{"id":186950,"date":"2010-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010"},"modified":"2018-02-03T16:23:52","modified_gmt":"2018-02-03T10:53:52","slug":"muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Muniyappa Gowda vs Mastigowda on 27 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Muniyappa Gowda vs Mastigowda on 27 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar K.N.Keshavanarayana<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KJXRNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 27?\" DAY OF AUGUST 2010\nPRESENT:\n\nTHE HONBLE MR. JUSTKCE D.V.SHYLENDRA \n\nTHE I-IONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.KEsHAvAN;\u00a7i\u00a7Ai?_2\u00a7,*\u00a7igi _\n\nM.F.A. NO. 4759 OF 2004   ' \nBETWEEN:  5  A\n\nSri.1\\\/Iuniyappa Gowda,\n\nS \/ 0 Late Giriyappa,\n\nAge 47 years,\n\nOccupation: Nil,   \n\nResiding at No.14, 15'\"*~.._'A' Main,-. 1' V \n\n66111 Cross Road, 5th B'1-dck ;Joc':{ji:aiii,,\"~  \nRajajinagar, Bangalore.  _   \"Vff..'.,'..Appe11ant\n\n{By    ,Ad.\\i~0cate for\nSri. SuresIiM.Latur, :\"s.gi}:roeate]\n\n   iii\/Iastigowda,\n\nT  _ S10 Eeregowda.\n , Aged ivtajbr.\nV Opcuf__:ation: Business.\nResiding at N0.746, 1631 Main,\n\" 931* Cross Road, Srinagar,\n\nU \"  Bangalore-560 050.\n\nThe Regional Manager,\n\nThe Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nN0.44-45, Leo Complex,\nResidency Road,\n\nBanga1ore--560 O25.\n\n\n\n2\n\n3. Smt. Savita W\/o Raju,\nResiding at Rantiachandrapura.\n\nIttumadu Village,\n\nBSK 3rd Stage,     \n\nBangalore~56O O85.  Respon_dents._' \n[By Sri.M.Sow2:i Raju, Advocate for\u00bbR-2; ~--.:T~  '   \n\nR-1 & R-3 service held sufficientlv\/o\" 'dated -:1\u00e9i\u00bbV._(3\u00ab\"f_.2'(')iO] \nThis MFA is filed under Section 173.{_-1)\"0f\u00ab.i\\\/lV'Act_\n\nagainst the Judgment and'\u00ab--.._Award dated\"\npassed in MVC No.3241\/1'9.9'F,on the 'file; of the 18th\nAdditional Judge, Motor Acc'id.en.t Claims Tribunal--4,\nCourt of Small cazises, r'i3ariga1oi'e {SCCH'4\u00a54) partly\nallowing the claim \"\"-petiti.onl_' :,fo':~.compensation and\nseeking enhancement of compensatiojn with interest at\n12% per annurrig.  V'   ' \n\ni'or..\ufb01;rther dictation this day,\nKesh:.gvandr?a.ygr1q, -.j.';\u00ab.de1iy'-ered the following-\n ' ' .'  M E NT\n\nVp'Th1S\"~ie,ppea1 53% the claimant in MVc.No.324i\/97\n\n Oni.j.llth:gs.: file ofll\"the\"'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,\n\n Ba.nga:l0.re.l'i~is_j..for enhancement of compensation and\n\nalso to.-fasten the liability for payment of compensation\n\n on theiinsurance Company.\n\n2. The appellant filed the claim petition seeking\n\ncompensation for the injuries sustained by him in the\n\nmotor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.9.1997. The\n\n\/\"W\n\nV\n\n\n\n3\n\naccident is not in dispute. The claim petition was\ncontested by the insurer of the Autorikshaw inter alia\n\non the ground that there was no policy in forceVl_i-ssL1_ed\n\nby it in respect of Autorikshaw as on  \n\naccident. The Tribunal on assessment _--of'the;.oi\"al' and\" \"\n\ndocumentary evidence, quanti\ufb01'ed'_A' the ll'~oom'pelr1~sa.tioin\n\npayable under Various hea.:;lvpls~~..yat Havingwl.\n\nregard to contents  Ex.VR;--1l:;\"p_'~copy of it 'the insurance\npolicy, produced  lthhel' Company, the\n\nTribunai held\u00ab-that  of the accident, the\n\noffending \"vle_hi_cle -was not insured with second\nrespondent, Insui5an_ce.._'Company and therefore, the<\/pre>\n
insurer. is lnctiliable to indemnify the insured. In this<\/p>\n
 \u00bb.q-\u00a2v.v  lithe matter, the Tribunal exonerated the<\/p>\n
  Coinpany from the liability and directed<\/p>\n
ovy’1″2er”—-V:.ofl’ll the Autorikshaw to pay the entire<\/p>\n
 “cornpensation with interest at 8% per annum. Being<\/p>\n
