{"id":240805,"date":"2004-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004"},"modified":"2016-12-28T00:31:44","modified_gmt":"2016-12-27T19:01:44","slug":"ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004","title":{"rendered":"Ram & Another vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 September, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ram & Another vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 September, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: S V Patil<\/div>\n
Bench: V. P Atil, B.N.Srikrishna<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7431 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nRam & Another\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Karnataka & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/09\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nV. P SHIVARAJ ATIL & B.N.SRIKRISHNA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Shivaraj V. Patil J.\n<\/p>\n
\tOne Dattoba Daji Saheba Desai filed Form No. 7 under
\nSection 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short
\n`the Act’) before the Land Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal),
\nBelgaum, claiming occupancy rights over the land Survey No. 43
\nmeasuring 2 acres 23 guntas exclusively to himself.  3 other
\napplicants namely,  Baburao Desai, Vishwasrao Desai and
\nJayawantrao Desai also made similar applications for grant of
\noccupancy rights in respect of the same land claiming 1\/4th share
\neach.  The Tribunal, after conducting enquiry, by order dated
\n20.8.1975 granted occupancy rights in favour of these 4 persons
\nas regards their respective shares.  Dattoba, aggrieved by the
\nsaid order, filed Writ Petition No. 5244\/1975 before the High
\nCourt challenging the correctness of the said order of the
\nTribunal.  The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside
\nthe order of the Tribunal and remanded the case to the Tribunal
\nfor fresh disposal.  After the remand, the Tribunal after hearing
\nthe parties by its order dated 23.6.1981 held that these 4
\napplicants were entitled for cultivatory right to the extent of
\n1\/4th share.  Dattoba filed Writ Petition No. 18378\/1981 for the
\nsecond time calling in question the validity and correctness of
\nthe order of the Tribunal dated 23.6.1981 alleging irregularities
\nin the conduct of the enquiry by the Tribunal.  The High Court
\nagain allowed the writ petition, remitted the case to the
\nTribunal for re-enquiry and disposal.  The Tribunal took up the
\ncase for the third time after issuing notices to the parties.
\nThe Tribunal, by a detailed order dated 23.9.1996 by majority,
\ngranted occupancy rights in favour of the 4 branches of the
\napplicants to the extent of 1\/4th share each as per the boundaries
\nshown in the order of the Tribunal dated 23.6.1981.  Writ
\nPetition No. 29937\/96 was filed by the grandsons of Dattoba as
\nlegal heirs challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 23.9.1996
\ncontending that the occupancy rights should have been granted
\nexclusively to them.  The learned Single Judge of the High Court,
\non re-appreciation of the evidence, allowed the writ petition by
\nhis order dated 10.8.1998 holding that the occupancy rights in
\nrespect of the said land vest exclusively in Dattoba’s branch and
\nremaining branches of the family do not have any share in the
\nsaid land.  Jayavantrao Desai, respondent no. 8 in the writ
\npetition, filed Writ Appeal No. 4310\/98 before the Division Bench
\nof the High Court questioning the validity and correctness of the
\norder made by the learned Single Judge.  The Division Bench of
\nthe High Court, after considering the rival contentions, in para
\n9 of the order held thus:\n<\/p>\n
“9.\tThis Court exercising jurisdiction under
\nArticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
\nnormally cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record
\nwhich has already been appreciated by the Land
\nTribunal.  Not on one occasion but on all the three
\noccasions, the Land Tribunal on appreciation of
\nevidence on record has found that it is a joint
\ntenancy.  That finding of fact cannot be upset by
\nthis Court sitting under its writ jurisdiction by re-
\nappreciating the evidence.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn this view, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal,
\nset aside order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the
\nwrit petition.  Thus, the order of the Tribunal stood restored.
