{"id":259592,"date":"2001-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001"},"modified":"2018-05-11T02:31:08","modified_gmt":"2018-05-10T21:01:08","slug":"madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001","title":{"rendered":"Madhegowda (D) By Lrs vs Ankegowda (D) By Lrs & Ors on 20 November, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Madhegowda (D) By Lrs vs Ankegowda (D) By Lrs & Ors on 20 November, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: D.P.Mohapatra<\/div>\n
Bench: D.P. Mohapatra, Doraiswamy Raju<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 5652-5653  of  1998\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nMADHEGOWDA (D) BY LRS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nANKEGOWDA (D) BY LRS & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t20\/11\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nD.P. Mohapatra & Doraiswamy Raju\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
D.P.MOHAPATRA,J.\n<\/p>\n
One Ninge Gowda was the original owner of
\nthe property in dispute.  He died leaving two daughters
\nnamely Smt.Sakamma, respondent no.10 herein, and
\nSmt.Madamma, respondent no.11 herein.  When
\nSmt.Sakamma was a minor, her sister Smt.Madamma
\npurportedly acting as her guardian, sold her share of the
\nproperty left by Ninge Gowda to Madhegowda, appellant
\nherein by a registered Sale Deed dated 24.4.1961.  It is
\nthe case of the appellant that the share of the minor
\nSmt.Sakamma was sold to collect funds for her marriage.
\nThe appellant was put in possession of the property and
\nhe continues in possession of the same till date.
\nSmt.Sakamma attained majority sometime in
\n1961-62. She sold her share of the property to
\nAnkegowda, predecessor of respondent nos.1 to 9 herein,
\nby the registered Sale Deed dated 1.7.1967.  Since there
\nwas a dispute regarding possession of the property,
\nAnkegowda initiated a proceeding under Section 145<\/a> of
\nthe Criminal Procedure Code before the Sub-Divisional
\nMagistrate, Srirangapatna which was registered as
\nCriminal Misc.7\/67-68.\tIn the said proceeding, the
\nlearned Magistrate held that the appellant was in
\npossession of the property on the date of the preliminary
\norder and he would continue to remain in possession of
\nthe same till dispossessed by the competent Court.
\nThereafter Ankegowda (plaintiff) filed\tOriginal
\nSuit No.69\/69, in the Court of the Munsif, Srirangapatna
\nseeking a declaration of title, for partition of the share of
\nhis vendor Smt.Sakamma and for delivery of possession
\nof the same to him citing Smt.Sakamma (defendant no.1),
\nSmt.Madamma (defendant no.2) and S.Madhegowda
\n(defendant no.3) as parties.  The learned Munsif
\ndismissed the suit. The appeal filed by Ankegowda,
\nRegular Appeal No.44\/78, in the Court of the Civil Judge,
\nSrirangapatna proved unsuccessful.  The learned Civil
\nJudge concurred with the findings of the learned Munsif
\nand dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated
\n24.7.1979.\n<\/p>\n
The trial Court and the First Appellate Court
\ndismissed the suit on recording the concurrent finding that
\nSmt.Sakamma (Defendant No.1) had no valid title in the
\nproperty on 1.7.1967, the date on which she executed the
\nregistered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, since her
\ninterest in the suit property had already been sold in
\nfavour of S.Madhegowda (Defendant No.3) by the
\nregistered sale deed dated 24.4.1961 executed by her
\nsister Smt.Madamma (Defendant No.2).  The Courts
\nfurther held that Smt.Sakamma could not have validly
\nsold the suit property to the plaintiff without getting the
\nsale deed dated 24.4.1961 annulled by filing a suit within
\nthree years of attaining majority.  The decisions were
\nbased on the notion that the sale deed executed by
\nSmt.Madamma in favour of Madhegowda was not void
\nbut voidable only.\n<\/p>\n
Respondent nos.1 to 9, successors-in-interest
\nof Ankegowda, filed Regular Second Appeal No.1134\/79
\nin the High Court of Karnataka challenging the
\njudgment\/decree of the trial Court as confirmed by the
\nFirst Appellate Court.\tThe High Court by its judgment
\nrendered on 11th January, 1993 allowed the second
\nappeal, set aside  the judgment\/decree of the Courts
\nbelow and held that the respondents 1 to 9 are entitled to
\nhalf-share in the suit property, ordered for partition and
\ndelivery of possession of their share out  of the same.
