{"id":189392,"date":"2010-10-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010"},"modified":"2014-09-27T20:21:41","modified_gmt":"2014-09-27T14:51:41","slug":"kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Kempeeregowda S\/O Manchegowda vs Ereegowda on 18 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Kempeeregowda S\/O Manchegowda vs Ereegowda on 18 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Anand Byrareddy<\/div>\n
EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT\nBANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 18'\" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. 3'Us'r:CE ANAND BYRg\u00a7{{fEj\u00a71)Y'v..\n\nREGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 09  ms  E ' \n\nB ETWEEN:\n\nKempeeregowda,\nS\/0 Manchegowda,\nSince Deceased by LRs\n\n1. MK. Putta1inga\u00a7.af;- , \nAged about 55 years,'  \n\n'Aged about \"49 ye*a_1:\u00e9\u00a7; \"\n\n3.4;' \" R.ChaRn\"ay_e'efagO'=wda\n ged about\ufb01i ' years,\n\n  * \n<\/pre>\n
A\u00a7edA’ab0ut 37 years,<\/p>\n
A11 aEe\u00ab;_sOns of Late Kempeeregowda<\/p>\n
= R. Residing at Makli Village,
\n . _M\u00e9\u00a7;1ur Hobli,
\n Channapatna Taluk. .. APPELLANTS<\/p>\n
” (By Shri. s.R. Hegde Hudlamane, Advocate)<\/p>\n
AND:\n<\/p>\n
Ereegowda<\/p>\n
S\/o Kempeeregowda,<\/p>\n
Aged about years,<\/p>\n
R\/o Makali Village,<\/p>\n
Malur Hobli,<\/p>\n
Channapatna Town and Taluk,<\/p>\n
Ramanagar District — 571 501.\n<\/p>\n
(By Shri. C.R. Subramanya,VAdyocate*)._ <\/p>\n
This Regular Second Appeal isv._filed.under Section 100
\nof Code of Civil Proce’d.ure,_”i1  ;agai’npst the judgment and
\ndecree dated 2.1 l.2007’passec_i_ i’npiR.As..l_\\lo;’79\/2007 on the file
\nof the Principal Ci}.\/11:’ =Jud_.ge_   Ramanagaram,
\ndismissing thefappeal\ufb01g\ufb01led_fagainst–.the judgment and decree
\ncmmd30Q62m\ufb01im$alm(lSNo2HH@W)mime\ufb01kcf
\n\ufb01mPmwbM\ufb01N\ufb02\ufb01mg\ufb01HIm}&JMFCJEmmmmma<\/p>\n
   coming on for Hearing
\nthis d.ay,= the coui’t~,’de1iVere’d the following:
\n\u00ab =   _ *  “~\u00a5_UDGMENT<\/p>\n
_ Fleard*the ‘plearned”ii’counsel for the appellant and the<\/p>\n
 counsel”for..the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
A V’ ”  1   facts briefly stated are as follows:–<\/p>\n
.Thic1i_p_a.f)pellant was the plaintiff before the trial court in<\/p>\n
a suitifor bare injunction. The suit property was land<\/p>\n
measuring 6 acres 20 guntas called out of 1000 acres of
\nforest land which was said to have been granted in favour of<\/p>\n
Boraiah, son of Channegowda on 145.1956 and renumbered<\/p>\n
as Block No.20 and 26. After the death of Boraiahfhis-\u00ab.son<\/p>\n
Puttalingaiah is said to have been cultivating th’e_.’sa,me:.”t-ll  <\/p>\n
5.3.1990, the original plaintiff, whgi is  <\/p>\n
have purchased the land for valuablelconsidgerationiundera  5<\/p>\n
registered sale deed and soughtto’ have entered his name in
\nthe record of rights.  was  the respondent —
\ndefendant who’. \u00abclaimed\u00bb,    in unauthorised
\nCultivation   intheisaid block of land and that
\nhe had __filed and  seeking regularisation of his<\/p>\n
cultivation and he also relied upon RTC entries for the year<\/p>\n
  .tio–..Vestablish that his possession of the land.<\/p>\n
 ‘~ the respondent also challenged the grant made<\/p>\n
inlfavouriof the petitioner’s vendor on the ground that there<\/p>\n
 , vvas no revenue record as regards any such grant being made<\/p>\n
 in favour of the vendor of the appellant. The said objections<\/p>\n
were turned down by the competent authorities resulting in<\/p>\n
an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which
\nalso came to be dismissed as on 10.1.1994. The dismissal<\/p>\n
was af\ufb01rrned in writ proceedings before this court ii} WP<\/p>\n
