{"id":25531,"date":"2010-11-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-15T01:07:26","modified_gmt":"2017-12-14T19:37:26","slug":"yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Yerramma W\/O Narayana Reddy vs Thimmappa S\/O Late Muthappa on 15 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Yerramma W\/O Narayana Reddy vs Thimmappa S\/O Late Muthappa on 15 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Subhash B.Adi<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 151'\" DAY OF\" NOVEMBER 2010\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH V-7-f ft  _\n\nREGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.117.a\/\u00bb2.b:o4\"*~:::   I'  \n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1.<\/pre>\n
Smt.Yerramma,
\nW\/0 N arayana Reddy,
\nAged about 69 years,<\/p>\n
Sri.NarayaI1a Reddy,—-.._’f _  .\n<\/p>\n
S\/0 Chikka I\\\/Iuniswam::iPi3a.,~1′    I
\nAged about 78._years,~–   I A
\nBoth are ag:icL5\ufb02turi,s”ts,’:._V _
\nR\/ 0 Hulimayfu V{fiIl’age’,'{:–    A ‘\\
\nBegur hoblif’  ”  ”\n<\/p>\n
Bangaldrea..S4Qath7’fV{a]  . . APPELLANTS<\/p>\n
{By Sr1.BV”‘;KI’Man]arIaj.~hI;\n<\/p>\n
3|
\n.1;.._<\/p>\n
S15i:”:I’I;;1r:n1nappaO  “”” ” I<\/p>\n
y . ‘E3\/Q late\ufb01\/Iuthappa.\n<\/p>\n
  ‘Aged Vabyput =7years,<\/p>\n
 ASee.;3.aj::IpAa
\nS \/(*2 Thimmappa,<\/p>\n
-. Aged’ about 43 years,<\/p>\n
 S.ri:Chandrappa
\n  =5\/o Thlmrnappa,
\n 2 ___Aged about 41 years,<\/p>\n
4. Prakash. @ Mani,
\nS \/ o Thimmappa,
\nAged about 38 years,<\/p>\n
A11 are residing at Huiirnavu village,<\/p>\n
Begur hobii,   ~  V ” <\/p>\n
Bangalore South Taluk. 1
\n[By Sri.C.M.Nagai:)hushan, &    if V<\/p>\n
Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, Advs.)<\/p>\n
This R.F.A. is filed undert._S’aectionA.95 of the V<\/p>\n
judgment and decree dated\u00bb.._’t’01.091200\u00a2% passed in
\nO.S.No.7098\/ 1991 on the file of..th’ev._8t1{ Add1″.City Civil Judge.
\nBangalore, dismissing the*s_uit_’for dedaration and permanent
\nirljunction.  * — V    <\/p>\n
This R.F.A. coming””on.iforhearing day, the Court
\ndelivered the       I<\/p>\n
 ‘.;T.’iZF’:1f3i_.’_’:\u00a7V1iVI’1″-31\\ffxVV’
\n is against the judgment. and decree
\npassed  01.10.2004 on the file of the<\/p>\n
8″? Add}-.Cixty  Adudgedi\ufb01angalore.<\/p>\n
~    p.aft,i_es will be referred as per their ranking before<\/p>\n
the-triai court…  ”\n<\/p>\n
 3.”.V1\u00a7iaintiffs claim that the }and bearing Sy.No.81<\/p>\n
A  rzadeasuimg 3 acres 20 guntas was purchased in the name of<\/p>\n
  son \u00a3\\\/{uthappa from one Muniyappa Reddy under the<\/p>\n
  “registered sale deed dated 23.07.1957, since then the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
\nThe minor son Muttappa Reddy is no more and the plaintiffs
\nbeing the classwl heirs. inherited the suit schedule property and<\/p>\n
they are in possession of the same as the owners.<\/p>\n
4. The case of the plaintiffs is that, one <\/p>\n
sold the property to one Venkatamrna,….wl__1o isythe’  l by <\/p>\n
of the 13′ plaintiff in the year   <\/p>\n
resold the said property to  Rarriaiah,  sold’<\/p>\n
the suit property to H.Muniya_plpa_ -in the ~ .ye_ar xf?1952 and
\nMuniyappa Reddy sold lthefsailne the plaintiffs in the year
\n1957′. The name of thepvplaintiffsp  entered in the
