{"id":261466,"date":"2010-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010"},"modified":"2014-12-05T03:24:33","modified_gmt":"2014-12-04T21:54:33","slug":"k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"K G Hanumanthappa @ Kengo … vs M\/S Anaberu Rajanna & Sons on 27 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
K G Hanumanthappa @ Kengo … vs M\/S Anaberu Rajanna & Sons on 27 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ravi Malimath<\/div>\n
-- .1. --\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nON THE 27*\" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIM:}\\T:i4{.i'g:'::Q:  \nREGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1AA186\/2004-.~ .:(]V.|O'l:\\:'l)=_ sf  \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nSri K.G.Hanumanthappa @\n\nKengo I-ianumanthappa\n\nS\/0 K.Dyamappa,\n\nAged about 65 years,  \n\nAgriculturist,   _ \n\nR\/0 Chikka Budihal Vi||age,I. ~   \nDavangere Taluk.  _  \"';'.-APPELLANT\n\n(By Sri  ;'Ka.nt\"ijja .l\u00a7i\u00e9j'a, \u00bb.rgvoca':e;AAA \nAND:    . ',  ._\n\nM\/s. Anaberu%Ra}an_na..V8z'S'6ns\nA reg;:si:e.r.ed Pa\u00bbrtne'rshi'p Firm,\n\n '~  Con\u00a7_rnissionve_ Agents...3a_.AMerchants,\n\nRep rese\"nfted \"by its Partner,\n\n Sri 'N'.AM';RajaSh.ekharappa,\n\n0-\"Ni n'ga\"p,pa , .  V A \nAged' about eA6D'yea rs,\nHardeka.jr Manjappa Road,\n\n'2__Davangere. ...RESPONDENT\n\nA  B.M.Siddappa, Advocate-absent)\n\n**>i<*\n\nThis RFA filed under Section 96 of CPC against the\n\n judgment and decree dated 27.8.2004 passed in\n\nO.S.No.56\/98 on the file of the I Addi. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),\n\nr\/Per\n\n\n\n_2_\nDavangere, partly decreeing the suit for recovery of\nmoney.\n\nThis RFA coming on for hearing this day, theiioigrt\ndelivered the following:--  \n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Aggrieved by the judgment <\/p>\n
27.08.2004 passed by the I A.dd,_i.tion\u00e9a’l._Ci’vi| }L.id’ge.,(S}r.[‘\u00a7;n..’)i, <\/p>\n
Davangere in 0.8.No.56\/1998’=.._xdecreei’r’i~g:”thefiksuit for
\nrecovery of money, tlieiii-‘.|ef\u00e9Andiari’I:*.filed the present<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
rank in’.,the_  <\/p>\n
The lease o:fV’v._th’e_splaintiff is that it is a registered<\/p>\n
“V”\u00ab..,parvtn’ership..,_firm'”ca—-r-rying on the business of commission<\/p>\n
 defendant approached the plaintiff firm<\/p>\n
for,_.’f’inanc’i’a!._assistance for the purpose of agricultural<\/p>\n
‘*._operatio’n:s with an assurance that he would repay the said<\/p>\n
 after marketing the agriculture produce, which<\/p>\n
 was grown in his farm. Accordingly, between the periods<\/p>\n
 09.03.1994 to 17.03.1994 various sums were advanced to<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
the defendant. As a consequence thereof, the defendant<\/p>\n
opened a folio in the books of account of the piaintiff-firm<\/p>\n
and the transactions continued. The accounts ma’i.nta.in.ed_,<\/p>\n
by the piaintiff’s firm was a current, mutual  ”<\/p>\n
account. On 26.05.1995, 16.03.19’96″a\u00abnd 25,,yo’6.719\u00a7s.Mth\u00e9,’ V’<\/p>\n
defendant paid a sum of Rs.30,iOQO;’f’,’f <\/p>\n
Rs.5,000\/- respectiveiy. Inspi”te.”of repeated,,reqxu.es’tsand ”<\/p>\n
demand made, the defen,dantAi’fai*I.e:d t’o.._payA’ the remaining
\namount. On 25.06.1995, VVa.’su’rnjEo.\u20acV”  was due to
\nthe piaintiff. Anotice was\u00bb’i_s\u00absu’ed’~.f’seekirigid recovery of the<\/p>\n
said  at Rs.70,S0O\/- and<\/p>\n
interest @_  a.n”r.u__rn. amounting to Rs.61,238\/–.