5043\/ 1994 and the \ufb01nding against the respondent as”re’gard$<\/p>\n
tampering of the record was also taken note of. <\/p>\n
it is the case of the appellantpthat meta: lla’sf}the–.p<\/p>\n
respondent’s attempts to tal<epposselss__io'n_of thelvlandv thei'ei"ore' ~.<\/p>\n
resulted in the proceedings attairiiiig \ufb01nality 'be-forelvthils court
\non the writ side. it isi._in\u00ab.the.'_aboye-\u00abbackground, that the suit
\nwas \ufb01led for injunction–,against ttheilrespiondent which was<\/p>\n
resislited\ufb01l produced material evidence to<\/p>\n
establish this ease.for,possiession. However, the trial court on<\/p>\n
 b:;is;is~\u00bbof thellC'orn'r11issioner's Report negated the material<\/p>\n
  to be produced by the appellant and held<\/p>\n
that the' identity of the property was in doubt and the plaintiff<\/p>\n
 A. had failed to prove his possession over the suit property and<\/p>\n
'accordingly, dismissed the suit. The same having been<\/p>\n
\/' K<\/p>\n
'-…W<\/p>\n
af\ufb01rmed in appeal before the lower appellate court, the
\npresent appeal is \ufb01led.\n<\/p>\n
3. The appellant has now \ufb01led an application_.u__nder<\/p>\n
Order XLE Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure,V”:l9.:0l’8,<\/p>\n
seeking to produce additional documents, ‘l”namely,’  V’<\/p>\n
judgment passed by the Karnatakaffrkppellate <\/p>\n
revision petition dated 10.13994 andlan order  <\/p>\n
proceedings passed by this  in 1994. The
\nrespondent, on the other lliand,   objections to the
\nsame that the4_o”rd_er  was available
\n  datelofv the trial and therefore, the
\nsame  ,soug_ht  be–produced at this point of time, to fill<\/p>\n
up ;the 1acuna”‘i.nV’the appellan\ufb01s case, cannot be considered as<\/p>\n
.l ‘ ‘acriteria -fo’r..adrI1itting the additional evidence and hence, the<\/p>\n
id ‘-  reduires to be rejected off–hand.\n<\/p>\n
  ‘”lThe appeal was admitted on the following<\/p>\n
2 \u00bb if s’u”0.,Stantial question of law, namely,<\/p>\n
“l. Whether in the facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
the case, the courts below were justified in<\/p>\n
dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on. th_e basis
\nof the Commissioner’s Report, without
\nconsidering Exhibits P.l to; P29, in their<\/p>\n
proper perspective?”\n<\/p>\n
5. The learned counsel for the appellant <\/p>\n
this court through the reasoning of the trial court-._woiiildll V’ <\/p>\n
out that the trial court has piaced <\/p>\n
Commissioner’s Report ancl9a-._comrnissioner  appoignted <\/p>\n
even before the parties had tendered their e”vidence,l}which in<\/p>\n
itself was an in\ufb01rmity} *ilAnd_ fifi,rt:i1i%lr–,l;’:ihie -trial court having<\/p>\n
nega.ted’a’t-he’Y;dociiii’ients,”–whieh’*were public documents and
\nwhich-. were -notlfinll’vdispute, while also overlooking the<\/p>\n
consistentli \ufb01ndings  the respondent of having tampered<\/p>\n
 ., ‘   fnaterial documents which he had set up to establish<\/p>\n
 ._ “his.icase’_~ifor\u00bbl.po’ssession of the suit property. The counsel for<\/p>\n
the ‘appellant would endeavour to point out that there was no<\/p>\n
2   disputle as regards grant of land to the extent of 6 acres 20<\/p>\n
 guntas of land in favour of the appellants vendor and the<\/p>\n
same having been purchased 20 years after such grant, could<\/p>\n
not be lightly dismissed on a purported in\ufb01rmity in the
\ndescription of the boundaries merely based on the
\nCommissioner’s Report, when it was also not in dispute that<\/p>\n
the notice of the Commissioner’s inspection of.\u00abjthe}._suit<\/p>\n
property was never served on the appellant and  service  V’<\/p>\n
the alleged brother’s son of theiiiappellant<\/p>\n
service. Even though the p1aintiffi’hald.. crossgeexatnined. ‘th.ei’=,<\/p>\n
