{"id":243216,"date":"2010-12-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010"},"modified":"2018-01-25T05:12:49","modified_gmt":"2018-01-24T23:42:49","slug":"mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr Mohammed Allauddin vs Mr Murthy on 7 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Mr Mohammed Allauddin vs Mr Murthy on 7 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Jawad Rahim<\/div>\n
'cl:\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
These hirie revisions under Section 46 of the<\/p>\n
Karnataka Re\ufb01t Act, 1999 are directed against theVr’\u00bb.o’ro_ers<\/p>\n
dated 24–o4~2oo9 in HRC N09608: eoo, 603, 5g:;;eria,,r _<\/p>\n
599, 607, 605\/2006 respectiveiy orrthe fi!-eHot’::t.he’i~:ieaArheci–\u00ab.. \u00b0\u00bb.<\/p>\n
XI Addi, Judge, Court of Small Cat;i:ses_;,i~eE\u00a7eh’g,a’io’re,4’i”ej-ee_cti;fsg<\/p>\n
the petition filed by the oetitiiooaer he-reiih VtheV’rve’t;3f._Vrjeciiriirrgii’u<\/p>\n
the decree for eviction,<\/p>\n
2. Heard the Iearihettcoonseiii\u00bbMr’; \u00e93.R. Vishwahath
\nfor petitioner g?}i”‘i?i._t_i’i\u20ac iearheti c’oiLi’i5\u00e9’.sj~eViv’!\\r’i’if; CC. Poovaiah, for
\nrespondents a_ri’siV””;”3’e?r:1s’e;ci–,oAth.ef:__re%;ords in suppiemehtatioh<\/p>\n
thereto;\n<\/p>\n
3′ ‘—o4Tihe focttiai\ufb01actrix manifest from the records is:<\/p>\n
   pi.etitioxher*’**herein invoking Section 27(2)(r) and (o)<\/p>\n
  Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as<\/p>\n
‘tiheiAct’.”foV_rii::brevity) initiated proceedings to evict the<\/p>\n
resporzriei-nts in aii these petitions on the premise that he is<\/p>\n
V.’:x”tE7iE .CV\\!\ufb01\u20acT of the prooerty in question which has severai<\/p>\n
 tenements. Each tenement rented has smaii dimension.<\/p>\n
The property is situate at Siaughter House Road, Bahgaiore.<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
He purchased the same on 03-O2~2GS9 aieng with one<\/p>\n
Zameerulia Khan. The reseondents in each _4e.fV_”~.th~ese<\/p>\n
petitions are tenants :2′? smaii tenements is3\u00a7’_hih”\u00e9.’j'”S.\u00a7i**7i\u00a7’<\/p>\n
building on meager rent. At the timehdf purch’as.eV.they’–i;vete”=<\/p>\n
tenants and after acquiring title to the:pi’t?\u00a7ii:~er*t\u00a7}*iiteiweiic3z_gw;3_s<\/p>\n
attomed and are now tenants’ii’n.der th-ern. V  ”<\/p>\n
4. It is averred’ that sich”et-i.l:j4:ej”‘t:.:jemseesisiaid and in
\na dllaeidated state. tjemelitien and
\nreconstruction,   of the Tenants is
\nbest suited members. He has
\nfeur  th’e”‘s’dns are married and have
\nchildreri\ufb01.  are residing with him. The<\/p>\n
l’amil\u00a7,:_ _consli'”s~ts_”of_2–5 r;ilenilbers. He finds it difficult to adjust<\/p>\n
“V’\u00ab–._the’n?i’:’   srnai”l “”” “accommodation avaiiable in their<\/p>\n
“‘.PCss’essi’cgn.-\u00b0H,_V’Efhe entire building in their possession<\/p>\n
n*iea’sures.’2′{3.g_>i}3O ft. Therefore, he intends to accommodate<\/p>\n
{his manfied sons and other family members in the schedule<\/p>\n
V”:V’ptern”\u00a7\u00abses. He alieged that the respondents have with<\/p>\n
 sinister design disputed the tenancy though tenancy was<\/p>\n
well established.\n<\/p>\n
schedeie erernises is e ciihchirig evidence in the present
\nproceedings. He referred to the finding recorded by the traii
\nCourt in the eariier proceedings which cieariy show that the<\/p>\n