\nSince the said arnount  paid, the present suit was<\/p>\n
fiied_;seei,<ing.V 'r'ecoyery of a sum of Rs.1,31,738\/- with<\/p>\n
V,cuwrrent_;"'a.AndV%:future interest at the rate of 18% per annum<\/p>\n
f'fr0'i7'n__Vytfh"e4.'d_ate~AV.fof"'the suit tili the date of reaiisation.<\/p>\n
 defendant entered appearance and denied the<\/p>\n
,,.."'_s:.i,i:t""averments. He contended that the piaintiff is not<\/p>\n
  entitied for the said amount due to the fact that the suit<\/p>\n
 itself is barred by iimitation and hence the suit requires to<\/p>\n
fir<\/p>\n
_4..\n<\/p>\n
be rejected on that ground alone. That, even though the<\/p>\n
alleged transaction has taken place in the month of EV’E’a.rch<\/p>\n
1994, it is necessary that the plaintiff proves  <\/p>\n
every transaction claimed In the suit is within..:|iri5\u00a7_itation.’..:_’V’<\/p>\n
Since the suit was filed in the x-feaVrl::A1’9.9’8_, <\/p>\n
alleged transactions are within limitation._f;.\u00a7El’eric’e=-4.\u00ab’he'”–<\/p>\n
pleaded for dismissal of the <\/p>\n
The trial Court onilfrarnlrifg;si’xV.[V’:issu.,es, decreed the
\nsuit of the plain_ti’ff__ hoitiiiin’g~t’iiat.tiie plaiiiiziilff is entitled for
\nan amount..alo.ngij;withmilnterest @ 6% per
\nannumgonthesamloitint'”of”P.s.?O’;5–O’t)\/– from the date of the
\nsuit till””.the_ rea|qisatiion…V_.V”i\u00e9lggriheved by the judgment and<\/p>\n
decree, the’p%reseVn’t  is filed by the defendant.<\/p>\n
   _”:Sr_iv.Kantha Raja, the learned Counsel appearing<\/p>\n
 contends that the impugned judgment<\/p>\n
and”‘–decree’:is bad in law. He contends that the reasoning<\/p>\n
C of.-the trial Court is inadequate and hence interference is<\/p>\n
“called for. Primarily, contentions were urged on Issue<\/p>\n
 “”l\\lo.4 with regard to the limitation in filing the suit. He<\/p>\n
contends that the trial Court committed an error in<\/p>\n
I}\/zr’**-‘*<\/p>\n
– 5 _
\napplying Article 1<\/a> of the Limitation Act<\/a> to the suit on hand.<\/p>\n
He submits that there is no mutual, open and current<\/p>\n
account maintained between the parties in orcierwto :a’ttjr’axcvt.<\/p>\n
Article 1<\/a> of the Limitation Act<\/a>. He contends that .thV.e’t-ti-\u00a2ai”‘_”r <\/p>\n
Court should have applied Articie of LimliVta.tEon–Act’-as<\/p>\n
to the facts and circumstances of the caste. <\/p>\n
application of Articie 23 to the….’L:su.i\u00bbt on hand,j’v\u00a7.tVV’i”s>4’VeUident is<\/p>\n
that the suit is barred Vhy…l_imit.at’i’o’nV..’i\n<\/p>\n
4. In support ofshts  relies on the<\/p>\n
judgment repo.rtedd_in    1 in the case of<\/p>\n
RAJU  V.:Sf;”-I..\u00a7(U:”v#iRAMUTHU to contend
\nthat  rnere.Vs’tril\u00e9ing:”ot’:the balance of the parties, it<\/p>\n
cannot be’lprirna_Vf’acAile_s made out, that the account is a<\/p>\n
 anVd’tcu-ri*ent account. The account may be<\/p>\n
 _cu~rren.t”an’d..’e\u00a3J:uaully it may be open, but unless it is mutual<\/p>\n
