{"id":227121,"date":"2009-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009"},"modified":"2017-08-05T06:50:31","modified_gmt":"2017-08-05T01:20:31","slug":"sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sripad S\/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde vs Triyambak S Hegde on 1 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sripad S\/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde vs Triyambak S Hegde on 1 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: L.Narayana Swamy<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\nCIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD\n\nDATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF D1':3CEIVIBER_,----\ufb01V?..I)\"(Z'}'9V~'   .\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.IIIAR_Iw.AN'A.. \n\nCRIMINAL REVISION PETITION\"No;I_2s2]2'oo\u00a7  \nC\/w.  I I I\nCRIMINAL REVISIQISI ~IPE';IfITII5N~..IsIIo\"';~IR431\/2006\n\nCRL.RP N0 123;  E20015\" H\n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1. SRIRAD, s\/'0.,M1ArIA1:IALE_sH\\\u00abvAR HBJGDE\nAGE:':4~O\"YEARSQQCC;AGRICULTURE\nR\/0 HULGOL '\u00a3'._ALUI< SIIREJTALUK\nUTTARA"I<'ANNAD_A'~._ " I \n\n.-- . " ._  '-  PETETIONER\n\n (By Srvi: \u00a7vI.?B=.NARAGUHN"1j"\u00a7 SONA VAKKUND, ADVS.)\n\n I I. T'RIYA\u00ab:\u00a7\/1.13A'K s HEGDBJ\n\n AGE--._3\u00e9s YEARS\nI * mo HITTALAHALLI TALUK YELLAPUR\n _ .1)1$~'1" UTTARA KANNADA\n ' "  RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
I (By’Sr1. GANAPATHI S SHASTRE, ADV.)<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
\\.\n<\/p>\n
\u00bb.w………….__<\/p>\n
R)<\/p>\n
CRL.RP NO.1282\/2006 IS FILED U\/S.397i”:*–R\/W'<:'4*Oi'"': *
\nCR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIO.NERwv.P'RA'{.ING"" _
\nTHAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY .EE\u00bb..pLE'ASEDT-..TO' SET"-.
\nASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTEANCEOPASOSED"—BYV"THEDA
\nDIST. 8:, S.J., U.K, KARWAR, IN CRL.A.VNO_.57\/OS.,DT..2.2\u00a74;G6 '<\/p>\n
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT .AN_D SENTENCE.'V:PAS.SED..\u00a5BY
\nTHE ADDL. J1VIFC., SIRSI, IN c.c.NO'."79o\/00—DT29,6.0'5.<\/p>\n
CRL.RP NO 1481 OF 2006 <\/p>\n
BETWEEN:<\/p>\n
\nTRAYAMEAKSHEVC-.DE_  V    \nAGE:31YEARS     f \" \nR\/O HI'I'TALAHALLI__      *\nYELLAPUR TALUK=i._  \" A\nU.K. DISTRICT _  \n\n1 ' ~   PETITIONER\n\n{By Sri. GAN'A.xPA'1'HI  ADV.)\n\nAND:\n\n 1' SHEIEAD MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE\n\n  AGE: 40 XEARS' j..\n' R\/Q\u00abHU~1';_GQL; \nSIRSI TA;L'LJ-E\nU.K-. D1.'ST;v\"\n'~ :  RESPONDENT\n\n<\/pre>\n
 gB3%f”Sr\u00a7. M.B.NARAOUND;SONA VAKKUND, ADV.)<\/p>\n
‘K<\/p>\n
CRLRP N0.1481\/2006 IS FILED U\/S397 AND. 401
\nCR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRVASHNG
\nTHAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED <\/p>\n
