{"id":197014,"date":"2010-10-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-09-03T01:47:24","modified_gmt":"2015-09-02T20:17:24","slug":"ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Kumar vs M R Murugeshappa on 19 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Ramesh Kumar vs M R Murugeshappa on 19 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana<\/div>\n
- 1 -\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 19'?\" DAY OF OCTOBER 2010\n\nBEFORE\n\n'I'HE H()N'BLE MRJUSTICE s.N.sA1:YANARAYAfNAf\"--\u00ab.;' __\n\nR.F.A.NO. 1033\/2000\nBETWEEN:   \n\nRAMESH KUMAR\n\nS\/O. , MAJOR\n\nR\/O.NO.188, 2ND STAGE\n\nINDIRANAGAR,\n\nBANGALORE-38 \n\nREPTD BY HIS P.A.H01.DER _ _\n\nB R JAYANTH S\/ORAMA BHATTLQ.\n\nMAJOR, R\/OBEDUR VIL1;,AGE,'j* A .   _ \nAVINAHALLI HOBLI   --  \"  ; 0 APPELLANT\n\n(By Sri,;:V OTTGGTZALTA ';?siDvj   T\n\nAND\n\nM RTTVIURYJGESTLAVPVPA \n\n \"  ..S\/O..SHAN'FHAMALL'IKARJUNAPPA GOWDA\n .MA10E,A0RIcULTURIsT.\n __R\/Q'.I\u00bb{fASAP,UR 'VILLAGE,\n\n_P:QELI\nHo__sANA0AE._ 'Jag  RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
‘V._(By Sri ;’H.K.BAsAVARAJ, ADV)<\/p>\n
‘”‘j_~TH1s REA IS FILED U\/S.96 CPC AGAINST THE<\/p>\n
  ORDER DATED 23.11.2000 PASSED IN 0.S.NO.99\/97 ON
\n FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), SAGAR,<\/p>\n
“W1<\/p>\n
– 2 –\n<\/p>\n
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR THE RELIEF OF
\nDECLARATION.\n<\/p>\n
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING
\nTHIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:<\/p>\n
This is plaintiffs appeal challenging the <\/p>\n
court below so far as it pertains to issue Nos,2;’!l,  7 _ <\/p>\n
The parties to this appeal are referredfltol lb}; their  <\/p>\n
court below.\n<\/p>\n
2. Brief facts leading to this lfap.pea_l are as <\/p>\n
Defendant is owner  .landvl.,n1eastutfiilig_ to an extent of<\/p>\n
11 acres 29. guntasviin f3;\u00a7f.fi’*IQ.].3_;} situate at Masroor viiiage,
\nKerehal\ufb01lliiohli,  The plaintiff entered into<\/p>\n
an agreement with ‘defendant on 18.5.1992 for purchase of<\/p>\n
   woodland as well as jungle wood. The rate<\/p>\n
  the parties is Rs.350\/– per Cft where girth of<\/p>\n
teal—;__is  123.300\/– per Cft where girth is 2 to 4 feet and<\/p>\n
  \/{Zper Cft where girth is 2 feet. It was also agreed that<\/p>\n
 would be given \ufb01re wood free of cost. At the time of<\/p>\n
“V1<\/p>\n
– 3 –\n<\/p>\n
agreement, a sum of Rs.1,()0,000\/~ was paid by plaintiff to<\/p>\n
defendant and balance was agreed to be paid at a later stage.<\/p>\n
3. Plaintiff state that, subsequently he paid vanothser<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.25,000\/-. However, the same was <\/p>\n
on the agreement of sale, which is at Ex.P2.f  the  <\/p>\n
entire extent of Sy.No.134 measure  acres’  <\/p>\n
In that, a tenant of defendarltg Eernioji tit’j:C.xt0V.”‘_’<\/p>\n
an extent of 2 acres 36 guntas}..:Since said’VVS3%’.No;:134 was
\nnot phoded demarking ‘the of defendant and
\nBernioji Rao plaintiff couslddVfnot_.~.,_::i1ni’n_e,t1iate1y secure<\/p>\n
permission for ‘i-C:t1_tting*__ and~~’:remov:i\u00a3ng____trees. In view of<\/p>\n
circular.’  fjoxrerninent, which is at Ex.P3,
\nperrnissionrtoifellffftre\u00e9es  have to be obtained in the name<\/p>\n
of o,Wat1eri*\\of theaiand. Therefore, a power of attorney was also<\/p>\n
 ‘exeontedwfbygdefendant in favour of plaintiff vide Ex.P27.<\/p>\n
 4._ plaintiff after getting dispute regarding the<\/p>\n
“i.,.bound*ary:. of defendants property sorted out, secured<\/p>\n