trial Court had dismissed the eariier proceeding .en’i\u00a7k”e”h.s:thie<\/p>\n
ground that Khatha was not mutated and  ,ea:rticuiia’r<\/p>\n
number to each portion in the eariiAer’preceedings_ vires’.~nc–\u00bbt<\/p>\n
supported by the documentary  <\/p>\n
certificates produced in the,'”erese”nt-..’prQt:ee*d4i”hgss has”<\/p>\n
eriginated subsequeht…V_&to ef'”~th’e eariier
\nproceedings. He  because of the
\ndoubt entert\u00a7a\u00a7’r’*e:edj’–   in the eariier
\nproceedings’  of the property; the
\npetiticiner”‘aeeii\ufb01veidi\ufb01lto  ni\u00abu_’hi’ci’i%3ai corporation and has
\nobtained. setparatVe:..’Vi\u00a7hat4h_a*—icertihficates. Therefore, the doubt<\/p>\n
created bx,\/”~Vth’e.tena’nts~”in the earlier proceedings is no<\/p>\n
 “v..i0ri\u00a7re’r st\u00abihs.istindHv~;I’i*i*en the present petitions were filed,<\/p>\n
 Qt.;Z;\u00ab”‘_~v_v.._Th;’e””secend ground urged by him is that in the<\/p>\n
eariier ;5r0’ceedings though petitiener had sought eviction of<\/p>\n
the.4_resb0ndents–tenants for own use and occupation which<\/p>\n
‘Atriai Court negated, the present petition is fiied in<\/p>\n
 “changeci circumstahcesi Ne doubt in the eariier preceedirig<\/p>\n
aiso he haci sought for eviction of the tenants for own use
\nand occupation but at that time; his three sons had to be<\/p>\n
married. In the present petition, the heed projected’-._i_s for<\/p>\n
accommodating his married sons which was Nno’to”s::4ifi:jVect<\/p>\n
matter for consideration in the eariier<\/p>\n
Regarding the condition of the bui:i’ding; .h’_e”..’su.hhhits__th’at:the<\/p>\n
buiiding is diiapidated and r\u00e9q.oi’i-r-as d\u00bb\u00e9Vi_’–fiAO\u00a7\u00bbi.ti0r’\u00a7’:’.”<3bi;i'(Zi_VV<\/p>\n
reconstruction,<\/p>\n
13' Per contreiii-:7  the iearned
\ncounsei for respondents-wstibjhwit:-Vtt::at".'noV;ci'.ou'Vht the petitioner
\nmight have.VVa's":prociaimed by him
\nunder   him, yet the question
\nfor  he has described the portion in
\noccupatiohohy each  t.h:e:r4esponCients–tenants correctiy. In<\/p>\n
thisprregard, hewioiiiild contend that in the earlier proceedings<\/p>\n
  to.a"o.ove, the triai Court noticed the discrepancy in<\/p>\n
the.-._rho'r':ici.p_ai~;'r'i'timher of the portion in occupation of each<\/p>\n
tenant aindithe averments in the petitions. He submits that<\/p>\n
ii"'~4"'u.o,:t'he._petVi'tioner had in the cause titie of the eviction petition<\/p>\n
iiahidhin the iegai notice mentioned different rnonicipai<\/p>\n
""niurr2bers whereas in the scheduie to the petition; the<\/p>\n
V';\n<\/p>\n
E”:\n<\/p>\n
(
\n5′<\/p>\n
3\/”\n<\/p>\n
56<\/span><\/p>\n
1? In the present proceedings, Zameeruiia Khan,<\/p>\n
ccvowner is not a party. Only the petitioner has co-o:.t\u00a7’ir2tied<\/p>\n
the iis of his own against the responoehtsEfte_rj:i’a.ntS\u00bb.A<\/p>\n
However, on perusai of the averments..i_n_u_’the-\u00bbA.:e\\r_iction.oV <\/p>\n
petition, it is seen uniike in the ea.riie;r”‘pr’o’ceeti-\u00e9n.g[the<\/p>\n
petitioner has described the .rnuoic:i.pai nun2*be.rVs ‘of\u00b0}e”a:fh’g<\/p>\n
portion based on the separate’ ichatha  the
\nCorporations It is aiso\ufb01inot monicipai
\nnumbers assigned to  ‘.~i;.h.gfi.’.I’\\’.\u00a7i\u00a2.:upation of the
\nrespondents   each petition is
\nbased oni. assigned by the
\nc0rpor:\u00a7tiioni%t t\u00e9h.eW’iV<'Vhatha. This part of the
