{"id":4467,"date":"2010-11-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010"},"modified":"2014-09-11T12:43:10","modified_gmt":"2014-09-11T07:13:10","slug":"n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"N Somanatha Gowda vs Puttamma on 8 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
N Somanatha Gowda vs Puttamma on 8 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT EBANGALORE\nDATED THIS \"ma 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019*-._bT\nBEFORE  .. .\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE s.N.sATYANA\u00a3'%gf\u00a7YAfV:'A:\"'   \"\n\nRsA.NO.8g2Og5;_'''\u00ab. \u00ab_ \n\nBetween\n\nsm.N.soma\u00a7;ha Gowda,\nS\/O late Nanjegowda,\nMajor, [\/0 Arahalli,\nKasaba Hobli,\n\nKola: Taluk,\n\nKolar District.\n\n{by sri.K.H.s;5r:\u00a7g;:a\u00a3:eagei:? ;a_;:'rv}    '~\n\nAnd:\n\n1. ;VVSrnt;'\u00a5T\"u1':i'_aII1\u00bbf'ir'i\u00e91,   .\n'W\/=O'1-ate'Muniyappav---., ' -\nMajor. A    \n\n2. V . _V Sri.N;'N\u00a7i1'a.yan\u00e91sWi1iI1y,\n S\/0 late Muniyappa,\n~  ' \" . . . . . .. '\n\n  T. 'VSri.\"V\u00e9:r;l{ates11:1;..>pa,\n\nV' 'E3\/'O. _lat\u00a2 Gopalappa,\n' V Maj\u00e9r \nAH  .1'.\/' O \u00abifxrahalli\nKas-\u00a21ba\u00ab..Hob11, Kolar Taluk,\n\n O Kolarf-)istOrictt.\n\n\" --..VV'{b}{5Sri.G.Papireddy, Adv for R3,\n\nRl&'2.msd.,)\n\n \n\n... Respondents<\/pre>\n
W<\/p>\n
– 4 –\n<\/p>\n
come to the Subwregistrafs office at Kolar. But, they did not<\/p>\n
come on the day they assured to be present before the Sub–<\/p>\n
registrar. After several such attempts, he got a panchayath<\/p>\n
held to get defendants I and 2 advised, which eridedjiiriv<\/p>\n
Thereafter, he got a legai notice issued on : V’<\/p>\n
upon them to come to SubAregistrar’s~ office.’ at  andt_to._<\/p>\n
execute the registered sale deed con’veyinlg’lthe”s_uit psclie_titile\u00ab:.<\/p>\n
property in his favour. Thou-gli….the said  duly * it<\/p>\n
served on defendants l__ and  did not “re,sponkl to the
\nsame and deliberately  qAui.te.i;i;Ieiict\u00e9 \ufb01ied the suit for
\nspecific performance g.frV.,agree1nentl ‘of deed dated<\/p>\n
27.3.1989.\n<\/p>\n
Sv\ufb01ltllis aisol  case”‘–that prior to filing of suit he came<\/p>\n
to know that defendants’ and 2 have sold and conveyed<\/p>\n
 <  sur'_.t_' prop'ert.y\u00abin favour of 3" defendant, for nominal<\/p>\n
  defeat the legitimate claim of plaintiff in<\/p>\n
securing'  sale deed of suit schedule property.<\/p>\n
 Pursuant to said sale deed defendants 1 to 3 are attempting<\/p>\n
A  tol"cau.se obstruction to plaintiffs peaceful possession,<\/p>\n
cultivati()r1 and enjoyment of suit schedule property. Hence<\/p>\n
"*1<\/p>\n
_ 5 _<\/p>\n
S. In addition, 3?" defendant has pleaded that
\ndefendants l and 2 have sold suit schedule property to him
\non 25.5.1989 for a sum of ?.56,()()()\/–, obtained advancesum<\/p>\n
of 16,000\/– on that day and executed an agreement<\/p>\n
agreeing to execute regular sale deed within  *<\/p>\n
from that day by receiving the ba1anee_ 'sale "c'oVnei'tier'ati_.'on tofu V'<\/p>\n
$50,000\/~ at the time of registration iofAtl1e"sal'e:'d\u20acetj:;ae,,..AItI1,1S<\/p>\n
his case that defendants 1  dldvnot pe1*formv.tl1Ve1r <\/p>\n
of contract within the stipulat:e'd:_ti–11_1e.  he} issued a
\nlegal notice to defeririants  *i?,_'\u00bb.call1_:1g upon them to
