{"id":201060,"date":"2010-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-07-16T15:04:40","modified_gmt":"2017-07-16T09:34:40","slug":"smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt M C Manjula W\/O K Gopalaiah vs Sri M C Srikantha S\/O Lt B Channappa on 30 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt M C Manjula W\/O K Gopalaiah vs Sri M C Srikantha S\/O Lt B Channappa on 30 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Jawad Rahim<\/div>\n
I\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 30?\" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JuST1cE JAWAE) RA:FiIM.:I:.A:\"'  A\n\nC.R.P. NO.5OzE2EO19_\" \n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1.\n\nSMT M.C. MANJULA,\nW\/O SR1 K.GOPALAIAH \n\nAGED ABOUT 52 YEARS  '\n\nR\/A NO.251, 2ND_Bi;OCK _  , \n3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWA:R\u00a3\\NA\u00a33AR_\nBANGALORE -- 56OVV_O79, I '   ', \n\nSR1 M.C.:S REAiATH;;--_ S,?'0\"'i3.CEE!:A'N'NAP}'5A\nAGED\u00a7.ABO_UT..\u20ac{4\"Y.EA_RS_  \n\nR\/A NOE-'E2     . *\n8TH CROSS,.j'1..5H.VMA.__IN '\n\nJ CNA'GAR,-}<U..RiJBAR\ufb01*.HALLI\nBANGA_VLO.RE- 560 085\n\n M.C..A}AGA_i\\!PdATH, S\/O B.CHANNAPPA\n AGEDABOUT 60 YEARS\n\n" ~ ,R,AfA*HES'sE~8~29225\n\ncELa,E", WE_ST GERMANY\n\n '=~THRO"uG':\u00bba HIS ATTORNEY\n Sm Mi'K.vC.MANJULA\n\nSM.*%'M.c.uRM1LA,\n\nV D\/O B CHANNAPPA\n _.--AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS\n\nW\/O DAKSHINA MURTHY\nR\/A NO.5Lf.1, SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA\nNAZAR MOHALLA,\n\nd'\n\n\n\nGAYATHRIPURAM\nMYSORE-S70 021\n\n'  PETITIONERS\n(BY SR1 N.R.NAGARAJ, AOv.,) \n\nAN\n\nE...'\n\nAGED ABOUT 62 YEARS \nR\/A NO.18, 11TH MAIN ROAD-'   \nVRISHABHAVATHI NAGAR A A'\nKAMAKSHIPALYA\n\nBANGALORE~560 079\n\nEx}\n\nSRI M.C.GOPINATH, S\/O LATE B CHANNA'PPAg\nAGEO ABOUT 62 YEARS  --   \nR\/A NO.B~4\/2, SENIOR WORK INS_PECTOR\n7TH MAIN ROAD, 40TH CROSS   \n\nBWSSE STAFF QUAR.TERS\ufb01_  "\n\nSTH BLOCT<,aJA_YANAGAT;.  \nBANGALC}RE;\u00e9'560.v084g_     \n\nSMT M.C;_SARASw'ATH'I;. D,'\/O\u00ab.CH_ANNAPPA\nAGED ABOUT 69 YEARS  _ '\n\nR\/A NO.373{_707 HO_USE--S)"---..__  \n\nIST "E" MAIN ;..5T':.--! CROSS \n\n4TH PHASE, YELAHANKANEW TOWN\n\n.-'wBANGA~E:;OERE--560 O57. OOOOO \n\nV"SMT'I\\1..,C.--uNADEv1, D\/O B.CHANNAPPA\n\nAG Ea .A'SO'uT"7QT~ -YEA RS\nW\/0. B';V.KRiSH[\\EAMURTHY\n\nA  R\/A NO.9__2?0,.9*"" BLOCK,\n_  T 'NAGARABHAVI 11 STAGE\n<1A"-._3ANGALO:2.E~560 072\n\n'TLS'MTML_C.vA1OEHI, E)\/O B.C:-TANNAPPA\n __"AG:ED ABOUT 56 YEARS\nV j -R\/.A.' No.88, VENKATADRI NILAYA\n "4TH BLOCK, 6TH MAIN\n\n \n\nSR1 M.C.SRIKANTHA, S\/O LATE B.CHANNi'\\':Ij':'PA~.AL:VV: \n\n\n\nNANDINI LAYOUT\nBANGALORE 560 096\n\n5. SMT M.C.SHANTHI, D\/O B.CHANNAPPA\nAGED ABOUT 50 YEARS\nR\/A NO.37\/1, TRILOK  \n8TH CROSS, AzAD NAGAR, CHAMARAIE-ET\u00a7jj-,  A\nBANGALORE--56O O18      \n\n7. SMT M.C.MANJUNATH, S\/O B.CHA'N_NAPPA\u00ab. ~. 2  \n\nAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.'   " \n\nR\/A NO.135  \n\n8TH CROSS, II STAGE, II Bi.;O_CE\u00bb(u\nBASAWESHWARAN-AGAR  --  \n\nBANGALORE--56O O..79;  'A I\n\n  .   iiESi$O:~i'DENTS\n(BY SRI T.SIIV1.AH\/-%.:'NTE$\u00a3H, FOR R1 & R2)\n\nTHIS C.RPii._i-QLECI' .u\/S; .115 OF cpc, AGAINST THE\nORDER.iDATED:: Oii;;:O'2,.2OO9 PASSED IN O.S.7432\/2008 ON\nTHE F1LE,.O'F\u00ab,TH'E., ')(XI~I.__ ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,\nBANGA1;O_R'E., ' REJECTIANG-~.,,',.THE LA. FILED BY THE\nDEFENDANT NO.7',-- THEf?.EI--N 'O\/O 7 R--11 OF cpc.\n\n,"e;'hiS..petiti"O-niViceming on for admission this day, the\n\n = .,,(;0ua.~'\u00a7;"in.:~_Ir:{e the foliiowi\ufb02g\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
