{"id":226035,"date":"2010-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-06-02T11:39:27","modified_gmt":"2015-06-02T06:09:27","slug":"venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Venkatappa vs Chowdamma on 28 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Venkatappa vs Chowdamma on 28 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ravi Malimath<\/div>\n
 \n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 28\"' DAY OF OCTOBER \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE  t9rR,r:g\u00a3\u00a71.:\\eAOTi~a}__\u00a7_V \n\nREGULAR FIRST ARREAL NO.9..35OF_O \n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1. Venkatappa  ._ \"\n\nS\/o fate D.aOsa\u00abbhOiyi @ _E;:asaAp~p'a._,V ' \"\nAged abOutO;%9.\u00bbR8_VyeaOrs},_V 4_  \" \n    \n\nGafiran.gaia51na \u00a7\":'a4tti\"vGr.arhAa, \nKasRaRb3O.   \"    \nB.hadraVat_hi__Taluk,_ _ _\nShjmoga Di'st'_H_c;t:\u00bbv.  \" \n\nSiddOfn.ma.   \n\n_;W\/O late 'V'e__RVkata\u00a7)a,\nv.[_\"Ags.--:_d about 5G\"'y*ears,\n\nR\/'O_Anth.a raga nge Viflage,\n\n  \" 'KL:d,_i'ig.ve\"RrR i'-iuobli,\n._  %R\/c.E1h_adV\u00a7*aAvathi Taluk,\n'  VShi_mOgva*VDiStrict -- 577 201. ...APPELLANTS\n\n (By SruiA'G.S.Balagangadhar, Advocate)\n\nQ,\/\/f\u00a2.-\u00bb~\n\n\n\n \n\nAND:\n\n1. Chowdamma\nW\/0 late Dasabovi @ Dasappa\n\nAged about 65 years,\nOcczhiousehoid Work.\n\n2. Balachandrap a I\nS\/0 late Dasa OVI @ Dasappa, \n\nAged about 45 years,\nOcc:AgrIcu|turist.\n\nBoth are R\/0 GalIrangaIahn'a;''''''i. '\nHatty Village, Kasaha HOb|i,-------- _ \"\nHosadurga Taiuk, v__ '      .\nChitradurga District 4 ~':5f?.7r5G;1;   \n--  1_..i2EjSP\u00a7)NDEN'TS\n(By Sri S.C.Vi_jaY3J\u00a7yi';ma:r,  & R2)\n\nThisRr=A'fi:e.d'undereection 96 R\/W Order XLI Rule 1\nCPC against the J.Udgmei1,t and Decree dated 24.3.2005\npassed int-.05.No';.10'2\/'Z001'on the file of the Civil Judge\n(Sr.Dn.), Hoialkerej, Ci-i_srri'ssing the suit for partition and\nsepaijate.posse'ss_i0n.\n\n_    FV{iFAvcoming on for hearing this day, the court\n L_deliv'eredy_t'hei' f_0H-Qwing : --\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
A.V:ii”;Aggrieved by the Judgment 8: decree dated<\/p>\n
 24.3.2005 passed in OS.\u00a3\\io.102\/2001 by the Civii Judge<\/p>\n
(Senior Division), Holaikere, dismissing the suit for
\npartition and separate possession the plaintiffs have filed<\/p>\n
the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
2. The parties would be referred'”toi:as”~pe’r_thieiru,’u”–,<\/p>\n
rank before the triai Court.\n<\/p>\n
The case of the  istnat’  Vp”ra’n’d\u00a7fathe’r’
\nof the plaintiffs nameiy,  Veiiappag had two
\nsons by name Dasa’bo.yi.’,’and Venktappa.
