXj’\u00abl’A +-<\/p>\n
mcoxd of rights, Triblmal was not 3’f;1,st:\u00a3f1ed  that ll” u<\/p>\n
what was leased was    dliminant
\npurpose of the leased    wilhllcoconut
\ntrees and the coconut   planted only
\nafter \ufb01ling of of occupancy
\nright, the o;.'{,le15_”_”  ‘f:gib’\ufb01;1a1 dismissing the
\napp=1icat:le’n”Vl’f\u00a7r”  \ufb01ght was justified
\nand dial  ‘call  in exercise of the pcswer ef<\/p>\n
this c=;_>=1rt u\ufb01eierge\ufb01ri\ufb01cles  and 22’? cf t\ufb01e Constitutimz {If<\/p>\n
 ‘ ‘eiladig\ufb01yrgax ‘ixejing sgggrieizee by {he said onzler of the leamed<\/p>\n
 a    –_. dated 29.9.2004 dismissing<\/p>\n
12084 the writ petitioners have prefemzizd this<\/p>\n
 ‘2z3’,ppeai.~~  <\/p>\n
ll    We have heat\ufb02 the learned Senior counsel<\/p>\n
  apiaealing for the appellants and the learned counsel<\/p>\n
\\?\n<\/p>\n
W12…\n<\/p>\n
Judge was not justified in hokiing \ufb02aiaf  \u00ab_1z\u00a7.3:1d_;:*,’ <\/p>\n
W38 ‘ :\n<\/p>\n
ofwhich occupancy Iighi[c”la:’3aaed Wefe__n;0_i;  <\/p>\n
31361 the entries in the revenue  chtviearly
\nlands were agriculturai  lands ;  ‘ t1ierefore’,’ ‘ pmsiimption<\/p>\n
had to be drawn and no  \u00a71\u00a7a*Jn on the basis
\nof the spot inspeeiioxy 1.3g1:;:c n “c1ecis7x>n of the
\nHozfble Sugiei\ufb01e   NANJAPPA vs.
\nMATAI}’\u00a7__\u00a3}ASAI;*\u00a7P5E.;::\u00a7;g.: AER sew 2542) and
\nalso c1seic_\u00a7isi<;;3;;A  _  BYRAPPA vs. STATE OF’
\nKARNATAKA<\/a> (19$  Qhemia it is held ma: Tribuna}<\/p>\n
has it)’ rancid’ \u00e9’~ai{3_gej:’1ce iz1 accordancewith Rule 3.7 of the<\/p>\n
 V. fizaajijsglso  upon the decision of ibis court in
\n  vs. SHIVAPPA (ILR 1988 KAR 733)<\/p>\n
  _ wheieirz   that suit cannot be disposed of when the
\n “‘\u00ab__VvVq1;estio\u00a7i1ve\u00abf tenancy is raised and question of tenancy has to<\/p>\n
V’  vde\u00e9iaed by the Land Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
6. In response to the arguments of the learned senior<\/p>\n
 counsel appearing for the  leanaed counsel<\/p>\n
appeazting far the centesting respondent   ”  <\/p>\n
order passed. by the leameii Single  ‘is’  <\/p>\n
mitexated the contentions s1.ih1″:.;i1’_:’\u00a3eci     L.<\/p>\n
submitted that the applicants h\u00a7\u00e9\u00a3$*e.V’never   ceggte\ufb01\ufb01on
\nthat applicant Was: cu1ti\u00a7fa;?ix1g  and he
\nwas only tenant of the   pmceeciings
\n0.8.64\/73 WI’1\u20ac;1″(i\u00a7g1′ 3;11\u20ac  ‘–i._x;-‘a:_~\u00a7_ and other civi}
\n ?3 no such conten\ufb01on
\nwas ial\u00a7ei1″by  uthejfyfare cuitivating the land
\nas a   was also taken zegazding<\/p>\n
execution ‘t1:V1Ve-leease \u00e9ieec\ufb02dated 1.4.68 and negaxding entry<\/p>\n
 . gin t?_i1t\u00a7;.:.rexir%:n}ic 1′”eeu:>I1cis_and geni receipts and only after the<\/p>\n
 seccnd .,ei”vremand pasged by this couri on 30.7.99 the<\/p>\n
  deed is produced anti the Land Tribunal<\/p>\n
–V havi\ufb01g.  to the material on mcox\ufb01. has held that<\/p>\n
 VV’ ?e.epp\ufb01ga\ufb01{\u00a5John Grregoxy Wa$ staying abroad on 1.3.74 and<\/p>\n
.’p2Lt1V:ifi-\n<\/p>\n
-16-<\/span><\/p>\n
O.S.No.64\/73 er o.s.Nos’1:291?3 or 13;.\/73 <\/p>\n
eontezltion taken in O.S.No.64\/73 was that__; i;he’ _<\/p>\n
petiizioners had became owners by adverse  an\u00e9 V’ ”<\/p>\n
the fact that there was a lease deeci_ datgd   e <\/p>\n
receipt dated 20.1.90 weeeet, ‘said suit and for
\nthe first time the  the Tribune}
\ncontending      1.4.68 and
\nthat    lands in respect of
\nwhich  claimed and therefore, the
\nTribunal AI’:i.:%1V_s” moi  importance to the saici<\/p>\n
documenfs pI~’ed1ieed”‘beferef the Tribunal. The learned Single<\/p>\n
 V. Judge’ iiak\u00e9  the pec1311a’ 1″ features existing in<\/p>\n