.7_””ThiS.’i:\u00e9vi.SiOn under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed<\/p>\n
 ‘x_cfagainSL~~ Order dated 1.2.2010 passed in O.S.7432\/O8 on<\/p>\n
  5_’t’hAe;tfi’i~e of Addl. City Civii Judge, Bangaiore, rejecting the<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
application filed under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. The<\/p>\n
petition is admitted and taken up for final disposal. <\/p>\n
2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed<\/p>\n
O.S.7432\/08 seeking the following reliefs:  V<\/p>\n
1)<\/p>\n
2)<\/p>\n
3)<\/p>\n
for partition and sepa=rate-~ipiossessio-nl’of.__ the<\/p>\n
schedule property by alio__tti–ng 1\/1_-1″‘.s’hate’–~.to~_
\neach of the plaintiffs-and the defei’ida’rjts_,,,an_d pu’-:._><\/p>\n
the plaintiffs in possession of’t.heir “respective
\nshares,   ”  E<\/p>\n
declare that the seti;:’e’mejnt deed dated 19.4.1978
\nwhich is registe*’ed’_as;,*~dot:ume~nt no.1169\/78~79,
\nBook no.1, Volume 3-Dii;’as__ hu_il,and void and not
\nbindingon the…p.i.a_intiff,g  ‘   ‘
\nconsedtgentlyi,decl_a:re..,Vth’at_Vthe sale deed dated\n<\/p>\n
11._2._.g20,\u20acJ5_. re*gis’t,ered,_ as document no.BDA~1~
\n1359$,\/2dda~o<5_;–.stored in co No.BDA–BDAD 75<\/p>\n
rr~rd.ate*d";'i:1,\u00bb,2.2bo.S "al~.d.riithe sale deed dated<\/p>\n
29.A12.._–.2QO35 –wh~i.ch_is registered as document<\/p>\n
 no.RJN?1?04557?\/’2OO5–O6 stored in CD.No.R3i\\lD<\/p>\n
133′ dated ~-2’9.i2,.2{3″O5 as null and void and not<\/p>\n
binding on the plaintiffs,<\/p>\n
_ order. formesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12,
\n” ~.   V. …..\n<\/p>\n
 5):”‘”col’nsequently for permanent injunction restraining<\/p>\n
–, “7””a_ defendant<\/p>\n
her men, her agents, her<\/p>\n
 V.:'”\u00ab::e’pr,es,e~ntatives or any person or persons acting<\/p>\n
‘u’r[ideir or
\nv_.~en(:’umbering or creating any charge on the
\n”,schedule property and<\/p>\n
‘grant such other relief or reliefs as this court<\/p>\n
through her from alienating,<\/p>\n
deems fit under the facts and circumstances of
\nthe case in the interest of justice and equity.<\/p>\n
ARV<\/p>\n
U<\/p>\n
6<\/span>
\nsubmits 0.5.1159\/06 was disposed of rejecting the plaint
\nunder Order VII Rule 1:, C.P.C. as there was no cause of<\/p>\n
action and barred by limitation. He submits rejectiVon.::of..the<\/p>\n
plaint was to the knowledge of respondents <\/p>\n
despite such knowledge, after two years,  suit”is.. <\/p>\n
filed. He contents the present suit be:.l.l’lg:.bEll’iiiE:d=:byl.E-1t\u00a2i5tAlg_0i’!<\/p>\n
11, C.P.C. i.e. principles of,.res judicat’a, it,is3<\/p>\n
rejected for want of cause of  and Vastime barred.\n<\/p>\n
6. Learned counsel’..fo\u00abr the  resisted both the
\ngrounds contending that 1 and 2) are<\/p>\n
proximately”   “petitioner who is their<\/p>\n