Tialgg\ufb02rieved by the quantum as well as the order<\/p>\n
Vllexonerating the Insurance Company from liability, the<\/p>\n
claimant is in appeal before this Court.<\/p>\n
a\/<\/p>\n
3. We have heard SIr1t.Sunitha, learned counsel
\nappearing for the appellant as Well as
\nlearned counsel for the Insurance\ufb01’
\nRespondent No.1 who is the ovfsirierofpp
\nhas remained unrepresented in
\nof this appeal. V l V<\/p>\n
 L1″-*7<\/p>\n
4. At this stage’;”–gs.Aw.e erite”1’tai:ne.d certain doubts
\nabout the liability ofr”re’s*ponde’:n__t  ‘.r1\\\/lastigowda and
\nin turn ro.p’ir’1’g__ l.i_1su.r_an’cefConipany as indemnifier
\nand as  ‘of-…f.hel clairr1ant– appellant is<\/p>\n
that  should have been made<\/p>\n
jointly   satisfaction, we directed the<\/p>\n
   of the’c–la.imant \/ appellant before this Court,<\/p>\n
  Accordingly the appellant-claimant<\/p>\n
appearepdllrllinilz person before the court to–day. We have<\/p>\n
 also ‘questioned him and found that he was the victim of<\/p>\n
  road accident as a result of the autorickshaw<\/p>\n
  __fbearing No. KA 05 A 1793 hitting him while he was<\/p>\n
proceeding as a pedestrian and he has undergone great<\/p>\n
amount of pain and suffering on account of the injuries<\/p>\n
sustained in the said accident. Therefore, we are<\/p>\n
convinced that the claim is genuine one and his  ‘for<\/p>\n
enhancement of compensation requires to “con_s:id.”er.e”d <\/p>\n
on merits.\n<\/p>\n
5. As noticed suprajthpe rriain corn;p1a1n.tVVV0_f the”<\/p>\n
appellant – claimant in t1’ii_sl:’a;ppeal  Jvcf\u00e9rily with
\nregard to inadequacy\ufb01of.  but also with
\nregard to exoneratiorrilllgf   lCompany from
\nthe liability’. ~ 1′   M V <\/p>\n
  respondent No.2 — insurance
\nCompany; had\u00bb. policy of insurance as per<\/p>\n
 in  oflthe autorickshaw in question. Of<\/p>\n
  the policy Ex.R1, the claim of the insured is<\/p>\n
  as””Mastigowda with reference to the vehicle<\/p>\n
inn” qu’est’1on which is undisputedly involved in the<\/p>\n
1′ iaccident and has caused injuries to the claimant —<\/p>\n
Ahappellant. The said policy was in force from 27.12.1997<\/p>\n
‘to 26.12.1998. The accident occurred on 17.9.1997.<\/p>\n
6<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
7. The Tribunal having regard to the period for<\/p>\n
which the policy is issued, has come to the conclusion
\nthat as on the date of the accident there was not
\nHowever, learned counsel for the
\nbrought to our notice that :while
\nEx.R.l, the company has A’
\ntowards ‘no claim’ “p:olicy.”\n<\/p>\n
This indicates that there was issued~*’i\u00a7n respect
\nof this very vehicle   of one year<\/p>\n
prior to 27.\u00a7l2:..1Vp(};397.::__ acoiden,t_.__hfas occurred within<\/p>\n
the pderiodx to 27.12.1997. Before the
\nTribunlabit wascontention of the Insurance<\/p>\n
Cognpatny no claim bonus was allowed on the basis<\/p>\n
   by some other Insurance Company.<\/p>\n
  bonus’ is allowed only when there<\/p>\n
 a’-Vipoiiscy and no claim had been made during that<\/p>\n
  ” periodsduring which the policy was in force. But what is<\/p>\n
“”\u00a7rr1’ore important is the policy is issued with reference to<\/p>\n
be 6*’?\n<\/p>\n
the motor vehicle and if a policy hadiissued by the<\/p>\n
Insurance Company with reference to the very vehicle<\/p>\n
for the previous period of twelve months, it is obvious<\/p>\n
\/f<\/p>\n
Mastigowda was not the owner of the vehicle involyed in<\/p>\n
the accident.\n<\/p>\n
8. One another argument of Sri Sowrirajuplearned-.,V <\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent —\n<\/p>\n
the Insurance Company had no
\nall to put forth its case in  as one
\nperson by name Sayitg\ufb02tzas.  irnpleaded at a
\nbelated stage_:before'”the:1  without even
\ngiving   Company the
\nsaid  as a respondent and
\n  and therefore the matter<\/p>\n
