{"id":248426,"date":"2010-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010"},"modified":"2014-03-02T11:42:43","modified_gmt":"2014-03-02T06:12:43","slug":"c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"C Subramanyam By Lr vs M B Nanjundappa S\/O M B Bhadrappa on 28 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
C Subramanyam By Lr vs M B Nanjundappa S\/O M B Bhadrappa on 28 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: H.Billappa<\/div>\n
EN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 28\" DAY OF OCTOBER 201Qf =._V\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICI$>AH>.BILLJiP!5:'A: \"Cf -\n\nRsA.No.284242oQ__'zooA~ .. 3 '\n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1.\n\nCsubramanyam. by \n\na} Smtsulochana, T _ , ,\nW\/o.Late Subram.aVny'arVn,. V \nAged about_:7'1_ yea'rs',\" ' . .'  . \nGold R31:-'gapjpra St'3.'eeit,'\"'    = \nMa1ur;T'oWn\u00a7 \" Q  V'    \u00bb\n\nKolar District  '5\u00e9\u00a73o 1 .\u00ab  '  \nRavip}'a,}\u00a7ash    '2.  . . \" \n\na) S:nt.Dh'a1'_1a1a;%:rni';-\n~ 'W\/o'. Late Rm\/fiP1'a.kash,\nA V\"';Ag5e\u00a7'd about 43jfears,\n V' \" ..GoI_d ~ Rarigappa Street,\n \n. \"Ma1u1*T'_Ta:Euk,\n\"~.__Ko}_.a1'.{\u00a7~istrict M 563 101.\n\n _\n _Sf'o.Late Subramanyam,\n Aged about 51 years.\n\nGold Rangappa Street,\n\nLg'\n\n-*Ma1'ur Town,\n\n\n\nMalur T aluk,\nKolar District.\n\n4. Smt.Geethamn'1a,\n\nW \/ 0. Plirishnappa,\n\nAged about 55 years,\nGold Rangappa Street,\nMalur Town,\n\nMalur Taluk,\n\nKolar District -~ 563 I0 1.\n\n5. Sn'1t.Kumudha,\n\nW\/o.P0nnuswa3:ny, \n\nAged about 45 years;_ '~._ _ _ ~ .4 .\n7'~'h Cross, W1 Block J eiyanag_ai:,,' }\nBangalore ~ 560 082. H \"   1\n\n6. Smt.Amudh:_a,       \n\nVV\/O.S\u20ac1Vi:.1I1'1,_=4 *_ A '  f .   '\nAged abput.51\u00e9'3 'ys_ars.,_\"'  \"\n\nC \/0.Krish'naV'p_pa Berekai,\n\nBagaiur --R0ad}.\"*-__\"s _  \nH0sur\"'\u00abi'a}uk,* _    1  \nDharmapgri _Dis_trict; \n\n'I'ami.l Nada :3 :\"i7'0 001  ...Appe11an'ts\n\n 'S1\"j\u00a7'1'*~E Nag\u00e9faj Hedge, Advs.,)\n\n   \" \n\n2 'V V V '1 ._ 1f\\\/[~;._B.l\\\u00a7a1\":jV315.'rA1Tdappa,\n\n, S\/0.M;B.Bhadrappa,\n  .AAged aibout 70 years,\n VC.\"P,Road, Malur T own,\n Maiur Taluk,\nK0131' District -~ 563 101.\n\nL\/\n\n\n\n2. An} anappa by LR\n\na} Smt..Kam3.kshamma,\nW\/o.Late Anjanappa,\nAged about 78 years,\nNew Post Office Road,\nMalur Town,\n\nMalur Taluk,\n\nKolar District W 563 101. __   \n\n[By Sri.Y.R.Sadasi19a.' Reddy, Adv., foaj C\/134\u00a7ffi}'4'--oo\u00bb..:'.'.'  4' '\n****g**_ A d t\n\nThis R.S.A is filed under  100 of  against the\nJudgement and Deer6':\u00a7#\\\\.,,,,,_ dated.  oassed in\nR.A.No.54\/O4 on the file of it-hie  Fast Track\nCourt W 111, tkie-.V:'VgppealV' filed against the\n\njudgement H . V  ' ' \u00bb   'V28. 1.2004 passed in\no.s.No.439\/2003 on~V:'V\"tI*.1de~.ftI'e:iof the PR1.Civi1 Judge, (Jr.Dn},\n\nKolar.\n\n  eofningon for Admission this day, the Court\n\n'de_1i{r\u00e9;*ed the .to.1iowing:\n\nJUBGMENT\n\nThis is plaintiffs second appeal.\n\nL\/.\n\n\n\n4\n2. The appeiiants are the LRs of the originai piaintiff\nSri.C.Subrarnanyan'1. The first respondent is defendant No.1.<\/pre>\n
The second respondent is defendant No.2 and sinceVde.ad.xby<\/p>\n
LR Srnt.Kamakshamma, who is the third  _<\/p>\n
Suit.\n<\/p>\n
3. T he parties will be referred to.  to
\ntheir rank in the originai suit for the saVkeV_o”f eonvdeniyeneegl
\n4-. The originai plaintiff S_r_ii.uC.,:Suhranian\ufb01rarnfifiied suit<\/p>\n
in O.S.No.439\/2003 for d’eo}a.ratioVn;,  and rnesne<\/p>\n
profits. ‘I’hve”easie3o_f  oi’i.._,<i\u00a7inai'._'piaintiff was that the suit
\nscheduie property through settlement deed dated<\/p>\n
2.9.1978 the ._suit.v"seI'1ed't1ie property was the joint famiiy<\/p>\n
