{"id":206458,"date":"2010-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010"},"modified":"2015-07-29T07:30:31","modified_gmt":"2015-07-29T02:00:31","slug":"umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Umadevi Kumar vs Goverdhan Dass on 10 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Umadevi Kumar vs Goverdhan Dass on 10 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: N.Ananda<\/div>\n
_. 1 an\nIN THE HEGH COURT op\" KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DEcEMB13:Ii2o'_1ek?:;~ ~ \nBEFORE A A\"  2 \nTHE HONBLE MR.JUs\"fiCE ~N.ANz24z\\itjA__  \n\nCRIMINAL  NQ.9'Q1\/2004 \" . 2\nBE'I'WEEN:   A. '  \"  .\nSmt.UInadevi Kurnar\n\nW\/o Sri.Keshava Kumar\n\nAged about 40 Years J \n\nNo.284, 3431 Cross, 93* Main  _  , \n\n4th Block, Jayanagar, Barigaiore. E }    A  ...APPELLANT\n[By Sri.K.Raghavendra, AdVovcat'Ve'fo'r Sri.Cv.V~..Nagesh, Sr.\nAdvocate} r     7 \"\n\nAND: H     \nSri.Goverdhan\u00ab.Dass'_V__      '\n\nS\/0 ;\u00a3{.K.Dassg.. 4 _ \n\nAged';91\u00a7c=ut 44'yea.rst _  -. ' '\n\nNo.124., 2021 Cross .:_K_.R;Layo:.;t\n\nBib Phase, J;~P.Na*gaf,.Ban'galore W 560 078.\nPresently V' \"\n\nN(;j.78,_.19th Mainf 2011 Cross\n\nS.fv'[.S,_La3(out, 5\ufb01'rP1.1.as'e, J .P.Nagar\n\n .Banga1ore?--.560 078. ...RESPONDENT\n'  {By E-3-1_I1t;Ncthravathi.K, Advocate for K. Giridhar 8: P.V.Vasudevan\n Ass_oeta'Les'; .Ak.ivocates)\n\n V'.I'}'1is:'.y.ai3peal is \ufb02ied under section 378(4) Cr.P.C., to set\naside \"---the' judgment dated 29.05.2004 passed by the XX\nAdditvionai City Civil} and Sessions Judge at Bangalore in\n\n A. VC_r1.A.VNo.671\/2003 and restore the judgment dated 04.11.2003\n\npassed by the XV} Additional Chief Metropoiitan Magistrate,\n\nA  Bangalore City in C.C.No.3-4945\/2001.\n\nThis appeal coming on for finai hearing this day, the Court\n\nA delivered the following:\n\n\n\n discharged, the\n\nM2\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
The appellant was the<\/p>\n
comp.lai11_”‘ .;.V  in<\/p>\n
C.C.No.34945\/2001 initiated for an <\/p>\n
undersec\ufb01on 138 oftheINegouabh:insUinnenE\u00a7AcLsL881<\/p>\n
[for short, ‘the Act}, alleging-y_that Viieslponde1’1t,{accuse;d’had’;<\/p>\n
drawn a cheque favouringui”eoinplainanti for 19321 sum of
\nRs.70,000\/– to discharge’_Vl legal–lylrecoverable debt; on
\npresentation, cheque    statutory notice<\/p>\n
caused by the ‘r’;VQmpl\u00e9._inantxto'”acciis~e.d.Was refused.<\/p>\n
2.  Then  not disputing signature on the
\nchequesyghad cor;-tended “that the complainant A frequently
\nvisiting his ..house must have stolen blank signed cheque<\/p>\n
‘i it  – g V f’rom3–th.e “housed of “accused. The accused also contended that
\n     he had borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000\/– from
\n  by pledging his L.i.C. Policy as a collateral
\n security; during the month of October 1999, he settled<\/p>\n
it V._entire loan amount with interest. After entire loan was<\/p>\n
complainant demanded a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.20,000\/– as penal interest. When the accused refused to<\/p>\n
I\\.7<  5\/'~"'-"'"\n<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
‘\\1<\/p>\n
-3 –\n<\/p>\n
pay, complainant has used stolen cheque.\u00ab….to:i.’:
\ncomplaint before trial Court. The accusedi__ha.s.