neeessary permission from the authorities for felling of trees.<\/p>\n
‘  Tihough in the agreement three years time was stipulated<\/p>\n
“H<\/p>\n
substantial time was spent by defendant in getting his
\nportion of property identified to enable plaintiff t0_.-._’-‘3lZaI’t<\/p>\n
felling of trees. Therefore, plaintiff himself<\/p>\n
responsibility of sorting out problem between  ‘<\/p>\n
his tenant, thereafter, permission was secured byrhim ‘ingth’e_<\/p>\n
year 1995. He also applied for perrnission ‘lfor’tsrans;>o1tatioi;1:<\/p>\n
of wood in the naine of defend\u00a73V.r_it~..e..g’<\/p>\n
5. Before applying for p_erifnissi.on for’-transgfiortation,
\nplaintiff got entire   stored in the
\nsame survey number.  obstructed<\/p>\n
shifting of felled his  and also moved<\/p>\n
authorities for eanr:_ellat’ion”” of transportation permit issued<\/p>\n
in his name ‘on Vtliellrstrenigtli of special power of attorney.<\/p>\n
 it matter” ‘stovod thus, the authorities issued an<\/p>\n
.Aei1dorsen5.ent”\u00ab–to the effect that, since difference between<\/p>\n
 defelndant is in respect of agreement for sale of<\/p>\n
timber i.;he’sa1ne will have to be resolved in a proceedings<\/p>\n
 jtiefore Civil court and until the same is resolved they will not<\/p>\n
  ‘plerrnit removal of felled timber and the wood.<\/p>\n
‘*4<\/p>\n
_ 5 –\n<\/p>\n
6. In this background, the suit is filed by plaintiff<\/p>\n
seeking relief of declaration that he is entitled to shift timber
\nand fire wood cut and stored in suit schedule land andalso<\/p>\n
for a declaration that he is entitled to secure <\/p>\n
permit in his name from the Deputy Conservatorof *<\/p>\n
Shimoga or any other appropriate __au.thority”fo’r’*:rernoval.V of <\/p>\n
same after payment of baiance7.psa’le~”coi:1Si'(\u00a3eration–,’altoi<\/p>\n
defendant as speci\ufb01ed in agrecrnent dated   <\/p>\n
7. In the said:aproceedingsp,’._defendant”V entered
\nappearance, filed his written}’staten’1ent1′ in one breath<\/p>\n
denying executionjpoff agreernent bettvjeen himself and plaintiff<\/p>\n
on 18.31992  ‘timber and also receipt of advance of
\nRs.l,25,00’0,_[\u00a5 as”  by plaintiff, in another breath<\/p>\n
admitting that  agreement was entered into between<\/p>\n
 apndjhimself on 18.5.1992 for cut and removal of<\/p>\n
L-‘;:nber  of agreement, however, subsequently<\/p>\n
p1aintiff–.requ”ested him to refund entire advance amount paid<\/p>\n
._by,,i_hirn”‘ under agreement. Hence, he himself secured<\/p>\n
  perniission from authorities for cutting of trees in his land,<\/p>\n
  -~-he cut the timber and as well as fire wood and stored it in<\/p>\n
L’\u00b0\\<\/p>\n
his property.\n<\/p>\n
-6-<\/span>
\nWhen he applied for permission for<\/p>\n
transporting the cut timber and the wood plaintiff raised<\/p>\n
objection for the same before authorities.<\/p>\n
8.<\/p>\n
With these rival contentions trial Court  <\/p>\n
frame the following issues:\n<\/p>\n
1} Whether the plaintiff proves th’_a1~ <\/p>\n
agreed to sell the enti_r_e standing   <\/p>\n
\ufb01re wood grown in  suit  on
\n18.5.1992 and _ received..gdvanlCs.,. attiottrlt of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,00,000\/–  _exec1%tted agreement?<\/p>\n
2) whether the plaintiiff ‘ptfeyee. ‘ at the time o<\/p>\n
reeeivilng…V_furtfter”-a;jx_ra;t1ce amount of Rs.25,000\/–<\/p>\n
 ldeferidgant’ orally agreed to sell the<\/p>\n
remainirig-_varietjes of jungle wood timber at the<\/p>\n
“rate of I?._s:.250\/– per cubit feet?<\/p>\n
Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
 him stating that he is not interested in<\/p>\n