it”=:eases.’to._ei5e a mutual, open and current account.<\/p>\n
‘=.,Hence,~ he pleads that none of the ingredients with regard<\/p>\n
“\u00ab.to.V_a””mutual, open and current account exists and hence<\/p>\n
‘  the application of Art\u00e9cle 1 of the Limitation Act<\/a> is opposed<\/p>\n
 to the said citation. He further places reliance n the<\/p>\n
%\\r”””‘<\/p>\n
.. 6 w.\n<\/p>\n
judgment reported in AIR 1984 ORISSA 226 in the case<\/p>\n
of ATTADI VENKETI VS. M\/S.BHARATAM <\/p>\n
AND sous wherein it was heid that Arucie_r..1ffbof-ibl’rheaat<\/p>\n
Limitation Act<\/a> appiies to a case where the <\/p>\n
on a mutuai, open and current account t_a–nd-;wh”en ,there”’.<\/p>\n
had been reciprocai demands _betwe’e__n:’th.e part_i’e’s; <\/p>\n
instant case there is no rec\u00e9procai:’V”d.emand.inasrndchbwwaisbwbthe
\npayment has been made.V_A’oni’y””byV\u00a2,,:t:if\u00e9”-piaint\u00e9iff””an’d hence
\nthe provision of Article   the present
\ncase on hand,   and decree is
\nopposed to  the said judgment.\n<\/p>\n
   appearing for the piaintiff<\/p>\n
is absent. t_hVe._iea.rined Counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
 V. _a p peiia. ntja n e\u00a7<a":"nin.ec!~ th e records.<\/p>\n
'  -.61.-v..,AqA'Th\u00e9e'i.ssues framed for consideration by the triai<\/p>\n
Court'*we\u00bbre\u00e977with"regard to the maintainabiiity of the suit,<\/p>\n
[the factu\ufb02na  a loan being avaiied by the defendant from<\/p>\n
 'v~:the'ii'p.sIAaintiff partnership firm, the correctness of the<\/p>\n
'"'~-___""i'."acVcounts maintained by the piaintiff's  the<\/p>\n
\/——–..\n<\/p>\n
\n
:7\u00bb<\/p>\n
entitlements of the plaintiff’s firm towards interest as<\/p>\n
claimed and whether the suit is within limitation or4not.,\u20ac7.,_<\/p>\n
7. It is contended by the iearnecl  <\/p>\n
appearing for the defendant that me ‘issue_ whethexrg<\/p>\n
the suit was in time or not has beeri*.w:r’lo_nglyco,Ansi,dered”~by”.,<\/p>\n
the trial Court. By placing.:’relianceV._on!th\u00e9r\ufb02findijngs ‘V<\/p>\n
recorded on the said Issue No-.’4,:..”i:t. is-.c.ontended\u00bb-‘that the
\njudgment and decree  fre’qaiires to be set<\/p>\n
aside.\n<\/p>\n
8.   V”rio’.4, the trial Court
\nexamined the tp’iea.d_I_’ngs’an’d..__evidence on record. Ex.P14 is
\nthe ledgehextract lot’t,.he—gdefendant with regard to the<\/p>\n
drawing” of a.Vch.,e_que {ride Ex.P~13. The trial Court on<\/p>\n
 te)<a.n\u00a7inin"'g:i\u00abtht:e\u00ab.evidence of PW~2 with regard to Ex.P13~the<\/p>\n
c'heq.i'ue1a-rid.,ViVts~n.li\u00bb'edger entries, came to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
l  _ the a"ccoL,:_'nts.iAl5etween the plaintiff and the defendant being<\/p>\n
""'~..a"mutual;-open and current account and the said amount<\/p>\n
A  that\/'ing.tt'tbeen paid on 25.06.1996, the suit having been filed<\/p>\n
 Ii' =o.n..}28.03.1998, is weii within the limitation of three years.<\/p>\n