\nreceipt of statutory notice. The accuse’d
\nhe had shifted his residence froIn__”house
\n20th Cross, K.R.Layout, J 6*};  to
\n“house bearing No.78; .l9ih Main,”‘S.M\u00a7.S.Layout,<\/p>\n
5th Phase, J .P.Nagar,  <\/p>\n
3. The  ;Ti11dgt\u20ac.:_4’oii’.j\/’app;-eciation of evidence
\nhas disbelieved  that complainant had
\nstole::ii”the’_’  The learned trial Judge
\nhas also of accused that he had paid<\/p>\n
entire loan” which he had borrowed from the<\/p>\n
 co1npl:ai.nant.  “”” ‘learned trial Judge has held that<\/p>\n
  caused statutory notice and accused<\/p>\n
avoided of notice, therefore there is deemed service<\/p>\n
 of  The learned trial Judge convicted accused. The<\/p>\n
 accused challenged the judgment of conviction in Criminal<\/p>\n
 ‘Appea1No.671\/2003. ,r\\,_ <\/p>\n
-4 ‘-vrvw<\/p>\n
4. The learned Judge of {appellate Court reversed the
\njudgment of conviction by holding that there was<\/p>\n
of notice on accused; therefore, there was no cause.V’o–\u00a3_l:action<\/p>\n
for the complainant to initiate complaint.   ‘<\/p>\n
of Lappellate Court has found
\nJudge, by holding that posta1_cover–~niarked    ,
\nan endorsement “left the  and  iziraslnolldeemedl
\nservice of notice. The ~-Ifappellate Court has
\nrelied on the admission’  th.fe:vlbl__c.omplainant that<\/p>\n
aCCU.S\u20acd”‘h.7:.jl.li-ileffiihis p\u00abrevious”house about one year prior to
\nthe date 4’ of ” ‘complainant before the trial
\nCourt.  of Lappellate Court has referred<\/p>\n
to’-tthell’provisions______of General Clauses Act, which is not<\/p>\n
\u00bb :relpevant.pte,_fac_ts and circumstance of the case. The learned<\/p>\n
   Court holding that there is no proper<\/p>\n
selfzicelgprextersed the judgment of conviction and acquitted<\/p>\n
C ‘aecpusveld. The learned Judge of {appellate “Court did not<\/p>\n
C”-bother to answer other points, which were considered and<\/p>\n
W ‘  f<\/p>\n
_ 5 _
\ndecided by the learned trial Judge. Ther’e1’o.r”e.,Vp'””..the<\/p>\n
Complainant has filed this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
5. I have heard Sri Raghavendra;K,, l’ea1fI1e0c:3I.f70r ‘ 1.<\/p>\n
the complainant and Miss NethraVathi,’llearr1ed_couf1s.elV’lfor
\naccused and I have bee–na”‘1~.t_hr0ti’gh v:1;\u00a2v~.ev:’\u00a21e11cLe <\/p>\n
judgments of the Courts below…’ <\/p>\n
6. The statutory notice  s’ent–\u00bbfpo__’.Vaccused under a<\/p>\n
registered   The same was<\/p>\n
returned.    postal envelope and
\nackr1ow’ledgrner1t..\u00a71vas’lVinarlged as EX.P.6.<\/p>\n
7. As’=\u00abcoul.dlbeA’see13:~’b0’fr0rn the contents of Ex.P.6, notice<\/p>\n
 E  ton ’tile-…respor1dent\/accused namely Goverdhan<\/p>\n
‘ .l’DapAs–,__res;id1f1g_at N0.124, K.R.Layout, 20*” Cross, 6th Phase,<\/p>\n
” .  l}\u00a73angal0re–78.\n<\/p>\n
8; V-._”Z\\s ‘could be seen from postal endorsement, concerned<\/p>\n
 . Vpostfnan had visited address of respondent on 07.06.2001,<\/p>\n
“f”\u00bb06″.06.2001, 09.06.2001, 11.06.2001 and 12.06.2001, on<\/p>\n