\ncomplete sale ,trar1sa.ctin:.r_1'*~.pursuant. Vt"oi_'–agreement dated<\/p>\n
25.5.1989,"  1%n'tenablje""V.'reply was sent by 18*'<\/p>\n
(1efen'dant.; "filed" a Suit in OS.No.105\/1989 on
\n1.8.198\u00a7'g;:: the'\ufb01IRe.of  Civil Court, Koiar. The said suit<\/p>\n
 uposted V"t0.V:v19.\/$1990. Before the hearing date on<\/p>\n
  defendants 1 and 2 approached him, made<\/p>\n
 ._ f,~e_rsistz1 of ?.50,0()0\/- in return of which they<\/p>\n
 .A wtyuld\u00e9be willing and ready to execute the Sale deed in terms<\/p>\n
” ,,,_Vef..:tl1e agreement of sale dated 25.5.1989, for the reasoe\/,\\<\/p>\n
– 7 –\n<\/p>\n
that they had to perform marriage of the daughter of 1st.<\/p>\n
defendant and sister of 2″‘ defendant on 22.3.1990. In this
\nbehalf, the 1st defendant who was busy in preparation of<\/p>\n
marriage executed a registered power of attorn.efy~_ on<\/p>\n
13.3.1990 enabling her son 2′” defendant to execate’ t–hf_e—  _<\/p>\n
deed of suit land to 3″‘ defendant. The 3*”  1′<\/p>\n
sale deed prepared, executed and registered, on  <\/p>\n
paying balance sale consideration  lt: iS’:”\u00a7I’1′.iV\u20ac~s <\/p>\n
case that balance sale consideratiori of ?.f50.,(:1(J(l:\/– was paid
\nby him before the Sub–Registr;ir  the tli\ufb02\ufb01 of registra\ufb01orl of
\nsale deed executed in his favourand tofeffect there is a<\/p>\n
recital in the    of 3?” defendarzt<\/p>\n
that at’lthe– timed’of”e9\u20aceeiiii;\u00a7f;._and registration of sale deed of<\/p>\n
suit sct1ecIule”p,roperty: i11..l”1_.’is’ favour, defendants 1 and 2 put<\/p>\n
 pcssessnion of suit schedule property. He has been in<\/p>\n
.Ae’xe,l_asi.yAeVA.possession of the same from that date till date of<\/p>\n
\ufb01liiigp \u00abof’wr_ii’,teri’ ‘statement.<\/p>\n
fit is further contended by 3″ defendant that<\/p>\n
“”fl.A’plaintiff was quite aware of the fact that this defendant has<\/p>\n
   ehtered in to agreement with defendants 1 and 2 for<\/p>\n
-10-<\/span>
\n3″‘ clefendant examined himself as DW.2 and in addition got
\nother seven witnesses examined as DWs.1 and 3 to 8 and got<\/p>\n
marked documents I’:3z;s.I) .1 to 8 in support of his case\u00a7r.._i”._<\/p>\n
8.  trial Court, on appreciation of  H<\/p>\n
oral and documentary evidence on record,–.proceeded tc. <\/p>\n
decree the suit holding issue Nos. Lto  <\/p>\n
issue partly in affirmative and .partly’ .in”negati’Je;\u00bb5″H an;(il’6t?1.”\u00bb ~’<\/p>\n
issues in af\ufb01rrnative and aciciiticnal issue in negative. In the
\nresult, trial Court answereii  ti1el”issufes in” favour of
\nplaintiff, in the ai\ufb01r:native_and one,  was framed in<\/p>\n
favour of 3*” \u00a7de’fendant._ in negative;_’Acc_ofrdingiy the suit was<\/p>\n
decreed  defendants E to 3 to execute the
\nsale deed of suii;_.p”roperty in favour of plaintiff. 3m<\/p>\n
defendant in _whose favour a registered sale deed in respect<\/p>\n
‘l V’  A0f…’,;i1ii?.”iSCli\u00a33t1i1le  is already in existence challenged<\/p>\n
   and decree by filing a regular appeal in<\/p>\n
 on the file of Civil Judge {Sr.Dn), Kolar on<\/p>\n
 5.9. i~919t.:-..\n<\/p>\n
“”‘i<\/p>\n
~11-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9. in the said appeal, plaintiff was 1*” respondent and
\ndefendants I and 2 were respondents 2 and 3.
