{"id":223283,"date":"2010-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-01-24T02:54:41","modified_gmt":"2015-01-23T21:24:41","slug":"dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dayananda Nayak S\/O Late Lakshman … vs Venkatesh Nayak on 16 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Dayananda Nayak S\/O Late Lakshman … vs Venkatesh Nayak on 16 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ravi Malimath<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE RAVI MALIMAT.H._'<<"[:"A:'~;. V\nREQQLAR secgnn APPEAL Ng.2o31L2Qg\u00a7-[  O'\n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1\n\nDayananda Nayak _\n\nS\/o Late Lakshman Nayak' _ \nAged About 68 Years,  .\nR\/o Naga Bramasathna Road  \nSanthakatta, PuttuvVIi~Eage_\u00ab" " '\n\nUdupi Taluk and Dist'rict~.57e6'iZ1:,4[*2L:-A  \nSundar Nayak  "   _ 'V\nS\/O Late Laks}hrnan'1._Naya~k  " \nAged Aboui'.._5'3_..Yfrs" _;   .  1;. V\nR\/0 C\/ o Su-iufessh Narayajn Y'-ac%av=_ \nMaVhu1..eRo'ad' '\u00abi,____ '' V * *  \nMuvmbai'-A'?4._v 7'; Q\n\nSuresh\u00e9' \u00bb .  \u00bb_ \nAged About 29v._Yr'sV ' V\n\n   _____ \n 'Ag_ed_Ab'oaut 25 Yrs\n\n3o_thO..ae re   ""'of\n\nDayauha-nd_a reayak\n\nA -- R\/o N"aga.'ABra'rna Sathna Road\nj;<.__"Santha"Ka'tta Post, Puttur Village\n" 'V.VALJdu{;i_ Taiuk and District~576215.\n\n'Nitin\nAged About 19 Yrs\n\nDinesh\nAged About 17 Yrs\n\n\n\n1\nf\\.)\n1\n\nBoth are children of\n\nSundar Nayak\n\nC\/o Suresh Narayana Yadav\n\nMahul Road \nMumbai--74.  APPELLANTS.__ \n\n(By Sri. S. R. Hegde Hudlamane, Adv.)\n\nAND :\n1 Venkatesh Nayak\nAged About 47 Yrs\n\n2 Narasima Nayak\nAged About 62 Yrs\n\n3 Madhava Nayak\nAged About 53 Yrs\n\n4 Bhavani Sh.a\u00abnl;<:a*-r Aliies _f:5i_:ij\u00a7ak.eAr~:d.Ai\\&ay\u00e9k:\u00ab \nAged About 5(\u00a7"1"_rs.V    " \n\nRespondent No~v.._i:-tV'.:"L.;_:{Ie  ..  A<\/pre>\n
child ren of” ALa%<.sfL:mar1fiA: Nay"-ak'-<\/p>\n
5 Umes\u00e9ho ' .\n<\/p>\n
Aged About 33 Yrs _ <\/p>\n
_ 6 Q3 hash ., _
\n”  v.A’ge(_1.,Ab.eout 2S’\u00a5-ears<\/p>\n
‘Bother-e. C’h:i’id.r’en’of 1″ Respondent 4<\/p>\n
Ve’.1k’a3_._esh’~ \u00a5\\”i_a,ya~k; V A <\/p>\n
 A A All are”—R\/of.’ S-anthakatta,
\n Kaiyanapura, Puttur Viliage,
\n “U,du,o\u00e9.__Ta|u”k and Dist. — 576 215<\/p>\n
  “‘iviA’rs.Saraswathi<\/p>\n
Aged about 83 Years<\/p>\n
   Panduranga Pai<\/p>\n
Aged about 67 Years<\/p>\n
Mam<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
 .18<\/p>\n
A <\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
Ramesh Pai
\nAged about 69 Years<\/p>\n
Ravindra Pai
\nAged about 57 Years<\/p>\n
Vasanthi
\nAged about 65 Years<\/p>\n
Sumathi
\nAged about 63 Years<\/p>\n
Bharathi
\nAged about 61 Years<\/p>\n
Prabavathi<\/p>\n
Aged about 59 YeaVr-:…_.”:e’-\n<\/p>\n
Mrs.P.Shakuntha|a  ‘V A<\/p>\n
W\/O. Shivananda Pai<\/p>\n
‘.,;J
\n(<\/p>\n
Aged about 5’.?5Y_ears. 3′ <\/p>\n
Bantakal\u00e9 Va’i..\u00a2S’r”‘u’v_a\u00bb   V” <\/p>\n
Bantato’s~t_”—<\/p>\n
Kataxra\ufb01thi Bat   <\/p>\n
W\/<1 Devatdas'-Set."\n<\/p>\n
Aged About 56’Yea,rs’~.\u00ab–“:\n<\/p>\n
Ejahumathiwugi, Sirsi<\/p>\n
V-‘ft_S’a~rsg\u00a7..t}~;;:it_ut<, U}!<;–~-'–".3*ist<\/p>\n
 W  tjpend ra Pai
\n Aged. 'avb_out~E37 Years<\/p>\n
'"\u20acha-r1'1'p'a':""\n<\/p>\n
Aged’:.about 29 Years<\/p>\n
jdsandya
\n” Aged about 27 Years<\/p>\n
Asha
\nAged about 26 Years<\/p>\n
Rekha<\/p>\n
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that, plaintiffs-1 and 2 and
\ndefendants–3 to 6 are the children of the first and second
\ndefendants and defendants\u00bb? and 8 are the minor of<\/p>\n
third defendant. Piaintiffs–3 and 4 are minor <\/p>\n
first plaintiff and plalntiffs~S and 6 are minor”c’hild\u00bbren::ofV if<\/p>\n
second plaintiff. On a share being de.mahd\u00e9e7d,4\u00ab’i.t’.:ihras\u00e9lreireamdi
\nthat the 9″‘ defendant had filedxa suit-._’i’n
\nbefore the Civil Judge (Jr..Dn.),  tgwes’ by the
\nfirst appellate court in  the Civil Judge,
\nUdupi and confirmed by 1979 on
\n23.3.1989.   the back of