\nThe application filed for review of the judgment CP (FR)
\nNo.937\/97 was dismissed by the order dated 8.9.1997.
\nHence, these appeals by the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
The question that falls for determination in the
\ncase relates to competence of Smt.Madamma to sell the
\ninterest of her minor sister Smt.Sakamma in the property
\nas her guardian.  If the question is answered in the
\naffirmative and it is held that Smt.Madamma was
\ncompetent to alienate the share of her minor sister as her
\nguardian, then the trial Court and the first Appellate Court
\nwere right in holding that the transaction of sale was
\nvoidable one and Smt.Sakamma having failed to
\nrepudiate the sale within the prescribed period of three
\nyears after attaining majority, the sale in favour of the
\nappellant stood confirmed.  If, on the other hand, it is held
\nthat Smt.Madamma had no competence to alienate the
\nshare of her minor sister in the property, then the
\ntransaction was a void one which was not required to be
\nrepudiated by Smt.Sakamma by filing a suit  within the
\nprescribed period.  Then the judgment of the High Court
\nholding the sale to be void is to be confirmed.
\nThe answer to the question formulated above
\ndepends on the interpretation of Section 11<\/a> of the Hindu
\nMinority and Guardianship Act<\/a>, 1956 (hereinafter referred
\nto as the Act) and its interaction with other relevant
\nprovisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In Section 4<\/a> clause (b) the expression
\nguardian is defined to mean a person having the care of
\nthe person of a minor or of his property or of both his
\nperson and property, and includes :\n<\/p>\n
(i) a natural guardian;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) a guardian appointed by the will of the
\nminors father or mother,\n<\/p>\n
(iii) a guardian appointed or declared by a
\ncourt, and\n<\/p>\n
(iv) a person empowered to act as such by
\nor under any enactment relating to any
\nCourt of Wards;\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn clause (c) the term natural guardian is
\ndefined\t to mean any of the guardians mentioned in
\nSection 6<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
In Section 6<\/a> of the Act provisions are made
\nregarding natural guardians of a Hindu minor in respect
\nof the\tminors person as well as in respect of the minors
\nproperty.  The Section reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
The natural guardians of a Hindu minor,
\nin respect of the minors person as well
\nas in respect of the minors property
\n(excluding his or her undivided interest
\nin joint family property), are<\/p>\n
(a) in the case of a boy or an
\nunmarried girl\tthe father, and
\nafter him, the mother : provided
\nthat the custody of a minor who
\nhas not completed the age of five
\nyears shall ordinarily be with the
\nmother;\n<\/p>\n
(b) in the case of an illegitimate boy or
\nan illegitimate unmarried girl\tthe
\nmother, and after her, the father;\n<\/p>\n
Provided that no person shall be entitled
\nto act as the natural guardian of a minor
\nunder the provisions of this section\n<\/p>\n
(a) if he has ceased to be a Hindu, or\n<\/p>\n
(b) if he has completely and finally
\nrenounced the world by becoming
\na hermit (vanaprastha) or an
\nascetic (yati or sanyasi).\n<\/p>\n
Explanation  In this section, the
\nexpressions father and mother do not
\ninclude a step-father and a step-\n<\/p>\n
mother.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn this connection it is relevant to consider the
\npower of a natural guardian to alienate the property of the
\nminor, provision regarding which is made in Section 8<\/a> of
\nthe Act. In Sub-section (1) of Section 8<\/a> it is declared that
\nthe natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject
\nto the provisions of the section, to do all acts which are
\nnecessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the
\nminor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the
\nminors estate; but the guardian in no case can bind the
\nminor by a personal covenant.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn Sub-section (2) of Section 8<\/a> it is laid down
\nthat the natural guardian shall not, without the previous
\npermission of the Court<\/p>\n
(a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale,
\ngift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the
\nimmovable property of the minor or<\/p>\n
(b) lease any part of such property for a term
\nexceeding five years or for a term
\nextending more than one year beyond the
\ndate on which the minor will attain
\nmajority.\n<\/p>\n
In Sub-section (3) in which the consequences
\nof contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) are
\nprovided it is laid down that any disposal of immovable
\nproperty by a natural guardian, in contravention of sub-
\nsection (1) or sub-section (2), is voidable at the instance
\nof the minor or any person claiming under him.
