{"id":243170,"date":"1996-08-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-08-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996"},"modified":"2017-06-28T21:40:39","modified_gmt":"2017-06-28T16:10:39","slug":"papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996","title":{"rendered":"Papaiah vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 23 August, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Papaiah vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 23 August, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPAPAIAH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t23\/08\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nG.B. PATTANAIK (J)\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\nLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We have heard learned counsel on both sides.<br \/>\n     This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of<br \/>\nthe High  Court of  Karnataka dated  19.9.1990\tmade  in  WA<br \/>\nNo.494\/90. The admitted facts are that the respondents 4 and<br \/>\n5, by  name Doddaramaiah  and Chikkaramaiah,  sons  of\tlate<br \/>\nGurappa of Bangalore were granted five acres of agricultural<br \/>\nland under  Rule 43  (8) of  the Mysore Land Revenue Code on<br \/>\nFebruary 13,  1940 for\tuse and\t enjoyment of the Government<br \/>\nland. Rule 43 (8) reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Occupancies granted  to applicants<br \/>\n     belonging\tto   Depressed\t Classes<br \/>\n     under Rule\t 43(5) above  and  those<br \/>\n     granted by Government free of upset<br \/>\n     price or  reduced\tupset  price  to<br \/>\n     poor and  landless people\tof other<br \/>\n     communities   or\t to    religious<br \/>\n     charitable institutions,  shall not<br \/>\n     be alienated and the grantees shall<br \/>\n     execute  Mutchalikas  in  the  form<br \/>\n     prescribed\t by   Government.   This<br \/>\n     shall not,\t however, prevent  lands<br \/>\n     granted to\t Depressed classes under<br \/>\n     Rule  43(5)   being   accepted   as<br \/>\n     security for  any loan  which  they<br \/>\n     may wish  to obtain from Government<br \/>\n     of from  a Co-operative society for<br \/>\n     the bonafide  purposes of improving<br \/>\n     the land.:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     A reading\tof the\tsaid rule would indicate that with a<br \/>\nview to\t augment the  economic conditions  of the  Scheduled<br \/>\nCastes, Scheduled  Castes and  other weaker  sections of the<br \/>\nsociety, Government  may assigned  the land  to them  or  to<br \/>\ncooperative societies composed of them. It is not in dispute<br \/>\nthat the appellant had purchased the land from the assignees<br \/>\nunder a\t registered sale  deed on  December  19,  1958.\t The<br \/>\nKarnataka Legislature  enacted Karnataka  Scheduled Castes &amp;<br \/>\nSchedules Tribes  (prohibition of transfer of certain lands)<br \/>\nAct, 1978 [for short, the &#8220;Act&#8221;] declaring alienation by the<br \/>\nassignee-Schedules Castes  and Schedules Tribes, as void and<br \/>\ninoperative. Procedure\thas been  prescribed for restoration<br \/>\nof the\tlands the  assignees or\t if they  not available, the<br \/>\nland resumed  be assigned  to eligible\tpersons\t from  those<br \/>\nclasses. In  furtherance thereof,  thee respondents  4\t&amp;  5<br \/>\nfiled an  application under  Section 4 &amp; 5 of the Act before<br \/>\nthe competent authority on April 22, 1985 for restoration of<br \/>\nthe land.  The competent  authority allowed  the application<br \/>\nwhich was  confirmed on\t appeal\t and,  therefore,  the\twrit<br \/>\npetitions came\tto be dismissed. Thus this appeal by special<br \/>\nleave.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Sri P.R.Ramasesh,\tlearned counsel\t for  the  appellant<br \/>\ncontended that\tthere was  no  prohibition  as\tagainst\t the<br \/>\nappellant, since  he obtained  the title after the expiry of<br \/>\nten years from the date of the assignment by the Government.<br \/>\nThe appellant  had perfected  title by\tadverse\t possession.<br \/>\nTherefore, the\tAct is\tinapplicable to such a situation. In<br \/>\nsupport of  his contention,  he sought\tto place reliance on<br \/>\nthe judgment  of this  Court in\t K.T. Huchegowda  Vs. Deputy<br \/>\nCommissioner &amp; Ors. [1994 (3) SCC 536].\n<\/p>\n<p>     Sri Kapil\tSibal, learned\tsenior counsel appearing for<br \/>\nthe  respondents,  contended  that  the\t appellant  had\t not<br \/>\npleaded adverse\t possession ass\t against the  State. He came<br \/>\ninto  possession   by  virtue\tof  a  title  obtained\tfrom<br \/>\nrespondents 4 and 5. The sale is void and against the public<br \/>\npolicy.