\nrevenue records:  byeenllpaying kandaya. Survey
\nnumber wasl’demarcatg\u00a7\ufb01v…a1–;d renumbered as Sy.No.81\/4A<\/p>\n
measuring lit. acre 13 g1iri!;as,_llSy.No.81\/4B measuring 1 acre 15<\/p>\n
guntasgland Sy.”i\\Io7l8ll\/4C measuring 32 guntas, in all , it<\/p>\n
    20 guntas. Plaintiffs were not aware about the<\/p>\n
re’-ysu-i_1’ey”vn’u.rr1ber*”and demarcation of subwnumbers to original<\/p>\n
 _Sy.No’:81 V._the-ieirtent of land was shows as 3 acres 20 guntas
\n Zboundaries mentioned in the schedule. The BDA
\n  notification in the year 1987 to acquire the plaintiffs’<\/p>\n
  at Sl.Nos.194 to 196 i.e., the entire suit schedule property.<\/p>\n
if ” *~’l’lI’he said acquisition was challenged by the plaintiffs in<\/p>\n
W.P.No.217’7l\/90 before this Court. This Court by its order
\ndated 07.] 1.1990. disposed of the said writ petition holding that<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs possession should not be disturbed. <\/p>\n
alleged that the defendants have no right, title o’r\u00a7l_”i’nt:e.re–st:Layer<\/p>\n
the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs lied.\u00bb<\/p>\n
495\/1992, however the same was wi;tlidrayVfr1l’t=o  .Ve51,:lit<\/p>\n
on the same cause of action, withdraw’a;l of the\u00bb’s’2iit.V would Vriotf.<\/p>\n
come in the way of the plaintiffs lfor_l1″iling the suit. On
\n30.09.1991, the d6feHdaI%:t;.S’_ stones to change
\nthe nature and characterwof  property and
\nhence, the plaint:ii’fsA;.yyere iiforcedl for declaration and<\/p>\n
injunction.\n<\/p>\n
5.  of sumrnons appeared and filed<\/p>\n
written statement.  that, the plaintiff had filed a suit.<\/p>\n
.~-ill 0-~’3fN9-495\/999′”–alnd__Mt’vhe said suit was withdrawn with a<\/p>\n
A”perrni\u00abs_sion ‘tio’\u00abiVrr1*plead the Authority and since the present suit<\/p>\n
is Authority, is hit by provisions of Order 2 Rule<\/p>\n
9’  of  ‘also hit by Section 11 of CPC and further the
\nif is not maintainable, as there is no liberty given by
\n in terms of Order 23 Rule .1 of CPC, t.he other\n<\/p>\n
–\u00abl.4:all’e’glat.ion of the plaintiff that they are the owners of the suit<\/p>\n
 schedule property measuring 3 acres 20 guntas denied and in<\/p>\n
K i<\/p>\n
‘II<\/p>\n
E
\nI
\n‘ .\n<\/p>\n
turn, the defendants claim that Sy.No.81 of Hulimavu village
\nwas measuring 9 acres 32 guntas. During the year 1929, the
\nsaid survey number was assigned as Sy.Nos.81\/1, 81\/2, 81\/3 8:<\/p>\n
81\/4. It was further assigned as Sy.N0s.81\/4A, 81 \/44BV&_s.1_\/4c<\/p>\n
measuring 3 acres 20 guntas. Preliminary noti_1icati_’or1si.a._n’d<\/p>\n
Final r1ot;ifications were issued by the BDA to ae.dfu.ir’e~:.0t1i.e iand. <\/p>\n
and it also served notice on the 131 d_efe:1.dafntacallirigl’elponalfiiin<\/p>\n
to file objections. The 18* d.efendari’t._Vfi’led ob;\u00a7’eet:io.ns.j’; 7rh”s.<\/p>\n
allegations of t.he plaintiffs is  View ‘g_Vj’1i’vthe:V3stay order
\npassed in W.P.No.217’%’1″\/.90!  of the schedule
\nproperty earlier to the saidV_ordVer’V_1o3rb  is false. It is<\/p>\n
also stated thatlllplaintiffsip rriothe:r’:.V’Lakshmamma possessed<\/p>\n
Sy.No.83″”islV   claim that they are in
\npossessioliwp and the extent of land measuring 20<\/p>\n