 "Vi find no error committed by the trial Court in coming to<\/p>\n
i\ufb02\ufb02w<\/p>\n
u 3 ..\n<\/p>\n
the said conclusion. The material on record would clearly<\/p>\n
show that EXP13 has been signed by the defe\ufb01cleant<\/p>\n
himself in favour of the plaintiff. In view of 3<\/p>\n
being maintained between the parties, the <\/p>\n
has been paid.\n<\/p>\n
9. The learned Counselappeawringpfor <\/p>\n
contends that there is no mlaterial p|ace_d’-on \u00e9V”rgcoVrd to
\nshow for what purpose” issued. He “therefore
\ncontends that in view of the earli’er_.~.t:r’ansactions between<\/p>\n
both of them..vthe:V1′–said_  been issued<\/p>\n
Dertainivnldlto rlieff Era n’sa’ction’s;””
\n10’… “There”His.V_no..V_:l’ie\\fiVr;lence of the defendant on<\/p>\n
recordto sis-pportv}his~._\u00bbcontention that E><.P13 has been issued with reference to<\/p>\n
 'a particular transaction. Therefore, the learned Counsel<\/p>\n
"ba_pVpea'ring for the defendant contends that there is no<\/p>\n
K"—..'jmaterial placed on record to show for which purpose<\/p>\n
 Ex.P13 has been issued. In view of the submissions made,<\/p>\n
we<\/p>\n
-9-<\/span>
\nthe conclusion drawn by the trial Court was that the<\/p>\n
transactions between the parties would have to be read as<\/p>\n
a mutual, current and running account stands},s_lnc’e~ftheV<\/p>\n
same stands fortified by the contentions of  <\/p>\n
himself. Ex.P13 could not be related’to-,anyf,:pla_rtiCular”‘.<\/p>\n
transaction by both the parties.  siti;-at’ion’~ <\/p>\n
arise only when a mutual, curi’*en’t.and runn=ir1_”g accohunt is
\nmaintained, Any depos’it.,_made”int.o; th”e_accouVn’t therefore,
\ncannot be read as reiatable toiany__.p”artVi.cul.ar transaction<\/p>\n
between the parties; The paymentl’hmaydefthereon is always<\/p>\n
with reference to account and would<\/p>\n
not rel’ate._tohvhhay–p_a’rticu,la-r.___transaction. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
subrnissior:\u00bb.,:_’of theCounsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
 defepngdaiit is un’su_st’aina:ble.\n<\/p>\n
   :”:Reliance is placed by the defendant on AIR<\/p>\n
 to the effect, that in order to establish<\/p>\n
V V’ _ mutu-alit.y,’ i-this necessary that at one point of time atieast,<\/p>\n
.V_eac,h_. of”the parties should have a credit as against the<\/p>\n
‘otherfl In other words, the account should be capable of<\/p>\n
“git\/ing rise to shifting balances, which would therefore<\/p>\n
754\/<\/p>\n
-19-<\/span>
\nmean that in the accounts maintained, the creditor<\/p>\n
becomes a debtor and the debtor becomes a creditorin so<\/p>\n
far as the entries in the books of accounts are co_nce’rned”.~\u00abV<\/p>\n
By placing reliance on the said judgment, it  <\/p>\n
that the plaintiff never become a creditor in  a_s”:l:he’.<\/p>\n
accounts are concerned and further”that_therehas. bee’n”n_\u00a2”~.<\/p>\n
payment whatsoever so far as”‘th:e.defen’dantis concerned.