ASIDE THE ORDER D’I’.9.6.05 IN c.c.N0.790\/0:0..QH__’__T.II.E._
\nFILE OF THE II ADDL. JMF’C., SIRSI, AND ALs04″‘SET_’AStD_E\u00aba 2
\nTHE ORDER DT.22.4.06 IN CRL.A.NO.65\/05 QI\\I_fIfHE FILE OF”  ”<\/p>\n
TI-IE DIST. 82; S.J., KARWAR.   –.\n<\/p>\n
THESE REVISION PETITONS; \u20aciOI\u00a74IN’G_:” <\/p>\n
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADETHE Ev0I,LQw1I$\u00a7GiI<\/p>\n
ORDER IN C;RL.RPA Nd’;1.232_\/2o0’5–
\nThe petitioner filed this’  the judgment<\/p>\n
and order passed by the  Vant:l._SeVssiDr1″s Judge, Uttara<\/p>\n
Kannada, Vt.I{arWieir5″in;C3ri.tn’ina1. ‘Ahpeal ‘1\u00a7\\\u00a70.57\/2005 by its order
\ndated 22.04.2006  Drder passed by the II Acldi.<\/p>\n
JMFC, Sirsi Iiyicic.tNe’.7\u00e90\/’2\u00bb0’00 dated 09.06.2005.<\/p>\n
 Submitteicii\u00e9 by the learned Counsel for the<\/p>\n
p’CT.”itviQ’nV\u20acV1″”–.1_lT’Ld\u20acF some peculiar circumstances the<\/p>\n
  agreement Qfisaileiias per Ex.P6 and cheque as per Ex.P2 came<\/p>\n
“–\u00ab._,_tc’In_be in “eVx_i’stence. By Virtue of the existence of these two<\/p>\n
 \u00ab._t1fringVS,’.ti_1e complainant preferred the complaint under Section<\/p>\n
A<\/p>\n
200 Cr.P.C for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,50,000\/–. <\/p>\n
amount of Rs.3,50,0()O\/– is legally recoverable debt_.,”‘:–\u00ab<\/p>\n
3. On behalf of the cornplainant,ff’AA’f\\i7Vi1’wais_eXam.iI1edV:and <\/p>\n
the documents at Exs.P1 to P6 have been:’111arkedV._”tig AiAO’11″behaif if<\/p>\n
is-‘<\/p>\n
of the respondent, he has been exarnined him.se1’f  but<\/p>\n
no documents have been rriaijl-<ed.,<"" " <\/p>\n
4. The brief facts of according
\nto the complainant’::’th_er\u00a7:7was dg’i%\u00bb’:ei11}an: entered into
\nbetween the   as per Ex.P6.\n<\/p>\n
The conter\ufb02tsiiciiiif accused had agreed to sell his
\nhouse for theueonsideration:M-:f\u00a7’;4,00,000\/– and according to<\/p>\n
him, the.compfai:1:ar1t..7’ha.s oaid Rs.3,50,000\/– on the spot.<\/p>\n
:.’:’f’hcreaf’ter, ?.t’he”comp1ainiant found that the house which was<\/p>\n
 to: was in the name of the father of the<\/p>\n
5…v.accused__.i Hence ~~};here was a demand made to the accused for<\/p>\n
_i_igi’_:\u00ab.,_retuVrn of the amount of Rs.3,50,000\/-. The accused instead of<\/p>\n
payiiag  said amount, had issued a cheque for the said<\/p>\n
i”  .amoui;\u00e9.t marked at Ex.P2 dated 17.05.1998. On 20.05.1998,<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
Rs.4,00,000\/m as price for the house of which <\/p>\n
Rs.3,50,000\/– was denied.\n<\/p>\n
6. The complaint made by theiicioniplvainant<\/p>\n
registered in P.C. No.94\/98 on the fi1ei’ofiJMF’CgSirsi” <\/p>\n
same was numbered as CC N0.”if9@:\/2000.’.  by
\nits order dated 9.6.2005 passed ‘sentencing the
\naccused for the offences ,S”ect_ion 138 of NJ.