\nDasabovi ‘fiasabovi had two
\nwives. ‘: @ Sathyakka is<\/p>\n
the rfrotijerliofthebpiainltiffs.– The second wife Chowdamma
\nis deferi.d4ant’i’~3o.’1.VA’a’:n’dp’their son is defendant No.2.<\/p>\n
Dasfabovi .Vdi’e..d_V_V”V”about 5 years prior to the fiiing<\/p>\n
 ‘0frthe””‘lisuit\u00ab.._leaving behind him, the children of the first<\/p>\n
.w-i’f_e.A schedule lands bearing Survey Numbers<\/p>\n
39)’-1B,..’:’1\/$13, 41\/: P, 37\/1, 37\/1A, 29\/9 and the<\/p>\n
..houseV””..bearing No.38 are situated in Devigere<\/p>\n
Kaiiahally viliage, Hosadurga Taiuk. About 5 years<\/p>\n
at\/4″”\n<\/p>\n
prior to filing of the suit, during the lifetime of the father of<\/p>\n
Dasabovi, these properties were divided between-..VVthe<\/p>\n
father of the plaintiffs and his brother Venk_tappa”Va’nd <\/p>\n
consequence of which, the suit sehedule_.p’r’o”pe’ijti’es ‘and \u00abthe\u00bb _ <\/p>\n
house Dropertv fell to the sh:aF\u20ac:”‘i0i”” lD3l5’3,5’0VVi:’li”~~..E’f-tef<\/p>\n
partition, the plaintiff bec’arne the-.lVIanag’er~\u00bb.i.of…t,he joint”<\/p>\n
family properties and the  and :defendants were
\ncultivating the suit”‘4–..sth,e’d,ule p”ropert.ies. During the
\nlifetime of Dasabovi :yetv:.a:notVhe;r_’p.ro_pe:rty’:bearing No.37\/1
\nof Kallahallf out of the
\nfunds family. But however
\nthe svame in the name of the defendant
\nNo.1,   the birth of plaintiffs 1 and 2<\/p>\n
to\u00e9the first vvi.f_Ve”of E\ufb01asabovi, he fell in love with the first<\/p>\n
 ‘and was having an illegal relationship with her.<\/p>\n
 LAftei’ itirne she was brought into his house and was<\/p>\n
living ,..,W’ith\u00ab:””him as a wife. In view of the second wife<\/p>\n
 .,eVnteri’ng. the house of the first wife, there being differences<\/p>\n
it =._of- opinion, the first wife and the children were driven out<\/p>\n
o\/Ar’<\/p>\n
of the house. Consequently, Bheemakka the 1″ wife along
\nwith the plaintiffs went to her parents house at
\nAntharagange Village. Even though the first wife’<\/p>\n
children left the house of Dasabovi, he con~.ti:i’1uvedV’ <\/p>\n
them on a number of occasions. Onthe ‘hand’,ofn thew’ ‘ j <\/p>\n
death of Dasabovi the plaintiffs woufld
\nfather’s place at Antharagang”eV_%Viilage_ since: were in’
\njoint possession and enjQym.en.t”‘-\u00bbof th\u00e9–..5u.it’\u00a7 schedule<\/p>\n
property.\n<\/p>\n
a  I by exerting her influence,
\nentered ‘the  ,.oi*—-..V’h’erse|f and her children in the<\/p>\n
revenue records’.V Based on the change of the revenue<\/p>\n
 \u00abe\u00abnVt.’ies:\u00e9thedefendants declined to accept the plaintiffs as<\/p>\n
 “in-\u00ab.3’VoiriVtvV”possession of the suit schedule properties.<\/p>\n
He’rice.–,j’tli-efplaintiff was compelled to demand her share in<\/p>\n
 ..the family property. Having been denied the same,<\/p>\n
plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking<\/p>\n
<'\/rt<\/p>\n
for partition of the suit schedule property to an extent of<\/p>\n
half share and other consequential reliefs.<\/p>\n
4. The defendants on appearance <\/p>\n
claim. They contend that the first defei’1dant;yisiithe <\/p>\n
wife of the deceased Dasabovi and..henc_e~..’the”‘p’isa’ii*i:;;iiffs<\/p>\n
have no right, title or in’terestV”over Vthev:”‘s.u~\u00a7.t..ccschedu!e*<\/p>\n
property. They denied the  of”Da_svabo\\F\/i with the
\nplaintiffs mother and_..’:Contenijie’d”‘wthaltvthey inherited the
\nproperties in ..termsVy..\u00ab–of_the_parti”tvion’.{effected between<\/p>\n
Dasabovi  ,wbrol:.hVer_..Ven’i{a:t’a’ppa. Hence, they<\/p>\n
pleaded'”‘for];disrijissjai\ufb02of  fhe trial Court on
\nframing :6.Issues.”ti.islrn.isse:o–~%the suit of the plaintiff. Hence,
\nth6P_tesent a’ppe;~3|.A’=_ V <\/p>\n
 Balagangadhar, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
.’ap’pear_i’nc;:Efoilr the appellants contends that the impugned<\/p>\n
 Judg’~rne:.nt & decree is liable to be set aside. He contends<\/p>\n
 that the trial Court committed an error in disbelieving the<\/p>\n
 case of the plaintiffs while dismissing the suit. He<\/p>\n
of\/j<,~–\u00ab<\/p>\n
contends that the trial Court misdirected itself in<\/p>\n
considering the revenue entries standing in the _4niaV_me~..of<\/p>\n
the defendant. That all the revenue entries   .<\/p>\n
the result of the determinatiorrof _.'the'-.i:'_s,uV'i't:tandi<\/p>\n
consequently the name of the defendzints' irit.t'hiej"Rec5:=d 1<\/p>\n
Rights or otherwise is whol'l-y_ inconseque'n'tiai.–…tVothe<\/p>\n
determination of the partition___sui.t_. \u00bb.__It is'con_tenVded that<\/p>\n