commissioner at length, the totallreliance’-placed  the trial
\ncourt on the Comniissiorier’si__repo.rt”inrholding that there was
\nserious in\ufb01rmity in the”dc-scription io.f’_the:’.vbioundaries in the
\nsuit  _  ‘ ‘howeveri,Waddressing the innumerable
\ndocurnimtisyppreducied Vat-.__:l:’:tliibits R1 to R29 to establish<\/p>\n
possession ov_e_r”the suit property was a travesty of justice<\/p>\n
.A Hand sthereifore, the substantial question of law would<\/p>\n
‘– Ai.n’eices’s’ari1l\u00a7\/Vliave to be addressed in favour of the appellant as<\/p>\n
there is no discussion or reasoning forthcoming in negating<\/p>\n
V’ ,  Exhibits R1 to P29 while proceeding to judgment merely<\/p>\n
 on the basis of the Commissioner’s Report. it is in this vein<\/p>\n
that the learned counsel for the appellant would seek to<\/p>\n
demonstrate that the courts below were not justified in
\nnegating the appellant’s case especially, in the light of the
\nadverse \ufb01ndings against the respondent insofar his conduct is
\nconcerned in seeking to set up documents which were<\/p>\n
to be tampered with.\n<\/p>\n
6. The learned counsel formthe\u00e9 respondent l.”wl_o.uld_ <\/p>\n
submit that there is no substantial q”u.es:t–ion of –that <\/p>\n
arise for consideration. The”-vs.appellant,’—-inva bare
\ninjunction, was requi:red,_to establish. claim for possession
\nwith reference to the S_1..1.il:. Property iv ought to have<\/p>\n
described in  in’o1’der to establish his claim for
\npossessiorn It ‘is-.or1._Vr’ec…oird that the appellant had sought to<\/p>\n
am\u00b0end.yttrepboundaries of the suit property subsequent to the<\/p>\n
 “the._vC.ommissioner’s Report. The contention that<\/p>\n
there __vW\u00a31VS.l~” no service of notice of the Commissioner’s<\/p>\n
 A. intended investigation of the suit property is also not correct,<\/p>\n
 ‘since the \ufb01nding of the court is that a member of the family<\/p>\n
of the appellant was duly served with the notice and<\/p>\n
therefore, the responsibility was of the appellant to be present
\nat the inspection by the Commissioner. The further<\/p>\n
circumstance that the appellant had cross–exarninecl the<\/p>\n
Commissioner at length is also a matter of recot’d;-.if7lV”heA4<\/p>\n
\ufb01ndings of the trial court as regards boundariesrof’thee-iiisuitl’ ii<\/p>\n
property and the discrepancies wiithi”liefeifenceito._ _votheri”.<\/p>\n
revenue documents are clearusfindingsp of factg,\\.vjhic’lii’doi’. not <\/p>\n
give rise to any substantial que’st.i_ion of law-. he additional
\ndocuments sought to be._p’i*odi1ced ares._docur_rients which were<\/p>\n
available with  appellantliati the._approlpriate point of time<\/p>\n
and the appeiilantiiipiiattehipt to produce documents to defeat<\/p>\n
the claira of the.._respond–e_n’t< "is an exercise in futility, since<\/p>\n
the "1'espondentH'isii application for regularisation of his<\/p>\n
. :'ocVcupat.i:on:'of the land is pending consideration before the<\/p>\n
* ycornpeten\u00a7't—-aiuIthority even as on date and it is incorrect on the<\/p>\n
pairt.o'f.the appellant to contend that the challenge to the grant<\/p>\n
 \u00abfavour of the appellants vendor having reached \ufb01nality,<\/p>\n
 there is no case made out by the respondent for his claim for<\/p>\n
possession. The learned counsel would submit that the<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
question remains open as long -as the application for<\/p>\n
regularisation of occupation, which is supported by.___the<\/p>\n
revenue entries in the RTC pertained to the year’V.i.97:S%76,.<\/p>\n
not in serious dispute and would yet remain foryconsideratioii <\/p>\n
by the competent authority. Th6I:[\u00a3)fOI:6,V’1l,1ii3;> {Suit ifor.__ba.re<\/p>\n
