{"id":225768,"date":"2009-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009"},"modified":"2015-11-12T00:58:22","modified_gmt":"2015-11-11T19:28:22","slug":"richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Richard Benedict vs Smt Lily Peter on 19 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Richard Benedict vs Smt Lily Peter on 19 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: N.Kumar And C.R.Kumaraswamy<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDated this the 19\"' day of November, 2009\n\nPRESENT\nTHE HOIWBLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR\n\nAND\n\nTHE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE c R KUMARAa1xrA:1srh?~:::   \"\n\nREGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1_1298  2'ooi2._'  4'\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nRichard Benedict\n\nS\/0 late J P Anthony\nAged about 66 year\u00e9sf __ V  _  - \nR\/at Anemahal        \nSakleshpuraTa1uk.'  \"      .\nHassar1Distric'L_   \u00bb     ...Appe11ant\n\n{By Sri. i\u00a7\u00a2ddg},\"A\u00a71v\u00a2.;:ate} V\nAND:  . A _, 1 ..\n\n1 Smt. Li1y\"Peter. _ \nWgfov late J. Peter\n\n -  _ Agedgyabouyt 65 \n\n V   Jacob\n\n ._ 'S\/o 1at\"e..,J. Feter\n. Ageci ab'01':t .42 years\n\n  Shiti titizfaiavn Jacob\n\n~.  _ VS\/o late J. Peter\n* V Aged about 39 years\n\n Respondent No.1 to 3\n\n Are r\/at No.123 \n\n \n\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
This is a fourth plaintiffs appeal against the judgment<\/p>\n
and decree of the trial Court which has dismissed theof<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession.__=  if<\/p>\n
2. For the purpose of converiience,..*the._parties Ii’a;e’*:t,;*<\/p>\n
referred to as they are referred lLG’:iI1~._t_’h\u20ac original   <\/p>\n
3. The first plaintiff I}ill3\u00a7_ wifeof Shri
\nJ.Peter and the plaintiffs  First
\ndefendant is the  AGt\u00e9rfan’d—-defendants 2 and
\n3 are their V. and defendants are
\nChristians; H   i\u00e9itlvester are the sons of
\nShri P.Jacob. it  fpiainitiffs is that, both Shri J Peter<\/p>\n
and Shri _J.SylIvesterpp’wei*ve jointly residing and cultivating<\/p>\n
‘jliands in and ~~~ ‘around Banakal, Heggadulu and<\/p>\n
 Chikmagaltir District, under the<\/p>\n
  guidanhcefand’supervision of their father P.Jacob. After the<\/p>\n
 ‘death ofllP.,Jiacoh, his sons were maintaining and looking after<\/p>\n
 Vthiei.propegrties jointly in Various survey numbers situated at<\/p>\n
 E}.\/Il.i–1dA1gere Taluk, Banakal Hobli, Heggaduiu, Biiosahalli and<\/p>\n
 ‘  Baggasagodu Villages which is measuring about 86 acres and<\/p>\n
t\/<\/p>\n
J Sylvester and his family members. However, J.Peter showed<\/p>\n
love and affection towards his brother Shri J.Sylvester and<\/p>\n
his family members. Subsequentiy, he became ill and <\/p>\n
on 9.5.1984 leaving behind his wife, first plaintiff andffhis’  <\/p>\n
sons–plaintiffs 2 and 3 as his legal heirs. Afte_r~vthe’::dea~t11\u00ab.oi” if<\/p>\n
Shri J Peter, plaintiffs 1 to 3 requesijed   .l<\/p>\n
give their half share from they’ s_chedu1_el”‘prope’i;’tiVes._ <\/p>\n
J.Sylvester advised the plaintiffs it  neee\u00e9ssarytlfor the
\nparties of M \/ s Somagiri   so
\nthat the Plaintiffs can haveAAtheir.Vsli_ai any trouble.
