{"id":197769,"date":"2010-12-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010"},"modified":"2017-05-26T16:54:34","modified_gmt":"2017-05-26T11:24:34","slug":"chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Chikkamuniyappa vs Abdul Jaleel Being on 7 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Chikkamuniyappa vs Abdul Jaleel Being on 7 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Subhash B.Adi<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 7'?\" DAY OF' DECEMBER 2013.\u00bb\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH'?$: Am D'   A'\n\nREGULAR FIRST APPEAL I\\IO}'1'446\".O1?\u00ab.\"2O:O5V:v    \n\nRFA CROB. NO. 13 OF 2006 - =\n\nRFA NO.1446 of 2005\nBETWEEN:\n\nCHIKKAMUNIYAPPA\n\ns\/0 LATE SADAPPA, \n\nA\/A GTYEARS,   '\n\nAGRICULTURI_ST;.\u00ab_  I    :\n\nMALURTOW.N>. . .,  4.  \" \nMALUR--5'F151._'2.    ...APPELLAN'i'\n\n(BY  ADV}\nAND: V V V D\n\nABD'UI, JALEEL 'BE,11\u00a7Q,\n\n. '  'S\/vCJ\"AUEF'UB%EING.\n A\/A.V72..Y33ARS';v _\n' E-AC%RIC{.ILTURfSVTJ~\n\nR\/A'--IT'KONDASHETI'Y HALLI VILLAGE.\nTEKAL H.0I;3'I;--1;\nMALURTALUK,\n\n'-.MALUR,, 3 571512. ...RESPONDE3NT\n\n  \"SR1 D.L.N RAO & SMT S.R.AN'URADHA FOR C\/R.\n  s;.R1'c.sHANKAR REDDY. ADV FOR\n'   IIVEPLEADING R2 & Rswmo)\n\n\n\nTHIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 4&1 RULE 1\nR\/W SEC96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND\nDECREE DATED 19.07.2005 PASSED IN O.S.150\/98__ON\nTHE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE [SR.DN.)<3I C.J.MHKQLIAR\n\nPARTLY DECREEINC. THE SUIT FOR S'PEC1_'EI{l\n\nPERFORMANCE.\n\nRFA CROB. NO. 13 OF 2006\nBETWEEN;   -\n\nABDUL JALEEL BEING\nS\/O AUFUBEING,\n\nA\/A 72 YEARS.\n\nAG RICULTURIST,  I\nR\/AT KONDASHETIY HALL] VII...L.A'C}E,"--\u00bb..\nTEKAL HOELI, V  I   , I\nMALUR TALUK,  ~\n\nWILUR. -- 571512.\n\n OBJECTOR\n(BY SMT S.R.A1'JI'LIRAD\u00a5IA AND' \nSMT KUSUMA A133"\/s)  if; .\n\nAND: \n\nCHIKKAMUNIYAPPA---.."-- \nS\/O LATE  APPA,  "\nA\/A E7\u00ab.YEAR'S_,.., I ' '\nAGRfCULTURIST;'~~ .  ..... <4 .\n\n-  L  'IX\/IA1;.UR3TOWN.\n \u00bbMAI.UE.;-ET 1512. ...RESPONDENT\n\n - I".2,TI9II\u00e9''_'*RF'I\u20acXI3ROB. IN RFA 1446\/O5 IS FILED UNDER\n\nORDER 4.1. ERULE 22 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT\nANDDECREE DATED 19.07.05 PASSED IN O.S.150\/98 ON\n\n '-THE F'ILEi~OF' PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.] & C.J.1V\u00a3., NOLAR\n\n" --_PAETLY  DECREEING THE SUIT OF' THE APPELLANT\n\n  _1~IE_RE}IN FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND PERMANENT\n.  INJUNCTION.\n\n\n\nTHE APPEAL AND CROSS.OBJECTEO1\\i COMENG ON\nFOR ADMISSION THIS DAY. THE COURT MADE__THE\nF'OLLOWING:~  \n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
This is a defendant’s appeai  <\/p>\n
and decree in os 150\/98 dated i9;7V ;2oo5 <\/p>\n
the Principal Civil Judge .\n<\/p>\n
2. Piaintiff has  filed;:’cr_osvsf_’ot)jsections 13\/06
\ninsofar as  onfissuet’_jr1o\u00a72″Vj’no1dii’1g that the<\/p>\n
defendant w’;s_”‘riiiot  possession in part<\/p>\n
performance .ofV ihe \u00e9agreedmelit.<\/p>\n
_  Parties .Wi11″be””referred as per their ranking in<\/p>\n
\u00b0=the”‘tria;i=Court. ” “”” ”\n<\/p>\n
 A 7?;’\u00a73uAiit is one for specific performance of an<\/p>\n
‘.V_agre’e:ri’ei1i.V”dated 15.3.1990 and 28.4.1994 and for<\/p>\n