\nevidence'  in the earlier proceedings. It is<\/p>\n
aisohot in"4"d._i:sput'e that the petitioner had accepted the<\/p>\n
~,.,.,firii2iin'gi..p'f the triaiffoijyrt and to rectify the municipai number<\/p>\n
 in respect of each portion to be<\/p>\n
ide-n__tifiee;i~   municipal number. The respondents having<\/p>\n
 not dizsvprfiteo these factsg it has to be held that the rnateriai<\/p>\n
 –,,e\\;.i.ctence produced by the petitioner and his co\u00ab owner in the<\/p>\n
.,,_.eariier proceedings was not so convincing about the<\/p>\n
rnunicipai particuiars of each tenement whereas in the
\npresent proceedings, the petitioner has produced Khatha<\/p>\n
r B;\n<\/p>\n
‘i,,,,\/<\/p>\n
extracts in respect of each pertion which is identified by
\nseparate rritinicipai number. Therefore; triai Court was<\/p>\n
required to examine whether the materiei evidence pietzed in<\/p>\n
the present proceedings estabiishes identify of <\/p>\n
At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the~._res’pond”er;ts.  <\/p>\n
had denied relationship 0:’ iandlordiian’d’t_e’nant<\/p>\n
basis of doubt regarding identify oi’~th;e.V_propevt’ty:’ tiy <\/p>\n
up title in somebody else or bdtt\u00abi.not upon th’en9i.seVi”t{eVsV}V The<\/p>\n
piea in the counter fitedfdoy  showsvithat they
\nadmitted that they are   small portions
\nin the same ;b’u:i~idIing hand’~:\u00a7?ver.e::’i’iii–i.aDi\ufb01if’to pay rents and
\nclaimed tot’  the former owner.\n<\/p>\n
Howeve iiii      that petitioner and
\nZameeruiia  the property from a person<\/p>\n
who ‘had titie _andfwh’o Vi\/vas a iandiord of the respondents<\/p>\n
  onh\/”‘g’round to dispute jurai reiationship of<\/p>\n
=ter”iant was that the identify of the schedule<\/p>\n
prep4ertyeuvraEs’iV’not cerrect. In fact in their evidence, the<\/p>\n
V’-\u00bb.respond,e_ints have virtuaiiy given a gobye to these defences<\/p>\n
x”xand_  unequivocal terms admitted that they are tenants<\/p>\n
_’Vt;_nder the petitioner. The defence of the respondents is<\/p>\n
V’ virtuaiiy same in each case. Just to avoid unnecessary<\/p>\n
l9<\/p>\n
respondent-Nlurthy to be in occupation of premises bearing
\nNo.24. Exhibit P1~i:< paid receipt issued by<\/p>\n
 B.TB.M..P_.:' Bangalore supports petitioner's contention that the<\/p>\n
 -,.p’ort.i.on in occupation of the respondent–Balaji bears No.21<\/p>\n
    described in the schedule.\n<\/p>\n
gr\/.\u00bb–>;;’-\\,.~\u00a5. ‘
\ns ,5<\/p>\n
<.P2~l<hatha Extract<\/p>\n
and Ex.P3-Tax paid receipt.\n<\/p>\n
24. Smt.Kanthamma, respondent__”–Vti”-:u\ufb02..V”‘i.n<\/p>\n
H.R.No.601\/2001 like other respondents has  <\/p>\n
her tenancy in respect of premises”JbAea’r’irig’E-,No;.\u00ab2j8″iinderrthe<\/p>\n
petitioner which is further _ supportedn <\/p>\n
Certificate, E><.P2~Khatha  ana._"Exj';_P\u00a7'\u00bbfr\u00e9kl' paid'<\/p>\n
receipt.\n<\/p>\n
25′ Smt\u00a7g3’hnarri’rr’ia  ;H.R.C.599\/2006
\nh8S   in respect of
\n Eetitioner. It is further
\nsupported -.bylx.Ed5{V..l?~Jr}’l<h'art_ha—Certificate, Ex.P2~Khatha Extract<\/p>\n
and Ex.P3"–<T_ay._pa'\u00a7d "H\u00e9C\u00bbe:i:'p.t.44 V.<\/p>\n
V'  2:6; ~vl.\u00a7'mt.'S'h'iVa'gami, respondent in<\/p>\n
 like other tenants has also admitted to<\/p>\n
be-iln oCcdp.ation of premises bearing No.22. It is further<\/p>\n
 suppo'i'te-Ad by Ex.P1–Khatha Certificate, Ex.P2~Khatha Extract<\/p>\n
E'-.Aa'n.drEx.P3-Tax paid receipt.\n<\/p>\n