 and demanded to return the advance money<\/p>\n
 he agreed to receive the amount only after<\/p>\n
selling the timber by him’?\n<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
– 7,\n<\/p>\n
4) Whether the defendant proves that since the
\nplaintiff demanded for refund of the advance
\namount and there after he has out and stooked the
\ntimber and \ufb01re wood after obtaining necessgary<\/p>\n
permission from the forest authorities?<\/p>\n
5} Whether the suit is not properly  <\/p>\n
purpose of court fee and jurisdictioii? ” ” <\/p>\n
6} Whether this court has   tg <\/p>\n
suit? _
\n7] ‘Whether the plaintiff is’.enf,it}e ‘the: reliefs sought
\nfor?   _ .  %  <\/p>\n
8) To   ‘oradecree?\n<\/p>\n
_ .9.  adduced evidence examining himself as<\/p>\n
 ‘   he also exan1i1’1ed Mr.Basha, who is labour contractor<\/p>\n
   for cutting timber and \ufb01re wood standing<\/p>\n
 suit scherliulze land as P’W.2, Gopala, a watchman who was<\/p>\n
l’,_appointe’d by him as watch and ward security for trees cut<\/p>\n
andlstored in suit schedule iand was examined as PW.3,<\/p>\n
Plrafulla Madhukar, a person who was witness to transaction<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
between plaintiff and defendant, which culminated in<\/p>\n
execution of Ex.P2, agreement of sale of timberkwas<\/p>\n
examined as PW\/i and M.R.Ishwarappa. who is  <\/p>\n
than brother of defendant, who was  to<\/p>\n
transaction between plaintiff and (iefendant”_was’ <\/p>\n
as PW.5. In support of his case4plaintiff’produ,c’ed:in ali. <\/p>\n
documents marked as Exs.Pl”* P27.”   behalf of
\ndefendant. he exaxninecl However, he did
\nnot produce and mark ariv  support of his<\/p>\n
defence, which by   statement.\n<\/p>\n
10}”Tile;’court?-:below”*on apprevciation of the pleadings,
\noral  it bdocunisntaryu”=..evi_dence available on record<\/p>\n
proceeded ta answerA’._issn”e Nos.1, 3 and=6 in favour of<\/p>\n
 ._V’pla..\ufb01i|.[‘1.3;\u00e9\u00a7.ift:  enteiin_g__i_nto agreement between plaintiff and<\/p>\n
 ‘d.efendant’ifo.r\ufb02”sale of timber on 18.5.1992, defendant not<\/p>\n
being’ ablefto establish that plaintiff opted out of agreement<\/p>\n
 andfagreedhto receive advance amount paid by him in lieu of<\/p>\n
V’  to remove trees and the court below having<\/p>\n
‘  iinfisdicuon to try the suit filed by plaintiff. However, issue<\/p>\n
it ml\\Ios.2, 4., 5 and 7 were held. against plaintiff. in favour of<\/p>\n
“*1<\/p>\n
defendant, wherein court below held that plaintiff has failed
\nto establish payment of second advance of Rs.25,000\/_–___ and<\/p>\n
held that defendant himself has cut and stored <\/p>\n
\ufb01re wood in suit schedule land and suit \ufb01led  ~<\/p>\n
not properly Valued, consequently, denied the  if V’<\/p>\n
to issue No.7. It is pertinent to ment,ion;’at..j\ufb01un:ctu_ire”ithati_:<\/p>\n
so far as issues that were” held in. favour ‘of’-pylajntiff –. ‘<\/p>\n
defendant did not choose to \ufb01le:”‘any-.yappe’al.accepting the
\n\ufb01nding given by court..i:DelGi_AI. gs Hoysrever, plaintiff has
\nchallenged the \ufb01nding of   far as issue
\nNos.2, 4, 5       <\/span><\/p>\n
Ii, In \u00e9iiotice is duly served on defendant,<\/p>\n
he has entered ap1f;ea:’aric&e’_.’cVthrough counsel. This court on<\/p>\n
 perusal of grounds. urged in the appeal and also reason given<\/p>\n
 for holding issue Nos.2, 4, 5 and 7 against<\/p>\n
the following poi.nts arise for consideration<\/p>\n
V . in  <\/p>\n
 is  1)VV’Whether court below was justified in holding that<\/p>\n
plaintiff has failed to establish payment of further
\nadvance of Rs.25,000\/–?\n<\/p>\n