the first defendant bei'nt3"_thle "i\u00ab*1lFe'p"o\u00bbf' Dasabovi was
\ndeliberatelv not .'\u00a3WBu9ht'*'V'.There was no
\nreason as 'toy:   to lead the
\nevidence__  evidence of D.Ws. 3
\nand 4 wou.ld' defendant namely, the 2""\n<\/p>\n
wife  to lead her evidence in the<\/p>\n
Court.’ ” He furthervlcontends that the evidence of D.W.1,<\/p>\n
 .vi2f”‘5’_vdefendant, that her mother defendant No.1<\/p>\n
 Court when the evidence of P.W.1 was<\/p>\n
being recorded, would therefore defeat the claim of the<\/p>\n
 that the first defendant was not in a fit<\/p>\n
 t~__co_nclit’ion to lead her evidence. It is further contended that<\/p>\n
\\,\/4……\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P–7 is the genealogical tree produced by the plaintiffs
\nwherein they have stated with regard to the _2_’ld wife<\/p>\n
namely, the first defendant and her children. <\/p>\n
no necessity for the plaintiff to submit before<\/p>\n
that the first defendant was the. .seco21d”lvVi\/uiiife\ufb01.  ‘the’.<\/p>\n
contrary, the plaintiffs could have   <\/p>\n
the first defendant is a non’\u00a5.eV:iit.i_ty an-cl,tri~erefore;’coui’d have<\/p>\n
in law claimed the ;__entirev,,i.prlop_erty. .’H’owey,.c=r, on the
\ncontrary, the  Ex.D~2 namely,
\nthe genealogical,__treei’have1the existence of
\nthe first    plaintiffs. Hence,
\nthis fact_  that the intention of the first
\ndefendlant is to: the entire property of the<\/p>\n
deceased DasaHi:iovi.: He further contends that the trial<\/p>\n
 ‘C_o’urt\ufb01’lilas.jniisdirected itself in misreading the evidence. He<\/p>\n
 the evidence is clear to show the<\/p>\n
rel”atio.nshi’p between the parties. Hence, he pleads that<\/p>\n
V.   the appeal be allowed and the suit be decreed.<\/p>\n
0%\/is”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6. On the other hand, Sri S.C.Vijayakumar, the
\nlearned counsel appearing for the defendants subm.i_ts that<\/p>\n
there is no error committed by the trial Court tha’t–t.c”algls,.A’for<\/p>\n
interference. He contends that the trial Court 4′<\/p>\n
considered the material and evidence gongrecord’and_’_hen.cef <\/p>\n
no interference is called for. Heaconltenvdsfffthuatdthe <\/p>\n
Partition has been belatedfhf’~clairn\u00e9d,__ that<\/p>\n
ground itself the appeal  .’bfe*vvre3’c-Ected. He
\ncontends that the first  the 2″” wife was
\nnot in a Phifsical tofffattend the Court
\nproceedin.g’s*l:o iffllence, it is for these
\nreasons of-the first defendant has led-in
\nevidenfcel  that the plaintiffs were<\/p>\n
adijni’ttedly riotfvresiding in the village where the suit<\/p>\n
 .property is situated and hence their claim that<\/p>\n
 ._t’l*i.g_-3} we’I_=e__in:j’oint possession of the suit schedule property<\/p>\n
is”*uns..usta”i’nable. He further contends that the revenue<\/p>\n
 were-cordsfcontinue to stand in the name of the defendants<\/p>\n
 inspite of the challenge to the same by the plaintiffs,<\/p>\n
\/A\/–\n<\/p>\n
~v\u00b0’.-1*.’
\n7<\/span><\/p>\n
_10_<\/p>\n
they have filed the present suit as an after thought. He<\/p>\n
therefore contends that in view of the \ufb01ndings recorded so<\/p>\n
far as the entries are concerned the same is_.i:n”acco.rda-nce<\/p>\n
with iaw and the suit of the piaintiff <\/p>\n
rightiy rejected. He therefore :p_ray_-s.\u00abfor”edi.:srn’is4s’ai:~-.Qfathiis<\/p>\n
appeaL<\/p>\n
7. Heard cou.n’s–eis–‘_andex~a_mine_d the records.<\/p>\n
8.   ‘isvffthat their mother
\nwas the 1-tiieA”~dec’easedDasabovi. He having
\n compeiied to ieave her
\nmatrirngor:i_ai’  in the house of her parents.<\/p>\n
It is therefore_piea_ded’: that in view of the properties<\/p>\n
  tin thVe”‘~’-name of Dasabovi, the suit schedule<\/p>\n
 avdrnittediy being the ancestrai properties\/, the<\/p>\n
.’sa.’n’1\u00e9e shfontfgidiz be equaiiy divided between the two wives.<\/p>\n
 On th_e”other hand, it is contended by the defendants that<\/p>\n
 .thief;mother of the piaintiffs was ‘not the wife of the<\/p>\n
Q\/\/'(,-\n<\/p>\n
_11_<\/p>\n
deceased Dasabovi at all. The claim of the plaintiffs was<\/p>\n
completely denied.\n<\/p>\n
9. The trial Court whiie consi.deriyn’\u00a7i’V;~tithe<\/p>\n
contentions with regard to the re|ationshVi_p”o:f *tihaV’i’p{arti..e_s”<\/p>\n
took note of the admitted fact with r’eg._a”rd  7<\/p>\n
the properties. Both the parties”.V_claim.:f_th’a’t”<\/p>\n
schedule I to 3 properties. fell\ufb01to the ‘s–h_are fer l3-iafsabovi by
\na partition between ‘”h.i_mse’ilfWa’n-dy h”is._broth’e’r”Venl<tappa.