should  rema_nfcleld’…ll~*to the Tribunal for giving an<\/p>\n
 0pp’ortuI;i,_ty  Insurance Company to effectively<\/p>\n
 “also has no substance for the simple<\/p>\n
reason. thatflthe Insurance Company has not raised its<\/p>\n
 plittle’.Vfi311ger till today to come up with a possible<\/p>\n
A’  “explanation as to how the ‘no claim bonus’ endorsement<\/p>\n
glhad occurred in the policy issued by them and marked<\/p>\n
by the insurance Company itself as Ex.R1 before the<\/p>\n
I}<\/p>\n
Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 came to be<\/p>\n
amended by irnpleading Section 94 p1’OViifltl1’_:.(sg%p:’.V:f\u20acJA’1′<\/p>\n
compulsory coverage of motor Vehicles ori.’.’roai.rl”ewl1.iVl”‘e <\/p>\n
being used on road and the pufrpiose.of..sLtch”legislatiVe<\/p>\n
provision was to ensure that third  vic_ti’r’r1s’~ oVi7_road~.u<\/p>\n
accidents involving motor Ve’h:i’cles are   and’<\/p>\n
dry, particularly,  eitherthe owner
\nof the Vehicle  becomes
\nconspicuousb\ufb01his   the arms of law
\nbut also  eivten if the owner is
\navaila_l3tle_Vhe’  condition and will not be able
\nto meetiptthet  the compensation<\/p>\n
payable. to tithe: Victirn of a road accident. it is in this<\/p>\n
VA state of affairs, law was made to make the insurance<\/p>\n
 all the insurance companies at least<\/p>\n
againstpthe; third party risks and the Motor Vehicles Act,<\/p>\n
2 198.8 contains the corresponding provisions in section<\/p>\n
 and the enabling provisions in terms of sections<\/p>\n
it “M7, 149, 168–A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,<\/p>\n
5}<\/p>\n
1988.\n<\/p>\n
E0<\/p>\n
10. When the legislature has taken so much of
\ncare, effort and concern for the victims
\naccidents, it is the duty of the courts white”
\nsuch provisions to effectuate the’  Motor
\nVehicles Act, 1988 and not to
\nprovisions in any  claiin”\n<\/p>\n
which is nothing sh.o’:1t._A_of   purpose of
\nlegislation. In the    dispute that
\nthe appellant”:iAs:p1′ a vehicle accident
\ninvolving No.KA 05 A
\nl793,jlA which had caused
\ninjuries  a pedestrian on the road by<\/p>\n
dashing against lhirr: and consequential injuries. In an<\/p>\n
e ‘accident_:of._ this nature resulting in injuries to the<\/p>\n
 ._c’i’airn’an’t..v__itl.l’Vivs”‘inevitable that the owner of the vehicle is<\/p>\n
bound: ltodcompensate the victim for all consequence.<\/p>\n
” T he Insurance Company comes into picture because of<\/p>\n
 statutory provisions of making the insurance<\/p>\n
“compulsory and issuing a policy covering third party<\/p>\n
claims indemnifying the owner of the vehicie to take<\/p>\n
care of his liability as against the third party claims.<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
ll<\/p>\n
11. In fact, such legislative changes were  the
\nwake of the Insurance Company
\nnationalized to ensure that the business   ‘
\nwas not left in private hands’  v4.\u00a7:ve’11’lV
\notherwise was defeating the
\ngiver}. by the Insurance Corn’pa11y to.  risks’<\/p>\n
of the owners of the motor velhicles.”<\/p>\n
12. In tile    dlevellopments, the
\nlegislature”   Motor Accidents
\nClaimVy.Tribunal;;’1–1a   to provide for speedy
\nand  “victims of the motor vehicle<\/p>\n
plying  roa_:d7:;1nd:_’–..’in a situation of present nature<\/p>\n
 gi.*_{Ipi’ngE__pany interpretation or even to understand the<\/p>\n
 V wpreseiitsituation in any manner and particularly as is<\/p>\n
 he contended by Sri Sowriraju, learned<\/p>\n
 counsei; for the respondent — Insurance Company is<\/p>\n
 Vnothing short of a disaster for Victims of road accidents<\/p>\n
  _ “arid a blatant violation of the legislative intent.<\/p>\n
13. We are not inclined to accept the arguments of<\/p>\n
Sri.Sowriraju, learned counsel for the respondent –<\/p>\n
K’<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
