{"id":250102,"date":"2009-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009"},"modified":"2017-11-16T05:42:11","modified_gmt":"2017-11-16T00:12:11","slug":"k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"K Sujatha D\/O Late K Kariyappa vs Venkatesha Murthy S\/O Late Sri … on 26 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
K Sujatha D\/O Late K Kariyappa vs Venkatesha Murthy S\/O Late Sri … on 26 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana<\/div>\n
:_'H1ridu,\"1\\\/iajior,  ..\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN GALORE\n\nDATED TI-IIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER.\u00ab29fG--S\u00a7A'\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE   \n\nREGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.i\u00a33.84\u00a7i.A_A_OI:?' 2091  .\n\nBETWEEN :\n\nSmt.K.Sujatha.\n\nD\/0 late K.Kar:iyappa.\nAged about 30 Years,\nResiding at No.367,\nJakkasancira, _ _ 1   -  '\n1stB1ock, 1stMain;   2:  \nKoramangala,  _  ._ \"      \n\nBANGALORE -'-_5(;0,_o3'4.\u00bb  t  ' .. APPELLANT.\n(By Sn. Char1'd'ra$'1*51ek\u00e9i;t';' * fdr ,  T\" ' '\n\nM \/ s. A. C .C..Ass0c:1ates*,.,_AdVs . ) f\n\nAND:\n\nSri.Venk_atesh:iR\u00a7\\.'Jjirt1i3r,  \nS \/ 0 late.%Som1.appa;  .\n\nRs:_si.d:i1\u00ab1.g at VNQ.' 1\/ 1 ,\nJakI\u00a3\u00a72is_a11dr_'a_ Ko1=arz~1angaIa,\n\n  BANGALORE .;-:_._\u00a7\u00a7st) 034. .. RESPONDENT.<\/pre>\n
 [By Srlii.1ff{An\u00e91iithakr1shnaItr1urthy, Adv.)<\/p>\n
*M$_*_*_*%*_*<\/p>\n
This Appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order
\n41, Rule 1 and Order 41{A) of the Code of Civil Procedure,
\nagainst the Judgment and Decree dated 3o.o3.2oo}:t pressed in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.10850\/1991 on the file of the xxx\/111 Ae1ti:t:e:%;ei Teeter<\/p>\n
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, partly  the  <\/p>\n
for declaration.\n<\/p>\n
This Appeai is coming on  I~*Iear’,d:’ tr; <\/p>\n
JUDGMENI<\/p>\n
Matters this day, the Court de1iV’-edred the  <\/p>\n
This is defendaht-‘s” _\ufb01&afsts.j_g’   chalienging the<\/p>\n
Judgment and Decree”””ciateVd passed in<\/p>\n
O.S.No. 10850\/1991′; t}fie:”fi.1eAoVf”‘the xxvm Additional City<\/p>\n
Civil and Se.ssz’.or1s– Judge’,~BVang~alore.<\/p>\n
 it The esseritialgifaets leading to this appeal are that<\/p>\n
Va_I:id.gdetendant are the members of the same family.<\/p>\n
 V  one Sonnappa, who is one of the sons of<\/p>\n
 ‘Dodda  Defendant is daughter of one Kariyappa,<\/p>\n
iisdtlfie son of Chikka Katappa. The said Dodda Katappa<\/p>\n
 __gar1dAV'{Jhikka_Katappa are brothers and at one point of time.<\/p>\n
“*1<\/p>\n
they together constituted a joint family, that there was a
\npartition in the joint family subsequent to the death of._lj)odda<\/p>\n
Katappa. Admittedly the said partition has <\/p>\n
30.12.1979 and it is oral partition. The said   <\/p>\n
reduced into writing by way of declaration”*\u00ab.made_” by _ ‘(Z:V1’1ii.{kal 7.<\/p>\n
Katappa. who partitioned the sarnel”-in  dpresei-1ce.V”o.f<\/p>\n
panchas and the members oi”t\u00ab..:’VtTI*i\u00bbe joint  H In the
\ndeclaration made by Childaa  riegardinygiithe partition
\neffected in respect of the joint  of himself and<\/p>\n
his brother, five of :;)rop’erties::vt’ere.allotted to the share<\/p>\n
of the plaj;ntiffth.e five items are referred to
\nas suit “A”V”‘schedu3.e ‘  <\/p>\n
3. _ _ Asd”o.n’th.e}dat.e Vofithe partition, the said Sonnappa<\/p>\n
 notriioere and irivs’ui’t’schedule land, sites were formed and<\/p>\n
one sac};  is said to have been sold by the grand<\/p>\n
‘  “~.Inother_:of the namely Smt.Akkayamma, widow of<\/p>\n
 Doddaiiatappa to the defendant under a registered Sale<\/p>\n
 ‘dated 07.05.1981, the said site is referred to as”s\\uit “B”<\/p>\n
schedule property. The plaintiff herein has \ufb01led the present
\nsuit, O.S.No.i0850\/1991 seeking declaration that he is the<\/p>\n
absolute owner of “B” schedule property, which in<\/p>\n