\nThat during the lifetime.'of'DasaboVviA.'.:'VZ.te'ms 4 to 6 were<\/p>\n
purchased   was  that so far as<\/p>\n
the su'iit'i'schedu'l:\u00e9V'l'pr'o~pVerties_"a're concerned they are the<\/p>\n
joint famil_y  deceased Dasabovi.\n<\/p>\n
  A. E><A.V'l5–";–'*–**i–s:Vthe genealogical tree produced by the<\/p>\n
   -imchy shows the relationship between themselves<\/p>\n
.’and thveydefeindants therein. The 13′ defendant namely, the<\/p>\n
2″” wife and her son the 2″” defendant is also shown.<\/p>\n
 .Tl”he;refore it would imply that the plaintiffs claim and<\/p>\n
accept the first defendant to be the second wife of the<\/p>\n
\/%<"\n<\/p>\n
……12……\n<\/p>\n
deceased Dasabovi. On the other hand, Ex.D-2 is the<\/p>\n
genealogical tree produced by the defendants. VV.Th_4es..said<\/p>\n
Exhibit has been endorsed by the Village;”‘A’cco’n;nVta:nt,%<\/p>\n
which has been prepared at the behest off\u00bb<\/p>\n
There is no reference in Ex.Eif2  <\/p>\n
plaintiffs namely, the first ‘wife of\u00e9’th”e”‘deceased:’l\u00a7as_ab.oi.Iif{“s.<\/p>\n
Hence the specific case of’tt~h_Ve defendants  that the
\nmother of the p|aintiffs”‘i~s ncit thel”1.\u00a7_f~ygl’fe_of Dasabovi.<\/p>\n
11. Tvh4se::’t.r_ia|  0l’i”\u00ab.V:’cons’id’e;3ing the 6 Issues
\ncame to the “‘cor5rcl:;sion_–.t_hatV t-he:v_r’el_ationship has not been
\nproved’;V”VlItcthel_d   is..no’vmaterial placed on record
\nto show the  is one Hanumappa who<\/p>\n
has_stated”i’n_:the…evideVn’ce that he knows the family of the<\/p>\n
 plaintifs 3.5 wellfasithe defendants. He has stated that<\/p>\n
  rnarvr_i.ed the first wife Bheemakka and through<\/p>\n
hferwbegotplaintiffs 1 and 2. In view of the marriage of<\/p>\n
 Dasaboiii with the 1” defendant who is the second wife of<\/p>\n
Dasrabovi, the plaintiff was thrown out of the house and<\/p>\n
 went to her parents house at Antharagange Vilfage.<\/p>\n
\u00abKr<\/p>\n
_ 153 ..\n<\/p>\n
He further states that notwithstanding the same, the<\/p>\n
deceased Dasabovi would constantly visit his first wi_fe and<\/p>\n
her children, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 at the viilagjefwnthera<\/p>\n
Gange. At the same time, the plaintiffs <\/p>\n
death of their father would con.sta.ritly  lv’il.l4_a~gei’..,o\u00abf’e. <\/p>\n
their father. Therefore the evide’nce:..’_w’ould’cleangrly <\/p>\n
the status between the nV1’o_the_r of”th_e~ pita-inti.ff’s”~~and the<\/p>\n
defendant No.1. Thetrial   the said
\nstatement without The only reason
\ngiven by thetrjiial\ufb01otirrtlliis  rtiheyhlgevidzeiiduce of P.W.2 is not
\nsufficient\u20ac.tty=.estah;’,ist. In view of the fact
\nthat namely, the first plaintiff being
\nthat ofan:  the only evidence that falls<\/p>\n
forgcottsidera’ti.on   at of P.W.2. The trial Court therefore<\/p>\n
 thesaid evidence and came to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
  not sufficient to prove the relationship.<\/p>\n
   I’am unable to accept the reasoning of the trial<\/p>\n
‘   ‘courtyywith regard to the rejection of the evidence of P.W.2<\/p>\n
 ‘far as the relationship of the parties are concerned\ufb01 In<\/p>\n
I’…–.._<\/p>\n
-14..\n<\/p>\n
the absence of sufficient materiai it has been held by
\nvarious decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court, that the best possible evidence with regardjii.to’\u00ab,gthe<\/p>\n
reiationship of the parties would have to   <\/p>\n
established. In the given case, _the._evidence’  ‘ . <\/p>\n
that of D.W.1 could not necessa:i*igly1’ha~ve ‘bee’n.:”accet>-teidl–in<\/p>\n
view of they being inter’est’e.d witnesses’>i.gsA0’\u00a7..;fa~r..as the<\/p>\n
relationship is concerned. whatiwouid remain is
\nthe evidence of P.Wi2′.eT’I–n ‘evidence of D.W.2
\nwho sui3FJorts_the__  the son of the
\nsister of   the suit claim<\/p>\n
and  the defendants. He too states<\/p>\n
that he not a-w\u00e9iife  fnarriage of Dasabovi with the<\/p>\n
mo_th’er. of ti:e._rpVlaintiffs. D.W.4 is the brother’s son of<\/p>\n
  evidence is of the like nature. Therefore,<\/p>\n
 ._tiier.e”‘is””_nv.o isnalteriai produced by the defendant to directly<\/p>\n
