{"id":192388,"date":"2009-10-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009"},"modified":"2015-07-28T14:15:04","modified_gmt":"2015-07-28T08:45:04","slug":"s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"S G Bharathi W\/O B.M.Chadraiah vs R Ashwathanarayana S\/O Late … on 15 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
S G Bharathi W\/O B.M.Chadraiah vs R Ashwathanarayana S\/O Late … on 15 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: H.Billappa<\/div>\n
I J\n\nThis RFA. is filed under section 96 WW orde_r 46 of\nCPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.03.2007\npassed in O.S.No.6:751.x'2002 on the file of the XV_.';3.d'dl:'rCity\nCivil and Sessions Judge. Bangalore ~ No.3\n\ndismissing the suit for ejectment. permanent i\ufb02jl_\u00a3'i'iC'l:tQAl1*\u20ac5,:'t\u20aci.  ~\n\nThis RFA coming for heari.nr;,:__4this.\"d;3i'y\u00a7:,'_';\u00bb.the,'_'_Co'u_Vrt\"r \n\ndelivered the foliowinge\n\nJuoemsaf.\nThis is plaintiffs gappea\u00a3.tj\"'\n\n2. The mawma \ufb01eu gull; \u00ae$\u00a7\u00a7Kx475L?OO2 my\negectmertt and  case of the plaintiff\nis that she' .'suwi\"t':.\u00a7scheciuie property through\nregistiered   and Katha has been\ntransfe\ufb02rredl in  plaintiff contends that the\n\ndefendants the respondents herein are the tenants in<\/pre>\n
  suit schedu\u00e9e property on a monthly rent of<\/p>\n
   also contended, the defendants are trying to<\/p>\n
su’b–~|ea’se’vt’he property and irispite of repeated requests,<\/p>\n
it urer_\u00a7tind’ers and lega\u00e9 notices, the respondents have not<\/p>\n
“‘._\\ra’c’ated the premises. Therefore, suit for ejection and<\/p>\n
” “permanent injunction.\n<\/p>\n
It\/\/\/)<\/p>\n
3. The first respondent i.e.t the first defendant has<\/p>\n
filed his written statement contending that he is <\/p>\n
and there is no relat\u00e9ensnip of landlady and te.n’antre.ijet~ivee’n ‘<\/p>\n
himself and the piaintiff and he ts”in”poss’essi\u00abo:n”e\u00a7 <\/p>\n
schedeie property as a Vcoparcenedr aloi\u00e9g”withw.””oee–..<\/p>\n
S.lVlan;’unath and therefore. has:aV.V”p.raye.d'<~\u00a7ot'~~.di.Sn'\u00a7issVaVlV of the<\/p>\n
suit.\n<\/p>\n
4. Theasecond”respon’de=ntihesieznoti filed any written
\nstatement. .b.lJ\u00a7’.’.,’  {:ornp{on}\u00e9se_d the njiaitwter.<\/p>\n
 _ _ Ti5.e_T,r’i3a.IyC4oti’i1t.._has.’framed the following isst.2es:-<\/p>\n
\u00b0   Vi\/.het4ner:_4’t2’2.e”p’fei’nttff is the \/endfedy of
\ntfte_”pre’mtses”fit\/herer’n the defendant is a<\/p>\n
Vtenen’t’?… _____ .. s 3′<\/p>\n
  ..t_:l\/\ufb01netfter the termination of tenancy is in<\/p>\n
A ‘V-Vaccifordence with few?\n<\/p>\n
 3. Whether the plaintiff rs entrtied to the<\/p>\n
possession of suit property?\n<\/p>\n
L\/..\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6. The “trial Court has answered issue No.1 partly in
\nthe affirmative. issue No.2 and 3 in the negative and<\/p>\n
cohseqoentfy. has dismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n
7, Aggrieved by that, the appelIant–p|a.i_ntiffV=ha’s2ti*led  <\/p>\n
this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
8. The learned counsel for the eapp’e.l_la~n:t”confiehcfed<\/p>\n
that the Triat Court was not jt;\u00a7st’i”f~i.ed inidismissinoi”t.h’e-VVst:i~t. He-C’<\/p>\n
also submitted that the appAe.ll.alht._hays purch,ase,cl the suit<\/p>\n
schedule property throilgg\ufb01h-.rsgisterietfsalesdeed dated 56\u00bb<\/p>\n
3972 a’rt’d “Court–. that the appellant is the<\/p>\n