‘M1<\/p>\n
-19..\n<\/p>\n
2} Whether the court below after holding issue No.3
\nagainst defendant was justified in holding issue<\/p>\n
No.4 in favour of defendant?\n<\/p>\n
3) Whether the court below was justified .<\/p>\n
that court fee paid is not proper   <\/p>\n
holding aforesaid issue  <\/p>\n
plaintiff and dismissing suit?  T ‘<\/p>\n
Heard the counsel for appellantnand   On <\/p>\n
reappreciation of the pleadings,. oral  ldocnigmentary
\nevidence available on record this conrt_’answer point No. l for
\nconsideration in__af\ufb01rma.t_ifre-.,  poivnt’*:Vi.’Nos.2 and 3 in<\/p>\n
negatiyrelfor    V  V V
\ni.?;;\u00ab The fact deficnriant is owner of an extent of 1 1<\/p>\n
acres .29  .o:’:’ landhlin Sy.No.134 of Masrur village,<\/p>\n
 V.  _,Keretialiis.,Hoh1i, Elosanagar Taluk is not in dispute. It is also<\/p>\n
  in  “that as on the date when plaintiff and<\/p>\n
 into agreement, Ex.P2 the said land in<\/p>\n
“..,gSy.No.~l(i\u00a21 was not phoded and the extent of land granted in<\/p>\n
,,:l,”favvVo’i1~r of Berrnoji Rao, a tenant of defendant, was not<\/p>\n
  identi\ufb01ed and demarked \ufb01xing boundaiy to the said extent.<\/p>\n
“””\\<\/p>\n
-11-<\/span><\/p>\n
Ex.P2 also discloses that as on 18.5.1992 defendant agreed
\nto sell the standing teak timber and also \ufb01re wood in favour<\/p>\n
of plaintiff for the price agreed therein. In that behalf <\/p>\n
of Rs.1,00,()0O\/– was received by him as advancelatl  ~<\/p>\n
of entering into agreement on 18.5,.1.992. ” ll’<\/p>\n
payment of Rs.25,000\/a though pltiadeti<\/p>\n
plaint and stated in his evidelncei he has notl’isuijgvt,3ntiated <\/p>\n
the same by adducing cogent e_\\_r_idenc’e_\u00bb_vthroughiindlependent
\nevidence regarding payrnenti   advance. The
\npayment of suchafurther evidenced by
\nproper  pin’tlieabsence of shara to
\nthat   refused to accept further
\npayment of”  “plaintiff to defendant towards<\/p>\n
additional acivance for ‘purchase of timber.<\/p>\n
 coming to point No.2 for consideration, the<\/p>\n
 has-“‘framed two issues i.e., issue Nos.3 and 4,<\/p>\n
which are interconnected. The said issues are based on the<\/p>\n
 gl”dAefence’v.r*aised by defendant in his written statement to the<\/p>\n
it ‘effect that though he has entered into agreement with<\/p>\n
“‘1<\/p>\n
-12-<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff for sale of teak timber and forest wood on
\n18.5.1992, subsequently plaintiff opted out of agreemerit and<\/p>\n
decided to receive advance amount paid by <\/p>\n
further contended that after such request   ‘<\/p>\n
plaintiff he has cut and stored teak \u00bbtimberjand \\’J_l70Od_V ll<\/p>\n
in suit schedule land pursuant to felling permission <\/p>\n
by him. So far as this defence’i–s_ concerned, d.efei_ida,nt–‘has v ‘<\/p>\n
not adduced any acceptable ex\/:id\u00bbenceq exceptvtheii defence
\nraised in his written staternent_a,ri_d~V0’raIV’vei}idence that he has
\nadduced in support thereof…’i.’he ‘coia_irtl.beio\\%v’ on appreciation<\/p>\n
of the oral  iiocurnenltaiy _..eVVidence”l has come to the<\/p>\n
conclusion  failed to establish the alleged
\nrequest rnadeqqby –tosiirrender his right to purchase<\/p>\n
teak timber forrefund   amount from defendant. When<\/p>\n
. if “theis helduagainst defendant, consequently, court<\/p>\n
 .beio.vlV’  held issue No.4 which is framed regarding<\/p>\n
cutting andistoring of timber in suit schedule land against<\/p>\n
 V’-.defe11d’an_t;~ for the reason that, under Ex.=P2 and Ex.P2’7<\/p>\n
l”iidefent’.arit permitted piaintiff to approach the concerned<\/p>\n