\nIn Sub-section (4) of Section 8<\/a>, a provision is
\nmade that No court shall grant permission to the natural
\nguardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-section
\n(2) except in case of necessity or for an evident
\nadvantage to the minor.\n<\/p>\n
In Sub-section (5) of Section 8<\/a>, it is provided
\nthat the Guardians and Wards Act<\/a>, 1890 (8 of 1890),
\nshall apply to and in respect of an application for
\nobtaining the permission of the Court under sub-section
\n(2) in all respects as if it were an application for obtaining
\nthe permission of the Court under Section 29<\/a> of that Act.
\nSection 11<\/a> of the Act reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
De facto guardian not to deal with
\nminors property\t After the
\ncommencement of this Act, no person
\nshall be entitled to dispose of, or deal
\nwith, the property of a Hindu minor
\nmerely on the ground of his or her being
\nthe de facto guardian of the minor.\n<\/p>\n
This Section brings about a material change in the law
\nrelating to de facto guardians or de facto managers of a
\nHindu minors estate by enacting in express terms that
\nafter the commencement of the Act, no person has the
\nright or authority to do any act as a de facto guardian of
\nsuch minor.  Although the expression de facto guardian
\nis often used in judgments, there is in law nothing like a
\nde facto guardian.  The statute recognises a natural
\nguardian or a testamentary guardian or a guardian
\nappointed by the Court.\t In law a person who is not a
\nguardian as aforementioned who takes interest upon
\nhimself, the general management of the estate of a minor
\ncan be more appropriately described as de fecto
\nmanager.  Before enforcement of the Act some confusion
\nprevailed over the powers of de facto guardian or
\nmanager for alienating the property of his\/her ward.  It
\nwas held by the Privy Council in Hunooman Persuad
\nPandeys case, 6 MIA 393, that a de facto guardian had
\nthe same power of alienating the property of his ward as a
\nnatural guardian.  Section 11<\/a> has done away with the
\nauthority of any person to deal with or dispose of any
\nproperty of a Hindu minor on the ground of his being the
\nde facto guardian of such minor.  Any alienation by a de
\nfacto guardian will be governed by the provisions in
\nSection 11<\/a> of the Act.\tThe alienation, being against the
\nstatutory prohibition, would be void ab initio and the
\nalienee would not acquire any title to the property.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 12<\/a> of the Act reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\tGuardian not to be appointed for minors
\nundivided interest in joint family property-
\nWhere a minor has an undivided interest in
\njoint family property and the property is under
\nthe management of an adult member of the
\nfamily, no guardian shall be appointed for the
\nminor in respect of such undivided interest :\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that nothing in this section
\nshall be deemed to affect the jurisdiction of a
\nHigh Court to appoint a guardian in respect of
\nsuch interest.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tFrom the statutory provisions noted above, it
\nis clear that with the avowed object of saving the minors
\nestate being mis-appropriated or squandered by any
\nperson, by a relation or a family friend claiming to be a
\nwell-wisher of the minor, Section 11<\/a> was enacted to
\nprohibit any such person from alienating the property of
\nthe minor.  Even a natural guardian is required to seek
\npermission of the Court before alienating any part of the
\nestate of the minor and the Court is not to grant such
\npermission to the natural guardian except in case of
\nnecessity or for an evident advantage to the minor. So far
\nas de facto guardian or de facto manager is concerned,
\nthe statute has in no uncertain terms prohibited any
\ntransfer of any part of minors estate by such a person.\t In
\nview of the clear statutory mandate, there is little scope
\nfor doubt that any transfer in violation of the prohibition
\nincorporated in Section 11<\/a> of the Act is ab initio void.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe Federal Court in the case of Kondamudi
\nSriramulu vs. Myneni Pundarikakshayya etc., AIR (36)
\n1949 FC 218, explaining the phrase de facto guardian
\nused in Hanooman Persaud Pandeys case (supra), made
\nthe following observations :\n<\/p>\n
Before concluding my observations about the
\nscope of the decision in Hanuoomnapersaud
\nPandays case, 6 M.I.A. 393: (18 W.R.81
\nP.C.), I would like to make a few observations
\nabout the phrase de facto guardian.  In my
\nopinion, it is a loose phraseology for the
\nexpression de facto manager employed in
\nHanoomanpersaud Pandays case, 6 M.I.A.