favour of defendant and also for recovery of po_ss.essiofn– the<\/p>\n
same.\n<\/p>\n
4. In the said suit, the defendant, ‘Who iappeiiant<\/p>\n
herein entered appearance, \ufb011ed”Writte’ri Staterne\u00a7n’t’~aeeepting’<\/p>\n
that there was a partition  “joint ‘ iamilyf of Dodda
\nKatappa and Chikka Katappa on   and that certain<\/p>\n
properties were    plaintiff, at the<\/p>\n
relevant point of’t’i’:irne,.ypiaintiff was minor, he was under the<\/p>\n
care and Cttstodyf of  mother, Smt.Akkayamma, the<\/p>\n
vperson\u00e9gwlio has ..eXecuted the Sale Deed of “B” Schedule<\/p>\n
  favour of defendant. It is the case of the<\/p>\n
  sale was made by the grand mother of<\/p>\n
V plaintiff foripiegal necessities and for the welfare and well being<\/p>\n
 piairitiff and hence the title and right in respect of<\/p>\n
  schedule property has already passed on to the<\/p>\n
 “defendant by virtue of the registered Sale Deed dated<\/p>\n
“*1<\/p>\n
 in’her*i”a’ve~,ur.  ..\n<\/p>\n
07.05. 1981 and as such plaintiff cannot seek declaration that
\nhe is the owner of “A” schedule property and the Vdeiendant<\/p>\n
has also taken a plea that Smt.Akkayamma, _tj’n’e*l~.;’.1_’i<\/p>\n
Sale Deed dated 07.05.1981 beingmthe  <\/p>\n
Katappa had a speci\ufb01c share in the joint. “prop:e_rty;,i_ias l’<\/p>\n
such she had a pre eXisting’fV’r\u00a7_ght lover’ the;”sluvit’VV<\/p>\n
property and other property  her’  Dodda
\nKatappa under the  Therefore the<\/p>\n
plaintiff cannot depriye  and fabricated<\/p>\n
document for:.wliich:_she  3  aiso took up the ‘<\/p>\n
contention”l”t’r1atiVf,  plaintiff is barred by
\nlimitation ‘and V  ‘Z: .t_l1e.l_:lllfd.ef-endant has already put up
\nconstruction  Vthefschedlusle property and as such equity is<\/p>\n
  rival contentions, the Trial Court<\/p>\n
  proceeded  the following issues:\n<\/p>\n
 .p  if “V–Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the
\n4′ absoiute owner of plairit “B” Schedule<\/p>\n
Property? _
\n“‘1.\n<\/p>\n
\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether plaintiff proves thatp<\/p>\n
Smt.Akkayamma had no right to sell <\/p>\n
“B” Schedule Property to   .\n<\/p>\n
hence the sale deed in favour  ll  <\/p>\n
defendant is void ab–ir1itio?\n<\/p>\n
Whether plaintiff proves th’atl’defenVd’a1jrt:4_i_s  3<\/p>\n
unlawful possession ofpithe suit” propertj}?<\/p>\n
Whether  proves   entitled to
\nrecover the posses_sion  Schedule<\/p>\n
propertggjtifomithe   W<\/p>\n
 that he is entitled to<\/p>\n
 olflj permane11tl”ihjunction as sought<\/p>\n
7–.for’? V<\/p>\n
.  Wh4ethVer..defevnd’aht proves that the suit is<\/p>\n
‘ E hatred  law of limitation?\n<\/p>\n
V  or  defendant proves that the Court fee<\/p>\n
 insufficient. If so what is the proper<\/p>\n
 x  fee payable?\n<\/p>\n
Whether defendant proves that the Sale
\nDeed dt. 7–5–l981 executed in her favour of<\/p>\n
“*1<\/p>\n
Akkayarnma was for legal necessity and in<\/p>\n
the welfare interest of plaintiff?<\/p>\n
9. To what relief the parties are entitled    <\/p>\n
6. Thereafter the matter went into t_rial.’:’<\/p>\n
examined himself as P.W.1 and ex_an3ined_”an’other”‘Witness}i. <\/p>\n
S.R.Shivan1urthy as P.W.2 and ;”got–.._’_’frnarke_d <\/p>\n
Exs.P–1 to P-20. On behalf of  ‘cxaininedt<\/p>\n
herself as D.W.2 and a1so..exar1}iine..d-.h’e-r. brother, one Rakesh<\/p>\n
as D.W.1 and together Ethey “pr’otc1ue’ed’e,d’ocuments as per<\/p>\n
Exs.D–1 to”Ij”. inf); ‘\u00a33  ”\n<\/p>\n
7.  *'”Ev’ria]_  appreciation of the oral and<\/p>\n
._.documentary evincienpce on record, proceeded to answer Issue<\/p>\n
 -. to  affirmative and Issue Nos.5 to 8 in the<\/p>\n
 _ V negatirre’ and.”.eor_;=s’equent1y decreed the suit of plaintiff in part<\/p>\n
 by decfaririg that plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint “B”<\/p>\n
sc_hedu1.e property and further directed the defendant to<\/p>\n
 ___’de1i\\}er ‘Vacant possessisn of the said property on or before<\/p>\n
“‘”\\<\/p>\n