Insurance Company and to give an interpretationto the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as <\/p>\n
to the fact situation in this case in any ma:-irier..sos.’asi:’i’o <\/p>\n
defeat the claim of the appellant’\u00a5’c*laim’ant.x,”  V<\/p>\n
for the purpose of ensuring that the’–an1oun_t.awarCi–ed_by_<\/p>\n
the Tribunal is made realistic”-ito the \u00a2iai1maf;st;:nd not<\/p>\n
illusory or paper decree which  a situation if the<\/p>\n
Insurance Company is not  joint liability.<\/p>\n
14. 1..    Tribunal is not
\njustifiedin’geXo’ii1Ae\u00bbratirsVgV’the.–..I,nsurance Company from
\nthe liability; inevitable to allow fasten the<\/p>\n
liability on .Vthe Vl11_su.ran.’c’e Company.<\/p>\n
“Raving heard the learned counsel on both<\/p>\n
   perused the Judgment under appeal.<\/p>\n
 are .o’i”‘the opinion that, the judgment under’ appeal<\/p>\n
 “regarding determination of compensation under<\/p>\n
ludiffierent heads calls for correction as the compensation<\/p>\n
H determined by the Tribunal is found to be not proper or<\/p>\n
commensurate determination in terms of the principles<\/p>\n
&\/<\/p>\n
governing such determination.\n<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
18. The Tribunal has awarded compensation<\/p>\n
under different heads, as under:<\/p>\n
1. Pain and sufferings — Rs.    4_<\/p>\n
2. Medical Expenses, Conveyance…  ;  – _
\nNourishing food —\n<\/p>\n
3. Loss of amenities _   <\/p>\n
4. Loss of earning during 1 <\/p>\n
treatment and laid up period’ _V    _
\n   Rs.v30′;V000g-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19.  discharge card
\nissued  lEx.P.5, case sheet as
\nper  the claimant had
\nsustained’fractureof’ilrochanter of left femur. He was<\/p>\n
tre’ated__as irippatientlfrom 17.9.1997 to 17.10.1997, and<\/p>\n
  under gone surgery for reduction of fracture.<\/p>\n
   from the hospital he has taken follow up<\/p>\n
trea.tmen”c”as out patient. PW.2–Dr. Ramesh Krishna.K.<\/p>\n
 “i1a;.,_ his evidence has reiterated the above facts.<\/p>\n
lllnaccording to the evidence of PW.2, when he last<\/p>\n
examined the claimant on 16.4.2001, he noticed the<\/p>\n
following:\n<\/p>\n
E4\n<\/p>\n
1. Aritaligie gait.\n<\/p>\n
Wasting of muscles of left lower limb.<\/p>\n
Tenderness and deformity of Trochantericx
\nregion of left side. ” ‘<\/p>\n
4. Tenderness of left hip joint line.<\/p>\n
5. Shortening of 2″ of left low’er”Vli’rnb.   T<\/p>\n
6. Restriction of movements:4’of1″l_eft
\nlast 30 degrees and”1e’ftz knee by last
\ndegrees.\n<\/p>\n
20. According’to’=-thisfdoctorqifthe clairnant suffers<\/p>\n
from Permanent disabili’ty_of_V\u00a5i$%”~.o’fA~lIeft.’~~lower limb and<\/p>\n
23% ‘of  Though this witness is cross
\nexamined; there  to discredit this evidence.<\/p>\n
Ha\u00a7Qfing.regard ._tothe nature of injuries sustained by the<\/p>\n
. ‘c.l.aiin_ant,._the duration as well as nature of treatment<\/p>\n
    ‘~f;;.”r’.esultant permanent disability, the<\/p>\n
c\u00e9\ufb01ipe\ufb01satfion awarded by the Tribunal under different<\/p>\n
if  the-adsv\ufb02fis on the lower side. T he Tribunal ought to have<\/p>\n
Tyayvfarded loss of future earning on the basis of functional<\/p>\n
T disability at 23% as spoken to by PW.2. Therefore, we<\/p>\n
re-determine the compensation payable under different<\/p>\n
heads as under:\n<\/p>\n
1.5<\/p>\n
1 Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000\/~
\n2 Medical Expenses, attendant<\/p>\n
charges, Conveyance, Nourishing Rs. 10,000\/–<\/p>\n
Food. ,
\n3 Loss of amenities Rs. 25;fO”OQ\/-
\n4<\/span><\/p>\n
Loss of earnings during treatment Rs. “E;_VO,~O_”0O’,{4-
\nand laid up period [2,500×4]   L” ‘ i~<\/p>\n
[2500 X 12 X 13 X 23\/100]<\/p>\n
Total   Q  R\u00e9y;ipi\u00a7v,a7W3,5co\/if<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the appeal.._is ailoyycd