dijs’-beii..eve”””the plea of the plaintiffs with regard to the<\/p>\n
 imarriage of their mother with Dasabovi. The evidence of<\/p>\n
“”..Vi-\u00b0”.’\\v’\\’\/’.2 has therefore remained unshaken inspite of the<\/p>\n
of\/\/\/\\,.–\n<\/p>\n
..3_5…\n<\/p>\n
Accountant is merely a signatory to the genealogical tree<\/p>\n
prepared by the parties. He neither accepts the same or<\/p>\n
rejects it. Therefore, the signature of the \\.ii’i’4!.a’g.e<\/p>\n
Accountant or that of the Revenue <\/p>\n
genealogical tree is therefore wholllyii if<\/p>\n
genealogical tree is prepared by any naernb\u00e9r <\/p>\n
in order to depict the merrs–ber.s cohnstitutgini-g ‘th’\u00e9*’e’ntire” C<\/p>\n
family. It is thereforeta doVc.ume~nt”–~.prepared..out of the
\npersonal knowledge andnothing’t’\u00bbVe|se’.:fg’\u00a7The,examination or
\notherwise of an4{g3Vffi_cer:i\/vllho’ h:as.:’si.Vgn_edV’  same, therefore
\nbecomes irr.eievrailt..forcoasi-dei*ati:on,V_ i<\/p>\n
14, ” The.trial.CovLJLrt—.whi|e considering Exs.P–1 to P–6<\/p>\n
namely. th\u00e9rRecord. oi7_\u00bb’R’i~-ghts which stood in the name of<\/p>\n
“V..,_the..’:g_d’efg_ndants,Acame”to the conclusion that they would<\/p>\n
_’shoTw’th’at’lt.he:Vpl.aintiffs are not cultivating the said lands.<\/p>\n
They__”reaso.n’i’n.gefilof the trial Court is unsustainable and liable<\/p>\n
Cato be r~ej’e:cted. The revenue entries are subject to the title<\/p>\n
 parties to be determined in a Civil Court. The<\/p>\n
  revenue entries could only have a presumptive value under<\/p>\n
-17..\n<\/p>\n
law and therefore cannot form a basis for a declaration so
\nfar as the title is concerned. Consequentiy, the orde’r'”l:hat<\/p>\n
would be passed by a Civil Court would <\/p>\n
binding so far as the entries are concerned. Tfieirevforel,   <\/p>\n
trial Court to hold that Exs.P–1 to (5 did”.:o7t”,.5nc;w\ufb02the:riar;l\u00a7}
\nof the plaintiffs and consequently ‘that\u00bb’,tl1\u00e9y’
\nthe owners in possession and”ve\u00ab’,cVb!.tivatio*n_V_of is
\ntherefore opposed to.  set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Further it is to be seen ‘that’adrriittedlly,,’ll_d.efendant No.1
\nwas a membe’raUa\u00abf  \ufb01ne was more
\ncompetent    as wordly matters are
\nconcerned,   case of the plaintiff that in
\nview of  defendant, on the death of<\/p>\n
Dasa,bo”viu.the revencle entries have been changed on to her<\/p>\n
 vnamye.  background, the trial Court should<\/p>\n
hay-e___ap’p:’r’o.p_riAa’t’\u00e9ly rejected the entries in Exs.P–1 to 6.<\/p>\n
 _ Thellfindv-:’ng’vdf the trial Court based on Exs.P–1 to 6 that<\/p>\n
“”‘v.””‘,the,__plaintiffs are not the owners in possession is<\/p>\n
_~._’t’h_er’e’fore erroneous. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are not<\/p>\n
1″ 4″”\n<\/p>\n
_13…\n<\/p>\n
residing in the same village eversince the first defendant
\nentered the matrimonial house. The evidence C-f”P.W.2<\/p>\n
would show that he knows the family of the~\u00ab~p’l.’ain__tiif’.fs”as<\/p>\n
well as the defendants. That after the second…n::a:rriage’ <\/p>\n
Dasabovi with the first defencjilJant:,:”‘tghe_gg  if<\/p>\n
plaintiffs and the plaintiffswereiselnt out.’Tof’g.Vti1’e houlse;g<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs’ mother  house at
\nAntharagange villageiivitie  notwithstanding
\nthe same, the deceaseVdV_viD’as’a’hovi tr\\ro.uAil’i:i:vconstantly visit his
\nfirst wife aiid”‘j5Iti’is children,'”that”xsgfpilaintiffs 1 & 2 at<\/p>\n
“th’eu”sarne time, the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
would constyantly;:visi’t.thve_ village of their father Dasabovi
\nconstantly’. – Even “a.fter””the;’death of Dasabovi the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
would come  village of the defendants in order to do<\/p>\n
 “agl’ricu1’ltura4l’wwork. Hence, by the evidence of P.W.2 it is<\/p>\n
 ._cl’ea\u00abr  though the plaintiffs were not residing in<\/p>\n
the veryviilage where the land was situated, they were<\/p>\n
V.   <a.ttendi"ng to their agricultural operations regularly. Hence,<\/p>\n