\nAct, against   vioreferred a criminal
\nappeal No.57i”jh_is:’t.ricVt’and Sesions Judge,
\nUttara   came to be dismissed<\/p>\n
by order dated 22V.o:4;2’a\u00a7)ei, egei’i’ne;t which this petition is filed.<\/p>\n
7. _()_n behalfiof-theicoriiplainant, he has been examined<\/p>\n
 PM\/1″;A.&He haismstated in his evidence that EXP6 was<\/p>\n
ur1r_egis_tere:c’i’\u00ab.._gV.M ;’\\iifteri_:..the agreement entered into between the<\/p>\n
i it’v.,\u00bbparties,,__ihe  know that the house belongs to his father.<\/p>\n
.Qin__I7.05.’1f9i9.8, he was given cheque for Rs.1,50,000\/– which<\/p>\n
 c_a1=nc_t0″‘*be clishonoured. In his crosswexamination, he has<\/p>\n
 dejposed that he has not aware as to where the said house is<\/p>\n
to<\/p>\n
situated, in which survey number and also he has notiineen<\/p>\n
confirmed that the said property has been come”<\/p>\n
purview of which Panchayat limits and also in whose  the V’ <\/p>\n
property stands. He has also not h,a\\}ing’.anyf d;CCtI1nents:i\u00ab’in”‘.<\/p>\n
respect of the transactions between the’~pairties.  also<\/p>\n
that he do not know the  its
\nschedule and also not l.<.—-1i1.own  rnany rooms it
\ncontains and what is   area. While
\nanswering to the' \u00a7l1Ates\u00a7i_ons._'isdbsptitdtedpyii'thei'Vaccused, he has<\/p>\n
stated that total"a'rnoi._in';t of was with him on his<\/p>\n
hand and; he didviiiot idVrax,y."th_e said amount either from the
\nbank or froni the he did not take any signature<\/p>\n
from theaccuseud forhaving paid the said amount.<\/p>\n
   int  the above, the learned Counsel for the<\/p>\n
petiitioiri-er sub'j1_n__its;."that the very existence of the transaction<\/p>\n
between" the parties is suspected one. The complainant himself<\/p>\n
 st..a1_;ediin his deposition that there is an agreement of sale<\/p>\n
 per" 'E3x.P6 and the said transaction went in respect of<\/p>\n
ii,inl\u00a71'1own property. The payment of Rs.3,50,000\/–which was<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
available on his hand is also unbelievable since Ex.P6 does"–not<\/p>\n
contain the signature of any witnesses. As it is sta.ted\u00bb  <\/p>\n
chie\ufb01examination and also cross–eXamination, the 'c.omplainanL~ <\/p>\n
was not knowing anything about the house,. either itsl\u00abloca'lity,'V".<\/p>\n
survey number, katha number and its possession,"\u00bbbuiltg.tz~pl'<\/p>\n
area etc. In View of the above?\n<\/p>\n
failed to prove the transaction be_t.vveen”the con1p.l.aiI.1ant and
\naccused and hence the ques’tion_of cjaseunder Section
\n138 of NI. Act is farv fetching.:”: IV)k:s;:\u00bbitlel..Vo1l’.:l;3:’;l1’these in–built
\nlacunae, the   llalcclused which goes<\/p>\n
contrary to the bfov_isiol31.s oflavv. _<\/p>\n
9. The ll’e.ar*1:.edxl for the respondent contended<\/p>\n
that ace\ufb01used has”‘:20Vt_ ____ stated anything in respect of the<\/p>\n
‘Aexis.tence  ieithe~r__Ex.P2 or EX.P6. He has admitted the<\/p>\n
signlatulfe. and entries of EXP6. When there is<\/p>\n
admission, V’—Vhe'”cannot reverse by saying the absence of<\/p>\n
“ltr’anlsact_ion between the parties. Hence he submitted that the<\/p>\n
 Cl_l’ouI”t_lbe’low has rightly convicted the accused and hence he<\/p>\n
it su’bmitted to dismiss the petition.<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
10. The learned Counsel further submittedV.\u00a2th*at””ttrhenV.<\/p>\n
the accused made an offer to sell the house to the’7\u00abc_on1plai’naI;ti<\/p>\n
having interest in purchasing the same’;’ the c’ompEain.an:t’paid”;<\/p>\n
Rs.3,50,000\/– in the spot itself since he it-i.as’ihaifi:1;g~the <\/p>\n
amount. Since the transaction we.nt”~.betWe’en the parties as per V<\/p>\n
EXP6, after accepting the same-,——– hp-etitione’rv–..her:ein has
\nissued the cheque’ as  the above, the
\ncomplainant has s._:ttisfied;’the’requi\u00abr:ernent;of’ Section 138 of<\/p>\n
N .1. Act and ..re1a”tior:ship between these two<\/p>\n