guntas in Sy.’No.’8lp\/}4:A,’:_Slffdguntas in Sy.No.81\/413 since from<\/p>\n
“‘the …_purchas–e”by the 151 defendant on 05.11.1964<\/p>\n
   Ramaiah. Since there was a mistake in the<\/p>\n
sales  number was described as 81\/2 and the said<\/p>\n
  ’17nistake~.ha{1 crept in as the 15* defendant vendor who had sold
\n   Vllarid to the mother of the 151 defendant, Smt..Lakshrnamma
\n ___”‘l*.’L1nVder the sale deed dated 10.05.1946 had mentioned this<\/p>\n
u7St’.No.as 81\/2 and the said mistake continued even<\/p>\n
\u00e9%<\/p>\n
M6-\n<\/p>\n
subsequently under the sale deed dated 26.09.1948. Same was
\nsold by LElkSl’lf}'”1aII’l1T1E1 and 1-“*’ defendant in favour of Thogur
\nRarnaiah and Thogur Ranialah in turn sold the samdto the
\ndefendants. The boundaries in all t.he sale deeds
\nthe schedule property and accordingly,
\nboundaries to these properties as   -: if
\nland of Smt.Venkatamma, North by land
\nSouth by Gomal land. 9   V    ll\n<\/p>\n
6. Defendants clain’l’that  fepncedvtheir land with
\nbarbed wires by erecting    that according
\nto the revenue. 9:13′ defendant has
\nentered and  ‘the.-boundaries described in
\nthe sale:’:deed~.li false allegations and had<\/p>\n
filed a   The temporary injunction<\/p>\n
V applicajtionfiled in said suit was also dismissed. Against the<\/p>\n
 :plain_tiffs had filed an appeal, same also came to be<\/p>\n
dii’s_1rIi’ss.e d’ V  .. 1 982.\n<\/p>\n
. Base-dl”lon the above pleadings, the trial court framed the<\/p>\n
H ”   ‘ = following issues: —\n<\/p>\n
it  {-ill Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the<\/p>\n
owners of the property described in the<\/p>\n
plaint? Q  r<\/p>\n
{ii} Whether the plaintiffs have proved that the
\ndefendants are trying to lay hands on the
\nplaint schedule property?\n<\/p>\n
[iii] Whether the plaintiffs are \u20ac}1litlQ~(3l.
\ndeclaration of title in regard to the
\nschedule property?   . ll ‘<\/p>\n
(iv) What decree or order’?\n<\/p>\n
8. Before the trial  one lhlshagyafnma and
\nLakshminarayana were   and 2 and in their
\nevidence, Exs.P1 to._P38 wererriarlred. : of defendants,<\/p>\n
two witnesses v\u20ac.f:ere;1il’e\u00a7gaxnineidhas biiifls-ill1″‘\u00e9ind 2 and Exs.D1 to<\/p>\n
D29 were marlgedi. _ir;i_pthei r e\\fi’c:l_’ence.<\/p>\n
9. Trial  the title of the predecessors of<\/p>\n
the plaint.iffs’r\u00abar1d,  with the boundary shown in the<\/p>\n
 sale  found that_t_’_h_e. plaintiffs have failed to prove their title<\/p>\n
  spuit,:_sche:d’ul’e property and accordingly, dismissed the suit<\/p>\n
with lhcosts.’  liy\ufb01fagainst the said judgment and decree, the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are infappeal before this Court.<\/p>\n
   Sri.B.I{.Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
 W*a’pp’ellants –~ plaintiffs submitted that, as per Ex.P5 -\u00bb\u00bb sale deed<\/p>\n
  1.5.1943, Venkatamma purchased the property from<\/p>\n
(‘n<\/p>\n
Ramaiah wherein about 21\/2 acres of the land bearing Sy.No.8l
\nwas sold showing the boundaries East by Sreekantaiah” land,
\nWest by Chowdappa and Muniyarnn1a’s land, North by
\n.Muniyan1ma’s land and South by Kattali Beli. Very
\nbecame the subject matter of the sale deed dated
\nper Ex.P6 wherein land bearing Sy.No,8l ‘pi?!\/gt’
\nacres bounded East by Lakshma:rr1ma7sA.