\n393: (18 W.R.81 P.C.); their Lordships in
\ndifferent parts of the judgment used the
\nwords, guardian, curator and de facto
\nmanager.  This phrase is certainly not known
\nto any text of Hindu law, but it aptly describes
\nthe relations and friends who are interested in
\nthe minor and who for love and affection to
\nhim assume superintendence over his estate.
\nA father may not necessarily be the guardian
\nof an illegitimate child, but his de facto
\nguardianship cannot be repudiated.  Such is
\nthe case of the natural father of an adopted
\nson, cf. Ganga Prasad v. Hara Kanta
\nChowdhury<\/a>, 7 KI.C. 234:(15 C.W.N.558).\tA
\nperson who is not attached to the minor by
\nties of affection or other reasons of affinity and
\nremains in charge of his estate is in truth a
\nmere intermeddler with his estate. In order to
\ncome within the scope of the rule in
\nHanoomanpersaud Pandays case, 6 M.I.A.
\n393: (18 W.R.81 P.C.), it is necessary that
\nthere is course of conduct in the capacity of a
\nmanager.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe Federal Court took the view that in law
\nthere is nothing like a de facto guardian.  There can only
\nbe a de facto manager, although the expression de facto
\nguardian has been used in text books and some
\njudgments of Courts.  That is the correct description of a
\nperson generally managing the estate of a minor without
\nhaving any legal title to do so.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThis Court in the case of Sri Narayan Bal &
\nOrs. vs. Sridhar Sutar & Ors<\/a>., (1996) 8 SCC 54,
\nconstruing the provisions of applicability of Section 8<\/a> to a
\ncase of transfer of the undivided interest of a Hindu minor
\nin a joint family property held that the joint Hindu family by
\nitself is a legal entity capable of acting through its Karta
\nand other adult members of the family in management of
\nthe joint Hindu family property and that Section 8<\/a> in view
\nof the express terms of Sections 6<\/a> and 12<\/a>, would not be
\napplicable where a joint Hindu family property is
\nsold\/disposed of by the Karta involving an undivided
\ninterest of the minor in the said joint Hindu family
\nproperty.  In that connection, this Court made the
\nfollowing observations :\n<\/p>\n
……Each provision, and in particular Section
\n8<\/a>, cannot be viewed in isolation.  If read
\ntogether the intent of the legislature in this
\nbeneficial legislation becomes manifest.
\nOrdinarily the law does not envisage a natural
\nguardian of the undivided interest of a Hindu
\nminor, other than the undivided interest in joint
\nfamily property, is alone contemplated under
\nSection 8<\/a>, whereunder his powers and duties
\nare defined.  Section 12<\/a> carves out an
\nexception to the rule that should there be no
\nadult member of the joint family in
\nmanagement of the joint family property, in
\nwhich the minor has an undivided interest, a
\nguardian may be appointed; but ordinarily no
\nguardian shall be appointed for such
\nundivided interest of the minor.  The adult
\nmember of the family in the management of
\nthe joint Hindu family property may be a male
\nor a female, not necessarily the Karta.\t The
\npower of the High Court otherwise to appoint
\na guardian, in situations justifying, has been
\npreserved.  This is the legislative scheme on
\nthe subject.  Under Section 8<\/a> a natural
\nguardian of the property of the Hindu minor,
\nbefore he disposes of any immovable property
\nof the minor, must seek permission of the
\nCourt. But since there need be no natural
\nguardian for the minors undivided interest in
\nthe joint family property, as provided under
\nSections 6<\/a> and 12<\/a> of the Act, the previous
\npermission of the court under Section 8<\/a> for
\ndisposing of the undivided interest of the
\nminor in the joint family property is not
\nrequired…….”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThis Court, in the case of Ganayya & Anr. Vs.