 an5d1th'e'dei'endant No.2 i.e.. Anj anappa had executed<\/p>\n
a feie\u00e9s-<%"a\u00a7e\u00a7e;dp 23.2.1962 by taking 1200 \/– aiong with<\/p>\n
:AAwV'}1iS brother' 'M.~C2.KrisI1nappa and thereafter. the original<\/p>\n
 Sriv.{E.Subramanyam and his father Chinnapayappa<\/p>\n
  the owners of the joint family properties. it is stated,<\/p>\n
22 t,he-\u00bbvpiai11tifi's another brother M.C.Nagaraj also had executed<\/p>\n
V<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
the release deed dated 23.2.1962. Thus all the sons of late
\nChinnapayappa had ceased to be the members of the joint<\/p>\n
family by relinquishing their right, title and interest<\/p>\n
joint family properties including the suit schedule_pI*olper\u00a7y\u00a3’. A’ <\/p>\n
5. It is stated, the father opfmy the ori’gin:al:”plaintiffv <\/p>\n
executed a settlement deed dated 02.109.   the<\/p>\n
original plaintiff transferring his’rig–ht, titleland  <\/p>\n
suit schedule property and since____tlhe_n’;_y_\u00bbthe’original plaintiff<\/p>\n
became the owner of the suitilllsohed’\u00a7.il:.e<\/p>\n
6. 3’ltl”is”sVt.ated::\ufb01:ti1e”seeondlldefendant i.e., Anjanappa
\nhad no right, title the suit schedule property<\/p>\n
and has il1.egally”   sale–deed dated 11.10.1963 in<\/p>\n
*llay”o’urV  3–.”i’1is”nwifelV””Sn1t.Karnakshamrna i.e., the third<\/p>\n
dete–nda~nt’. .  was granted prior to the execution of the<\/p>\n
 elease  the sate deed executed in favour of the third<\/p>\n
_. _. f j,”d’e.tei2dant  illegal.\n<\/p>\n
1\/<\/p>\n
7. It is stated, when the original plaintiff went near<\/p>\n
the suit schedule property during the last. week of.._dafniia,ry<\/p>\n
1986, he found that the first defendant <\/p>\n
Cultivating the land. The plaintiffu<\/p>\n
defendant as to why he has a11o\\ved’.Vth.Aeg <\/p>\n
cultivate the land. The second’-defendaiitg to1d”._:hVi:fn””ti1’at he*7<\/p>\n
has sold the property  favour: first \u00abdefendant
\nNanjappa for a sum of   defendant has
\nexecuted reeonxgeyairfce   of the second
\ndefendant and    redeemed before the
\nend of  fhefiiefved it and went home.\n<\/p>\n
The’reafter,fthe’-piaintiffltriow that the sa1e–deed does<\/p>\n
not contain any”condit*ion. regarding reconveyance. Therefore,<\/p>\n
I-‘ftv.};1,e’orig;inai”p1aintiff filed suit for declaration, possession<\/p>\n
and Ifnesney  V <\/p>\n
8. it .. first defendant i.e., Nanjappa has filed his<\/p>\n
 “statement contending that he has purchased the suit<\/p>\n
 .__sehed.u1e property from the defendants 2 and 3 for valuable<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
consideration of \u20ac5,000\/W and he is in possession of the suit
\nschedule property as its owner and he has harvested the<\/p>\n
eucalyptus trees. It is also stated, the suit schedulevpropperty<\/p>\n
has been granted in favour of the second defendalit<\/p>\n
proceedings bearing No.LND.41\/60:61′ dated”::._’i.9.’2,’_1E)6l.u”\u00bb <\/p>\n
Therefore, the first defendant has prlayei\ufb01lg for disrr1.ilss:aE:V’l_ofthis<\/p>\n
suit.\n<\/p>\n
9. The defendants 2 and–f3’\u00bb-haye fi1e’d.._the:ir written
\nstatement contending thatlllthei   has executed<\/p>\n
sa}e~deed in favolgllilof.’th(\u00a7’Vthi’r”cl d:e*fVer1_da’nt.x dated 11.10.1963<\/p>\n
and the suit schedluife. has been granted in favour of<\/p>\n
the second\ufb01g ”  lvide proceedings bearing<\/p>\n
“dat_e__c_l_.19.2.i961. it is also stated, the<\/p>\n
  have sold the suit schedule property<\/p>\n
:fV.___along.”With A theVp’a1:eucalyptus trees to the first defendant.<\/p>\n
.I\u00a7uVrthe1’ll it stated, the land was granted to the second<\/p>\n
  under the darkasth Vide proceedings bearing<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