peiriiianent injunction from aiienating the suit schedule<\/p>\n
\u00ab%3:”’\/<\/p>\n
1w<\/p>\n
property as well as interfering with the possession of the<\/p>\n
suit schedule property by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
5. The case of the plaintiff is that the   V’
\nthe owner of sites. He entered into”a-I1. agreerner;_tlld~atedv..A
\n15.3.1990 interalia agreeing to   <\/p>\n
Property for consideration”‘~l5’fi,   He V<\/p>\n
received advance amotxnpt — and agreed to
\nreceive balance of Rs.l.0\u00a3)  hefofref_’.:t.1\u00a211e’_Subwregistrar
\nat the time of  It was also<\/p>\n
admitted ldpending on the file of<\/p>\n
Maiiuryceui-tvee::.t::oe’peiepoee1 of the same, defendant<\/p>\n
would e,iieeut.e   deed. Subsequently, on<\/p>\n
  defer1,(:1ar1t received further sum of<\/p>\n
  the plaintiff and executed another<\/p>\n
a’green1entf’j_ agreeing to receive the balance of<\/p>\n
V\/~ and admitting that he had already received
\nA “:f.”_Rs.4’f\u00bb,500\/~ and agreed to execute the sale deed on<\/p>\n
  demand. On 31.8.1998, the case pending in the Mallur<\/p>\n
Court was disposed of however defendant did not take<\/p>\n
any steps to execute the sale deed. Aecordingly\ufb01the<\/p>\n
plaintiff made an attempt to get the sale  <\/p>\n
but the defendant tried to avoid executionof  9 <\/p>\n
As such plaintiff was constrained todissuue”:<\/p>\n
on 15.10.1998 which was replied  the  <\/p>\n
accordingly he \ufb01led the suit for. ,:specific”perlorn}1ance of<\/p>\n
the contract.\n<\/p>\n
6. DQf\u20aclHid\u00e9.\ufb02t ion; s.ervice’.j_’~o.f_. spjummons, filed a<\/p>\n
written statement.lirete\u00e9raiiad’contending the land bearing<\/p>\n
Sy.Nol*l6l of’  was a Thoti Inam Jarnin<\/p>\n
registered :h\u00e9”n.\u00e9:1\u00a71et\u00a7\u00a7:*s defendant and his brother and<\/p>\n
    yteiarsv___n.o:n–alienation clause in the regrant
\n orderp. ~ stated that suit is pending between
\n Abdul Sattar Khan in OS 14\/98.\n<\/p>\n
 Pla\u00e9idntittiind the said suit did not succeed and as such, he<\/p>\n
A “it the agreement in this case. Suit is collusive<\/p>\n
‘   further alleged the judgment and decree in OS<\/p>\n
14\/98 is questioned in RA 212\/98 and that it is not<\/p>\n
finaliy disposed of. He further alieged that the order of<\/p>\n
regrant is dated 12.6.1972 with a nonwalienatiohj<\/p>\n
and as such pkaintiff is not entitled for  <\/p>\n
sought for dismissal of the suit. <\/p>\n
‘7. The trial Court on _thev4b.asis of t]:1;e:’<\/p>\n
framed fokiowing \ufb01ve issues:\n<\/p>\n
(1) Whether  :__p:ro’+.res thatfon
\n15.03.1990; ‘:jefe11dantsr\u00a2:ag;<e\u00e9d; to sell
\nthe_:'s1,_1it pi-\u00a3:p.\u00a7;rty:'  Rs,:.id'1"\u00bbr,27,500\/-<\/p>\n
 “””    agre’e\ufb01:1ent of sale by<\/p>\n
=  amount of Rs.27,500\/ —\n<\/p>\n
 plaintiff proves that on<\/p>\n
 18,000\/– to the<\/p>\n
 Sitfendant acknowiedged it and<\/p>\n
u28d.U4…1994, he paid sum of<\/p>\n
defendant.\n<\/p>\n
.’:”:gie’1ivered possession of the suit
\nproperty in part performance of the<\/p>\n
agreement’?\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Whether the suit is in time’?<\/p>\n
Wu;\/1}<\/p>\n
, ,.,\u00bb-0\u00bb<\/p>\n
crow<\/p>\n
(iv) Vlfhether the plaintiff is entitled to
\nspeci\ufb01c performance of the ._<\/p>\n