persons and iAiifu:tfth_e15QVthei\ufb02complainant has proved the<\/p>\n
ingredientsiof Section’  Act. In respect of the said<\/p>\n
subrnission, heiureliiedoin the ifollowingjudgmentst<\/p>\n
  %,.j~AI1?_  2544 (in the case of K. S.\n<\/p>\n
–.,’v4:s’avty:iiinarayana vs. V. R. Narayana Rao)
\n tiZt_g_reem.ent for sale of property through defendant
\n;i’&’o.:..,’:,’?’ tuhom IS’ defendant, the owner had authorised<\/p>\n
” _ to enter into such agreement on his behalf –
\npayment of money by plaintz\ufb02” to both defendants,
\nas sale consideration ~– Plea by defendant No.1 that<\/p>\n
there was no privity of contract between him and<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
iii)<\/p>\n
plaintiff W Doctrine of undue enrichment”e..ii;’mLlZd<\/p>\n
squarely apply as payment was not grci_t;iiitoi_1;=.:__”\u00bbi.it _
\ncould be payment under mistake also”‘zf.d\u00a2{_fendant*\u00ab  <\/p>\n
No.1’s case was acceptedg-pla–i.ntzjf was::entitledlfor~ey<\/p>\n
restoration in any case. ”\n<\/p>\n
AIR 1930 so 1336 {in \u00a3ize””case.v..5f.\ufb01nial; <\/p>\n
India vs. M\/s. J.  Plant) Eeiien in the
\nabsence of any agree.ment_ between’ the parties, if
\nthe consideratiarifjs acce;ptede\u00abr.h_as to be restored
\nback to the complalinant_”.b    _ <\/p>\n
AIR _ .:{9:?.6  ‘_j;.e2.\u00a7’3.i”_:.._\ufb01n”; the case of
\nDh.qrLyai\u00a71e1sIar\u00a7:i_A11-gziee if; miter’ etc. vs. The<\/p>\n
Cdniniisisyioner._ofV]CiiIi’I Supplies and another).<\/p>\n
Vvr”‘Head’:i:Note:’\u00a7V “(g’3s.):b””.’1:.3,”z;en the payment is made by<\/p>\n
 m.ista.ke’t’hatVlhas–.to”be restored to the complainant”.<\/p>\n
‘AIR _2lG08b (in the case of Bharat<\/p>\n
V’ ‘V Pefroleum}  Ltd. Vs. Great Eastern
\n __iShuippin’g\u00bbCQ..’Ltd.) Head Note (13) “Agreement in
\n .Sub”Silentto W Therefore, terms of contract between<\/p>\n
   can be proved not only by their words<\/p>\n
baVt.:al,so by their conduct”.\n<\/p>\n
–..’.zo0’9(1) Civil LJO 616 (in the case of P.<\/p>\n
bi v\ufb02lenogopal vs. Madan P. Sarathi — the<\/p>\n
complainant proved his case for grant of loan.<\/p>\n
“‘\\<\/p>\n
Burden shifts on the accused failed to disc.?ia.r:g_”ehis<\/p>\n
burden.\n<\/p>\n
Hence, it is submitted that in  .insta–ntMc’as_e\u00bb a1so’A.the_V uh<\/p>\n
compiainant has proved that as per Ex.P15′,c theitagreerneltt\ufb01has.i<\/p>\n
been entered and by way of issv-‘ring the”chhee;ueVE:\u00a7.P2, _ F<\/p>\n
the accused has a.ccepted for.:haVin_g  ‘into the
\nagreement between the    the existence of
\ntransaction by issuing has not yet tried
\nto take the    no agreement<\/p>\n
between the <\/p>\n
11_  I ‘\u00abv444VtheV””argument made by both the<\/p>\n
parties.\n<\/p>\n
  treferretihhhhthe judgment reported by Supreme<\/p>\n
 Kar R 219 between Krishna Janardhan<\/p>\n
‘   Bhat’ G. Hegde — para 19, 23 and 29 and (2008)<\/p>\n
 632 (in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs.<\/p>\n
 \u00ab.EJ’n.hicn:ohj””A_\u00ab[ndia and Others) and another judgment reported in<\/p>\n
‘<<\/p>\n
2005 (5; Kar.L.J. 307 (in the case of Keygien Gzobastjta\ufb01-axed,<\/p>\n
Bangalore vs. Madhau Impex, Bangalore and Anothef). V    <\/p>\n
13. The points that would arise {of c’o.nsi[de’1fat.1fo’n.V  <\/p>\n
1′) Whether the complaintanthas pvrovea ttFieAj'”aVcE–v\u20acha:t he ” V<\/p>\n
has paid R33,50,000\/ti\ufb01otttthe accusea? 3
\n11} Whether the accused   Ex.P2;’A the cheque
\nin favour of the”co}npl;1Jin:grjI?’W AA <\/p>\n
My answer;*’w’o;u,ld be in ~rav\u00a2”u_r’ “of’*t–he accused for the<\/p>\n
following reasons:   t”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14. ‘Fhe_ co1nV;V’)!aiVnazdt.:_”.has stated in the petition that<\/p>\n
under the peculiar” ‘~-Vci;rc_t&1&:nstances his signature has been<\/p>\n
‘collected  ‘.the “e.heque and also on the agreement as per<\/p>\n
  expiained that the accused had a case<\/p>\n
 thin: the Courvtviofbivif Judge, Sirsi wherein he has utilised the<\/p>\n