\nHence, on the   wro’rig…..l\u00abfadvise of Shri
\nJ.Sylvester,   ‘Evil\/slvlgsoniagiii Estate was
\ndissolved   _  said dissolution the
\nproperties   A and schedule-B.\n<\/p>\n
Sche-dule_A consisted,.,’ofA’6(3l”‘acres and 23 guntas of coffee<\/p>\n
‘estate  zdwelling  guest house, staff quarters, office,<\/p>\n
store’; i)_addy oar shed, tractor shed, cattle shed, fodder<\/p>\n
‘   store,fir’e woocllilisiiled, puiper house, 3 labour quarters and 3<\/p>\n
*.,.._y__ba.throoms.l 5 schedule consisted of 25 acres of coffee estate<\/p>\n
 and only one labour quarters. The said dissolution was<\/p>\n
 ___eii.ter~ed without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiffs No.<\/p>\n
if V  _  3. They were not equally divided. Hence, the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
V.\n<\/p>\n
Rs.3,94.912.75 received by the plaintiffs from the Court<\/p>\n
deposit has been adjusted towards annual coffee share partly.<\/p>\n
They have referred to the correspondences and <\/p>\n
plaintiffs were ready and willing to receive Rs. 10   .<\/p>\n
their surprise they received a Court notice in _-i+3″x:e’ct1’tioi’i’e  <\/p>\n
46\/93 and they were required to V’~atte’nd:’ the ‘Courtd..V’ion”*i(_’<\/p>\n
24.4.1993. Ultimately, on 293.1-995 stat”J.syfit;estea;1fed h<\/p>\n
leaving behind defendants 1  as his Lle\ufb01galheirs.<\/p>\n
Defendants 1 to 3 as legal  Rs.10 Lakhs
\nagreed to be paid by the  As per
\nclause 9 of the  plaintiffs have
\nauthorised shff plaintiffs’ share
\nto any    negotiated with Mrs.
\nRukmini   than Rs. 17 Lakhs, he has<\/p>\n
neither paid to 4ti;e:Vpla.i.ntiffsVnor deposited in the Court. The<\/p>\n
plaintiffsddiaryeentitled dtothev said sale consideration which has<\/p>\n
 and swindled by the defendants. The<\/p>\n
d  .v,vplaintiffsh are  parties to the alienation in favour of Mrs.<\/p>\n
 Rtilcmini Kivshore Kotecha. They have not executed any single<\/p>\n
  or document. If there is any document executed it is a<\/p>\n
  one. Shri J.Sylvester purchased a house property in<\/p>\n
if ‘  Ag ‘I\u00bb'{.TI;.vl\\Fagar by paying Rs.2O Lakhs. When the amounts were<\/p>\n
\\\/<\/p>\n
The properties allotted to the share of Shri J.SylVester is
\nshown as ‘A’ schedule and the properties allotted to the share<\/p>\n
of the plaintiffs are shown as ‘B’ schedule properties. One<\/p>\n
more registered deed of partition also came to be <\/p>\n
and registered on 16.12.1985 between the family 9′<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs 1 and 3 filed O.S.4\/1986 before._-the {k:a;Sa:ion’cfm1 7<\/p>\n
Judge at Chikrnagalur for a dee1a1′-a_tionV’that the: VA<\/p>\n
deed of partnership dated 20.11.1985:’isggnot’   the
\nparties therein. The     as
\nO.S.63\/1986. Shri   statement
\ncountering the    The plaintiffs
\nin the said suit.  23 Rule 1(a) and\n<\/p>\n
(b) of CPC   to file a fresh suit
\nif the ter}\ufb017f’..,o’f\u00ab.the.  were not agreeable. By an<\/p>\n
order dated 1l4’10.g_19w8ES– tfh_e9’s’t1it came to be dismissed as<\/p>\n
 the coursed of the aforesaid proceedings the<\/p>\n
par_tiesT.en.tered.into”an agreement dated 20.9.1986, being the<\/p>\n
9 if  ,_c0mpromise,_  the differences between the parties while<\/p>\n
lie.,.__bringing abuoni; an end to the joint family status and also<\/p>\n
  the dissolution. By the said compromise the<\/p>\n
 ___plain”giffs became entitled to a sum of Rs.7,25,000\/- payable<\/p>\n
if V  _ ubywthe deceased Shri J.Sylvester. Rs.50,000\/- payable on or<\/p>\n
X\/.\n<\/p>\n
complied with the second clauses of the payment. In
\naccordance with the terms agreed the deceased Shri<\/p>\n
J.SyIvester deducted a sum of Rs.l,00,000\/- being the<\/p>\n
amounts due to him from the plaintiffs and on their faii_tiref”to”‘.VA<\/p>\n
discharge the deceased J Sylvester from the f.[fa–\u00e9\u00a7  ‘<\/p>\n
guarantor of M \/ s. B.L.J. Time Products.  balance <\/p>\n
of Rs.4,’75,000\/– payable by the deceasedi :ti’ie\u00b0V.:<\/p>\n
plaintiffs have permitted it to niakez paytmelntc todfaifriilnadu<\/p>\n
Mercantile Bank as against the acc6dnL~..of  Time<\/p>\n
Products Limited. When the  llljerform their
\npart of the obligatliorlrgt-lie  .Sh:rii–lJ’;Sylizester instituted
\no.s. No. 102  ;iuii;;e”at Chikmagaiur, for
\nspecific    dated 20.8.1986
\nagainst  the suit came to be<\/p>\n
decreed on  plaintiff in the said case i.e., Shri<\/p>\n
ld’.SylVe’ster:g_\u00a7xias.. directed”t0’V deposit a sum of Rs.-4,75,000\/– in<\/p>\n
 heyaccordingly deposited. The Court had<\/p>\n
   awardedcosts the plaintiffs in a sum of Rs.78,690.50. The<\/p>\n
llx_p__p}aintiffs  aggrieved by the said judgment and decree<\/p>\n
  O.S. No. 102\/1988 \ufb01led Misc. No. 9\/90 for setting<\/p>\n
 ‘aside; the said judgment. and decree. The Court allowed the<\/p>\n
V V  A if application, directed restoration of the suit, provided piaintiffs<\/p>\n
i\/<\/p>\n
by that time who withdrew Rs.3,94,912.75 deposited the said