"'._Vth'e':factum of cultivation of the lands by the piaintiffs has<\/p>\n
r_…….._.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-19..\n<\/p>\n
been established by the evidence of P.W.2. Nothing
\nworthwhile has been extracted from the cross–exa:r1ination<\/p>\n
of this witness to disbelieve his statement. H~e.n_C\u00e9__,”-iinvder<\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances, to hold that.,’C_Fl\u00a7\u20ac”~i.pl’afi.nti4ffs” <\/p>\n
not cultivating the lands in question1on%y’eca:i.:seVt.h’ey__are if<\/p>\n
not living in the said villageis therefore erroneous’. ‘\n<\/p>\n
15. The case of the\u00ab.,__pla_intiff’s ._hasu beer1fd’ers’i”ed by<\/p>\n
the defendants. They deny———th’a–t”‘t.be mA’otvher.jof the 13″
\nplaintiff married Dasabovi.”~t___Flow.e’vVer;’nothing has been
\nstated as to_w:ho,_she'”is:’  the father of her<\/p>\n
children.._   -of a denial simplicitor. The
\ngenealogical! tree by the defendant vide Ex.D–2<\/p>\n
does” not in”di_cgate the presence of the mother of the<\/p>\n
 ‘pl,ail1tiffs inthe family. On the other hand, it is the specific<\/p>\n
  oif7t_hv_e ‘b,’l’a’intiffs that their mother was the 1″ wife and<\/p>\n
the \ufb01tildefendant is the second wife. In terms of the<\/p>\n
V.  reavuerments the genealogical tree produced by them vide<\/p>\n
“‘w.iE3~7, also endorses their contention. Nothing preverfd<\/p>\n
97<\/span><\/p>\n
(……—-~m<\/p>\n
__2g….\n<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs from contending that the 1″ defendant is not<\/p>\n
the wife of the deceased Dasabovi. On the contraiy, in<\/p>\n
view of the factuai position of the 15* defend_a’ht;_.t_he_<\/p>\n
2″‘; wife the same is reflected therein._..~–T.i1:i\u20ac~.t<\/p>\n
have not explained anywhere, eithfer\ufb02in…”t-he*-written e<\/p>\n
statement or through theiri’e.yiden’ce”as tc\u00bb.i’tVh’eipositgioen <\/p>\n
the mother of the piaintiffs   It is not
\nthe case of defendanti\ufb01lorl    the plaintiffs
\nhad married aAnother’..ma_nr. the plaintiffs
\nwere born,’ e__*_:i1!e:l*r.   denial, The denial
\nwouid”h’aixeV.t:oeeb_e   background of the fact
\nthat7the_  2″” wife, does not lead any
\nevidenecepin   case. She being the second<\/p>\n
wife would  been the appropriate person to speak<\/p>\n
  mother of the plaintiffs as weli as about herself.<\/p>\n
 ._Seh_e3 has.d_eil.i:b’\u00e9rateiy chosen not to enter the witness box.<\/p>\n
The pv–lea’o’f the counsel is based on the evidence of D..W.1<\/p>\n
 ina’me}’y:, the second defendant to show that she was<\/p>\n
“‘r.VVs’uffering from arthritis and could not attend thedtourt<\/p>\n
V<\/p>\n
-21..\n<\/p>\n
proceedings. The statement runs contrary to the evidence
\nof D.Ws 3 & 4, who have specifically stated that the only
\ndifficulty with the first defendant was that slfri-:–.y was<\/p>\n
suffering from arthritis. No other ailment is <\/p>\n
defendant No.1. The evidence of D.W.1h,__\u00b0h.ersei~fxl’wotilid\ufb01”<\/p>\n
show that the first defendant rnother ..Vwas-:’a\u00abtt’erpdin’g’ the<\/p>\n
Court proceedings and wasg.prese’n_t”w.hen t’h_fe:’evide’nc’e. of<\/p>\n
D.Ws.2,3 and 4 was adduced)\u00bbifurthermore.t.he2″evVidVence of<\/p>\n
D.W.1, herself would~..o_show.Wthat_  lstdefendant her
\nmother was attending  and was<\/p>\n
present  evi.dence of being recorded.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, nwuiiizj-er”‘<tyh'ese-..__circumstances in view of the
\nevidencet\ufb01lof VE)'."'J\\!s'..:'2':"3:_n43. about the health of the first<\/p>\n
de\ufb01endseant, it"can"bev:inferred that the 15' defendant did not<\/p>\n
  from\u00ab–..Vany health problem that would abstain her<\/p>\n
 ~.fro_r(n the Court proceedings and that she has<\/p>\n
de'iibe'ratei'y avoided to lead any evidence in this matter.<\/p>\n
V "W.henl"she has attended the court proceedings when the<\/p>\n
"evidence of P.W.1 was being recorded nothing prevented<\/p>\n
we<\/p>\n
…..22…..\n<\/p>\n
her from leading her evidence. The entire suit being
\nopposed, the factum of the marriage of the ;3i.a’intiff’s<\/p>\n
mother being the first wife and the <\/p>\n