31.07.2001 and further ordered for recovery of mesne pro\ufb01ts
\nfrom the date of \ufb01ling of the suit till realization andprdered<\/p>\n
for separate enquiry under Order 20, Rule 12  of<\/p>\n
Civil Procedure. However, the relief of perm;-1n.e’11tVinjunctliorl <\/p>\n
was rejected by the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
8. The said Judgment’ and Degree is\u00bb”‘el_1allengedl <\/p>\n
defendant in this appeal on   ;i?ria1 Court
\nhas erred in appreciatiiiglflithe __Ir1ade “by plaintiff
\nand also over looked  are produced by
\nhim and has  the impugned<\/p>\n
Judgment__on_ theetaasisi  admissions of defendant in her<\/p>\n
evidence asfwelli asxinahper  and that the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
4__failed tejilprove th’ei..p:artit:ion by producing the partition deed,<\/p>\n
“which _has-.sta.t_ed to have come into existence in the year<\/p>\n
 V 19979 and ‘t1’-lat plaintiff has failed to establish his right over<\/p>\n
 the suit ..s”cl1e’dule property with reference to the partition<\/p>\n
\u00abTV4’referred._by” him in his pleadings said to have taken place<\/p>\n
 the children of late Dodda Katappa and Chikka<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
Katappa and that the Trial Court has also not looked into the
\nfact that Smt.Akkayamma was one of the legal heirs of Dodda<\/p>\n
Katappa is naturally entitled to a share in the sui-‘t”‘s:c’hedu1e<\/p>\n
property. Therefore the Sale Deed executed by-xher  <\/p>\n
of suit “B” schedule property should: be”aCpCepte.d:rtas   j <\/p>\n
valid and also challenged the <\/p>\n
ground that the Trial Court  the suit<\/p>\n
accepting Ex.P–1 for which Akkagrarrirna  a party.<\/p>\n
Therefore the share allotted-ltporreaech parties including<\/p>\n
Akkayamma is   one of the legal<\/p>\n
heirs to d.’eceased,  declaration made in
\nthe said E\ufb01rf-..l edoesijnot.l\u00a7i’n.d..–Akkayamma and as such the<\/p>\n
Sale Deed executed by  per Ex.P–l and the Trial Court<\/p>\n
roughtito have declared the plaintiff as owner of the said<\/p>\n
 pp “ln.’t”l1is appeal on service of notice, respondent —<\/p>\n
 has entered appearance through counsel. After<\/p>\n
 _psecu;jing the entire Trial Courts records and on going through<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
the Judgment and Decree, the following points arises for<\/p>\n
consideration in this appeal:\n<\/p>\n
1. Whether the Trial Court” was  in
\naccepting Ex.P–1 regarding
\noral partition between  ”\n<\/p>\n
Katappa and Chiki;avp:”‘-K_atap’pa’s <\/p>\n
proceeded to decree the’-suit\u00bb_as prayed <\/p>\n
2. ‘Whether the   in<\/p>\n
awarding V-rnesgne   2  plaintiff and
\ndirectingflfi\u00e9holdirign enqiiiry.iinder Order 20,<\/p>\n
Rt1:i’\u20acl::2V;’Qf c}>c?’~-‘_ ..\n<\/p>\n
10. ‘After “counsel_ for parties and on<\/p>\n
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record,<\/p>\n
 Coiirt Point  in the affirmative and Point No.2 in<\/p>\n
  following:\n<\/p>\n
REASONS<\/p>\n
  The fact that plaintiff and defendant are members<\/p>\n
if  the same family is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
that the grand father of plaintiff and defendant together
\nconstituted a joint family and the suit “A” schetitiieyhitem<\/p>\n
Nos.1 and 2 are some of the properties of the’ joint<\/p>\n
family, as admitted by defendant at  <\/p>\n
statement, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“It is also true that’the.v_.join’t’fanziiy’
\nwere divided as per   ‘dated
\n30.12.1979. At th’e*~..tin1ed.fofVfdiyisi’on it is tme to
\nsay that the plaintiff vdwasf  was under
\nthe care and._:c’-astodyffof who was<\/p>\n
none  of  plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
   the division made<\/p>\n
by  of the joint famiiy
\nproperties. , v;i’he?:_properties described under ‘B’
\nSehedule  given to S1nt.Akkaya1n1na and<\/p>\n
   the plaintiff, as he was minor<\/p>\n
V    <\/p>\n