\nHence, the accounts c’an_not.’*b’e “considered as a mutual,
\nopen and current account i’n7’terrn_s’-.A\/_’ofa’fin AIR 1975<\/p>\n
MADRAS 1 .\n<\/p>\n
12. ” tr:i:ai”‘C’ouV’rt wh_i’\u00a7e”‘considering Article 1<\/a> of
\nthe Lim”itati.on  it is established, that<\/p>\n
during _the’lcieai’in,gVs’v–, th_at~~~one party has become a creditor<\/p>\n
‘”~.._to  otheranclx”a’t*-another point of time the other party<\/p>\n
“wa’s_:’af”lc.re’cfitor has become a debtor to the other,<\/p>\n
 brin’g’is;.V_o:ut the essence of mutuality in the accounts,<\/p>\n
<._it ceas'~e_si'to be a mutual, open and current account. In the<\/p>\n
V'a_a':1se'rj;\u00abce of shifting of the balance, it cannot be held that<\/p>\n
  Article 1<\/a> of the Limitation Act<\/a> would stand attracted.<\/p>\n
re”\n<\/p>\n
\n
_ 1] _\n<\/p>\n
13. There has been a mutual demand or otherwise<\/p>\n
between the parties in so far as the said account is<\/p>\n
concerned. The actual demand or otherwise m,ad\u00bbe,”by<\/p>\n
either one of the parties cannot by itself dete_:rmi\u00abn_e—-,:thre:__’_<\/p>\n
nature of the account. It is not necessary–.i.rj~..business’  if<\/p>\n
transactions between the parties,:=._:tha-ta’ si,tuation”‘weou*l.l:l,u<\/p>\n
always arise for the payment’ and av”cl_ernand”beingH made <\/p>\n
by one of them. There couldl\ufb02bel situatio’n.s_’whefrein the
\naccounts, notwithstandinofbeing ;fn..utti_a.i,A”open and current,<\/p>\n
no occasion arises in th,e..b.us.in’ess., tra’nsa’-cl’tions for one of<\/p>\n
the parties””an’y’.,Ad-emalnd’against the other. The
\nfailure o’f_,o’n’e to make a demand\/payment<\/p>\n
could not therefore’V-bi\/’-.its’e’llf be a factum to determine the<\/p>\n
 c_f._.th.e accVountsi’between the parties. Hence while<\/p>\n
‘\u00a5o’isagree’:n:gi lwith’-.the reasoning in AIR 1975 MADRAS 1,<\/p>\n
rameor the’co_nrsidered view that the trial Court has rightly<\/p>\n
 liappreciated the facts and circumstances of the case while<\/p>\n
   to the conclusion with regard to the mutual, open<\/p>\n
  current account between the parties. The application<\/p>\n
\ufb02vof Article 1<\/a> of the Limitation Act<\/a> to the facts and<\/p>\n
i\/in<\/p>\n
_ S’<\/p>\n
-12-<\/span>
\ncircumstances of the case is therefore just and in<\/p>\n
accordance with law. I find no grounds to interfere’-with<\/p>\n
the finding recorded by the triai Court on the ap’Vpl_i_catioIr-{ofV.
\nArticle 1<\/a> of the Limitation Act<\/a> to the case on
\nin view of the reliance placed o:n””E5<.'P1E'}g isstied._to'*:the".<\/p>\n
plaintiff and the suit being filed onA:42_81.'Q_3.19l98_lr:Athe <\/p>\n
well within the period of |imitat'io:n';i,\n<\/p>\n
14. Reliance  also’ irlfpaatedtg on “AIR 1934
\nORISSA 226 wherein it twat held  of mutuality<\/p>\n
would be that.vtheVg:fl–eal:i_ngs .l.3’etwe’e’ri-.th’eVVfloarties shouid be<\/p>\n
such, tVl1at’iti’:giiballa:hc’e  in favour of one party
\nand sornetlimes  other. While agreeing with<\/p>\n
the finding’l’recordVe’d lin_ti\u00b0~.e said judgment, I’am unable to<\/p>\n
 the ifV’sa’i’–d-~–\u00ab”judgment with the facts and<\/p>\n
 g_ci~i’cu’ms’tancels.g_of the present case. The dealings between<\/p>\n
the _oartivegsrefiecting the shifting of balances in favour of<\/p>\n
 ‘geither  of them, is not an issue either pleaded, relevant
\n“:l:orhco’i3sidered by the court. The essence of mutuality as
\n made out under Article 1<\/a> of the Limitation Act<\/a> being<\/p>\n
 attracted in the present case, I’ am of the considered view<\/p>\n
 n
\nl<\/p>\n
– .13 —\n<\/p>\n
that the trial Court has rightly applied Article 1<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
Limitation Act<\/a> to the facts and circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n
15. The other contention urged by thei-HlVea”rne’dV<\/p>\n
Counsel appearing for the defendant is with  <\/p>\n
grant of interest on the decretai amlounlt, “,It,i\u00absj1Vco_ntendecI’:<\/p>\n
that in the absence of a contract u’w_ith.,_regard_–v_l.to\u00bb.interest,<_<\/p>\n
no interest could have been granted bu t-h.e'tri'alxC,:ourt.s He V<\/p>\n
places reliance on thel"eyide,nt:'e FV5li'=J51 toCc'ontend that
\nthere is no written contlraot.v'c"betwe'en.,"'the parties for<\/p>\n