\nAbbaiah’s land, North by Muniyamnia’s”
\nKattali Bell. This property was   Reddy
\nunder sale deed :.  wherein
\nboundries of the sohedtileppoi\u00e9ithe   as under:<\/p>\n
East by Lakshr\ufb01\u00a7’1\ufb01i’\u00a7;?la’s land
\nWest by Abbaia}*1’slan’_d. ” ._ ” ‘W<\/p>\n
North by Mui3.iyarnn1a’s’   T<\/p>\n
South Go1t1a.la’lVIa’Ie.as1iring”abotit 2 acres.<\/p>\n
The said land\u00e9was  by Muthappa, who was minor then<\/p>\n
 underiiallregisteredsale’deed dated 18.7.1957 as per Ex.P8 on<\/p>\n
A\ufb02thgu_basebs:..of:’which plaintiffs are claiming their title. The<\/p>\n
b’\u00a2ui1.:1ne’s o’_f\u00bbt_he3′ schedule is shown as under:<\/p>\n
 _ Eastiby LaltShn1an1ma’s land
\n . \u00aba ‘West by’Ab1.’.:)aiah’s land<\/p>\n
  North__ by l’VI’uniyanima’s land and gwi
\n” \u00ab_ “South”‘by Gomala land. 7\/ _\/-~’<\/p>\n
-9,<\/p>\n
ll. Relying on these documents, learned Counsel for the
\nplaintiffs submitted that, the measurement of the land has not
\nbeen correctly described either in the sale deed of Muthappa or<\/p>\n
his predecessor–i.n–titEe. However, the boundaries are ..gi’v_ei1_and<\/p>\n
within the said boundary, land measures 3 acres <\/p>\n
submitted that, initialiy it was shown as abo11t’?,v-\u00a5X\u00e9:i~acres,. in  <\/p>\n
sale deeds ~ EXSP7 and P8, it is  <\/p>\n
actuai measurement is 3acres’2(_) guntas”. sublimittede.<\/p>\n
that, in case of discrepancy as  to  rneasuijement, the
\nboundaries will prevail  the  are considered, the
\nplaint schedule property boundaries and<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs are i:i’j,:p\u00a7ss\u00a2sgi\u00a2s:n\u00e9md enioym.ent of the said land.<\/p>\n
 On ‘theifotherihand;Sri.Nagabhushana submitted that,<\/p>\n
the land was4_originally.irneasurring 9 acres 32 guntas and it was<\/p>\n
 the subject matterflof various sale deeds. Lakshmamma had<\/p>\n
 pu’rc_hase’d:.the~._property on the eastern side of the plaintiffs’<\/p>\n
tlie-staid Lakshmamma in turn sold it to Ramaiah,<\/p>\n
if _ the p’rede_cessfor–in~title and thereafter under EX.Dl1, Ramaiah<\/p>\n
 it todefendant No.1 wherein the boundaries are shown as<\/p>\n
l . u’n_der–{<\/p>\n
~10-\n<\/p>\n
East by Cart track<\/p>\n
West by Ver1katanm1a’s land
\nNorth by ven dor’s property and
\nSouth by Gomala land.\n<\/p>\n
He submitted that, on the western side of theW’deife=iidan_t’sf<\/p>\n
property, Venkatammas land is shown. It is~th.e_’minor\u00ab.sonl’ofp <\/p>\n
Venkatamma i.e., Muthappa had purchased He l<\/p>\n
submitted that, the plaint. schedule as i11.vt’iieVlVplain;t <\/p>\n
not give correct description of thegbouiidariels”.*V’lHe2\u00a7points out
\nthat, the eastern  riot the lan.d
\nof Lakshmamma, but it    \u00e9iavibande.\n<\/p>\n
There is no desc.riptio:i the eastern side of