being the second wife was crucial so..faV_rj~-i.as::jt’he <\/p>\n
examination of the 2″” wife is cjoncgegrnedgg ‘iiie.nce;vy._ori,__th’is ‘<\/p>\n
ground aione the findings _4record.ed’– by _ti*-ie’..V’:triai\u00b0’3<\/p>\n
requires to be interfered <\/p>\n
16. The mate-rial ey.iid’en’ce”o-in record–..w.o’Euid clearly
\nindicate that the mother_i_o’f  the first wife of<\/p>\n
the deceased.\u00a7a.5ab(\u00a7y’i”;a’n:d  her begot piaintiffs 1<\/p>\n
&  “1:V%t”~.,.defendant subsequently married
\nDasaboviffais  through him defendant No.2<\/p>\n
was born. Therevenue records standing in the name of<\/p>\n
 ‘the  would not indicate the titie to the property<\/p>\n
  \u00a7fec’essari|y be subjected to the Eudgment of the<\/p>\n
of”-the–..’:Civi’i”‘ Court so far as title is concerned. That in view<\/p>\n
 iiof__4thVesadmitted position regarding the status of the<\/p>\n
“”..VVp’roberty and in view of the findings regarding the<\/p>\n
air<\/p>\n
-23….\n<\/p>\n
relationship between the piaintiffs and the defendants, I
\nhave no hesitation to hoid that the suit of the .y’p~i.aintiff
\nrequires to be decreed. The trial Court thegVrefore’44i.fel:l’i\u00abin<\/p>\n
error in misreading the evidence on record.<\/p>\n
17. In order to disprovethecaseofiithel\u00b0plaiVnt-i,ff}”i <\/p>\n
the defendants contend that the rr’i’otihVer’li’of”‘the:VVpii’ia~i.n1tiffs<\/p>\n
does not belong to the sarriejcaste as she doe’s._.””~H.oWever,. ‘<\/p>\n
no material has been,produVced.A”b.y”the defendants in order
\nto establish either their\ufb01cas”t_ev  mother of the
\nplaintiffs. Tvhere___bei3n’g\u00b0no:. doc.umevntati’on or evidence to<\/p>\n
the  trial\ufb01ourt has proceeded to accept the
\nsay of liliie! defe’ndan’ts:t”ij;at:since the defendants denies the<\/p>\n
casielvof the ‘plaVinVtiff,: the same requires to be accepted to<\/p>\n
 hold  the mother of the plaintiff’s does not belong<\/p>\n
  as that of the 13’ defendant the marriage<\/p>\n
itself  “doubtful. The conclusion arrived at by the trial<\/p>\n
Courtwis bereft of any reasoning. The reasons are not<\/p>\n
Msupported either by evidence or material on record.<\/p>\n
3%”\n<\/p>\n
_. 24 _.\n<\/p>\n
Hence, the finding recorded by the trial Court on this issue
\nrequires to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
18. The resultant findings of the trial<\/p>\n
therefore imply that the mother of the plainttffsv ea <\/p>\n
entity so far as Dasabovi is concerned; 4′ Con;seg’uentl’y,’ <\/p>\n
children born to her therefore, w’o.uld._.not be’relata’bl’e.ptC~..g<\/p>\n
the deceased Dasabovi at ail’;”‘*-jibe ex.\/id\u20ac.’V_TC’e:’of\u00ab4f53e’VD|’aintiffV<\/p>\n
based on Ex.P~7 would show accepts the first
\ndefendant as the second-C-wife’; that extent the<\/p>\n
iegitimacy o\u00a7f’the’–ch:ildren..~’: 15″ defendant is<\/p>\n
acceptyedf   T:CoVhtrary,””‘i\u00a7vx.D~2 produced by the
\ndefendants  the existence of the mother<\/p>\n
of the pFa\u00a7i”f]’tif:fSi.,.,T\ufb01e finding of the trial Court is that the<\/p>\n
 re’i:a’t’io2nshiv~p. has ‘notbeen proved. If the relationship has<\/p>\n
   the trial Court would necessarily have to<\/p>\n
 to who the plaintiffs are and what is the<\/p>\n
 statusig? the mother of the piaintiffs with respect to the 15*<\/p>\n
,,lf”_,’t:le_fendant and with that of Dasabovi. By holding the<\/p>\n
  ___\u00e93bsence of a relationship, the first wife of Dasabovi i left<\/p>\n
r”‘”””\n<\/p>\n
….25_<\/p>\n
in a limbo rendering her chiidren as being worse than
\nbeing illegitimate. On the other hand, it is not thecase<\/p>\n
of the defendants that the plaintiffs are’V…..bor:n'<t:'"froth<\/p>\n
the marriage of the 1" wife with another d%e'nia_'| V' <\/p>\n
of their reiationship wouid
\nthe same would have a.direct.Ah\u00e9aring1.s,o'A'far
\niegitimacy of the children  other
\nhand, if the defendants..hadjl\u00a7'|\u00a7'\u00a7J:eVd'V"'vor.prolxred  evidence
\nthat the mother of   the 15' wife of
\nthe deceased'  hand had married<\/p>\n
another r::ri_Van:.,""'_i.nV that:\u00b0e.fven't…the.\u00a7 claim of the defendants<\/p>\n
could,probaebiy.*~!.end_"sa'bstan-ce to their evidence. On the