 also admits the partition, which has taken piace on<\/p>\n
if \u00a3979 in the said joint family and aliotting piaint “A”<\/p>\n
 \ufb02scheduie property to the share of the plaintiff herein, who is<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
minor at that point of time. it is also admitted by defendant
\nthat at the relevant point of time, plaintiff was undeprlethex care<\/p>\n
and custody of his grand mother, Smt.Akkaya1nif1a;l\u00abof<\/p>\n
late Dodcla Katappa. It is also admitted by  tihatypithep <\/p>\n
joint family properties was partitioned..:afterof <\/p>\n
Dodda Katappa by his younger
\nas per partition made    Nos}
\nand 2 property among lotzher  allotted to the
\nshare of plaintiff  by Chikka
\nKatappa regarding   30.12.1979 in the
\npresence:'”of”  that plaintiff herein was
\nrepresented  Srnt.Akkayainma. It is not<\/p>\n
in dispute that t_he_defendar1t’s father Kariyappa is one of the<\/p>\n
‘VVsi’iare’i*–s\u20ac’ in ‘the ‘partition, which has taken place on<\/p>\n
      I V <\/p>\n
 :”v.As4fcou1d be seen from the Sale Deed which is<\/p>\n
   Smt.Akkayamma on 07.05.1981 which is at<\/p>\n
  it clearly discloses that Smt.Akk_ayamma who was<\/p>\n
“*7<\/p>\n
aware of the partition which has taken place on 30.32.1979<\/p>\n
has executed the Sale Deed in favour of defendant”-.in–,V’her<\/p>\n
individual capacity and not as the guardias\ufb01 <\/p>\n
Therefore the Memorandum of Deiclaratiponvitt  j if<\/p>\n
Chikka Katappa on 30.12.1979  cf <\/p>\n
schedule executed by  are  it is<\/p>\n
clearly seen that as on  1.98 i’;p’:–9’n1tr’A1<}{ayva1nn1a had no
\nindependent right in an);  schedule item
\nNo.1, and item  of   Therefore
\nthe Sale Deed"   in favour of
\n iightvvivested in her to execute
\nsuch Sa1e:"De'ed.V  'f'ria1 Court on appreciation of<\/p>\n
all the documents' aVai1able"on record, has rightly rejected the<\/p>\n
claim \u00a2\u00a3'aefenda-nt.  ~ ooooo 14 .\n<\/p>\n
   being the grand daughter of Chikka<\/p>\n
 Platappa  Vdrell aware of the family arrangements, which<\/p>\n
 xccrpneyws into existence on 30.12.1979. When the<\/p>\n
 _de’fendant’s father purchased the suit “B” schedule property,<\/p>\n
‘”‘”\\_<\/p>\n
her father was well aware that the suit “B” schedule property<\/p>\n
does not belong to Smt.Akkayam1na, for the reasonjthat by<\/p>\n
then the partition of the joint family consisting.<\/p>\n
Katappa and Chikka Katappa had already <\/p>\n
Kariyappa being son of Chikka Katappalyvfas llofgtihe <\/p>\n
share that was fallen to the shears. of’
\nto the share of his father’s eldest: and inspite of
\nknowing that   right in
\nsuit “A” schedule  get the suit “B”\n<\/p>\n
schedule registe,reciy:i_:i fa’v;ro1ui’ of. his’ railnlor daughter. Under<\/p>\n
the  could pass on from
\nSmt.A1{kayanania:  in respect of suit “B”\n<\/p>\n
schedule    l<\/p>\n
   of D.W.1 Rakesh, who is son of<\/p>\n
.A’.il3i?other of defendant clearly goes to establish<\/p>\n
 that  aware of the partition, which had taken place<\/p>\n
 the Sale Deed dated 07.05.1981. Though the<\/p>\n
l_l_de’feVr1dant has taken a plea that the partition dated<\/p>\n
T ‘\u00abl..g3(“);’l2.1979, is not in terms of EXP-l. She has neither<\/p>\n
“‘”\\<\/p>\n
produced any documents or led oral evidence to deny the<\/p>\n
contents of EX.P–l and to establish that the partitio_n\u00abr_.’_whreh<\/p>\n
has taken place in the family of Dodda Katappa <\/p>\n
Katappa is contrary to the contents’ of  is.<\/p>\n
\nmemorandum of declaration of oral
\nChikka Katappa in the    on
\n30.12.1979. Looked pinto  defendavnt, who is
\nappellant herein has not  to assail the
\nwell reasoned    the Trial Court
\ndeclaring thatfldtllie.  property is the property
\nof the plaintiff it it V’ dd 3<\/p>\n
15.  by both the parties that<\/p>\n
suit “B7 sehedide property was a vacant site and in View of<\/p>\n
“f_ceI’tajn  whichmyvere there between the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
 property was not developed and is neither<\/p>\n