brother.  theywlived together when their
\nfather  “acgui.redfthVe-properties through his ancestors in<\/p>\n
MEilLii’~Eii’id aifteir”sale”-ofvcertain properties in Maiur, sqme<\/p>\n
 paidvvlllfor allotment of a site in favour their<\/p>\n
n’iothier;[“~i\u00a7anfia,lamma, investing the money received from<\/p>\n
the.._salV_e- ~o’fifthle joint property. The then City Improvement<\/p>\n
Trust.8.o’ard (B.D.A. presentiy) had allotted the schedule<\/p>\n
 –..pr0_oerty to her by accepting the amount paid by ali farriiiy<\/p>\n
…_.members. He submits since allotment of the site in her<\/p>\n
(;9\\Qr\/<\/p>\n
7<\/span>
\nfavour was on the basis of amount paid by other<\/p>\n
coparceners, the property was not the exclusive prvopertv of<\/p>\n
Kamaiarnma. Respondents herein and 2″” petiti’o’ner..:weVre\u00ab_<\/p>\n
entitled to equai share, However, the 2?”–.p4et~itiofnerA hadf <\/p>\n
received an assignment in :=,Germaf’ny-r_”a.n’dVwanteo<\/p>\n
documentation in his favour in resp_e’ct of.*’the:_sch_edule”‘H.<\/p>\n
property to enable him to  job  resident
\npermit. Only to enabledtsim-‘_V:to\u00a7V.’get.._su’crh_job,xKama|amma
\nexecuted the deed of  above. The
\nsignature of t’h4ef’:g:~\u00a7l’aint*iff{was’.:_obta.i’ned:\u00abunder duress and
\nmisrepreseht.atii_4o’rri.itff”  document styled as
\nsettlenzjent  on the plaintiff. He
\nsubmits”respondefnlitse.ha’d:_:’:gri\u00abot fiied any other suit and this<\/p>\n
was jtneigr fifrstslitigfationivi Referring to the proceedings in<\/p>\n
. if\u00b0’Oy.VS;’*3jiSr9\/O’6,yA_ he fsubrnits they were defendants and not<\/p>\n
~.pVla_intiiffse”-andV”i-hence, there is no question of res judicata<\/p>\n
aga-i.nstV_.thenm\u00a7f Any order passed in that suit would not<\/p>\n
K””‘.__VV’*\u00bbaAmount,to an order suffered by them and hence they did<\/p>\n
if jleuestion the same. He further submits that the<\/p>\n
   .,,sF\u00a7ttlement deed referred to in the prayer column executed<\/p>\n
atilv<\/p>\n
8<\/span>
\nby Kamalamma was without authority as she was not the
\nabsoiute owner of the property and therefore, theldeed<\/p>\n
does not bind the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
7. Keeping in mind what is urged by = <\/p>\n
examined the averments in o..4s.3;-3,59\/Ca5_”‘-as “ais.o<\/p>\n
O.S.7432\/O8. It is apparent ‘from  <\/p>\n
plaints that Saraswatiii, Vaide\ufb01h’i’.’,Vai1d\u00bb  had sought
\ncancellation of the  M1978 and
\nconsequentiy anorderjyoiminjunictiodn”‘.a’n’d:’:V’ap.”decree for grant
\nof mesne   is further noticed<\/p>\n
from the  that the principai relief<\/p>\n
soughtt\ufb02fordi is  second reiief sought is to<\/p>\n
declare the\u00abr..settieme’nt”ci:eed or 1978 as nuii and void and<\/p>\n
 V.  n0ti’i:i’i.nd_iAr:gVvdon the .p_layi.ntiff.<\/p>\n
   _i;e..arn:ed::’counse| for the petitioners is right in pointing<\/p>\n
outdhthat’tfuni\u00e9ss the settlement deed executed by<\/p>\n
Kamaemma in favour of the 2″” plaintiff in 1978 is \ufb02 set<\/p>\n
out,<\/p>\n
A X_”aAsiid”e\u00ab_, there is no question of considering whether the<\/p>\n
‘  property is to be treated as own property of Kamalamma or<\/p>\n
9<\/span>
\njoint famiiy property. Since the said deed is of 1978 and