\nthe plaintiffs’=.’ deed of the plaintiffs or
\npredecesisorllloflfthe   first time, plaintiffs are
\nclaiming  gavibande. It is in. this<\/p>\n
context, trial c”our”‘t relying on the boundaries given in all the sale<\/p>\n
“V”d,eeds1fiag,_found thlat,”–p*lair1tiffs’ land falls on the western side of<\/p>\n
 defenvdaittsiland, however, plaintiffs instead of showing<\/p>\n
La1{shlrnam.ii1a”sfcproperty on the East has wrongly shown the<\/p>\n
 lprope1’ty~.asg_Gfovernment gavibande in order to claim more land
\n  thanfwhat is described in the schedule to the sale deed under
\n He also relied on the findings of the trial court and<\/p>\n
llsubmitted that, plaintiffs can succeed or fail on the basis o.f their<\/p>\n
title deeds and the title deeds do not give the description of the
\nboundaries on the eastern side as Government gavibande. If<\/p>\n
that is so, trial court has rightly on appreciation of the entire<\/p>\n
material had dismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n
13. In the light of the rival contentions,  that<\/p>\n
arises for consideration in this appeal is:<\/p>\n
“Whether the plaintiffs have provedrt}tetr\u00bb.tit”le”‘t0l
\nsuit schedule property?” _ 7    ‘  <\/p>\n
14. It is not in dispute  plaintiffseltfavegipurchased
\nthe very same property.  in l\u00a7\u00a7A<s.VI35, P6 and<\/p>\n
P7. In Ex.P5. the eastern as "Sarkari<\/p>\n
banj aru'f'. ' the \u00bb .\u00a7\u00a7'aste;\u00a519l' "boundary as Lakshmamrnas
\nland. Defendants: l*i'afve\u00bbl"p1_:5o'd.tJ.eed the document to Show that<\/p>\n
Ramaiah, W1'l't\u00a7J"1'1V\u00ablrL:lt"lVI1.T't'LltZ3,1.\u20acV'CYl'.Vt1'1('3 land, has sold the eastern side<\/p>\n
"of \ufb02plaintilffs' land"to'Lakshn1amma. It is after the purchase<\/p>\n
'byl'Laks.hV1narn1na.'her name was shown as Lakshmarnmas land<\/p>\n
in   also not in dispute that: the eastern boundary in<\/p>\n
 "EX.P7 is also shown as Lakshmammas land. Even the sale deed
\n   the plaintiffs are claiming their title, undisputedly
\n  the eastern boundary as Lakshmarnntas land. Plaintiffs<\/p>\n
uV.h.ave failed to prove the eastern boundary as Government<\/p>\n
G-avibande. Defendants do not dispute the sale deed Ex.P8 or
\nthe sale deed of the predecessorwinwtitle of the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
However, they seriously disputed the eastern boundary,' ':'L*',i;.D1 1.<\/p>\n
under which the defendant No.1 has purchased <\/p>\n
the western side of his land is described as Venkatarnj'rna"sxdlahdt' <\/p>\n
If these documents are not disputed."and"the7,plainti'f\u00a3.s 'halve 'not' 7<\/p>\n
produced any document to show how:4't.heir_zeaste1_nboundaiyfgot<\/p>\n
changed from Lakshmamrnas la.4n\ufb01djto .(V,.'xoxreriu'jIf\ufb01.('31it:Ldavihande.