injunction, the plaintiff having ass to ; his f.<\/p>\n
possession over the suit    de\ufb01ned
\nboundaries to the samHe,:ii_,.’it  that the courts
\nbelow have,    rejecting the
\nplaintiff’    question of law<\/p>\n
which wouidvarise. for \u00e9consideratilon.<\/p>\n
 L7.  aboye ‘background, the appointment of a<\/p>\n
\u00bb :’\u00abC_om.miSsione.r even before the parties had tendered their<\/p>\n
“.e’vidence7f–: isexplained by the circumstance that this court<\/p>\n
while.’ ‘considering the appeal preferred against an order of<\/p>\n
ii V._ter:_nporary injunction granted by the court below, was<\/p>\n
 impelled to direct that there be an appointment of a<\/p>\n
Commissioner since the identity of the property was in<\/p>\n
1.1<\/p>\n
serious dispute. It is in that background that the court below<\/p>\n
had appointed a Commissioner. The Commissioner’s Report<\/p>\n
having raised certain questions as regards in\ufb01rmity:”i-nfthe.<\/p>\n
description of the boundaries has possibly”coinpelleid’ _  <\/p>\n
appellant to amend the boundaries   <\/p>\n
Notwithstanding such amendment, ith_e”trial ,eo2irt:4_ halving <\/p>\n
found in\ufb01rmities in the descriptioh-_o_f the suit property, and its
\nboundaries, has resulteidin the  to the conclusion<\/p>\n
as it is by its impugned’judgen1e4nt.:.*–__ 3  <\/p>\n
Be  gas lip,  circumstance that the
\nresponden’t’s cliallengei’l’–toV”‘the”grant made in favour of the<\/p>\n
appellant”s.,vevn.dor_ haviingiiiattained \ufb01nality in the same having<\/p>\n
 2\/_1V,3_iC3vCAtCd and”‘notwithstanding the application of the<\/p>\n
 .ijespo,n’d.entiiseejezing regularisation of his occupation over the<\/p>\n
very suitifpropeity in respect of 4 acres of land pending<\/p>\n
it A. eonside1*ation, the appellant seeking to place reliance on<\/p>\n
 Exhibits P.l to P29 has been lightly overlooked by the courts<\/p>\n
i below. The Commissioner’s Report by itself could not have<\/p>\n
\/.f’:\/<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
set at naught several documents on the basis of which the
\nappellant was seeking to establish his case for “injunction
\nagainst the respondent. The respondent, if were to succeed<\/p>\n
on the application seeking regularisation of his occu.patio–n’of<\/p>\n
the land is independent of the appellant’s   ”<\/p>\n
injunction which ought to have been c’onsidered_:’wijt_h <\/p>\n
more circurnspection in the light of\ufb01the. circuglrustpaiice <\/p>\n
weighed against the bona \ufb01dseaslof the ‘relspoladent. The
\nrevenue documents wlziclz are publ.ic-..documents on the basis<\/p>\n
of which the appellant”‘Wasfbefore the  ought to have<\/p>\n
beenV’llgiye’a’~d,ue  upholding the alleged in\ufb01rrhjties
\ninsofar’ as ypthev…de-sc-rilptior1\u00ab “of the boundaries of the suit<\/p>\n
property was .,conlce1’ned.. The added circumstance that by<\/p>\n
.s  ‘\u00abchancse~stor4or-herwise the appellant was not in a position to be<\/p>\n
* ppresent –.thss=-zltirne of inspection by the Court Commissioner<\/p>\n
of the suit property, is yet another circumstance which would<\/p>\n
 , :warrant a further reconsideration by the court below of the<\/p>\n
 material evidence and the alleged discrepancies in the<\/p>\n
boundaries of the suit property. The courts have taken a<\/p>\n
l3<\/p>\n
highly technical View of the description of the boundaries<\/p>\n
when in fact the appeiiant was not in doubt of his title or the<\/p>\n
grant made in favour of his vendor which again wa:s”at.<\/p>\n
naught by proceedings initiated by the respopndeint  K <\/p>\n
attained \ufb01nality.\n<\/p>\n
In this View of the rnatter, thelapipeal is ‘The  -‘<\/p>\n
judgment and decree of the appellate court’asy_iWell  the trial
\ncourt are set aside andiiitthe ‘i.ma;tter”;~:em_anded for fresh