which day he had made an endorsementmiVffi\u00e9cfpithe
\nintimation”. If addressee had left addressp,””‘thev
\npostman would not have made a’riAAendorsem;eritV:’  b T
\nvisited address of respondent 3,,
\n09.06.2001, 11.06.2001 it  i’2.i0.0′.2o0f0ivsih\u00e9refor\u00e9; ‘
\nobservation of learned Jizdgehii’oi\ufb01ljappellateV-tlourt that
\nconcerned postman  as “left the
\naddress” is erroneougsiidddd V V d d<\/p>\n
9. It  diiririgmcross–examination on
\n aaccused was not residing in the
\npreyious vacated previous house about
\none yeadrvpanordpto  The accused might have vacated<\/p>\n
 house on”O6_.__Q6..v2001. The learned Judge of Lappeiiate<\/p>\n
‘  ‘reiying___on this admission has heid that complainant<\/p>\n
H ‘– Addbein\u00e9  of shifting of residence by accused had<\/p>\n
deiiberatedlvy sent notice to earlier address of accused. As<\/p>\n
” already stated, complainant was examined on 14.11.2002.<\/p>\n
  complainant has deposed that accused had Vacated his<\/p>\n
‘T house in occupation about one year prior to 14.11.2002,<\/p>\n
!\\?.=–~:+Q~’0’w~<L,<\/p>\n
_ 7 _
\nwhich relates to 14.11.2001. Therefore, date <\/p>\n
Vacating his earlier house relates to  a<\/p>\n
statutory notice was sent on O6..G6'.2.OO1.'_:a1r.eadyA_statedl 2 j 2'<\/p>\n
the concerned postman had Visited
\n07.06.2001, 08.06.2001,"'._Vo*a..V_0s.l2'o<i_i,.
\n12.06.2001. The learned  1w\u00abappe'll'ate_AAC"o:L1rt Without
\nproperly reading postal endorsement
\nhas recorded    it <\/p>\n
10.   purporting to be<\/p>\n
exe(:::uted2_’by*.fh1’s  respect of house bearing No.78,
\n199* ‘Cross,  Chengama Raja Garden,<\/p>\n
J.P.Nagar”V.fPl1ase, .Bangalore\u00ab~56O 078. This lease deed Was<\/p>\n
  A (;”x.ect1’ted”l*on 20.20’4’.’2001. The lease deed is written on a half<\/p>\n
  The contents of lease deed do not inspire<\/p>\n
‘c_onfid.e.nce..’2The person mentioned as landlord was not<\/p>\n
examined before the trial Court. Even if contents of lease<\/p>\n
3″ , ideed are accepted on their face value, we do not find date of<\/p>\n
 delivery of premises to accused either on 20.04.2001 or on a<\/p>\n
subsequent date. f\\; _  0,_ L  ‘<\/p>\n
 8 V\n<\/p>\n
11. At this juncture, it is relevant to state thattoauccused<\/p>\n
had relied on Ex.D.2. The accused has not
\nhad taken delivery of possession of premises. hp
\nThe accused was examined on  T
\ncontended that he vacated: his e;u1_i\u00a7r house.  “a\ufb01g1’ta:”it\u00a2r_
\nexecution of alleged lease   Thettaccused
\nhas not produced   that he
\nhad left his previous  In the normal<\/p>\n
course, if a  were to shiftf’huismresidence, he has to<\/p>\n
necessarily’  samewto domestic gas supplier,
\ntelephone intimate postal department<\/p>\n
rega.rding\ufb02\u00b0chVa11ge of postal address. The accused has not<\/p>\n
  p pro’dt1’eedi~a scrap”‘o”f paper to prove that he had shifted his<\/p>\n
  20.04.2001. The lease deed as per Ex.D.2 is a<\/p>\n
T ‘ooncoctedidocument. The Courts below have disbelieved the<\/p>\n