agreement?\n<\/p>\n
(V) Vl\ufb02aat decree or order?\n<\/p>\n
8. Plaintiff examined four witnesses to  K  <\/p>\n
and marked EX.P.1 to 13.31.\n<\/p>\n
Chikkarnuniyappa was examined <\/p>\n
DA: were marked in his evidericel’\n<\/p>\n
9. The trial COt1:.i_’fi\u00ab–Or1  of theevidence<\/p>\n
held if  _  agreement dated
\nl5.3.lQ9Q “\\vhe1’ein:f1\u00e9t”;{\u00a7fef1dant agreed to sell the suit<\/p>\n
schegdule propertv’ for l\u00a7.s.l,27,5OO\/A by receiving sale<\/p>\n
 of \u00ab~. Plaintiff also proved that<\/p>\n
 had paid further sum of Rs.18,000\/–.<\/p>\n
F’ur’the:jj ‘ the trial Court held that plaintiff h_as not<\/p>\n
it .:lpr9vedl””his possession in part performance of the
\n.’  coritract. However, it granted the decree for specific<\/p>\n
l  “performance of the contract. It is against this judgment<\/p>\n
and decree the defendant has filed the appeal and as
\nagainst the finding on issue as regards tor”-the
\npossession of the plaintiff. plaintiff has
\nobjection. l l V\n<\/p>\n
10. Learned Counsel for
\nthat the land is an inam land.  dispute.
\nregranted is also not in  ‘pelr”vtheV;regrant
\ndated 12.63.1972, there._..is_l3ar  forula period
\nof 15 years and it isiielear   of regrant
\nE’.x..D.1.    this period
\nis Voidlias opposed to the public policy<\/p>\n
and opposed to’ provisions of regrant order. As<\/p>\n
 sucfii, p_laintiff  entitled for a decree of specific<\/p>\n
 ‘plerforri1_ai~ie’e.lof the contract. He further submitted that<\/p>\n
e.v’en’iothe1’\u00a7.vivfis’e. plaintiff who claims to be in possession,<\/p>\n
lV._phowever}_possession could not have been delivered by<\/p>\n
A fdthel”defendant as delivery of possession amounts to<\/p>\n
  alienation and alienation having been prohibited under<\/p>\n
\u00a7
\n‘<%l':3',\/'S<\/p>\n
the regrant order. the Whole contract is Void contract.
\nand unenforceable in law and the suit for specific<\/p>\n
performance is liable to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
11. Sri D L N Rao, learned–Si”.\u00bb–Coulnse\u00e9ll if<\/p>\n
for the plaintiff submitted  is \u00ab. <\/p>\n
15.3.1990 on which date’\u00ab:t’hce  paid if 9<\/p>\n
Rs.27,500\/ W. However, on” “1994 9 A the  plaintiff
\nentered into another the defendant
\nagreed to execi\u00a7:tpe:Z’the::__regis~tered’iisa.lVe__V:deed by receiving<\/p>\n
balance sale   ‘1-\u00a7sv.’82,000\/~. Plaintiff<\/p>\n
admitted “tllatVine-v..:hasl”a.r:e’ceived Rs\/15,000\/– which is<\/p>\n
clear  He further relied on the<\/p>\n
 o:f_PW?L’vvho\u00abi1as admitted both the agreements.<\/p>\n
  P1 and P2 and the evidence of PW1<\/p>\n
andfllPW2le:’i.V_plaintiff has proved the agreement and<\/p>\n
‘V’..,IZ)E1yi’11\u20acI\ufb021’l’fI. of advance amount. Exs.P.26 and 29 are the
\n statement and certified copy of the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
 hystatement in OS 14\/98. In the written statement, the<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant has admitted the agreement in favour of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff, though the defendant had tried to deny but it<\/p>\n
is evident from Ex.P.26 to 19.29. These doeumentsgi’-dog’<\/p>\n
prove the execution of the agreement betweeh  V’<\/p>\n
and defendant. Sofaras the no’ri–‘a1iena1’tion:A9clatise\ufb02is3<\/p>\n