\nHence, this appeal by the legal heirs of Dattoba questioning the
\nvalidity and correctness of the impugned order made by the
\nDivision Bench.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel for the appellants contended that
\nhaving regard to the evidence both oral and documentary, learned
\nSingle Judge was right in reversing the order of the Tribunal
\nholding that the branch of Dattoba was entitled for grant of
\noccupancy rights over the land in question exclusively; Chairman
\nof the Tribunal gave detailed reasons in support of the finding
\nthat Dattoba’s branch alone was entitled for occupancy rights;
\nMembers of the Tribunal did not agree with the Chairman and took
\nthe view that the four applicants were entitled for grant of
\noccupancy rights to the extent of 1\/4th share each but without
\nassigning reasons and without considering the evidence brought on
\nrecord; the learned Single Judge was right in reversing the order
\nof the Tribunal as it was based merely on majority opinion there
\nbeing no support either in law or on facts.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn opposition, the learned counsel for the respondents made
\nsubmissions supporting the impugned order.  According to them,
\nthe learned Single Judge exercising jurisdiction under Articles
\n226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ought not have set aside
\nthe order of the Tribunal by re-appreciating the evidence as a
\ncourt of appeal.  The learned counsel also submitted that having
\nregard to the undisputed fact that 4 applicants come from the
\nsame family of common ancestor and belong to different branches
\nof the family, all the 4 applicants were entitled for grant of
\noccupancy rights over the land in question to the extent of 1\/4th
\nshare each.  It may be stated here that the landlords have not
\nchosen to contest the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have carefully considered the respective submissions
\nmade on behalf of the parties.  The facts found in the case are
\nthat: Dettoba Desai applied for grant of occupancy rights over
\nthe entire survey no. 43 measuring 2 acres and 23 guntas claiming
\nto be the protected tenant over the said land for over 50 years.
\nBaburao Desai, Bishwasrao Desai and Jayawantrao Desi applied for
\ngrant of occupancy rights in respect of the same land requesting
\nfor grant of occupancy rights over their share of land which they
\nwere cultivating since about 15 years after partition in the
\nfamily properties.  The landlord did not contest the case as
\nalready stated above.  The 3 applicants who claimed grant of
\noccupancy rights over their share of the land produced a copy of
\ncompromise deed effected during the year 1962 between the
\napplicant Dattoba and the landlord.  The land in question was
\nitem no. 4 in the compromise deed with respect to which it was
\nstated that the said land shall remain in the possession of all
\nthe four.  The 3 applicants also requested for spot inspection of
\nthe suit land by the Tribunal.  The Tribunal visited the land on
\n20.8.1975 in presence of all the applicants and made enquiries
\nwith the adjacent land owners.  From the local enquiry and spot
\ninspection, the Tribunal was satisfied that the suit land was in
\npossession of all the 4 applicants and they were cultivating
\npersonally their respective shares of land as tenants.  The
\napplicant Dattoba did not adduce any oral evidence to rebut the
\nclaims of the 3 applicants.  However, he relied on R.O.Rs. of
\n1965-66 and 1973-74. No doubt, entries in these R.O.Rs. showed
\nthe name of Dattoba as cultivator. The 3 applicants stated that
\nthe entries in the R.O.Rs. remained in the  name of Dattoba,
\nbeing the manager of the joint family but after partition, each
\none of them was cultivating personally his respective share of
\nthe land.  The Tribunal accepted the case of the 3 applicants
\nrecording that it was satisfied that the 3 applicants were in
\nactual possession of the suit land and were entitled for grant of
\noccupancy rights in respect of their respective shares.
\nAccordingly, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights to all of them
\nby its order dated 20.8.1975 according to their possession over
\nthe respective shares of the land.  Dattoba filed the writ
\npetition challenging this order of the Tribunal.  The High Court
\nallowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Tribunal
\nand remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh disposal.  After
\nremand, the Tribunal by its order dated 23.6.1981 again held that
\nall the 4 applicants were entitled for cultivatory rights to the
\nextent of 1\/4th share each.  As can be seen from this order,
\nmajority of the Members of the Tribunal concluded that all the
\nfour applicants were entitled for occupancy rights in the land in
\nquestion to the extent of 1\/4th share each but the Chairman of the
\nTribunal did not agree with the majority. Ultimate decision by
\nmajority was that each one of the applicants was entitled for
\ngrant of occupancy rights in respect of his share in the land.