\ntrial court was justified  suit"on"the ground
\nthat the plaintiffs have  title to the suit
\nschedule property       if<\/p>\n
15. At? appearing for the
\nplaintiffs’subrnitte~:l.._:tliat.<i_since there is no dispute insofar as<\/p>\n
Ex.P8 is concerned",   court should have decreed the suit<\/p>\n
V at least ton the eX'te_ntVof the schedule property shown in Ex.P8.<\/p>\n
.,   VA.$ri4.N.?,1gabhushana, learned Counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
 that, if the plaintiffs claim their title as<\/p>\n
V _ per  lhehas no objection. However, the eastern boundary<\/p>\n
 cannot be 'beyond Lakshrnamina's land and submitted that, he<\/p>\n
 hagno' objection to declare the plaintiffs as the owner in terms of<\/p>\n
 " Ex:P8 and not beyond that.\n<\/p>\n
V 13 –\n<\/p>\n
17. Considering the submissions made by both the
\nCounsel, no doubt, plaintiffs have not claimed declaration by
\ndescribing the boundary particulariy on the eastern side, as
\ngovernment gavi bande however, in the light of EXS.P57′,..”?76, P7<\/p>\n
and P8, the undisputed registered sale deeds “‘tbe<\/p>\n
boundary on the eastern side is shown as lLal(shemamn1a’sV’<\/p>\n
property. In Vl\u20acW of the submission”lWfi’1’1d. th.at,.; e’-an bi’<\/p>\n
mould the relief and grant decree   extevntof: <\/p>\n
concerned. Accordingly, I paSSV1.l1.\u00e9.ufQl1O”7.lf1g. ‘  V ‘-
\nAppeal is partly allowed.’  “declared as owners<\/p>\n
of the suit sched.n’le_prc\u00a7p’erty::: Ex.P8 i.e. within<\/p>\n
boundaries as; V V <\/p>\n
East by Lakshn1arn”r::1a”sA’land.r;l\u00e9\u00e9 V.
\nWest by Abbai”ab’s land,  ‘
\nNorth’ 4byVlv’l.uniyainn’1a’s la.nd and<\/p>\n
“V “Soutl1__:by Qolnal land’; **** ” ‘V<\/p>\n
Th\u00e9v…:defe.1:idar1ts’ title as shown in Ex.Dl1 stands<\/p>\n
undistludrb\u20ac_\u00abd{.V’l’t: f__ <\/p>\n
 ..  Parties to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
Sdh
\nEndq\u00e9k<\/p>\n
it ” ~’Sr1\/KNM\/w<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Yerramma W\/O Narayana Reddy vs Thimmappa S\/O Late Muthappa on 15 November, 2010 Author: Subhash B.Adi IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 151′” DAY OF” NOVEMBER 2010 BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH V-7-f ft _ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.117.a\/\u00bb2.b:o4″*~::: I’ BETWEEN: 1. Smt.Yerramma, W\/0 N arayana Reddy, […]<\/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-25531","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nYerramma W\/O Narayana Reddy vs Thimmappa S\/O Late Muthappa on 15 November, 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\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yerramma W\/O Narayana Reddy vs Thimmappa S\/O Late Muthappa on 15 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-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=\"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-14T19:37:26+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\\\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Yerramma W\\\/O Narayana Reddy vs Thimmappa S\\\/O Late Muthappa on 15 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-14T19:37:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2483,\"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\\\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Yerramma W\\\/O Narayana Reddy vs Thimmappa S\\\/O Late Muthappa on 15 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-14T19:37:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yerramma W\\\/O Narayana Reddy vs Thimmappa S\\\/O Late Muthappa on 15 November, 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":"Yerramma W\/O Narayana Reddy vs Thimmappa S\/O Late Muthappa on 15 November, 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\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yerramma W\/O Narayana Reddy vs Thimmappa S\/O Late Muthappa on 15 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-14T19:37:26+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\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Yerramma W\/O Narayana Reddy vs Thimmappa S\/O Late Muthappa on 15 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-14T19:37:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010"},"wordCount":2483,"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\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010","name":"Yerramma W\/O Narayana Reddy vs Thimmappa S\/O Late Muthappa on 15 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-14T19:37:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yerramma-wo-narayana-reddy-vs-thimmappa-so-late-muthappa-on-15-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yerramma W\/O Narayana Reddy vs Thimmappa S\/O Late Muthappa on 15 November, 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\/25531","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=25531"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25531\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25531"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25531"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25531"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}