\nthe plaintiffs,   seeking for partition.
\n13 a’nd:”.by–considering the evidence on<\/p>\n
record, the suit\u00e9lolf the Va’p’pe!’:l’a–nts’ e plaintiffs was dismissed and<\/p>\n
an appeal ‘was preferred before the first appellate court along<\/p>\n
   under Section 5 of the Limitation Act<\/p>\n
seel'<in'g__clo'r:d'onat.i:on' of the delay of about 801 days in filing<\/p>\n
 the appeal.v-.."Tne'first appellate court considered the application<\/p>\n
 came to the conclusion that since no sufficient cause has<\/p>\n
 t'_j_e_er*…Vm'ade out, rejected the I.A.I and consequently the appeal<\/p>\n
if :l)yas–dismlssed as being time barred. Aggrieved by the same,<\/p>\n
the present appeal is filed.\n<\/p>\n
“:3\/4″”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3. Sri.Hegde i-iudlamane, learned Counsel appearing for
\nthe appellants contends that, the first appellate court was in
\nerror in not condoning the delay and considering the appeal on<\/p>\n
merits. He accordingly pleads that substantial questionsjof law<\/p>\n
arise for consideration in this appeal. Therefore.,\u00ab~~–hei’:pleads,<\/p>\n
that the substantial question of law  <\/p>\n
consideration is, as to whether the ap;pella:te;court<\/p>\n
in not applying the principleselaid down. in the’:j’udgrnie’nts’g<\/p>\n
reported in 2005(4) KCCR 2281″V”i’inHlthe m’atte’ir’–v-of.’::\u00a7TATE or<\/p>\n
NAGALAND –~vs~ LIPOK ;\u00a2li:\u00a7’}”i~,,\/llN_\u00a7Nc\u00a7A’l”.l?!;f!\u00a7vf5~-_and Am 1998 SC
\n3222 in the ‘matter :lV.B.\u00a5lL2<i,i{\u00a3?.JSHNAN –\\\/S*<\/p>\n
M. KRIsHivA'Mo'i\u00e9jf;?ir."': '$1:  l<\/p>\n
4. l;lear’dVt’h,e”‘v’,_lie.arni\u00e9\ufb01l\u00abCounsel for the appellants.<\/p>\n
Respondents have been served and remained unrepresented.<\/p>\n
.  _ 5*.{‘In.”i’su’p.pAort  application seeking condonation of<\/p>\n
d’ei.ay.,;-iti’  that the Counsel appearing in the trial<\/p>\n
  informed the lapplellants that the suit has been decreed. Since<\/p>\n
 suit has been decreed and if and when the other side<\/p>\n
“‘wfouVi’d~..fi’,l.e an appeal, he will intimate with regard to the same.<\/p>\n
“cV%’:’i~lowever, even after long lapse of time, they did not receive<\/p>\n
 information from their Advocate. In order to effect the<\/p>\n
V5”\n<\/p>\n
partition, a document writer was approached, who said that
\nthe judgment and decree in the present suit viz.,
\nO.S.No.841\/1989 was required and when they approached<\/p>\n
their Advocate for the same, they were told that it wjas.,two<\/p>\n
years’ old case and it is not easy to find <\/p>\n
Thereafter, they came to know that the_.s_uit._<\/p>\n
dismissed. It is further stated on thatlthie .:l_.:awf,r.er’<\/p>\n
apologized for giving false information \u00e9andtan app–‘l.iic’a’tion <\/p>\n
made and on receipt of the copuy\ufb02iof the “order-h,’  present
\nappeal is filed. Hence, it  th’a.t. it isvvboha\ufb01de and
\nthe delay in filing the application regltiirg–\u00a2,lVtol.I’,be’,’.condoned.<\/p>\n
6. TVvl’1’e”‘i’Ei.rsti,apip-e’l*!a’te,;’court_'”‘while considering the said<\/p>\n
affidavit came to the:.c’o.nclusi-o:n,..that no evidence has been let<\/p>\n
in in support of iI;A,IV’vanld_:the Advocate, who has caused this<\/p>\n
fdelay, ..w”as,g_n:ot..,_exan9iir”ive–c5\u00ab.” Hence, the appellate court came to<\/p>\n
the conclusviori ,,t’ha’t’—-no sufficient cause has been made out and<\/p>\n
 \u00a2,_the a’pp’l’iicati_onV’tiEetiuires to be rejected.<\/p>\n
 7.  the judgments relied upon do not refer to the<\/p>\n
 ._co’ndonat\u00abion of delay being granted on an application being<\/p>\n
‘   AIR 1998 SC 3223 would indicate the manner in which<\/p>\n
 application for condonation of delay should be considered.<\/p>\n
Q34″\n<\/p>\n
That utmost consideration should be shown to the suitor and
\nthe door should not be shut against him. However, in the
\ninstant case, it could been seen that the applEca_ti..o_ir:..,_:’la_cks<\/p>\n
bonafides inasmuch as there is no effort <\/p>\n