doctzment marked as E3x.D.2.\n<\/p>\n
 12;: Thus from the above, it is clear that statutory notice<\/p>\n
 as per E3x.P.7 was sent to correct address of affugsed. The
\nr’
\nI<\/p>\n
3’\\_?, (x ”  C5″-“””\u00a3;\\,<\/p>\n
accused was not available at the time of  of<\/p>\n
registered post. The postman had Visitedfthe-A.hou’seV_$_”of”<\/p>\n
respondent on 07.06.2001, ..0a..0e.2001i_,d7–02.’0e’.120o..1,V’<\/p>\n
11.06.2001 and 12.00.2001, o\u00a3~.,w\u20ac1:ich  <\/p>\n
intimation, which is c1ear__.fr.om end0rse1nei1t””‘made in<\/p>\n
Ex.P.6. As already stated,  d.udge_of,ii~appeilate
\nCourt has misread  in the copy of
\nLIC policy heldhy aceushedr, 13.3.0.1, address of
\naccused is    Cross, K.R.Layout, 6″‘
\nPhase,    Therefore, finding of
\nlearned of_ Court that there was no proper
\nservicedcf\u00e9d  accepted. The notice sent to<\/p>\n
accused was returned, as it was not claimed by accused.<\/p>\n
‘ 9′  _   in avvhclecisioriddredported in 1999 (8) Supreme 608 (in the<\/p>\n
  case’ ..of\u00ab…huK.i3h.a.skaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan &<\/p>\n
aiaother}, tlfieA9SupreIr1e Court has he1d:~<\/p>\n
“On the part of the payee he has to make a<\/p>\n
it  demand by “giving a notice” in writing. If that<\/p>\n
A was the only requirement to complete the offence<\/p>\n
on the failure of the drawer to pay the<\/p>\n
(V.\n<\/p>\n
c que
\n. \/I A. \ufb01x ‘L~.\u00a3: ,1 1,<\/p>\n
All! 10 _u<\/p>\n
amount within 15 days from the date
\n“giVing”. the travails of the prosecul\u00e9iicil   .
\nhave been very much lessened…-.V.Al_jBu?[~l,\/Qthe b
\nlegislature says that failure on.1;_he’_ of
\ndrawer to pay the amount’ishr_)’u1d
\ndays “Of the receipt’ of the’-said’  V
\ntherefore, clear that  notice”.  the context<\/p>\n
is not the sameyyas retceipt”of”notice.\u00ab  is a
\nprocess of whichilllreceihpig,is  accomplishment.<\/p>\n
It is for the payeevihto. p’\u00a2rn$_n~ii’tije\ufb01prmer process<\/p>\n
by  the ii\u00e9iice. l:to:.”‘tl.1..\u00a2:.fldrawer in the
\nco: __   t it<\/p>\n
14.  NpouiilaClVerting.to~.t_he defence of accused, I \ufb01nd that
\naccused has ta_1{enA’irico__n”sistent and contradictory stands.<\/p>\n
15.~ . in \u00e9i’ decisionlreported in AIR 2010 so 1898 (in the<\/p>\n
l V.  = p V ciasvs:\/jf Rangappd”u.lMohan). the Supreme Court has held:–<\/p>\n
V  ” fllie presumption mandated by 3139 of
\n does indeed include the existence of
\n“leg’ally enforceable debt or liability. This is of
\n“course in the nature of a rebuttable
\npresumption and it is open to the accused to
\nraise a defence wherein the existence of a<\/p>\n
legally enforceable debt or liability can be<\/p>\n
t
\n‘~._&\\.k”C}.\\_’<\/p>\n
f\\.7. CL’ <\/p>\n
W 11 –.\n<\/p>\n
constested. However there can be no doubt;_<\/p>\n
that there is an initial presumption…vv’h.ichf
\nfavours the complainant. S. 139 of   ”\n<\/p>\n
example of a reverse onus clause that
\nincluded in furtherance
\nobjective of improving  credibility’.