 the land is situated in respect of which<\/p>\n
occizp\u00e9aincy.  eiaimed has to be taken into account anti<\/p>\n
  merely ‘b_ec*lause entry is made in the zevenue records<\/p>\n
   the land in respect of which occupancy right is<\/p>\n
 -.._”V”ela:{:::i ed as agrieu}tu3:’aI’1a;mi would not by itself establish<\/p>\n
   .’\u00bb1;\u00a5:1e agrarian zelafionship between the applicant and the<\/p>\n
Contesting Z’IS’:SpOI}\u20acI\u20acI}t-*(}W’\ufb01\ufb01I’ arz\u00e9 the ieamed Single<\/p>\n
\\\/’*<\/p>\n
….’}_8….\n<\/p>\n
house situate in Dakshina  u u<\/p>\n
coconut \ufb02ees. The learned Single Jzldgehlaslll<\/p>\n
that the land in respect of’   __p’ax_1e’y  teas ” V<\/p>\n
claimed is situate in Kaekanady– w\ufb01iehvvwaei on the
\noutskirts of Mangaiore    Municipal
\nlimits of Mangaleze \ufb01iityi-s\ufb01iti’  regard to the
\npeculiar nat\u00a7;z\u00abt\u00a7..:,ef   teeteme of the houses
\nsituated   of recor\ufb02s as per the
\nrevenue’:vv_reee.A:t;te;–“__ Single Judge has rightly hel\u00e9
\nthat meIely._e\ufb01the’lfe\u00a3t\u00a7\u00a7s  in the revenue recoxtis<\/p>\n
the eleoulvcl’-neVt’h1e slaidllto he agricultural lands and lease<\/p>\n
 .\ufb01V””a$l. ll9″1l’.’tE””.l\ufb01”‘”l agricukm ‘ “” l ’31 Pulpese. The earlier Procee\u00e9ings<\/p>\n
  for eviction of the applicant from the<\/p>\n
hoilee 4}sl:A1;:–1s been leased to the applicant before the<\/p>\n
  ‘Lend ‘l’i’i3:;_t3.11al and there, no contention was taken that the<\/p>\n
  l”::i_efe:1<\/p>\n
produced before the Tribunal in tht: :ia1’1i61f    u<\/p>\n
only after remand for the second ti\ufb01ic <\/p>\n
date\u00e9 30.7.99 the saici allegecl V’i%e;:;i\u00a7>{:V_ciee\u00a7\u20aci ‘Lg  the
\nyear 2002 and geni receigf is ‘\u00a7’;\u00a7~_on,\u00a2’  VdE()es not
\nshow tenancy as on    that the
\nappiicants were c1’1}’\u00a3ij.ratiJ;zg’  and were 110$
\nwere tenants      \ufb01\u00e9ken in the earlier
\npro(:mc\u00a5i11_g\u00a7\u00a7    an opportunity to
\ncontend\ufb02jzheyt  of the agxicl\ufb02tural land amt}
\ntherefo1’e, n1:ic%1  not be attached to the<\/p>\n
said d:;oc1zme1;.4iVts-.v  befom the Tribunal. The Land<\/p>\n
  E*\u00a7:”:a.sV’V'<:\u00a7)x1$iae\u00a5LE:f\u00a3\u00a7ti\u00abvihc evidence adduceci before it and<\/p>\n
"V\u00a3:a:si.\u00a2}:af1=:1{1  Grtrgaxy Wa\ufb01 never cultivating the land as<\/p>\n
a teixght  not residing at Mangalore, ha was staying<\/p>\n
 Bomizgsf and thema\ufb01er he shifted to Arab country and
\n  V' ?;:as also no matcriai to Show that the 1.-autzd was
\n ..,. 'cuij\u00a5:;'vatcd by the wxzit peiiiicners on behalf of John Gmgozy<\/p>\n
was agapiica\ufb01ts were not agzicuiturists and there is no matexial<\/p>\n
inspaction
\nto Show that the land is \u00a5::eiI1g cultivated by izhem. The spot;<\/p>\n
V; %<\/p>\n
—2i:)–\n<\/p>\n
made by the Tribunal an 20.10.91 would   ”<\/p>\n
there were 33 coconut saplings whicghhad  ” ”<\/p>\n
years next before the date of spot  O\ufb01’~20. <\/p>\n
poultry faxmjng has aiso beenktaytcd 612$?   1<\/p>\n
next before the date of s\u00a7ot _vaud.”tiz\u00a2: f’:=1ctvvf’t11at the<\/p>\n
contention of C1.14′._’l:’_i’i.’,’:__3’1\u00a3J’.OIj’AVV(.)V’f   taken in the
\near\ufb01t\u00e9r    for the \ufb01rst time
\n0:13;?  second time by
\ncourt  ‘or\u00a3’u:f of Tribunal would clearly
\nShow thaf 231:6:  must have been planted<\/p>\n
and [gou1t;y  m’a s-.31; have been started a\ufb01er \ufb01iing of<\/p>\n
  izzefoz\u00e9m the Tribunal and therefore, having<\/p>\n
 v\u00e9ib\u00e9ve said material on record that there were<\/p>\n
  onl\ufb01\ufb01ve trees at the time of spot inspection which<\/p>\n
  wgrc  coconut and coconut saplings have been<\/p>\n