\nRadhabai  & Ors., (1997) 11 SCC 332, considering the
\nquestion of applicability of the provisions of Section 11<\/a> of
\nthe Act, held :A bare reading of Section 11<\/a> goes to show
\nthat it explicitly provides that after the commencement of
\nthe said Act no person shall be entitled to dispose of or
\ndeal with the property of a Hindu minor merely on the
\nground of his or her being the de facto guardian of the
\nminor.\t In that case the case of the appellants was that
\ntheir father, who was blind from birth, died on 16.2.1957
\nleaving behind him the appellants who were minors.  The
\nappellants uncle Nagayya was cultivating the land in
\nquestion as Manager even during the life time of their
\nfather as he was blind and the appellants were minors.
\nOne Balayya, husband of appellants mothers sister,
\nleased out the lands in dispute to the said Nagayya, the
\nreal uncle of the appellants.\tOn the basis of that lease
\nmade by the de facto guardian of the appellants
\nNagayya, the uncle of the appellants, made the
\napplication for conferral of ownership rights of the land in
\ndispute and for determination of purchase  price of the
\nsaid land under Section 48<\/a> read with Sections 46 and 49-
\nA of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
\n(Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958.  The Addl. Tahsildar
\nallowed the application which was upheld by the Sub-
\nDivisional Officer in appeal and the Revenue Tribunal in
\nrevision.  The High Court also dismissed the appellants
\napplication filed under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution.  The
\nHigh Court held that the provisions of Section 11<\/a> of the
\nAct were not attracted to the facts of the case and,
\ntherefore,  dismissed the petition.  This Court, allowing
\nthe appeal, held that the High Court fell into a patent error
\nin taking the view that Section 11<\/a> was not attracted to the
\nfacts of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tA Division Bench of the Patna High Court in
\nthe case of Nathuni Mishra & Ors. vs. Mahesh Misra &
\nOrs<\/a>., AIR 1963 Patna 146 (V 50 C 42), took the view that
\nSection 11<\/a> does not deal with the disposal of the
\nundivided interest of a minor in a joint Hindu family
\ngoverned by the Mitakshara School of Law. The Court
\nfurther held that   the said Section cannot be pleaded as a
\nbar for disposal of  joint family property by the Manager or
\nthe Karta of the family for legal necessity.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tA Division Bench of the Madras High Court in
\nthe case of Dhanasekaran vs. Manoranjithammal & Ors<\/a>.,
\nAIR 1992 Madras 214, construing Section 11<\/a> of the Act,
\nheld, inter alia, that the property of a Hindu minor referred
\nto in Section 11<\/a> will include all his properties, including his
\nundivided interest in the joint family property and
\nconsequently that the sale by the de facto guardian of the
\nminors interest in the joint family property was void ab
\ninitio.\t The Division Bench approved the decision of the
\nsingle Judge in this regard.  However, the Division Bench
\ndid not agree with the view taken by the single Judge that
\nthe sale by a de facto guardian of the minors interest in
\nthe joint family is void and held Section 11<\/a> renders the
\nsale voidable only.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tWe have carefully considered the principles
\nlaid down in the aforementioned decisions so far as
\nrelevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issue
\narising in the present case.  It is to be kept in mind that
\nthis is not a case of alienation of minors interest in a joint
\nfamily property.  As noted earlier, Ninge Gowda died
\nleaving his two daughters, namely Smt.Sakamma and
\nSmt.Madamma.  It is not the case of any of the parties
\nthat the suit property was a joint family property in the
\nhands of Ninge Gowda or that the alienation by
\nSmt.Madamma, who is the sister of the minor, was a
\ntransfer of the minors interest in the joint family property.