No.LND.4l\/60-61 dated 19.2.1961 and the plaintiff has no
\nright, title and interest in the suit schedule property.<\/p>\n
10. It is stated, the second defendant separated.._from<\/p>\n
the family and applied for the grant of land and  <\/p>\n
has granted the land ie. the suit…\u00bbsched1ille”  <\/p>\n
favour of the second defendant Vide  <\/p>\n
No.LND.4\u00abl \/50-51 dated 19.2.\n<\/p>\n
11. It is stated, ,–in the second<\/p>\n
defendant has executed  and the suit<\/p>\n
schedule pzpropelrtyj’\u00a72vasl.nct.:jtreatedulas the joint family property
\nand it is theyproperty.jfof”t.he\u00ab’second defendant. it is also<\/p>\n
stated, they s_econdVAdefend’anzt has executed nominal sale–deed<\/p>\n
 ‘f’f-civdukl diff hlisy_.wifev”lliH.e.. the third defendant. Further it<\/p>\n
 deed has been concocted to knock off<\/p>\n
lithe property’. ‘F.d’rt,her it is stated, the defendants 2 and 3 have<\/p>\n
if if   the suit ‘schedule property in favour of the first defendant<\/p>\n
   plaintiff cannot claim any right, title or interest in the<\/p>\n
suit schedule property. Therefore, the defendants 2 and 3<\/p>\n
have prayed for dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
12. The Trial Court has framed the folloxving  <\/p>\n
1) Whether the plaintiff proviesmhis pti’:1e_:1iiv7n;slpe.\u00e9:t hr<\/p>\n
the suit schedule property’?\n<\/p>\n
2) Whether the pla.int1ff’~._}5qfoVes itthat’~v.thellll”slale ldeedlll<\/p>\n
executed by the 2″” defendantin fa’v’o1_1r.–of the 3*”
\ndefendant dt. 1 l”‘;-.1iJp.63p   sale deed executed
\non 9.5.85 by Asecihond’ defendants in<\/p>\n
fav0ur;o1″.+fh’.e deferidant lare__nij11 and void’?<\/p>\n
3) Whether  lp1’oves that he is entitled to
\n  schedule property?\n<\/p>\n
4) _’Whe’the1’ith_eAAplaintiff is entitled for a decree as
\n prayed ffor?__ _____
\n‘   order or decree?\n<\/p>\n
  Court has answered issue No. 1 to 4 in<\/p>\n
_ _le._tl1eVnegative”  consequently, has dismissed the Suit.<\/p>\n
V,<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
14. The appellants have filed appeal in<\/p>\n
R.A.No.54\/2004 and it has been dismissed.<\/p>\n
15. Therefore, this second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
16. The learned counsel for the <\/p>\n
that the Courts below have errcdin dis’1nissingv:tlre-suiti <\/p>\n
also submitted that the suit s_cl1led_u1~e_v property has been
\ngranted in favour of  who was the
\nManager of the joint   enures to the<\/p>\n
Furthefr hemsubmitted that the<\/p>\n
bene\ufb01t of the
\nsecond   executedllllthe release deed dated<\/p>\n
23.2.1962 relii’1quishin;g.lll’a1.l:”‘hi’s rights in the joint family<\/p>\n
properties ..   suit schedule property and<\/p>\n
  jlsruit schedule property has come to the original<\/p>\n
plaintiff thi\u00a7Vd*t1gii.l’.i’Vsettlement deed and therefore, the original<\/p>\n
 llplaintif\ufb01is .._j’che.’\u00ablo\\lvner of the suit schedule property and the<\/p>\n
 were not justified in dismissing the suit. He<\/p>\n
 .subfnitted that it is clear from the recitals of Ex.P.3 that<\/p>\n
T -thc”‘second defendant and M.C.Krishnappa have relinquished<\/p>\n
L\/..\n<\/p>\n
\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
all their rights in the joint family properties including the suit<\/p>\n
schedule property. Further he submitted that as per<\/p>\n
ie, the settlement deed, the suit schedule  H<\/p>\n
settled in favour of the original plaintiff  t1j”e~.. <\/p>\n
original plaintiff is the owner of the-._su_l’taschedule <\/p>\n
and therefore, the Courts be_loxzgr vsfere  <\/p>\n
dismissing the suit. He also subn’_1__itt~e_d V.that..tl1\u00abe:v.Cou?rts below
\nhave failed to consider “”e;\ufb01l1-il3’itsff-,’P\u00a743–Vff:aind_ 13-4 in proper