“‘.vser\u00a7?iceat’_of an advocate by name Shri Rama Joshi. The said<\/p>\n
 ad.Vo’c_ate”‘had a junior by name Vishwanath Hegde who<\/p>\n
Vt happens to be the reiative of the complainant, has obtained in<\/p>\n
‘\\<\/p>\n
a dominant position the signature on the agreement <\/p>\n
on the cheque. it is the case of the cornplainantfhatihellhas’1 ”<\/p>\n
paid Rs.3,50,000\/w of cash on the spot_,….i-Ie’ has  <\/p>\n
himself as PW1. Except his statementein :his’iiov\\ir1_ case, <\/p>\n
not adduced any independent v?i_t’1*;ess and not  ‘any ” V<\/p>\n
materials to prove that he had  on the
\nspot to the accused. When…_.tl’1eA  amount to the
\naccused itself is in disputev_a:id_  himself
\nhas failed in  accused, it is
\ndifficult to belielve   that he has paid
\nRs.3,50,0(}li)ll\/lliliito   theuaccused has paid return
\ncheque for came to be dishonoured.\n<\/p>\n
The question ofllpaiizn1er1t is the question of fact which is to be<\/p>\n
fproved aducing evid\ufb02ence and placing material documents.<\/p>\n
On_proyi11.gi”‘the\u00bbv isa._nl\ufb01f:, the complainant has to rise the jural<\/p>\n
it’z,v.relation,shipv_and:_’legal claim for payment of Rs.1,5O,OOO\/A<\/p>\n
 wasdishonoured. Section 138 of NI. Act contemplates<\/p>\n
  the instrument is issued on which if the<\/p>\n
V”  compllainarit has legally recoverable debt for prosecution, then<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
16.<\/p>\n
the agreement is not proved, but if the accused   ”
\nthe signature on Ex.P6 and P2 — the chyeque,’it”i’s:’_pre’su_:ned,_V ii<\/p>\n
that the accused has accepted <\/p>\n
gratuitous payment.\n<\/p>\n
should be directed to return the The ‘s’aidisubrnissions
\nalso required to be proved  respect of the
\nexistence of contract betweenijvvitfhen the very
\nacceptance of ‘made to in dispute, the
\nquestion of  iiireturn the amount does<\/p>\n
not arise.\n<\/p>\n
I 7. Inithe  referred by the complainant in AIR<\/p>\n
1999 SQ2544 (supra), he refers head note 13 wherein it is held<\/p>\n
  of’\u00ab-undue enrichment would squarely apply as<\/p>\n
in ifi\u00e9ntftledyfor”restoration in any case”.<\/p>\n
paym_e’r;r’t .u}asi”m:_: gratuitous. It could be payment under mistake<\/p>\n
xiiiiiavfso 1fi’defe__ndan’t No.1’s case was accepted. Plaintiff was<\/p>\n
The said statement has<\/p>\n
 5een..Vexarnined with the relevant facts existed therein. But in<\/p>\n
 of the facts and circumstances herein, the said<\/p>\n
it<\/p>\n
The submissions of the complainant <\/p>\n
When such -b’.ei1’1g’i'[i’]\u20aci.C\u00a33.S6′,Tlili:jE:V__a(;Q1$iS\u20acd _ ><\/p>\n
to be proved by the complainant. in a case of this<\/p>\n
however it is essentially a question of fact. In t_he-  ”<\/p>\n
Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable In_stru_rnents ii<\/p>\n
referred with regard to the presuinptijon’ias\ufb01to <\/p>\n
instrument. Section 118A reads.th’a_t “Where the  v 1′<\/p>\n
been obtained from its lawful  or frorn person in
\nlawful custody thereo\ufb01 by   or fraud or has
\nbeen obtained from the malgeror  by means of
\nan o\ufb01ence orfrattdgiioyriforp the burden of
\nproving that   a  dueiiciourse lies upon him\u00bb,
\nSection   llhial.V__’h’?resuimption in favour of holder<\/p>\n
— it shall be presufned, contrary is proved, that the<\/p>\n
holder ofa cheaue.:ireeeiued  cheque, of the nature referred to<\/p>\n
 5338411′ f0?’ th\u00e9i\ufb02discharge, in whole or in part, of any<\/p>\n
dezw;i_azhggr-..aiia5izf:g.” In Section 118 and 139 of N1. Act,<\/p>\n
 q._presuim_pitior1. .iis”i;driawn in favour of the holder of the cheque.<\/p>\n
 When”the cheque is to be seen through the existence of<\/p>\n
 agrecrr:er1_t or specially when it is disputed, it is for the<\/p>\n
 ._con1pl%ainant to prove the same. By looking at any angle, the<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
.j’g’ab.\n<\/p>\n