\nrespondents 1 and 2 are signatories to the said deed, they<\/p>\n
could have challenged the same only within the statutory<\/p>\n
period of 3 years prescribed under the Limitatio~n—Act__.’__i”1Tif_h’ey<\/p>\n
piaintiff being aware of the document and it_s..natuvreA.l.:had  <\/p>\n
sought for a declaration against  even j;in:_th’e’ieariiegr’<\/p>\n
filed in 05.1159\/06 or in any_4_othei”._p’roceed.ing’.s’; ” Fo’r”the”it\u00bb<\/p>\n
first time seeking the reiieif=,\ufb01of_ deVclar_ation.’TEthat the
\nsettlement deed of  nolt  thelrnin the suit
\nfiled in 2008 is hopeiesislybarredil  Respondents 1<\/p>\n
and 2 couid not’ ‘(He ground’ aga’ivn.st.5such proposition. I<\/p>\n
am saitisfiedx”ujn.iess.Vltiieydneed isw\ufb02declared as null and void
\nand not”bVindeing,._.the’~gueistidn of considering whether they<\/p>\n
havea _sharae\u00bb.does not “arise. Besides, the averments in<\/p>\n
  of thenplaint indicate clearly they were not<\/p>\n
   i{n.o$vledge of the document, but were parties to<\/p>\n
it.A “-4The__voniiy= ground against it is, it is vitiated by fraud and<\/p>\n
 migsrepmfsentation “of their signature. If it is so, they should<\/p>\n
  –..nai.rei”sought for a declaration that the document is null and<\/p>\n
10<\/span>
\nvoid, within three years as prescribed under law. That they<\/p>\n
have not done.\n<\/p>\n
9. It is a settled principle of law tha_tf”i’ng’e.n:u:ii:y,’\u00ab_<\/p>\n
iriteiligent drafting, use of phraseology just.to..A4cfrea”te: caus_e._ <\/p>\n
of action indirectly will not entitle the plaifntiff to mlaiiiiami<\/p>\n
suit if it is noticed that by such intel.ligent <\/p>\n
attempting to seek such relief  _otherwiVse’:und,er Eaw is
\nbarred. This is a c|ear.,_’case.”VAof\u00a7. respondent no.2 trying to
\nmislead the adversary  t’h-e.”p..rini:ipal prayer as<\/p>\n
partition but aw”aic}:t;”ally’–,eseei\u00e9ingj .,:a’*V.”‘declaration that the<\/p>\n
settiemcnti ‘i’i’oit~’\u00a3binding, which relief is
\nbarred by  the plaintiff was liabie to be<\/p>\n
rejected  .tiVn1_Ve=barred. The Eearned trial judge<\/p>\n
 con’siti__eri.rig these aspects in the right<\/p>\n
 perspect_i’_ve,fi,s”carried away by the fact that the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
nott~hAeV.pia’.lnti,ffV’in the earlier suit and was defendant and<\/p>\n
Zthatutl1.e”question before him is a question of law and fact.<\/p>\n
 “..jiNotlici.ng the erroneous approach of the trial court, I am<\/p>\n
satisfied the order requires interference and hence, the<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
11<\/span>
\norder dismissing the appiication filed under Order VII Rule<\/p>\n
11, C.P.C. is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
10. No worthy purpose wiil be served by renj.a’n:d”i-rigiwthe<\/p>\n
case for consideration of the said appiication a\u00abtre\u00e9h:.:asidityfis  <\/p>\n
noticed on the basis of admitted f:ac’:’ts’*t4hat”_ythe.”rieiieftseiugxhit I<\/p>\n
in the suit is dearly barred by time,_ It-ience,”‘t.he..pi.ain:t”hias.VV<\/p>\n
to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
11. In the resuit, the_._”revis\u00a7Vion– “aivi\u00bboiJved. In exercise of
\npower conferred gnder   ‘and (d), C.P.C.,<\/p>\n
the piaint in   rejected. In the<\/p>\n