concerned, admittedly agreeme11t:”i._s9o_r1 1913119909′<\/p>\n
in the Written statement, tE1e’–\ufb01:g’g=fendarrt..hhasfstieeifioally
\nstated that the regrant o_rder’is   even if
\n15 years period is counted”)’fr1om.._fthe,z__said day, the<\/p>\n
agreement is;In”u;::1*i beyoisidefthefi3eri_od,T’of 15 years and<\/p>\n
there   to”e1″1forc.eVVVthe said agreement. He
\nalso su’bIr1i’t  that Amendment Act<\/p>\n
came ‘into  ‘on 1.7.2″…1978 to the Karnataka Village<\/p>\n
9if’OffiCer\u00a7_~.”f,bo1ition  1961 and by virtue of insertion of<\/p>\n
99 ialiienatioii of regrant iand is prohibited for<\/p>\n
15 “years;  agreement though dated 28.4.1994 is<\/p>\n
Jb:eygnd”w–*15 years from the date of the insertion of
\n  S_eCtion 7{A). As such looking from any angle, there is<\/p>\n
if  “no prohibition to enter into an agreement either in 1990<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
or subsequently in 1994. He also relied on Ex.P.2 and<\/p>\n
submitted that on perusal of Ex.P2, is much afterepthe<\/p>\n
period of 15 years prohibition. As such, looking’:<\/p>\n
any angle, there is no prohibition to enter  <\/p>\n
agreement either in 1990 or subsedueintiy igfi <\/p>\n
also relied on EX.P2 and p.subrriits:”‘-that ‘ <\/p>\n
agreement. which is proVedl”b_\\E”the   the
\ntrial court. In Ex.P2,\u00bb there Iieciitaippshov\ufb01ingivvthat the
\nplaintiff has been put   such, such<\/p>\n
possession is in-‘part ip’erfo’1’r_r1arrce..\u00a7of the contract<\/p>\n
internist’   thlelliliransfer of Property Act
\nand submitted’  viight of these provisions and<\/p>\n
also the transaction is not having been hit by provisions<\/p>\n
–    of ‘the’Karnataka Village Offices Abolition<\/p>\n
 is entitled for decree including the<\/p>\n
perrnane1’1T!\u00ab:”” injunction holding that he is put in<\/p>\n
it  Vp\ufb02possession in part performance of the contract.<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
12. In the Eight of the above submissions, the
\npoints that arises for consideration in this appea1’e’p:tS\u00bbeas
\nto:\n<\/p>\n
vxmether the plaintiff has  .\n<\/p>\n
possession in part perforrnanee ~it)f.__t1a_\u00a2~..1′”j<\/p>\n
Contract?\n<\/p>\n
Whether the p1atht_iff_is Ventitlejd ttrprw
\nspecific performanee’ tlae eontraetin
\nView of protfistonsof :\u00a7Karr:1_ata\u00bbka Village
\nOf\ufb01eesAbo1itio–n”pACt?f,__ 11  V <\/p>\n
 thenplaintiff that he entered
\ninto an”Vagree1nen.t Ex.P1 on 15.03.1990 for<\/p>\n
purchase of  property for consideration of<\/p>\n
.1″‘Rvs’:V1–.  the date of the said agreement, he<\/p>\n
I  and subsequently. another agreement<\/p>\n
was\u00ab..ent’e1’ed’ into on 28.04.1994 on which date, he made<\/p>\n
J’furtherpayment of Rs.18,0O0\/M. In Ex.P1, there is no
\n  ‘reference to the deiivery of possession. However. Ex.P2<\/p>\n
1  ~~refers to the payment made under the earlier agreement<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
and on the same sale consideration, the defendant<\/p>\n
agrees to register the sale deed after receiving the<\/p>\n
balance of Rs.82,000\/– as he had received  <\/p>\n
as on the date of Ex P2. There is a reci.tal..liin.v said”  <\/p>\n
agreement which states that  <\/p>\n
second agreement i.e.,  defenda;1;:has_jl\u00a7put <\/p>\n
the plaintiff in possession of  property.