\nTherefore, the question whether the provision in Section
\n11<\/a> is applicable in the case of transfer of minors interest
\nin a joint family does not arise for consideration here.
\nSection 11<\/a> includes all types of properties of a minor. No
\nexception is provided in the Section.  Undoubtedly
\nSmt.Madamma, sister of the minor, is not a guardian as
\ndefined in Section 4(b)<\/a> of the Act.  Therefore, she can
\nonly be taken to be a de facto guardian or more
\nappropriately de facto manager.\t To a transfer in such a
\ncase Section 11<\/a> of the Act squarely applies. Therefore,
\nthere is little scope for doubt that the transfer of the
\nminors interest by a de facto guardian\/manager having
\nbeen made in violation of the express bar provided under
\nthe Section is per se invalid.\tThe existence or otherwise
\nof legal necessity is not relevant in the case of such
\ninvalid transfer. A transferee of such an alienation does
\nnot acquire any interest in the property. Such an invalid
\ntransaction is not required to be set aside by filing a suit
\nor  judicial proceeding.  The minor, on attaining majority,
\ncan repudiate the transfer in any manner as and when
\noccasion for it arises.\t After attaining majority if he\/she
\ntransfers his\/her interest in the property in a lawful
\nmanner asserting his\/her title to the same that is sufficient
\nto show that the minor has repudiated the transfer made
\nby the de facto guardian\/manager.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn the case in hand there is no finding
\nrecorded by the trial Court or the First Appellate Court
\nthat Smt.Sakamma, the minor, after attaining majority,
\nhad ratified the invalid transfer, even assuming that the
\nflaw in the transfer could be cured by ratification. On the
\nfacts of the case the High Court was justified in setting
\naside the judgment of the trial Court which was confirmed
\nby the First Appellate Court and was right in decreeing
\nthe suit for partition and separate possession.
\nThus, these appeals, being devoid of merit,
\nare dismissed.\tHowever, in the circumstances of the
\ncase, there will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t  …………J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t  (D.P.Mohapatra)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t    ……..J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t(Doraiswamy Raju)
\nNovember  20, 2001<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Madhegowda (D) By Lrs vs Ankegowda (D) By Lrs & Ors on 20 November, 2001 Author: D.P.Mohapatra Bench: D.P. Mohapatra, Doraiswamy Raju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5652-5653 of 1998 PETITIONER: MADHEGOWDA (D) BY LRS Vs. RESPONDENT: ANKEGOWDA (D) BY LRS & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/11\/2001 BENCH: D.P. Mohapatra & Doraiswamy […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-259592","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMadhegowda (D) By Lrs vs Ankegowda (D) By Lrs & Ors on 20 November, 2001 - 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\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madhegowda (D) By Lrs vs Ankegowda (D) By Lrs & Ors on 20 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-10T21:01:08+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madhegowda (D) By Lrs vs Ankegowda (D) By Lrs & Ors on 20 November, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-10T21:01:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3693,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001\",\"name\":\"Madhegowda (D) By Lrs vs Ankegowda (D) By Lrs & Ors on 20 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-10T21:01:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madhegowda (D) By Lrs vs Ankegowda (D) By Lrs & Ors on 20 November, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Madhegowda (D) By Lrs vs Ankegowda (D) By Lrs & Ors on 20 November, 2001 - 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\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madhegowda (D) By Lrs vs Ankegowda (D) By Lrs & Ors on 20 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-10T21:01:08+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madhegowda (D) By Lrs vs Ankegowda (D) By Lrs & Ors on 20 November, 2001","datePublished":"2001-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-10T21:01:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001"},"wordCount":3693,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001","name":"Madhegowda (D) By Lrs vs Ankegowda (D) By Lrs & Ors on 20 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-10T21:01:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhegowda-d-by-lrs-vs-ankegowda-d-by-lrs-ors-on-20-november-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madhegowda (D) By Lrs vs Ankegowda (D) By Lrs & Ors on 20 November, 2001"}]},{"@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\/259592","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=259592"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259592\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}