\none hand,_' the'r"e_i's.VA'n..\u00a7:"'*plea that the 15' wife has married<\/p>\n
another man'  on the other hand the second wife has<\/p>\n
 jdeliibellrateljr'-..not entered the witness box to state about the<\/p>\n
 .reiation\u00e9h.i__p'V~lo'f'V'.the mother of the plaintiffs with that of her<\/p>\n
htisba"nd.""" Hence, under these circumstances aiso the<\/p>\n
"*rep_ercLissions of the Judgment of the trial Court would<\/p>\n
'A'v-therefore indicate absolute lack of application of mind to<\/p>\n
~<Vr;ely_’Vupoii.  eyidence in
\nrecording a finding  of the trial
\nCourt in not recordingggaafindwinvg  issue is also a
\nmatter that Court. In View of
\nthe  ‘Coug’tV”that the mother of the
\nplaintiV_ffs._ wedded wife of the deceased
\nDasabovimand’  being admittedly the 2″”\n<\/p>\n
of Das’abo\\ri, the impugned Judgment 8: decree<\/p>\n
. “therefore,_re.quires to be set aside.<\/p>\n
‘ ill’-“orfjj.the\u00a3.aforesaid reasons, the appeal is aliowed.<\/p>\n
Thuleggjudgrnent & decree dated 24~3~2005 passed in<\/p>\n
‘CO.-S’.No’.1O2\/2001 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior<\/p>\n
aria<\/p>\n
-27..\n<\/p>\n
Division), Holaikere, is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
decreed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\nRsk\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Venkatappa vs Chowdamma on 28 October, 2010 Author: Ravi Malimath IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 28″‘ DAY OF OCTOBER BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE t9rR,r:g\u00a3\u00a71.:\\eAOTi~a}__\u00a7_V REGULAR FIRST ARREAL NO.9..35OF_O BETWEEN: 1. Venkatappa ._ ” S\/o fate D.aOsa\u00abbhOiyi @ _E;:asaAp~p’a._,V ‘ ” Aged abOutO;%9.\u00bbR8_VyeaOrs},_V 4_ ” Gafiran.gaia51na \u00a7”:’a4tti”vGr.arhAa, […]<\/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-226035","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVenkatappa vs Chowdamma on 28 October, 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\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Venkatappa vs Chowdamma on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-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=\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-02T06:09:27+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Venkatappa vs Chowdamma on 28 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-02T06:09:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4159,\"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\\\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Venkatappa vs Chowdamma on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-02T06:09:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Venkatappa vs Chowdamma on 28 October, 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":"Venkatappa vs Chowdamma on 28 October, 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\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Venkatappa vs Chowdamma on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-02T06:09:27+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Venkatappa vs Chowdamma on 28 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-02T06:09:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010"},"wordCount":4159,"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\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010","name":"Venkatappa vs Chowdamma on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-02T06:09:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatappa-vs-chowdamma-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Venkatappa vs Chowdamma on 28 October, 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\/226035","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=226035"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226035\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226035"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226035"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226035"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}