\nnegotiable instruments’  2 While   of<\/p>\n
the Act specifies a strong criminall_reme};:1y in
\nrelation to  disshoQnotu_* for’. cheduesv, the
\nrebuttable presdumpptioniutndier-V:f_Section 139 is a
\ndevice  prevent*undue._d_elayf the course of<\/p>\n
litiga{tiorQ\u00bb’ ‘Elovvevgver, it .mU’s’i:—-~’.:>e remembered<\/p>\n
 punishable by S. 138 can<\/p>\n
 be ‘better’described–__as a regulatory offence since<\/p>\n
the bouncing of’c’heques is largely in nature of<\/p>\n
a c’ivilV’wrong’*wh~ose impact is usually confined<\/p>\n
 Vito the “private parties involved in commercial<\/p>\n
 .t1*ans.actions. In such a scenario, the test of<\/p>\n
 :::”\u00bbproportj.onality should guide the construction<\/p>\n
arid interpretation of reverse onus clauses and<\/p>\n
 accused\/ defendant cannot be expected to<\/p>\n
. discharge an unduly high standard of proof. In<\/p>\n
the absence of compelling justifications, reverse
\nonus clauses usually impose an evidentiary<\/p>\n
burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping<\/p>\n
N’  \\___\u00a3L<1<\/p>\n
_12 ,<\/p>\n
this in view, it is a settled position that when
\naccused has to rebut the presumption'.under: *'
\nSection 139, the standard of proof<\/p>\n
is that of 'preponderancell of g_11srobabi'1it_ieg\u00a7\ufb02
\nTherefore, if the accused"gis?'_A_Aablle
\nprobable defence which creates
\nthe existence of a  enfor'ce_able-I debtmor
\nliability, the prosecution–.c_anl'fail. 'l'he=acc:used
\ncan rely on the[materials""-svbrliaiitted by the
\ncomplainant in__order ipraiselvsiiiclii a defence
\nand it'i:s__i'_conceiv;ib1e  cases the
\naccused  adduce evidence of<\/p>\n
his\/11.1e'r  .   \u00ab.\n<\/p>\n
 the 1  accused has disputed that
\ncheque  ‘r1O.t_iV-ssued’ discharge legally recoverable debt.<\/p>\n
 to ‘accused, he had borrowed a sum of<\/p>\n
‘.V.”Rs.g7*’@,,oQo,\/:41rrom the complainant on 06.11.1996 by<\/p>\n
“11.1.C.Po1icy as a collateral security and he was<\/p>\n
demanded to pay interest at 5% per month. In his evidence<\/p>\n
it it ‘byway of affidavit, DWI has stated that he had settled<\/p>\n
 entire loan amount during the month of October 1999 and<\/p>\n
9 obtained an acknowledgment dated 06. 11.1996, duly signed<\/p>\n
!’\\’?.  L4’\/\\~ ’14- .\n<\/p>\n
,13 ,<\/p>\n
by the complainant. This document was neither confronted<\/p>\n
to complainant nor it bears date on which was<\/p>\n
discharged. On the other hand, Ex.D.1 gives<\/p>\n
that on 06.11.1996, accused had pledged_his_u_L..l.VC,:’Policy”tol <\/p>\n
secure loan of Rs.70,000\/–.  soecalled at ‘<\/p>\n
E3x.D.l. does not relate, to tranlsaction\ufb02betwee}>l.,a\u00a2hep<\/p>\n
complainant and accused.l’V’T:he. endorsefneiit ‘reads “this
\npolicy is with SLMCB_&_ Cooperative<\/p>\n
Bank) from 27.10.1999;”-1Thlev’velndo:se\ufb01enti.made on EX.D.1,<\/p>\n
does.\u00bb”n’ot  any”- ‘meaning. Above all, L.I.C.Policy
\n0btE1Vi’K1\u20acd:OI”1  cannot be secured to raise
\nloan. L.l’.C:bPolicy”.’obtained by a person is not a transferable<\/p>\n
scizuritv. Therefore, accused has miserabl failed to rove
\n_ _ __3 pg .. ….. _. Y P<\/p>\n
\u00bb ;’pl.ea o_f’d1scha_rge.\n<\/p>\n
 2 1v’:3,r ._second version of accused that complainant had<\/p>\n
stcl.eri-Viacheque from the house of accused is ridiculous.<\/p>\n
b ‘A The accused has not made it clear as to why he had left<\/p>\n
signed blank cheque in his house. The accused does not<\/p>\n
“give date on which he noticed theft of his slgned blank<\/p>\n
A, 14 _<\/p>\n
cheque. The accused has no case that contents of cheque
\nwere filled up by the complainant. ‘Iherefore.vp.th:\ufb02eo.ry of
\ncomplainant stealing blank signed cheque of
\naccused and thereafter filling up conteiitslvjfqopfp