\ncomperlsation to Rs.  , =\u00bb.:_as__vagai’1’istt v._RsL80,000\/ —
\nawarded by the Tribtinal…  No.2 are jointly<\/p>\n
and severaily pliable; ‘ “to ‘   it I cornpeiisation with<\/p>\n
inteiest at from the date of petition to<\/p>\n
the date      <\/p>\n
\u00ab: rw
\n‘E<\/p>\n
the\u00bb.secor1d'””respo1″1Cle1’1t — Insurance Company<\/p>\n
   pay the entire compensation of<\/p>\n
 with interest, within six weeks from<\/p>\n
 today.v.V__AA:’ Upon such deposit, from out of the total<\/p>\n
uh,cornpensation, a sum of Rs.1,25,000\/– with<\/p>\n
  …_.prop0rtionate interest shall be kept in a fixed deposit in<\/p>\n
any nationalized Bank in the name of the appellant for 5<\/p>\n
years, with liberty for him to Withdraw the periodical<\/p>\n
@<\/p>\n
5 Loss of future earnings  <\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
interest quarterly and balance amount with<\/p>\n
proportionate interest shall be released in favo’1jr’T:the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Office to draw award accor*ding}y;’ A<\/p>\n
> Sd\/=3
\nJudge<\/p>\n
Pages 3. to 3  – *’
\nPages 4 to 16 – AN] _<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Muniyappa Gowda vs Mastigowda on 27 August, 2010 Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar K.N.Keshavanarayana IN THE HIGH COURT OF’ KJXRNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27?” DAY OF AUGUST 2010 PRESENT: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTKCE D.V.SHYLENDRA THE I-IONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.KEsHAvAN;\u00a7i\u00a7Ai?_2\u00a7,*\u00a7igi _ M.F.A. NO. 4759 OF 2004 ‘ BETWEEN: 5 A Sri.1\\\/Iuniyappa Gowda, S […]<\/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-186950","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMuniyappa Gowda vs Mastigowda on 27 August, 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\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Muniyappa Gowda vs Mastigowda on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-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=\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-03T10:53:52+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Muniyappa Gowda vs Mastigowda on 27 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-03T10:53:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1809,\"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\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Muniyappa Gowda vs Mastigowda on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-03T10:53:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Muniyappa Gowda vs Mastigowda on 27 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Muniyappa Gowda vs Mastigowda on 27 August, 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\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Muniyappa Gowda vs Mastigowda on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-03T10:53:52+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Muniyappa Gowda vs Mastigowda on 27 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-03T10:53:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010"},"wordCount":1809,"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\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010","name":"Muniyappa Gowda vs Mastigowda on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-03T10:53:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muniyappa-gowda-vs-mastigowda-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Muniyappa Gowda vs Mastigowda on 27 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/186950","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=186950"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186950\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}