   authorities for securing necessary permission for felling<\/p>\n
“vi<\/p>\n
-13-<\/span><\/p>\n
timber and to secure necessaiy permit for transportation of
\nthe same. The said documents namely permission granted
\nby forest authorities for felling of trees are produced by<\/p>\n
plaintiff and marked in his evidence.- Assuniirigr<\/p>\n
moment if, said permission is secured by defei’1:da1i1t}  *<\/p>\n
was no reason for said documents. to be pro-d;u.c\u00e9’df_’ it<\/p>\n
marked by plaintiff. The court bie.low?_’_’c0VmI’l)let\u20acll’? <\/p>\n
this aspect has blindly accepted the defence by<\/p>\n
defendant in his written staternent,__which’is\u00ab not stipported
\nby any evidence. Per con’tra,’–.co{urt” has conveniently<\/p>\n
ignored to look into th:g~fact”tha,\u00a7 that are<\/p>\n
secured eitlie:7._for_.’of _tr_ces or for transportation of
\nfelled timber’ is by to Ex.P2’7, special power<\/p>\n
of attorney eicccuted  favour by defendant and the said<\/p>\n
.\u00b0*per1nissions were produced and marked by plaintiff in his<\/p>\n
  on the part of court below in looking<\/p>\n
into4_Vthese:iaspects has resulted in court below giving an<\/p>\n
V’-\u00bb.erroneo,us \ufb01nding on issue No.4, which is required to be<\/p>\n
,,\/.4’1’r3V_\u20acr’:3ed and held that it is plaintiff who has secured<\/p>\n
  necessary permission from competent authority for felling<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
.14..\n<\/p>\n
trees and thereby he has cut and stored the same in suit<\/p>\n
schedule land.\n<\/p>\n
14. New Coming to point No.3 for consideration? it is<\/p>\n
seen that prayer of plaintiff is for declaration that pt1rs.i,ia.i1t<\/p>\n
to agreement at Ex. P2 he has cut and stored   .<\/p>\n
forest wood in suit schedule land  has ‘\ufb01gh:t_vvt:o”reIn0ve’ <\/p>\n
the same and therefore, he has vahied_”tl1e  ire’<\/p>\n
Section 24(1)) of the Karnatalga     <\/p>\n
Valuation Act and for the pnrp0se.of cponrtffce the has valued
\nthe said relief at —   court fee that<\/p>\n
is paid has not sought for<\/p>\n
declaration    owner of timber which is cut<\/p>\n
and storedi\u00ab-in suit._sche(iiiied land, the question of vaiuing<\/p>\n
 the\ufb01sarne and ‘Apayingv court fee thereon does not arise.<\/p>\n
 ~’}fh’erefo.re;.pcoiirtpbeiow has failed to appreciate the same in<\/p>\n
‘prope’r Vperspejctiive and has erred in holding the said issue<\/p>\n
‘ V  .\n<\/p>\n
V ” r 4_  Now coming to the aspect of relief that is required<\/p>\n
‘   the granted in this appeal, it is seen that plaintiff having<\/p>\n
“””\\<\/p>\n
-15-<\/span><\/p>\n
entered into an agreement with defendant for purchase of
\nteak timber in terms of price agreed therein has secured
\nnecessary permission for felling teak timber and secured
\nnecessary permission for transportation of same pur_su:ant”*to<\/p>\n
the right given to him under Ex.P2’7, speciaf.  <\/p>\n
L’ w.\n<\/p>\n
attorney executed by defendant, \u00bb~~’i7tiereiIbHrew,”‘ is if<\/p>\n
entitled to remove the same. Howe’xrer,1’_it is seen’ that’ <\/p>\n
the Dendency of this procetif’-1.,ii*:g% entilfe .titii13ei\u20ac,.Vithat–\u00a7wasrd’<\/p>\n
stored in suit schedule gland wasVVVre1noyed:soldi\u00a7by forest<\/p>\n
department pursuant to’-orderppassedlpjibgrthis court and the<\/p>\n
sale proceeds totthe tu:n’e”of: deposited into<\/p>\n
this C.’._:ourt_A –.dep_art1nent a portion of which is
\ndeposited__pursua_ni–:fto of this Court and balance is<\/p>\n
lying -in the” court} in terms of memo \ufb01led by appellant<\/p>\n
. .”‘-herein’:,.,”as “per meimtes agreed in agreement vide Ex.P2,<\/p>\n