\t His   contention  of\tadverse\t possession  against<br \/>\nrespondents, though  was raised before the primary authority<br \/>\nand the\t appellate authority and was negatived the same, was<br \/>\nnot canvassed  before the  High Court.\tThe only  contention<br \/>\nraised before  the High\t Court was  as to the estoppel which<br \/>\nwas rightly  negatived. Under those circumstances, the ratio<br \/>\nof Hochegowdh case [supra] has no application. In support of<br \/>\nhis contention, he placed reliance on other judgment of this<br \/>\nCourt on  the case  of R.  Chandevarappa etc.  Vs. State  of<br \/>\nKarnataka &amp; Ors. etc. etc. [1995 (5) SCALE 620].<br \/>\nIn view\t of the\t rival contention raised on both  sides, the<br \/>\nquestions that\tarise for  consideration  are:\twhether\t the<br \/>\nrespondents 5  and 6  who have\talienated the  land  to\t the<br \/>\nappellant are estopped to challenge the sale and whether the<br \/>\nsale is valid and also whether appellant perfected his title<br \/>\nby adverse possession as against the State?<br \/>\nIt is  seen that Article 46 of the Constitution, in terms of<br \/>\nits Preamble,  enjoins upon  the State\tto provide  economic<br \/>\njustice to  the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other<br \/>\nweaker\tsections   of  the  society  and  to  prevent  their<br \/>\nexploitation. Under  Article 39 (b) of the Constitution, the<br \/>\nState is  enjoined to  distribute its largess, land, to sub-<br \/>\nserve the  public good. The right to economic justice to the<br \/>\nScheduled Castes,  Scheduled Tribes  and other\tweaker is  a<br \/>\nfundamental right  to secure equality of status, opportunity<br \/>\nand liberty.  Economic justice is a facet of liberty without<br \/>\nwhich equality\tof status  and dignity of person are teasing<br \/>\nillusions. In  rural India, land provides economic status to<br \/>\nthe owner.  The State,\ttherefore, is  under  constitutional<br \/>\nobligation to  ensure to them opportunity giving its largess<br \/>\nto the\tpoor to\t augment their economic position. Assignment<br \/>\nof  land  having  been\tmade  in  furtherance  thereof,\t any<br \/>\nalienation, in\tits contravention,  would  be  not  only  in<br \/>\nviolation of  the constitutional  policy but also opposed to<br \/>\npublic policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Thereby,<br \/>\nany alienation\tmade in\t violation thereof  is void  and the<br \/>\npurchaser does\tnot get\t any valid  right, title or interest<br \/>\nthereunder.  It\t is  seen  that\t Rule  43  (a)\tspecifically<br \/>\nprohibits alienation of assigned land. It does not prescribe<br \/>\nany limitation\tof time\t as such.  However, it\tis contended<br \/>\nthat the  appellant has obtained land by way of sale in 1958<br \/>\nlong before the Act came into force and thereby he perfected<br \/>\nhis title  by  adverse\tpossession.  We\t find  no  force  in<br \/>\ncontention. This  Court\t had  considered  this\tquestion  in<br \/>\nsimilar circumstances  R. Chandevarappa&#8217;s  case and had held<br \/>\nthus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;The question  then is  whether the<br \/>\n     appellant has  perfected his  title<br \/>\n     by adverse\t possession. It\t is seen<br \/>\n     that a contention was raised before<br \/>\n     the Assistant Commissioner that the<br \/>\n     appellant\t having\t   remained   in<br \/>\n     possessions from 1968, he perfected<br \/>\n     his title\tby  adverse  possession.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     But   thee\t   crucial   facts    to<br \/>\n     constitute adverse\t possession have<br \/>\n     not been  pleaded.\t Admittedly  the<br \/>\n     appellant came into possession by a<br \/>\n     derivative title  from the original<br \/>\n     grantee.  It   is\tseen   that  the<br \/>\n     original grantee  has no  right  to<br \/>\n     alienate\tthe   land.   Therefore,<br \/>\n     having come  into possession  under<br \/>\n     colour  of\t  title\t from\toriginal<br \/>\n     grantee, if  the appellant\t intends<br \/>\n     to\t plead\t adverse  possession  as<br \/>\n     against the State, he must disclaim<br \/>\n     his title\tand  plead  his\t hostile<br \/>\n     claim to the knowledge of the State<br \/>\n     and that  the within  the State had<br \/>\n     not taken any action thereon within<br \/>\n     the prescribed period. Thereby, the<br \/>\n     appellant&#8217;s possession would become<br \/>\n     adverse. The  counsel in  fairness,<br \/>\n     despite his  research, is unable to<br \/>\n     bring to  our notice  any such plea<br \/>\n     having   been    taken    by    the<br \/>\n     appellant.