\nDattoba filed second writ petition challenging the order of the
\nTribunal contending that occupancy rights should have been
\ngranted exclusively in his favour over the entire land in
\nquestion alleging irregularities in the conduct of the enquiry by
\nthe Tribunal.  This time also, the High Court set aside the order
\nof the Tribunal and remitted the case to the Tribunal for re-
\nenquiry and disposal.  After holding re-enquiry as directed by
\nthe High Court for the third time, the Tribunal by majority
\nconcluded that all the four applicants were entitled for grant of
\noccupancy rights over their share of land.  Four Members opined
\nto grant of occupancy rights in favour of all the four applicants
\naccording to their shares but the Chairman did not agree with
\nthem.  The effective order ultimately was that all the four
\napplicants were granted occupancy rights over the land in
\nquestion to the extent of their shares.  Aggrieved by the said
\norder of the Tribunal, Dattoba approached the High Court for the
\nthird time by filing a writ petition questioning the validity and
\ncorrectness of the Tribunal.  Learned Single Judge of the High
\nCourt, on re-appreciation of the evidence placed on record by his
\norder dated 10.8.1998, held thus-\n<\/p>\n
“The evidence on record overwhelmingly and
\nconclusively indicates that Survey No. 43 vested in
\nDattoba’s branch and that the remaining three
\nbranches of the family did not have any shares in it.
\nUnder the circumstances, the order passed by the
\nTribunal will have to be set aside.  The modification
\nthat is necessary is that it will have to be declared
\nthat the occupancy rights that have been granted in
\nrespect of Survey No. 43 vest exclusively in
\nDattoba’s branch and remaining branches of the family
\ndo not have any share as far as this land is
\nconcerned.”\n<\/p>\n
\tOne of the applicants, namely, Jayawantrao Desai filed writ
\nappeal before the Division Bench of the High Court calling in
\nquestion the validity of the order made by the learned Single
\nJudge.  The Division Bench of the High Court found fault with the
\norder of the learned Single Judge and held that the learned
\nSingle Judge could not upset finding of fact recorded sitting
\nunder writ jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence.  The
\nDivision Bench of the High Court in the impugned order observed
\nthat all the four applicants were close relatives; three
\napplicants from the beginning claimed occupancy rights  in
\nrespect of their respective shares of land; the tenancy of the
\nland stood in the name of their grandfather who was holding
\ntenancy on behalf of the entire family; two times the matter was
\nremanded and three times the Tribunal, appreciating the material
\non record, held that all the applicants were entitled for
\noccupancy rights and that original tenancy was a joint tenancy;
\nthe Division Bench also referred to a document of the year 1919
\nand observed that in the said document, name of the grandfather
\nof the appellant, Jayawantrao Dessai, found place;  spot
\ninspection was made by the Tribunal and it was found that all the
\nfour applicants were in possession of the land.  The Division
\nBench also found that the approach and appreciation of the
\nmaterial on record by the learned Single Judge was wrong and he
\nignored the effect of the spot inspection made by the Tribunal.
\nAlthough the Chairman of the Tribunal in the third order after
\nremand found in favour of the applicant Dattoba on the basis of
\nentries of R.O.Rs. and land revenue receipts, other members did
\nnot agree.  It is true that in the third order made by the
\nTribunal which was set aside by learned Single Judge in the writ
\npetition, the Chairman has given detailed reasons in support of
\nhis opinion, the remaining four Members of the Tribunal held in
\nfavour of all the four applicants but have not given reasons to
\ncome to the conclusion that all of them were entitled for grant
\nof occupancy rights in respect of their respective shares.  It
\nmay be remembered that four Members of the Tribunal were non-
\nofficial Members, they were not members judicially-trained.