 entitled to a sum of Rs.2,95,451.50. Since<\/p>\n
 paid a sum of Rs.1,()0,000\/– at the time of<\/p>\n
 enteriiigffinto agreement with defendant on 18.5.1992, what<\/p>\n
 to defendant is Rs.1,95,451.50. From out of the<\/p>\n
K  funds which is lying in the Court and as well as put in \ufb01xed<\/p>\n
‘””\\<\/p>\n
-16..\n<\/p>\n
deposit in bank a sum of Rs.1,95,451.50\/\u00ab shall be released<\/p>\n
in favour of defendant on \ufb01ling of necessary voucher’.<\/p>\n
The balance amount from out of the deposit ‘ .<\/p>\n
any accrued thereon. shall be released in fa’vm.:i{‘of”plai:ni:i:_ff “~<\/p>\n
on \ufb01ling of necessary voucher by  inlltlhlslllbehltalf. ll    at<\/p>\n
16. Accordingly, appeal  by’1:laintlft’~Vts”:.allowed in” V<\/p>\n
part. The office is direeted toVAyrelfease”~\u00bbt,l1e a1nount_.deposited
\nin bank to plaintiff   aforesaid manner
\non \ufb01ling of necessary volziohelflhy’ tl:1te_rn.for…jpEiyrI1ent.<\/p>\n
Sd\/,..\n<\/p>\n
Iudge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Ramesh Kumar vs M R Murugeshappa on 19 October, 2010 Author: S.N.Satyanarayana – 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 19′?” DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 BEFORE ‘I’HE H()N’BLE MRJUSTICE s.N.sA1:YANARAYAfNAf”–\u00ab.;’ __ R.F.A.NO. 1033\/2000 BETWEEN: RAMESH KUMAR S\/O. , MAJOR R\/O.NO.188, 2ND STAGE INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-38 REPTD BY […]<\/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-197014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Kumar vs M R Murugeshappa on 19 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\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Kumar vs M R Murugeshappa on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-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=\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-02T20:17:24+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Kumar vs M R Murugeshappa on 19 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-02T20:17:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2546,\"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\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Kumar vs M R Murugeshappa on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-02T20:17:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Kumar vs M R Murugeshappa on 19 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Ramesh Kumar vs M R Murugeshappa on 19 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\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Kumar vs M R Murugeshappa on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-02T20:17:24+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Kumar vs M R Murugeshappa on 19 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-02T20:17:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010"},"wordCount":2546,"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\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010","name":"Ramesh Kumar vs M R Murugeshappa on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-02T20:17:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-kumar-vs-m-r-murugeshappa-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Kumar vs M R Murugeshappa on 19 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:\/\/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\/197014","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=197014"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197014\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}