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The ratio thereof squarely applies to the facts in this<br \/>\ncase.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In K.T. Huchegowda&#8217;s case [supra] neither this question<br \/>\nwas considered\tnor the\t validity of  the Rule has been gone<br \/>\ninto. Therein,\tthis Court  had gone  into the\tquestion  of<br \/>\nadverse possession  as against\tthe  purchaser\tbut  not  as<br \/>\nagainst the State. Unless the purchaser derives valid title,<br \/>\nthe question  of title\tdoes not arise. If he remained to be<br \/>\nin  possession\t in  his   own\tright  de  hors\t the  title,<br \/>\nnecessarily he has to plead and prove the date from which he<br \/>\ndisclaimed  his\t title\tand  asserted  possessory  title  as<br \/>\nagainst the  State  and\t perfected  his\t possession  to\t the<br \/>\nknowledge of  the real owner, viz., the State, in this case.<br \/>\nSuch a\tplea was  neither  taken  nor  argued  nor  was\t any<br \/>\nevidence  adduced  in  this  behalf.  The  plea\t of  adverse<br \/>\npossession  as\t against  the  State  does  not\t arise\teven<br \/>\notherwise as  the proceedings were laid before the expiry of<br \/>\na period  of 30\t years. The question of estoppel against the<br \/>\nrespondent does\t not arise   as\t the Act  voids the sale and<br \/>\nthus there would be no estoppel against the Statute.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Papaiah vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 23 August, 1996 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: PAPAIAH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/08\/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J) ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: O R D E R Leave granted. We have [&hellip;]<\/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-243170","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Papaiah vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 23 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Papaiah vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 23 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-28T16:10:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Papaiah vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 23 August, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-28T16:10:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1292,\"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\\\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996\",\"name\":\"Papaiah vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 23 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-28T16:10:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Papaiah vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 23 August, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Papaiah vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 23 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Papaiah vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 23 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-28T16:10:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Papaiah vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 23 August, 1996","datePublished":"1996-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-28T16:10:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996"},"wordCount":1292,"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\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996","name":"Papaiah vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 23 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-28T16:10:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/papaiah-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-23-august-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Papaiah vs State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 23 August, 1996"}]},{"@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\/243170","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=243170"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243170\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243170"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243170"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243170"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}