\nconsideration. The app’ellant’pis”at.”‘liberty…to’ tender additional
\nevidence \u20acinsofa\u00a3i..aS–_V \u00b0th.e–.._a’dditiona_i documents sought to be
\nproditced  there is reference to the orders<\/p>\n
which  to be produced by way of<\/p>\n
  additionally.evidencerthere is no injustice caused or added<\/p>\n
  to the appellant in the appellant being<\/p>\n
\u20acf}.abl\u20ac_\u00a7d’  produce the documents as additional evidence.<\/p>\n
 at The trial court shall also appoint a commissioner in order that<\/p>\n
 ‘fresh report be obtained in accordance with law, after<\/p>\n
H affording opportunity to both the parties to be present at such<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
inspection by the Commissioner on the terms of reference<\/p>\n
which are to be issued by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
{IV<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Kempeeregowda S\/O Manchegowda vs Ereegowda on 18 October, 2010 Author: Anand Byrareddy EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 18′” DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. 3’Us’r:CE ANAND BYRg\u00a7{{fEj\u00a71)Y’v.. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 09 ms E ‘ B ETWEEN: Kempeeregowda, S\/0 Manchegowda, Since Deceased by LRs […]<\/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-189392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKempeeregowda S\/O Manchegowda vs Ereegowda on 18 October, 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\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kempeeregowda S\/O Manchegowda vs Ereegowda on 18 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-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=\"2010-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-27T14:51:41+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\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kempeeregowda S\/O Manchegowda vs Ereegowda on 18 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-27T14:51:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2144,\"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\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Kempeeregowda S\/O Manchegowda vs Ereegowda on 18 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-27T14:51:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kempeeregowda S\/O Manchegowda vs Ereegowda on 18 October, 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":"Kempeeregowda S\/O Manchegowda vs Ereegowda on 18 October, 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\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kempeeregowda S\/O Manchegowda vs Ereegowda on 18 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-27T14:51:41+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\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kempeeregowda S\/O Manchegowda vs Ereegowda on 18 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-27T14:51:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010"},"wordCount":2144,"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\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010","name":"Kempeeregowda S\/O Manchegowda vs Ereegowda on 18 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-27T14:51:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kempeeregowda-so-manchegowda-vs-ereegowda-on-18-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kempeeregowda S\/O Manchegowda vs Ereegowda on 18 October, 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\/189392","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=189392"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189392\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}