\nAlthough they have not given reasons in support of their opinion,
\ntheir opinion could be supported on the basis of material on
\nrecord particularly taking note of the fact that the Tribunal
\nconsecutively three times found as a fact that all the four
\napplicants were cultivating the respective shares of their land.
\nWe are conscious that in the first two rounds, the orders of the
\nTribunal were set aside by the High Court on finding some
\nirregularities in the procedure followed; those orders did not
\nexist for consideration for the Tribunal deciding the matter for
\nthe third time but the evidence and material that was available
\non record was not erased.  No doubt, the R.O.Rs. showed the name
\nof Dattoba as the cultivator in respect of the entire land but
\nthe Tribunal having due regard to the spot inspection and local
\nenquiry with the adjacent land owners, compromise deed showing
\npartition in 1962 and also taking note that Dattoba being the
\nmanager of the joint family earlier, his name alone was found in
\nthe record of rights, came to the conclusion on facts that all
\nthe four applicants were entitled for grant of occupancy rights
\nover their respective shares of land. In somewhat similar
\ncircumstances, this Court in Mohan Balaku Patil and others vs.
\nKrishnoji Bhaurao Hundre (Dead)<\/a> by LRs. [(2000) 1 SCC 518],
\ndealing with the presumption available as to the correctness of
\nentries in the record of rights under Section 133 of Karnataka
\nLand Revenue Act, 1964 and displacement of such presumption by a
\nfinding of fact to the contrary in enquiry made by the Tribunal
\nunder Section 48-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, in
\nparagraph 4 has observed, “When, in fact, the Tribunal made local
\nenquiry by spot inspection and had come to the conclusion that
\nthe appellants were in possession, that factor should have
\nweighed with the appellate authority………… Presumption
\narising under Section 133 of the Act in respect of the entries
\nmade in the Record of Rights stood displaced by the finding of
\nfact recorded that the appellants were in actual possession of
\nthe land and were cultivating the same…………” The Division
\nBench of the High Court, in our view, was right in taking
\nexception to the order of the learned Single Judge in upsetting
\nthe finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal while exercising
\nwrit jurisdiction.  Thus, having regard to the facts found,
\nlooking to close relationship between the parties and also
\nconsidering spot inspection and the local enquiries made with the
\nadjacent land owners, in our view, the order of the Tribunal
\nholding that all the 4 applicants were entitled for grant of
\noccupancy rights ought not to have been reversed by the learned
\nSingle Judge.  Finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, in the
\nlight of what is stated above, could not be said to be either
\nperverse or based on no evidence or was bad for non-consideration
\nof material evidence brought on record.  By the impugned
\njudgment, Division Bench has rightly set aside the order of the
\nlearned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis being the position, we do not find any good ground or
\nvalid reason to interfere with the impugned order.  Consequently,
\nthe appeal stands dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ram & Another vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 September, 2004 Author: S V Patil Bench: V. P Atil, B.N.Srikrishna CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7431 of 2000 PETITIONER: Ram & Another RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/09\/2004 BENCH: V. P SHIVARAJ ATIL & B.N.SRIKRISHNA JUDGMENT: […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-240805","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRam & Another vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 September, 2004 - 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\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram & Another vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-27T19:01:44+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\\\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram & Another vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 September, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-27T19:01:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2591,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004\",\"name\":\"Ram & Another vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-27T19:01:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram & Another vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 September, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Ram & Another vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 September, 2004 - 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\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram & Another vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-27T19:01:44+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\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram & Another vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 September, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-27T19:01:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004"},"wordCount":2591,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004","name":"Ram & Another vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-27T19:01:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-another-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-17-september-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram & Another vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 September, 2004"}]},{"@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\/240805","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=240805"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240805\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240805"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240805"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240805"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}