\nHowever, the trial  issue No.2
\nthough has referred   also having
\nfound the   — has been
\nreceivt\ufb01sil\ufb01ycr that in Ex.P2,
\nthere  “possession mentioned. This<\/p>\n
\ufb01nding in  isvscontrary to the recital in EX.P2,<\/p>\n
 ‘refers  delivery of possession by the<\/p>\n
  during the course of the arguments,<\/p>\n
learned” ‘Counsel for the defendant submitted that<\/p>\n
.Tdel,piver’y~'”of possession in favour of the plaintiff is in
\n  “violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Village<\/p>\n
T  ‘”Of\ufb01ces Abolition Act as it amounts to alienation. In<\/p>\n
  soaight  decree only on the basfg<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
View of the same, if Exs.P1 and P2 are admitted and
\nfound true, the recital therein clearly estabiishesvthe<\/p>\n
possession of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
14. However, it is not in dispute that_t’h,:e  _ it <\/p>\n
was aware of the fact of filing  in <\/p>\n
Para–4 of the plaint speeifieally refers = the  “whieh <\/p>\n
reads as under:–\n<\/p>\n
“As per   :\u00abti1eA”‘agreernent dated
\n15.03.1990, the  pending on
\nthe \ufb011e_Vdf4’_Ad:t!1.C\u00a7_ii?i1  [Ji:’;.Dn], Maiur, Was
\ndisposedv   and the suit which was<\/p>\n
filedfa-gainst thte_de;fendant was dismissed”.
\n1’15,.P1aintiff’Was’aware of the pendency of the suit<\/p>\n
1\/.\n<\/p>\n
of<\/p>\n
  said suit. The present suit has been<\/p>\n
\ufb01iednn  .v1f'(). 1998  after the dismissal of the suit in<\/p>\n
 88. In the written statement, the defendant<\/p>\n
%&<\/p>\n
r4′<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
at para–3 has specifically alleged that suit for specific<\/p>\n
performance has been filed against the defendaintiigin<\/p>\n
O.S.No.1\u00bbii\/88 and the said suit has been  <\/p>\n
31.08.1998. He also states that R.A.212,xi3afis peindi\ufb01gn  <\/p>\n
and therefore in View of the pendencyloif .l<\/p>\n
the litigation is not yet -*;onclude(l,lV’ the <\/p>\n
plaintiff and the  This
\nstatement of the defeiidlantl–l.pi1i.:alires.’p’it:jabtmdantly clear
\nthat the plaintiff  the knowledge
\nof pender1(3\u00a7\u00a7’j..(\u00a7j.fy<tll'ile:  performance and also
\nthey   of the suit their
\nrights   nor the plaintiff<\/p>\n
wouldbe entitled7'tol'-enforce his agreement. However,<\/p>\n
'these ljgeadings being on record, the trial court has not<\/p>\n
'*-evenpf'fran1edf~a;ny issue in this regard, that is as to<\/p>\n
wh"ethe.r'  plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific<\/p>\n
.lpp.l'pe,ri\u00b0orrri–ance. in View of the suit in O.S.No.l4\/88,
\n  iinfortunately, the vendor had not even taken steps<\/p>\n
 "either to get the suit stayed or to get the suit clubbed<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
along with this suit., when the properties are same and<\/p>\n
vendor is same, and nature of suit: is also same.  <\/p>\n
16. There is aiso prohibition under   *
\nthe Act which came Into force ioii” ‘Au
\nvirtue of this, there is
\ninto the agreement. Agreeri1’erit..entAe’re_d’into: the ”
\nprohibited period, earinpot  his aspect of
\nthe matter has been  bench of this<\/p>\n
Court in ILR  H ‘V<\/p>\n
 ‘However, _  1.earned Senior Counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that ‘the’tiIir.pst’\u00abagreement is hit by Section 7-<\/p>\n
A of the  the ‘plaintiff has entered into second<\/p>\n
on  and on the said date, even 15<\/p>\n
  07.08.1978 had expired and there<\/p>\n
was..no”1egai impediment to enter into an agreement.<\/p>\n
‘1’hi__s aspect of the matter though arises in the suit<\/p>\n
it  however’ the trial court has not framed proper issue and<\/p>\n
 “has not addressed the legai issues. In my opinion, the<\/p>\n
$5?\n<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
Vital issue is as to ‘whether the agreement of the
\nplaintiff is hit by provisions of the Karnataka Vfilrlage<\/p>\n
Offices Abolition Act or not, is required to be <\/p>\n
by the trial court. Secondly, ‘Whether   <\/p>\n
would be still entitled for specific’ <\/p>\n
light of the OS 14\/88 as itis statedthat <\/p>\n
been decreed, in these circunisitazices,l”t3ie”A’\u00a3lriali.;Clourt is
\nrequired to consider  14’\/88$ and its
\nconsequences. In   find that the<\/p>\n
matter requires l\u00a7jecoris.idera”tioii,V V  ‘V <\/p>\n
  the following-\n<\/p>\n
it    KORDER<\/p>\n
[1]  ” v–..lAppeal is partly allowed.<\/p>\n