\nperspective. He, tliereforellv’  the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment and deeifeesv-ci–annot;’be sustairred in law. In support<\/p>\n
of his subzniissiorn_Vhed7’\u00a7.pla_eed’ relian\ufb02cle on the decision of this<\/p>\n
Court reportedin  A?l,9ll87.l::Karnataka page 2883.<\/p>\n
  xagair1’st,.__t_h:ls, the learned counsel for the first<\/p>\n
responde1_’1t._,’subrhitted that the Courts below on proper<\/p>\n
if’-,.pvconside’r’ation’.V*Vo’f  material on record have rightly held that<\/p>\n
.the__ origiIial”;_plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule<\/p>\n
  the suit schedule property has been granted in<\/p>\n
H   of the second defendant and it is not relinquished and<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
schedule property and therefore, the impugned judgment and<\/p>\n
decrees do not call for interference. He also submittetlthat<\/p>\n
no substantial question of law arises for consideragtionfini this.<\/p>\n
appeal and therefore, the appeal is liable to   ”  <\/p>\n
18. I have carefully considered’the._subniiss’ions” <\/p>\n
by the learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
19. I do not find anypmeritfinullielfieilsubmission of the
\nlearned counsel for_ti1.e if tilt is relevant to
\nnote. the suit  and mesne profits.\n<\/p>\n
The original   suit schedule property
\ncame to hirn’  deed dated 2.9. 197 8 and the<\/p>\n
suit schle-dule prope1’ty virasllllgranted in favour of the second<\/p>\n
:’V’:_lVefei*ida’1’1Vt  Managerllllof the joint family and the second<\/p>\n
.l’.i’pe.fl;ecuiied release deed dated 23.2.1962<\/p>\n
 lVIelinqu’i’shi:ig  his rights in the joint family properties<\/p>\n
4H_::’l.’4.includ,ing the suit. schedule property and thereafter, through<\/p>\n
spe_ttleVri’1ent deed, the suit schedule property has been settled<\/p>\n
“favour of the original plaintiff and therefore, the original<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. Both the<\/p>\n
Courts below on proper consideration of the mat\u20ac;rialr._Von<\/p>\n
record have concurrently held that Ex.P.3 <\/p>\n
deed has been executed only in respect of”ti’1-ell’_pro.perties”‘V<\/p>\n
standing in the name of Chinnapayappaw. they-..’stiu;it<\/p>\n
schedule property and therefo1:e3″‘–~the  <\/p>\n
anything through E3x.P.4.  The “haye_l’1eld that
\nthe second defendant was  five to six years
\nprior to the exepcution   suit schedule
\nproperty has  second defendant
\nby the     defendant has not
\nrelinquisheldljiis  of the suit schedule property.<\/p>\n
The learned  appellants contended that the<\/p>\n
defeliidaiapt was Manager of the joint family and the<\/p>\n
suit.  has been granted in favour of the<\/p>\n
AllVsecond”‘\u00ab\u00ab..defendant prior to the execution of Ex.P.3 and<\/p>\n
i.”.f’ne”r’e.fore, the grant enures to the benefit of the joint family<\/p>\n
 a:n_d’=th’e~Asecond defendant has executed EX.P.3 relinquishing<\/p>\n
T  “his rights in the joint family properties including the suit<\/p>\n
l,\/My<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
schedule property and therefore, the Courts below were not<\/p>\n
justified in dismissing the suit. it is difficuit to believe<\/p>\n
is in the evidence of P.W.} that the second  ”<\/p>\n
residing separately five to six years priorto t_,he_. .e\u00a7(eci,1tioi1 <\/p>\n
Ex.P.3. The recitals of E:-c.P.3 ValsodA:’Sho\\_ylfthfatiltlie2<\/p>\n
defendant was residing separate\u00ably”‘~-tat the  <\/p>\n
Apart from this, it is clear froin tlie’   What is
\nrelinquished is the right,%in   standing
\nin the name of   ‘property. By no
\nstretch of   the second defendant
\nhas relinqtjiisheld  of the suit schedule