  enjoymen’t\u00bb,oi’ defendant nor plaintiff. In the circumstances,<\/p>\n
r\ufb01ndrngw of the Trial Court to say that the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
4’_’_entitled”‘to mesne profit for the period when the suit schedule<\/p>\n
it hpropderty was in the custody of defendant is without any basis<\/p>\n
“”\\<\/p>\n
and the said finding is required to be reversed. Hence 1
\nanswer Point No.1 in the affirmative and Point No.2 in the<\/p>\n
negative.\n<\/p>\n
16. Accordingly the appeal is  <\/p>\n
confirming the Judgment and Detcrepe  . <\/p>\n
passed in O.S.No. 10850 \/ 1991 on the filled  Additional <\/p>\n
City Civil and Sessions
\ndeclaration that the plaintiff is ..gvmer oi   schedule
\nproperty and he is entitledto ‘of the property from
\nthe defendant.  V  if V  V d<\/p>\n
17. So ‘oiifgranting Inesne pro\ufb01t and
\nalso direction: to:   “under Order 20, Rule 12 is
\nhereby set    A<\/p>\n
‘d  ‘V “18. 1)”‘Appellant\/defendant is directed to deliver the<\/p>\n
  of the suit schedule property to the<\/p>\n
  respo11_deriVt;’p]i’aintiff within thirty days from this day.<\/p>\n
Sd\/–\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court K Sujatha D\/O Late K Kariyappa vs Venkatesha Murthy S\/O Late Sri … on 26 November, 2009 Author: S.N.Satyanarayana :_’H1ridu,”1\\\/iajior, .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN GALORE DATED TI-IIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER.\u00ab29fG–S\u00a7A’ BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.i\u00a33.84\u00a7i.A_A_OI:?’ 2091 . BETWEEN : Smt.K.Sujatha. D\/0 […]<\/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-250102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK Sujatha D\/O Late K Kariyappa vs Venkatesha Murthy S\/O Late Sri ... on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K Sujatha D\/O Late K Kariyappa vs Venkatesha Murthy S\/O Late Sri ... on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-16T00:12:11+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K Sujatha D\\\/O Late K Kariyappa vs Venkatesha Murthy S\\\/O Late Sri … on 26 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-16T00:12:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2291,\"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\\\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009\",\"name\":\"K Sujatha D\\\/O Late K Kariyappa vs Venkatesha Murthy S\\\/O Late Sri ... on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-16T00:12:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K Sujatha D\\\/O Late K Kariyappa vs Venkatesha Murthy S\\\/O Late Sri … on 26 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K Sujatha D\/O Late K Kariyappa vs Venkatesha Murthy S\/O Late Sri ... on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K Sujatha D\/O Late K Kariyappa vs Venkatesha Murthy S\/O Late Sri ... on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-16T00:12:11+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K Sujatha D\/O Late K Kariyappa vs Venkatesha Murthy S\/O Late Sri … on 26 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-16T00:12:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009"},"wordCount":2291,"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\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009","name":"K Sujatha D\/O Late K Kariyappa vs Venkatesha Murthy S\/O Late Sri ... on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-16T00:12:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sujatha-do-late-k-kariyappa-vs-venkatesha-murthy-so-late-sri-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K Sujatha D\/O Late K Kariyappa vs Venkatesha Murthy S\/O Late Sri … on 26 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250102","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=250102"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250102\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}