Circumstances;.i’t.hereis–no~ord_er as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt M C Manjula W\/O K Gopalaiah vs Sri M C Srikantha S\/O Lt B Channappa on 30 September, 2010 Author: Jawad Rahim I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30?” DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JuST1cE JAWAE) RA:FiIM.:I:.A:”‘ A C.R.P. NO.5OzE2EO19_” BETWEEN: 1. SMT […]<\/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-201060","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt M C Manjula W\/O K Gopalaiah vs Sri M C Srikantha S\/O Lt B Channappa on 30 September, 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\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt M C Manjula W\/O K Gopalaiah vs Sri M C Srikantha S\/O Lt B Channappa on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-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=\"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-16T09:34:40+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt M C Manjula W\\\/O K Gopalaiah vs Sri M C Srikantha S\\\/O Lt B Channappa on 30 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-16T09:34:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1409,\"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\\\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt M C Manjula W\\\/O K Gopalaiah vs Sri M C Srikantha S\\\/O Lt B Channappa on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-16T09:34:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt M C Manjula W\\\/O K Gopalaiah vs Sri M C Srikantha S\\\/O Lt B Channappa on 30 September, 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":"Smt M C Manjula W\/O K Gopalaiah vs Sri M C Srikantha S\/O Lt B Channappa on 30 September, 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\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt M C Manjula W\/O K Gopalaiah vs Sri M C Srikantha S\/O Lt B Channappa on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-16T09:34:40+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt M C Manjula W\/O K Gopalaiah vs Sri M C Srikantha S\/O Lt B Channappa on 30 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-16T09:34:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010"},"wordCount":1409,"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\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010","name":"Smt M C Manjula W\/O K Gopalaiah vs Sri M C Srikantha S\/O Lt B Channappa on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-16T09:34:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-m-c-manjula-wo-k-gopalaiah-vs-sri-m-c-srikantha-so-lt-b-channappa-on-30-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt M C Manjula W\/O K Gopalaiah vs Sri M C Srikantha S\/O Lt B Channappa on 30 September, 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\/201060","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=201060"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201060\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201060"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201060"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201060"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}