\npresentation and making use’  ‘
\ncomplaint is totally absurd.  defence\u00bb.
\naccused is hardly sufficient ayailable<\/p>\n
to complainant under ~.s_ectionM1 ofthe Act’.H\u00b0 <\/p>\n
17′. From the above discu’ssion,__._it~.i’s_clear that accused<\/p>\n
had Viu1’itvenablefdefenceto a\\foid– consequences of dishonour
\nof Cfh.eq’~._1’e.’ accused had short–lived success
\nbefore Iuiap-pellate  this juncture, it is necessary to<\/p>\n
reiterate that””short\u00a2.lived success of accused was due to<\/p>\n
.A ymiscofncpepition of facts by the learned Judge of I–appe1late<\/p>\n
 2  I hold that complainant has proved that<\/p>\n
accused “has drawn disputed cheque in favour of<\/p>\n
hi ~ complainant to discharge legally recoverable debt. On<\/p>\n
‘”._Vp’resentatior1, cheque was dishonoured. The complainant<\/p>\n
“had caused statutory notice to the address in which<\/p>\n
5<\/span>
\nR?’  \/\/\/L..~__ f\\\/’__.\u00bb.,_ w<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Umadevi Kumar vs Goverdhan Dass on 10 December, 2010 Author: N.Ananda _. 1 an IN THE HEGH COURT op” KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DEcEMB13:Ii2o’_1ek?:;~ ~ BEFORE A A” 2 THE HONBLE MR.JUs”fiCE ~N.ANz24z\\itjA__ CRIMINAL NQ.9’Q1\/2004 ” . 2 BE’I’WEEN: A. ‘ ” . Smt.UInadevi Kurnar W\/o Sri.Keshava […]<\/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-206458","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUmadevi Kumar vs Goverdhan Dass on 10 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\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Umadevi Kumar vs Goverdhan Dass on 10 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-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=\"2010-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-29T02:00:31+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Umadevi Kumar vs Goverdhan Dass on 10 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-29T02:00:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2149,\"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\\\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Umadevi Kumar vs Goverdhan Dass on 10 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-29T02:00:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Umadevi Kumar vs Goverdhan Dass on 10 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":"Umadevi Kumar vs Goverdhan Dass on 10 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\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Umadevi Kumar vs Goverdhan Dass on 10 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-29T02:00:31+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Umadevi Kumar vs Goverdhan Dass on 10 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-29T02:00:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010"},"wordCount":2149,"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\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010","name":"Umadevi Kumar vs Goverdhan Dass on 10 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-29T02:00:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/umadevi-kumar-vs-goverdhan-dass-on-10-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Umadevi Kumar vs Goverdhan Dass on 10 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\/206458","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=206458"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206458\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=206458"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=206458"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=206458"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}