   The judgment and decree of the
\nV  trial court is set aside and the
\nmatter is remanded to the trial<\/p>\n
court to consider whether the
\nplaintiff would be entitled for<\/p>\n
speci\ufb01c performance in the light<\/p>\n
of O.S.No.l4\/88 and<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
subsequently in R.A.No.212\/98<\/p>\n
and consequences thereon and__.__
\nalso Whether the agreement
\nthe plaintiff is hit by provisions– .  it
\nKarnataka Village
\nAbolition Act.   ” ”  4′<\/p>\n
(iii) Cross obje\u00e9tionsliil\ufb02f  Piaiv\ufb02etiff is it  <\/p>\n
allowed  finding
\nNo.2 as  the
\nthat   not hbleen
\nput in   and<\/p>\n
.-:;th_e   to the<\/p>\n
4′  to; frjamellproper issue<\/p>\n
  above findings and
\n‘  “the same as early as<\/p>\n
” . p’ossi_bl’e<\/p>\n
“(i\\{]  are permitted to lead<\/p>\n
   further evidence if any.\n<\/p>\n
‘  It is open to the parties to file an
\napplication before the trial court
\nand if such application is filed, it
\nis open to the defendant or the<\/p>\n
plaintiff to file objections.\n<\/p>\n
\u00ab\u00a7>*s.,:g<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
19. There is an application for
\nthe applicant interalia claiming thatihe\u00e9i V’
\nplaintiff in
\ninitially dismissed, : has.iA:”.__  <\/p>\n
R.A.212\/98 and the”‘*vs<i:.s'aid vhdeefee "Been it<\/p>\n
Con\ufb01rmed by  Ceiiit"  ttie Apex
\nCourt. It is open-i_ to seek
\nimp1ea(i_if1g:,i':tt\u00a7ef0ife the  Subject to the<\/p>\n
oppoi'tu:iit.;y" " g 'p\u00e9irties.<\/p>\n
Sci\/~3
\nIUDGE<\/p>\n
' Sri_e..(111:_:E:–33ci} '  _ <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Chikkamuniyappa vs Abdul Jaleel Being on 7 December, 2010 Author: Subhash B.Adi IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 7′?” DAY OF’ DECEMBER 2013.\u00bb BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH’?$: Am D’ A’ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL I\\IO}’1’446″.O1?\u00ab.”2O:O5V:v RFA CROB. NO. 13 OF 2006 – = RFA NO.1446 of 2005 […]<\/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-197769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChikkamuniyappa vs Abdul Jaleel Being on 7 December, 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\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chikkamuniyappa vs Abdul Jaleel Being on 7 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-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=\"2010-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-26T11:24:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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\\\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chikkamuniyappa vs Abdul Jaleel Being on 7 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-26T11:24:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2294,\"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\\\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Chikkamuniyappa vs Abdul Jaleel Being on 7 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-26T11:24:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chikkamuniyappa vs Abdul Jaleel Being on 7 December, 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":"Chikkamuniyappa vs Abdul Jaleel Being on 7 December, 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\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chikkamuniyappa vs Abdul Jaleel Being on 7 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-26T11:24:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chikkamuniyappa vs Abdul Jaleel Being on 7 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-26T11:24:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010"},"wordCount":2294,"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\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010","name":"Chikkamuniyappa vs Abdul Jaleel Being on 7 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-26T11:24:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chikkamuniyappa-vs-abdul-jaleel-being-on-7-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chikkamuniyappa vs Abdul Jaleel Being on 7 December, 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\/197769","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=197769"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197769\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}