appellants to justify the delay in filing the””a’pp’_ea’l’;::  <\/p>\n
otherwise, the order sheet would disclose~tl:iat,*on-.’a”nurraibe’i=:,of<\/p>\n
occasions, the appellants themselves have Vrenfiailne.d,,Habsentg<\/p>\n
This would, no doubt, lead to   neither the
\napplication is bonafide  interested in
\nprosecuting their legal l’eFl_’2\u20ac\u00a3.’r\u00a7.\u20acS.  even if
\napplied to  to the aid of the
\nappellants. “””  I-ion’ble Supreme
\nCourt came  that the applications should<\/p>\n
receive a liberal.cori~strLi’ct.io”n.,is’In the facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
of this d;’a”se, eve”n__V_ifliberality is stretched to the maximum<\/p>\n
V”.ext:en.t_,””the’  would still not constitute sufficient cause in<\/p>\n
 the Limitation Act. Firstly, the appellants<\/p>\n
V have very conveniently blamed their lawyer for not only giving<\/p>\n
 Enforrnastion stating that the suit has been decreed, when<\/p>\n
‘real’i’Ly’, it has been dismissed, but on the other hand, if the<\/p>\n
…clonteVnts of the affidavit would be true, they should have<\/p>\n
lssllhrisghtly examined the Advocate with regard to the said facts.<\/p>\n
WK”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Dayananda Nayak S\/O Late Lakshman … vs Venkatesh Nayak on 16 February, 2010 Author: Ravi Malimath IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE RAVI MALIMAT.H._'<<"[:"A:'~;. V REQQLAR secgnn APPEAL Ng.2o31L2Qg\u00a7-[ O' BETWEEN: 1 Dayananda Nayak _ S\/o Late Lakshman […]<\/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-223283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDayananda Nayak S\/O Late Lakshman ... vs Venkatesh Nayak on 16 February, 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\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dayananda Nayak S\/O Late Lakshman ... vs Venkatesh Nayak on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-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=\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-23T21:24:41+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dayananda Nayak S\\\/O Late Lakshman … vs Venkatesh Nayak on 16 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-23T21:24:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1092,\"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\\\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Dayananda Nayak S\\\/O Late Lakshman ... vs Venkatesh Nayak on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-23T21:24:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dayananda Nayak S\\\/O Late Lakshman … vs Venkatesh Nayak on 16 February, 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":"Dayananda Nayak S\/O Late Lakshman ... vs Venkatesh Nayak on 16 February, 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\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dayananda Nayak S\/O Late Lakshman ... vs Venkatesh Nayak on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-23T21:24:41+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dayananda Nayak S\/O Late Lakshman … vs Venkatesh Nayak on 16 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-23T21:24:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010"},"wordCount":1092,"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\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010","name":"Dayananda Nayak S\/O Late Lakshman ... vs Venkatesh Nayak on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-23T21:24:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dayananda-nayak-so-late-lakshman-vs-venkatesh-nayak-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dayananda Nayak S\/O Late Lakshman … vs Venkatesh Nayak on 16 February, 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\/223283","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=223283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223283\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}