ownerbf the suit s’c’h.ed.u:le..property and inspite of thatithe Trial<\/p>\n
Court has”diismiVssed\u00a5,rh’e\u00ab”suit which is not correct. He also<\/p>\n
   that tihieve-ppellant has issued notice as per exhibits<\/p>\n
   tierfrtinating the tenancy and even if Ex?-7 is hot<\/p>\n
piroyed, _t.he’I.appellant can claim’ possession based on exhibits<\/p>\n
 D-l a~no3.D–2. i~le also submitted that the first respondent has<\/p>\n
 not’r_e\u00a7:)iied any notice sent to him ahd therefore, it is deemed<\/p>\n
  that the first respondent has admitted the tenancy. Further he<\/p>\n
L’ <\/p>\n
submitted that the first respondent has not proved that he is in<\/p>\n
possession of the property as a coparcener._.iHe\u00ab..4_fa.\u00a7so<\/p>\n
submitted that the appellant has proved that  <\/p>\n
of the property and the first respond.ent..has ‘<\/p>\n
capacity he is in possession of the:’p\u00e9rop_’er’t’y <\/p>\n
Trial Court was not justifiediniveisntissing He also-if<\/p>\n
submitted that the eviffehce  Ex.P–7
\nand the notices sent to”th_e-  clearly establish
\nthat the first re.spc.nderjtV’is therefore. the Trial
\nCourt   thefffsuit, tn support of his
\nsubinVi.s’si’oni:be’  decision of the Hon’ble
\nSupre’m_e”C_o Vre:p’o:rVte.d: 1 985 SC Page 357.<\/p>\n
__9.  against ‘this. the learned counsel for the first<\/p>\n
 re;sponderzvtA. submi”i’t’ed that, the Trial Court: on proper<\/p>\n
 ‘vtgonstirjier\u00e9atidit.of,the material on record, has rightly dismissed<\/p>\n
tliewsuivt.ar’i\u00a7d’therefore. the impugned tudgment and decree<\/p>\n
 does” calt for interference. He also submitted that E><.D-1, it is mentioned<\/p>\n
Lt"\/, ,,,, ..\n<\/p>\n
that the rate of rent is 83,260,.\u00bb-“1 per month and it was
\nenhanced to Rs.360:”- per month and in E><.P-77"l"'re t'hat–.the'r'eiv~i-3;'mention about the lease
\ne.greement4'_dated':V?'4~$?i\u00bb9V?\u00a3Z::'aijd0it has not been produced. He<\/p>\n
also sebmiit–t.ed'v that tihei stamp paper is dated 205-2001 and<\/p>\n
 theiieaispe a_greemen.t.-\u00abis said to have been executed on 10-5-<\/p>\n
 20000'?! Dclearly indicates that Ex.P-7 is a concocted<\/p>\n
do'cu0me_n.t'.'V'i:'He: also submitted that the burden of proving EXP-<\/p>\n
 ? is onuithe appellant and the appellant has iailed to prove<\/p>\n
  He also submitted that the plaintiff has not stepped<\/p>\n
  into the witness-box and there was no opportunity to cross-<\/p>\n
examine the plaintitt and the evidence of Pwt and PW___2 is of<\/p>\n
no consequence. He also submitted that one S.i\\\/lan__i.urtat\u00abh_;'~the<\/p>\n
son of P.Sathyanarayana. has filed suit in  <\/p>\n
tor partition on 27-2-2002, thereafte_r,\u00bbiinotice  has_'_lo_ee.n\u00e9V'<\/p>\n
sent which ciearly indicates that the:"oauise"of activioninyfor <\/p>\n
is imaginary and aiterthougr'it.U"~~.._Further__  thati<\/p>\n
notices have been sent in AVydi–ftVe'i:er9];i\u00a7;;;narhtriesV-and there is
\nreieience to the |ease–'d'ee_d's'\u00a7' ti\u00e9hieiivvtleiaseyfdeeds have not
\nbeen produced@;:  appellant has
\nnot prodUG\u00e9d""Va.ny'iiiiV'l]Q  themtirst respondent was
\nthe teiii'a'i'it..'V.Va:nxid:;ti\u00a7i;e~  rightly heiol that the
\nappellant has fvaiiieiiijito\u00bb relationship of landlady and<\/p>\n
tenant. lwi'e"–\u00abalsvoVsu.biii.it'tecii'that the biirden is on the appellant<\/p>\n
 to..':y_jpiro}r.e that "t'hei—-.–i–i–rst respondent is the tenant and the<\/p>\n
  to prove that the first respondent is the<\/p>\n
.tenant andi:i.hereforet the Trial Court has rightly disniissed the<\/p>\n