2?. Smt.Elizabeth respondent in H.R.C.No.6OS\/2006<\/p>\n
in her deposition has also admitted to be in occupation of<\/p>\n
to
\nin<\/p>\n
their depositions is sufficient to negate the defence taken by
\nthe tenants and record a finding in favour of the _4bweti-tioner<\/p>\n
which the trial court had failed to do so.\n<\/p>\n
29. At this juncture, it is nv’eces’saty’\u00ab.to.:deal.with’the<\/p>\n
technical objection raised by $r_i.Poov._aiah about’ the ‘~etfec’t:Voi’..V<\/p>\n
Section 61 of the Act. Nodo’u.biti,. prox\/i’sio’i\u00b0i_of 61V’<\/p>\n
envisages that:\n<\/p>\n
“The Court or the”VClon–t.rol\u00bblfet Shall
\nsummarily” reject” ‘army a’p.p’l.icati.on” “under
\nthis At;’wE\u00e9,i_ch r’a_ises~~*betwee’n.thfe same
\nparties “or fbetween  part\u00abies. under whom
\nthey or;-any of .them ‘c-!a.im;_ substantially
\nthe, same’%:issues’ ._as” have} been finally
\n,decid’ed}in a’foi’m’e.r’proc_e\u00e9ding under this
\nAct: ‘or. “ur’i’d.e’rl ,_ainy'”~..of- the enactments
\nrepealed ‘ by ‘ sje.ct’i’o._n’ C7. ”\n<\/p>\n
 ThV.’\u20ac””..lC:|lci\u20acS’t:iOl’l as to whether if the plea of<\/p>\n
 \u00bblan\u00abd_ylor.d ‘th’a,t\u00b0*-he requires the premises for his own use and<\/p>\n
‘.ocwcu.paVtVion_”g:..h’a=s\u00a3been rejected, could he agitate the same<\/p>\n
j grou’nd””even under the same circumstances and also as to<\/p>\n
uV””..j’V.WtletheVr’ finding recorded in earlier proceedings regarding<\/p>\n
  relationship between the parties for want of evidence<\/p>\n
it “comes within the mischief of Section 61 of the Act. This<\/p>\n
issue has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
N.R.NARAYAN SW\/AMY vs B.FRANCIS JAGAN<\/a> reported in ILR<\/p>\n
2001 KAR 4827, wherein the Apex Court held thus:<\/p>\n
“In our view, the High Court ought
\nhave considered the fact that in evi\u00a7:tion;..__’___iif
\nproceedings under the Rent Act the ground
\nbona fide requirement or novn-pa-ymefntilofre\u00e9nti’
\nis a recurring Cause and, the’ref\u20acrE,.:’La’itCll’ol4{\\l   ‘i
\nnot precluded from in\u00abs”ti_tu’ting
\nproceedings. In an evict’ion”‘isuit on
\nof bona fide requirement’ the”‘Q~\u00a7nuin’enve.ss5\u00a7of
\nthe said ground is””tob.e7.dei:ide’d-Vyjorrthe basis of
\nrequirement on th.e.,:daete”__’Qi\u00a7g fies.’ Further,
\neven if ;~a'”‘;g_lt   ground of
\nbona  and is dismissed
\nitpV_.can”r’rot’  __he_ld’ a question of
\nrriecessiity-‘i_*ris.__deci’d:ed.,._against the Landlord he
\nwiil not  and genuine necessity
\n_everV’ii’nV%dfutu’re. in ‘the subsequent proceedings,<\/p>\n
 such cillairnvpis established by cogent evidence
\n  by iiiii H the Landlord, decree for<\/p>\n
it  could be passed.”\n<\/p>\n
 31\u00b0.’ -.Arl5urther, the Apex Court referring to its earlier<\/p>\n
.1d.e;(:i.sion’*'”in the case of K.S.SUNDARARAJU CHETTIAR vs<\/p>\n
4’_’ue.-“l\\{l’.’R.’liAMACHANDRA NAIDU reported in (1994) 5 scc 14<\/p>\n
it  -~-and opined thus ;\n<\/p>\n
Eu
\n‘Jr<\/p>\n
“The aforesaid rule would have no application<\/p>\n
in a proceeding initiated for recovering the suit
\npremises on the ground of bona fide
\nrequirement which is a recurring cause. OFd\u20acF’_’r’\u00bb_
\nXXIII Rule 1(4)(b) precludes the plaintiff
\ninstituting any fresh suit in respect  i”\n<\/p>\n
subject matter or such part ofthe claim \u00ab V
\nthe plaintiff has withdrawn!