complainant has not discharged his burden suffic:’ierriIy.[:.V’tQ<\/p>\n
prove his case.\n<\/p>\n
18. In View of the above circtfrnsta\u00e9ncves, I’:’a’nsW=er\u00bb._.13Vo.rh.’<\/p>\n
the points in favour of the accused. Acco”r’dingiy,v–“th:is fnetition <\/p>\n
is aiiowed. The order passed by fh.e:K”Court Vbelow-dis  aside.
\nOrdered accordingly. Dveposit rr1ad’es-:’j4b3}’s’-the acvciised to be<\/p>\n
refunded to the accused.\n<\/p>\n
19. in View we::”dispo.sa_1.ofV’CrI.”RP No.1282\/2006,
\nthe question 55.c:g,g\u00a7id\u00e9r1’x1g”‘cl-1.\u00a7\u00a715 1\u00a7j:o.V14s1\/2006 does not<\/p>\n
arise and  . _’
\nEudge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sripad S\/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde vs Triyambak S Hegde on 1 December, 2009 Author: L.Narayana Swamy IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF D1′:3CEIVIBER_,—-\ufb01V?..I)”(Z’}’9V~’ . BEFORE THE I-ION’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.IIIAR_Iw.AN’A.. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION”No;I_2s2]2’oo\u00a7 C\/w. I I I CRIMINAL REVISIQISI ~IPE’;IfITII5N~..IsIIo”‘;~IR431\/2006 CRL.RP N0 123; […]<\/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-227121","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSripad S\/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde vs Triyambak S Hegde on 1 December, 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\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sripad S\/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde vs Triyambak S Hegde on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-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=\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-05T01:20:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sripad S\\\/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde vs Triyambak S Hegde on 1 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-05T01:20:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2457,\"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\\\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Sripad S\\\/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde vs Triyambak S Hegde on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-05T01:20:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sripad S\\\/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde vs Triyambak S Hegde on 1 December, 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":"Sripad S\/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde vs Triyambak S Hegde on 1 December, 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\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sripad S\/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde vs Triyambak S Hegde on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-05T01:20:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sripad S\/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde vs Triyambak S Hegde on 1 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-05T01:20:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009"},"wordCount":2457,"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\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009","name":"Sripad S\/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde vs Triyambak S Hegde on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-05T01:20:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sripad-so-mahabaleshwar-hegde-vs-triyambak-s-hegde-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sripad S\/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde vs Triyambak S Hegde on 1 December, 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\/227121","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=227121"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227121\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}