payment of in_tere_st.\n<\/p>\n
 __  granting interest @ 6%
\nper annumielied  th’e.,,”provisions of the Interest Act<\/a>,<\/p>\n
197$; to award” tshevlsame. It came to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
  interest is the discretion of the Court,<\/p>\n
 the terms of the contract. In the<\/p>\n
absence-..’:of’valny contract with regard to interest between<\/p>\n
.::tl1ea,parti’es, the Court is justified in law, to award such a<\/p>\n
 rate “of interest as is just and necessary that the case<\/p>\n
“demands. Hence in view of the reliance placed on the<\/p>\n
Interest Act<\/a>, the interest granted at 6% pa. is just and<\/p>\n
3\/1\u00bb<\/p>\n
M14-\n<\/p>\n
proper. Even otherwise the rate of interest at 6% per<\/p>\n
annum awarded by the trial Court is in consona_nce–yv’:th<\/p>\n
the business transactions with regard to <\/p>\n
current and open account.\n<\/p>\n
17. In view of aforesaid reasons, I.’V_{a’I”r’: ‘~o\u00bbVf\u00bbithe”*-<\/p>\n
considered View that the judgmerut of th’e._tr’i.ai”.=Co’urtmbieing
\nweii reasoned, does not ca|l=”fortanVy~..inter\u00a7\u00b0erence. The
\nappeal being devoid of rnerits is<\/p>\n
No cos\u00e9tsi  .\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-1
\nJUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court K G Hanumanthappa @ Kengo … vs M\/S Anaberu Rajanna & Sons on 27 September, 2010 Author: Ravi Malimath — .1. — IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE ON THE 27*” DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIM:}\\T:i4{.i’g:’::Q: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1AA186\/2004-.~ .:(]V.|O’l:\\:’l)=_ sf BETWEEN: Sri […]<\/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-261466","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK G Hanumanthappa @ Kengo ... vs M\/S Anaberu Rajanna & Sons on 27 September, 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\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K G Hanumanthappa @ Kengo ... vs M\/S Anaberu Rajanna & Sons on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-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=\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-04T21:54:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K G Hanumanthappa @ Kengo … vs M\\\/S Anaberu Rajanna & Sons on 27 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-04T21:54:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2497,\"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-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010\",\"name\":\"K G Hanumanthappa @ Kengo ... vs M\\\/S Anaberu Rajanna & Sons on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-04T21:54:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K G Hanumanthappa @ Kengo … vs M\\\/S Anaberu Rajanna & Sons on 27 September, 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":"K G Hanumanthappa @ Kengo ... vs M\/S Anaberu Rajanna & Sons on 27 September, 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\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K G Hanumanthappa @ Kengo ... vs M\/S Anaberu Rajanna & Sons on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-04T21:54:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K G Hanumanthappa @ Kengo … vs M\/S Anaberu Rajanna & Sons on 27 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-04T21:54:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010"},"wordCount":2497,"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-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010","name":"K G Hanumanthappa @ Kengo ... vs M\/S Anaberu Rajanna & Sons on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-04T21:54:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-g-hanumanthappa-kengo-vs-ms-anaberu-rajanna-sons-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K G Hanumanthappa @ Kengo … vs M\/S Anaberu Rajanna & Sons on 27 September, 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\/261466","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=261466"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261466\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}