\neviction of a Tenant under   the”  2
\nground of bonafide reg.u:vi’r=e_men’t
\nthe premises remains  ‘.t.l’lE3.V_:S.’Ub]’v\u00e93Ct
\nmatter which   be
\ndifferent. The \u00a7Jro.un’d’V-\u00bbi’Vfor  in the
\nsubsequent    upon
\nrequire,nienAt’i’d:o_ii .tlf,.ef:d_fa$te_…4of. vtheisaid suit even<\/p>\n
though’ itj_4_re_lat’\u00e9’si  sarnegproperty.”<\/p>\n
 ._  that further finding recorded
\nin earlier’=.p’rocee’din’gAs.’b’etw.een the same parties will not<\/p>\n
comielwithin the ._V_mi’sch:ief of Section 61 of the Act. Further, I<\/p>\n
  the pleadings of the parties in the earlier<\/p>\n
,,,.proc_e\u00abed’in’g.s__  the present proceedings. In the earlier<\/p>\n
prouc’eec:..i:ngs”‘:in H.R.C.10171\/2001 and connected matters<\/p>\n
.,:t’hes__peti’tioner along with Zahiruddin had invoked provisions<\/p>\n
 “of'”Section of 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act,<\/p>\n
 “”1961 seeking eviction of the respondent for his bonafide use<\/p>\n
\\ y xgx”\n<\/p>\n
g 2′<\/p>\n
 .1<\/p>\n
premises in occupation of respondents to accommodate his
\nmarried daughters and other family members. He would<\/p>\n
submit that in the present petition, he sour;-h’_ti..V_for<\/p>\n
accommodation to accommodate his four sosn’_}\u00a7”vvh\u00a2._.__we__rej_<\/p>\n
married subsequent to earlier proceedings_,–“T-he*se”faC–ts areq <\/p>\n
not in dispute as could be seen f’r,om_-the ayermentsf-._i__n”the<\/p>\n
earlier proceedings and thV\u00a7’s’\u00ab-proceedilregg. ii”‘aim.,__thereforetv<\/p>\n
inclined to accept Sri.\\\/’_ishwanga\ufb01th-f,s_ co_ntenti\u00ab.oh\ufb01thaft the need
\nprojected in the earl”ier”_pifloceeydi’i*jgVs::had become more
\npressing and urgent :wl’1e.nfg tti–e_:,s’e.c”oind”.ivproceedings were
\ninitiated due.\n<\/p>\n
  satVistied’._’oh’perusal of the pleadings of
\nthe eaimelr petition that though at the<\/p>\n
firstlook it r_na.yjap’pea”i”lV similar but the requirement has<\/p>\n
‘3″2,suostao-tial~vly incre’a’se’d. The need projected in the present<\/p>\n
p’eti’tion”s_;isinichanged circumstances. Therefore in view of<\/p>\n
decisio_.n’i:; of the Apex Court referred supra, the<\/p>\n
 contehtirirn of respondents-tenants that provisions of Section<\/p>\n
 suits the petitioner is not acceptable and hence, the<\/p>\n
said ground is rejected. Under the circumstances, the<\/p>\n
observation made by the trial Court that the respondents<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
under clause (r) of subsection 2 of Sec.27 of the Act. In the
\nresult? the petitions succeed. The order dated 24=~O4~20D9<\/p>\n
in HRC. No.608, 600, 603, 602, 604, 601, 59\u00a7}f–.gg607,<\/p>\n
605\/2006 on the file of the learned ><1 Addli Jud.ge4;:vCoeiJ'Vrt"'of<\/p>\n
Small Causes, Bangalore are set aside.\n<\/p>\n
37. Now coming to the qu’esti~dnA. ol’t’im\u00e9;,r_it<\/p>\n
is seen that Tenants are sa6i_d”-to be\u00bbfirzanciallilyg=w.eVa.l{ and,’<\/p>\n
engaged in menial jobs. TheV__l_e”ar:ned_v couln’-seiV._AMr.7 Poovaiah
\nhas pointed out to the  respondents are
\nin very poor condvihtion,”a’i’rd::’:theref_o’re;  that would
\nresult in  very high. I am
\nsatisfied eighteen months
\ntime to  ,an.d”vdeliver vacant possession of the
\nschedule “pr_4emvi’sVes  the\u00bbe.664petitioner — Landlord, subject to<\/p>\n
pavn\u00a7jeVnt~ of thvevarnount towards arrears of rent and current<\/p>\n
,r:e’nt \u00bb’t:;ti\u00a7.Qut”*default. Respondents shall file an affidavit in<\/p>\n
this Court within three weeks from now<\/p>\n