\nproperty.  below were justified in
\nholding   schedule property has not been
\n If the suit schedule property is<\/p>\n
notirelinquisiied,fthien, Ex.P.4 is of no consequence and it<\/p>\n
“cannot convey anything. Therefore. in my considered View,<\/p>\n
 below were justified in holding that the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
  hlaafe’–failed to prove the title to the suit schedule property and<\/p>\n
if eonseqi.1e’nt1y, dismissing the suit. The findings recorded by<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
the Courts do not (tail for interference. There is no merit in
\nthis appeal and no substantial question of law arises for
\nconsideration in this appeal and therefore, the appeal isiiiable<\/p>\n
to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
20. Aecordingiy. the appeal is dismissec}Vi””-.::.  <\/p>\n
No costs.\n<\/p>\n
Bss\/JS<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court C Subramanyam By Lr vs M B Nanjundappa S\/O M B Bhadrappa on 28 October, 2010 Author: H.Billappa EN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 28″ DAY OF OCTOBER 201Qf =._V BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICI$>AH>.BILLJiP!5:’A: “Cf – RsA.No.284242oQ__’zooA~ .. 3 ‘ BETWEEN: 1. Csubramanyam. by a} Smtsulochana, T _ […]<\/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-248426","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC Subramanyam By Lr vs M B Nanjundappa S\/O M B Bhadrappa on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C Subramanyam By Lr vs M B Nanjundappa S\/O M B Bhadrappa on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-02T06:12:43+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C Subramanyam By Lr vs M B Nanjundappa S\\\/O M B Bhadrappa on 28 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-02T06:12:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1793,\"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\\\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010\",\"name\":\"C Subramanyam By Lr vs M B Nanjundappa S\\\/O M B Bhadrappa on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-02T06:12:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C Subramanyam By Lr vs M B Nanjundappa S\\\/O M B Bhadrappa on 28 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C Subramanyam By Lr vs M B Nanjundappa S\/O M B Bhadrappa on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C Subramanyam By Lr vs M B Nanjundappa S\/O M B Bhadrappa on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-02T06:12:43+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C Subramanyam By Lr vs M B Nanjundappa S\/O M B Bhadrappa on 28 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-02T06:12:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010"},"wordCount":1793,"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\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010","name":"C Subramanyam By Lr vs M B Nanjundappa S\/O M B Bhadrappa on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-02T06:12:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanyam-by-lr-vs-m-b-nanjundappa-so-m-b-bhadrappa-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C Subramanyam By Lr vs M B Nanjundappa S\/O M B Bhadrappa on 28 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248426","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=248426"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248426\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248426"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248426"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248426"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}