\namount with interest at 6% from 9.2.1990 til} the date of<\/p>\n
deposit i.e., 17.1.1991. The first plaintiff being aggrieved<\/p>\n
the order passed in Misc. No. 9\/90 filed <\/p>\n
1015\/1991 before this Court. In the  9<\/p>\n
J .Sy1Vester \ufb01led EX.No. 46\/ 93 for exeentie-nxovf   if<\/p>\n
and got the sale deed executed7in__ hisffayfour  theft<\/p>\n
Court. Therefore, it was contendedff\u00e9fthat the  had no
\nright to the suit schedule therefore, they are<\/p>\n
not entitled to partition and ‘separate ppos’sess’i:ojn..-V”\n<\/p>\n
6. In the saidsuit an app1j:cation_~was ‘filed to bring the<\/p>\n
fourth defendagri\/{\\’*\ufb02.a,iri3haser.19:’   of the estate Srnt.
\nRukmini  more application
\nwas filed {Lo irnpiead’:Richartd__:\u00a75enedict, son of Anthonyfifth<\/p>\n
defendant. Fifthdefendant’  a written statement Virtually<\/p>\n
pieadingii ignorance”-..abou_t the transactions entered into<\/p>\n
Ahettveen the  and defendants and mentioned by them<\/p>\n
in ftneir._Vrespee.tiv’e;.piaints. However, he contended that his<\/p>\n
father had share in the suit property. After his father’s<\/p>\n
 he isfentitied to a share. He denied the dissolution of<\/p>\n
 “pa’rtriership. He contended he has 1 \/3″‘ share in the suit<\/p>\n
\\\/.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    i      Cm\/’M913<\/p>\n
36<\/span><\/p>\n
own property or as property of the partnership firm.
\nTherefore plaintiff No.4 seeking to enforce the share of his’
\nmother, when her mother had no right to the said propert\u00a7,?;j”–\u00ab.lg””._f
\nDeed of dissolution and the said documents are not   ‘7’
\nto be compulsorily registered. Whatever right’ she
\nextinguished and plaintiff No.4 is not entitletito <\/p>\n
in this suit.\n<\/p>\n
21. In that View of the  any error
\ncommitted by the Trial_Court,… into the
\nlegal proceedings,   oral and
\ndocumentary evidence:_’4’o;ni  in mind the
\nlegal   come to a
\nreasonable coneltisioln.’ find any infirmity in the<\/p>\n
judgment and decree _of Vthe “Court, hence the appeal is<\/p>\n
di_sini:ssed;- __.No  osts.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/~
\nJUDGE<\/p>\n
Sd\/ –\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Richard Benedict vs Smt Lily Peter on 19 November, 2009 Author: N.Kumar And C.R.Kumaraswamy IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 19″‘ day of November, 2009 PRESENT THE HOIWBLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR AND THE I-ION’BLE MR. JUSTICE c R KUMARAa1xrA:1srh?~::: ” REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1_1298 2’ooi2._’ 4′ […]<\/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-225768","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRichard Benedict vs Smt Lily Peter on 19 November, 2009 - 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\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Richard Benedict vs Smt Lily Peter on 19 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-11T19:28:22+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Richard Benedict vs Smt Lily Peter on 19 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-11T19:28:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1278,\"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\\\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Richard Benedict vs Smt Lily Peter on 19 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-11T19:28:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Richard Benedict vs Smt Lily Peter on 19 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Richard Benedict vs Smt Lily Peter on 19 November, 2009 - 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\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Richard Benedict vs Smt Lily Peter on 19 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-11T19:28:22+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Richard Benedict vs Smt Lily Peter on 19 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-11T19:28:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009"},"wordCount":1278,"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\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009","name":"Richard Benedict vs Smt Lily Peter on 19 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-11T19:28:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/richard-benedict-vs-smt-lily-peter-on-19-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Richard Benedict vs Smt Lily Peter on 19 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/225768","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=225768"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225768\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=225768"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=225768"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=225768"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}