 siiit andtt does not cail for interference.<\/p>\n
2 10' I have carefully considered the submissions made<\/p>\n
2 V' "by the learned counsel tor the paities.<\/p>\n
L\/,.t-\n<\/p>\n
E1. the point that arises for my consideration <\/p>\n
Whether the Trial Court was  <\/p>\n
holding that the appet\/ant has failed
\nEXP\u00bb? and the re\/ati’onshi’p o.ftarrdladjr and:ttenaiit.’,i’, <\/p>\n
between the appellant and the fl’FSt”  Tr ‘<\/p>\n
12. It is relevaat to  case’bfi5theV}aPDe|lant-
\nplaintiff is that the respto’rid_er–iVtis ;hAe””re.i_ri\u00bb’V..i’are__the tenants under
\nher on a monthlyrent   nowhere it is
\nstated when the  There is no
\nmention oi appellant has produced
\n andh’as_e_>;3arni’ne’d..__t_wojwitnesses to prove her case.
\nP,W.i is thepoiwe\u00e9r holder of the appellant. P.W.1<\/p>\n
is ng;}t”at.partv  He has not signed E><_P–7, but, it is not confronted<\/p>\n
  him. He has not identified his signature in Ex.P–7. He has<\/p>\n
{V\/..\n<\/p>\n
not identified the signatures oi’ the witnesses _..or the<\/p>\n
detendants in Ex.P~7′. Apart from this. E><.P–7 is idtviideiibttytur<\/p>\n
origin. The stamp paper is purchased on <\/p>\n
document is said to have been executed' or; 1Qr..5?;?'Q0VV'i,_WHVi'Ch '<\/p>\n
is improbabie. Apart from this, otie'.oi:t'he'istan'tp. pap.ers:"isi:irt'ot<\/p>\n
signed by the stamp vendor; –Eii~r.ther tthere  'no""t\u00a75hibcits Di and 2. in fact, there is no mention about<\/p>\n
 exhib~its’:.Di and D2 in plaint. Nothing is pieaded regarding<\/p>\n
 ei<h"i"'oits Di and D2 in the piaint. Therefore, the contention<\/p>\n
  that the tenancy was terminated through exhibits D1 and D2<\/p>\n
L ,,,,,,, 74!:\n<\/p>\n
cannot be accepted. in exhibit D1 there is referenceV.t-o__ lease<\/p>\n
agreement dated 38-1972 and it is mentioned that”thef”ra;te..of<\/p>\n
rent is Rs.260r’> per month and it was enhanced <\/p>\n
per month. in E><.D-2 it is mentio-ne'd'\u00abt.hat–'_'the.V.'ra't:e_of 'reintHE~s i<\/p>\n
Rst260r'– per month and the arrearsxis:'$?s.'9,36'QrL;~ .ln <\/p>\n
it is mentioned that the responideints are'duej'vfroVin"'i"\u00e9E\u00a7–2OOi'VV<\/p>\n
and the rate of rent is  rnonth'; iiihere is no
\nreference to exhibits or  ;'\u00a2.,..v'"e'i_$_hibit P10. One
\nManiunath, ihvelsen  has filed suit in
\nO.s.No.i339\/'\u00e9_oo\u00a7t..3pi  :2.7m2~2oo2. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
Ex. P– i,o- iiwasctibleenizvnt.\n<\/p>\n
 pr’ob’ai)ility Ex.Pv7 has come into
\nexistence   of the suit. The plaintiff has<\/p>\n
not producied anyVthing,_i’to..\\–ghow that the first respondent has<\/p>\n
 pa.iC_Jj”3’\u00ab:reEr)_it.s at art} of time right from 1972. There is no<\/p>\n
  to show that the first respondent was the<\/p>\n
tenant t,in’daeri.c::the plaintiff. The Trial Court. on proper<\/p>\n
‘i._\u00bbconsid~eration of the materiai on record, has rightly heid that<\/p>\n
A “:if”thVeappellant has faiied to prove EXP-7 and the reiationship of<\/p>\n
 laindiady and tenant between the appellant and the first<\/p>\n
Q 2\/”\n<\/p>\n
respondent. I do not find any error or illegality in thet-indings<\/p>\n
recorded by the Trial Court. While it is true. the ap;_\ufb02eVt”i-a}rt.can<\/p>\n
claim possession being the owner. but, the ap’oe\u00a3l.arn.tVycannoty<\/p>\n
create something and claim poss-e’ss’i’on.&_ T&he;raip”peil:ant\u00a5 has<\/p>\n
failed to prove that the first resploijdenzt is .the” t.enai’14t”-andedy<\/p>\n