uncl”erta*–l<\u00abin'g".Vto quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of<\/p>\n
 63.,the-schedule premises to the petitioner — Landlord, within<\/p>\n
 the time granted by this Court and shall not induct any<\/p>\n
“persons in the schedule premises.\n<\/p>\n
31<\/span><\/p>\n
H.R.R.P.NOS.97\/2010, 89\/2010, 90\/2010, 91\/2010,<\/p>\n
92\/2010; 93\/2010,, 94\/2010, 95\/2010 & 96\/2010  by<\/p>\n
the petitioner shall stand aliowed under Secti0nV…2_J?{VZ’)4s:4{fV;r}””0f<\/p>\n
the Kamataka Rent Act. The 0rdeVrfs””-..:passed”<\/p>\n
H.R.C.\u20ac-308\/2006, 605\/2006, 607\/2v'(J)'(AjV6″59_9;\/2006;;GQ1\/\ufb01’Q[i\u20ac,<\/p>\n
604\/2006, 602\/2006,6303\/2006 0 60.022006 te:0’evcts\\}te\u00abI\u00a7~eke. <\/p>\n
set aside.\n<\/p>\n
However, the .’:1pmpQ.nd’e’nVts{‘te0n._entst’H\u00e9reh granted
\neighteen months time   vacate the
\npremises SUlf)]’3f;”C’;’~?:\\.:[_-Q’COt:t”ditgit}.h{9  ab0V\u20ac\u00ab<\/p>\n
     ,0  3<\/p>\n
    t     Eudge<\/p>\n
 V’    1  A.   ….. .. V<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Mr Mohammed Allauddin vs Mr Murthy on 7 December, 2010 Author: Jawad Rahim ‘cl: ORDER These hirie revisions under Section 46 of the Karnataka Re\ufb01t Act, 1999 are directed against theVr’\u00bb.o’ro_ers dated 24–o4~2oo9 in HRC N09608: eoo, 603, 5g:;;eria,,r _ 599, 607, 605\/2006 respectiveiy orrthe fi!-eHot’::t.he’i~:ieaArheci–\u00ab.. \u00b0\u00bb. XI Addi, Judge, Court of […]<\/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-243216","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMr Mohammed Allauddin vs Mr Murthy on 7 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr Mohammed Allauddin vs Mr Murthy on 7 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-24T23:42:49+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\\\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr Mohammed Allauddin vs Mr Murthy on 7 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-24T23:42:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2663,\"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\\\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr Mohammed Allauddin vs Mr Murthy on 7 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-24T23:42:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr Mohammed Allauddin vs Mr Murthy on 7 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr Mohammed Allauddin vs Mr Murthy on 7 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr Mohammed Allauddin vs Mr Murthy on 7 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-24T23:42:49+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\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr Mohammed Allauddin vs Mr Murthy on 7 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-24T23:42:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010"},"wordCount":2663,"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\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010","name":"Mr Mohammed Allauddin vs Mr Murthy on 7 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-24T23:42:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mohammed-allauddin-vs-mr-murthy-on-7-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr Mohammed Allauddin vs Mr Murthy on 7 December, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243216","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=243216"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243216\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243216"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}