   after \ufb01ling of the: application before fh\ufb01 Tribunal for<\/p>\n
K grqixferment of occupancy right. The learned Single Judge has<\/p>\n
‘4 rightly held that What was leased was the house with \ufb01ve<\/p>\n
coconut txees and only after \ufb01ling of the appiication for<\/p>\n
V9 .\n<\/p>\n
._ 21 ._
\nconferment of occupancy right coconut   K
\nplanted and poultry farming mus? iiavc.   V
\ntherefore, the \ufb01nding of the T\ufb01bu\ufb01ax
\nfiled for conferment of      be ‘V<\/p>\n
dismissed is justi\ufb01ed and fo_r int\u00e9rfezr:n\u00a2$e in the<\/p>\n
w\ufb01; paition in cxemisgt:    court
\n‘I’h=: orcbr passed   ;  mgaxd
\nto th: above    ani dom not
\nsu\ufb01r from   call for intaferencc in *<\/p>\n
thk intza oourfappea\u00e9’ . L Acco’ V  Ere hold that then: is no<\/p>\n
mar’: in  ap9ca1uandV_Vpe’iss ‘ihevfolbwing ordexr
\n..    is <\/p>\n
Sd\/—\n<\/p>\n
Tudge<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
Judge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court James D’Souza vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2009 Author: V.G.Sabhahit & S.N.Satyanarayana are TKE HEGK 69132:? are Ksaaxamga A%2*”\u00a73’IA1’%\u00a7\u00e9:;;.\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7;\u20ac>’_?\u00a7%e.’;E u ” mama TI-HS TI-IE 131959455? o\u00a7%.’Me’\u00a7-‘Kw, 290:? 7 ‘ ?RE%Ei%.’\u00a7” . V ‘YES \u00a5\u00a7$1\u00a7’B\u00a7.E M\u00a7\u00a2g.J::a:’;*\u00a7’at:;\u00a3f”%z\u00a7a.s;&–a;\u00a7~\u00a7g%;\u00a7\u00a7\u00a3’:*1, mas i-iagg\ufb01m :%\u00a7I–‘;.e\u00a7\u00a7}$T\u00a7$fEE\u00a3’ $:\u00a7.:’}\u00a7\u00a75$.i%TY.;\u00a7\u00a7\u00e95\u00a7;%$Y,&\u00a7:%. Wm? .\u00a7;P?m; % 1 ii\ufb01g\u00e9 _ V. 355: %’:E%. .;’5$:{}\u00a7}?;E’: […]<\/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-184117","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJames D'Souza vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"James D'Souza vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-12T12:55:34+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"James D’Souza vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-12T12:55:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1274,\"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\\\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009\",\"name\":\"James D'Souza vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-12T12:55:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"James D’Souza vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"James D'Souza vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"James D'Souza vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-12T12:55:34+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"James D’Souza vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-12T12:55:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009"},"wordCount":1274,"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\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009","name":"James D'Souza vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-12T12:55:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-dsouza-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-13-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"James D’Souza vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184117","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=184117"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184117\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184117"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184117"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184117"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}