therefore, the Trial Court has’;*.ie.ij’tr.tly dismissed’;thAe.:’sVuit.s I do<\/p>\n
not find any error or ill=ega|ity,<irl  tind._ings recorded by the
\nTrial Court. There is me r:\u00e9erir~Vr-;rr'i't mre.ieeppeeirt and hence, it is
\nliable to be dismiss-ed.  yyyy H<\/p>\n
13. V    No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/=3
\nEUDGE<\/p>\n
. on u
\nrp<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court S G Bharathi W\/O B.M.Chadraiah vs R Ashwathanarayana S\/O Late … on 15 October, 2009 Author: H.Billappa I J This RFA. is filed under section 96 WW orde_r 46 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.03.2007 passed in O.S.No.6:751.x’2002 on the file of the XV_.’;3.d’dl:’rCity Civil and Sessions Judge. Bangalore […]<\/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-192388","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS G Bharathi W\/O B.M.Chadraiah vs R Ashwathanarayana S\/O Late ... on 15 October, 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\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S G Bharathi W\/O B.M.Chadraiah vs R Ashwathanarayana S\/O Late ... on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-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=\"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-28T08:45:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S G Bharathi W\\\/O B.M.Chadraiah vs R Ashwathanarayana S\\\/O Late … on 15 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-28T08:45:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1554,\"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\\\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009\",\"name\":\"S G Bharathi W\\\/O B.M.Chadraiah vs R Ashwathanarayana S\\\/O Late ... on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-28T08:45:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S G Bharathi W\\\/O B.M.Chadraiah vs R Ashwathanarayana S\\\/O Late … on 15 October, 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":"S G Bharathi W\/O B.M.Chadraiah vs R Ashwathanarayana S\/O Late ... on 15 October, 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\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S G Bharathi W\/O B.M.Chadraiah vs R Ashwathanarayana S\/O Late ... on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-28T08:45:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S G Bharathi W\/O B.M.Chadraiah vs R Ashwathanarayana S\/O Late … on 15 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-28T08:45:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009"},"wordCount":1554,"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\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009","name":"S G Bharathi W\/O B.M.Chadraiah vs R Ashwathanarayana S\/O Late ... on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-28T08:45:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-bharathi-wo-b-m-chadraiah-vs-r-ashwathanarayana-so-late-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S G Bharathi W\/O B.M.Chadraiah vs R Ashwathanarayana S\/O Late … on 15 October, 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\/192388","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=192388"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192388\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192388"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192388"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192388"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}