\nrespondent who was plaintiff in original suit  ~
\nappearance through Counsel. Defendants 1′ and
\nrespondents 2 and 3 in the regular apgpiealliagain  <\/p>\n
absent in the first appeal.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10. in the first appeal;  tirade
\nan application seeking to   filed by
\nhim and for production of ‘xivhich was
\nallowed by 1st.     judgment
\nand decree Iaassiod   rexnanded the matter
\nto  The said judginent of 13*
\nappellate! ” tiliailenged by plaintiff in
\nMSA,No.5\/l9Q:3’ at the ‘file of this Court, which was allowed
\n ‘~  ,  dated T{.”I$l93 with the following observation:<\/p>\n
  appellate court is hereby directed to<\/p>\n
A  diesues arising out of allowing the
\n irlterlooutory application seeking amenclment
\np it add production of addiiionai evidence and
\n remand the matter to the trial Court with a
\ndirection to give opportunity to both the parties<\/p>\n
(“T<\/p>\n
-12..\n<\/p>\n
on record to lead evidence on particular issue or
\nissues and thereafter to send its report to the
\nappellate court. After receipt of the report thefy”\u00bbc.
\nappellate Court shall dispose of the
\nmerits on aii issues arising out of the  C”
\nmatter of the suit. As such, this   ‘A
\nallowed. The judgment   p_assed_’: <\/p>\n
the 2LPI>ei2ate Court is set  it I   It<\/p>\n
1}. Thereafter,     regular
\nappeal, framed addi\ufb01oiiai’ issiie;ej_ar’1ei=– of it directing
\ntria} Court to record    issues and to
\nresubmit     it  this order Was
\naiso  ..iri”CRl\u00a7f.1’V\\io.Ai26\/1994: on the file
\nof this pbty its order dated 12.1.2001
\ndismissed  framing of additional issue<\/p>\n
 directi;;.g”tri.a} Court to record evidence is in tune with<\/p>\n
  order puassedi by this Court in MSA.5\/1993. In the light<\/p>\n
C’ ._of’.._ppthVesey.._o.rd’erS, trial Court recorded evidence of 3″‘<\/p>\n
defe11d..autv,”‘”‘ appeiiant before the 3.3’ appellate Court on<\/p>\n
 A. additioria} issues relating to the status of bona\ufb01de purchaser<\/p>\n
for-value without notice of prior transaction. It is seen that<\/p>\n
“”1<\/p>\n
-14-<\/span><\/p>\n
established Ex.Pl as a concocted document to defeat his<\/p>\n
rights under Exs.D5 and 6 and held that jiidgmentfszand<\/p>\n
decree of trial Court is perverse, illegal and not_..1?_iise(l:’ori’-\u00abV<\/p>\n
evidence on record and requires interference. ‘Whileceidoing.<\/p>\n
so, it held that W respondent who was plaintiff in tribal <\/p>\n
failed to prove execution of VEx.PTf:prior to “exeeution”~of<\/p>\n
Exs.D5 and 6 agreement and””V.sale V. deed..L”exeeuted’V’ by if f<\/p>\n
defendants 1 and 2 in l’ayor1rA..o’f’  ‘defendant;–.. with this.
\nclaim of plaintiff was  urged by 3”\n<\/p>\n
defendant were4.lupheI(.:iA.VH by the
\njudgment   dlpstdm\u00e9yppeggate cguyt in
\nreversing—Vthfe’~V\ufb01nding   has come up in this<\/p>\n
appeal; = ‘<\/p>\n
;’ ~13. 113″ ‘proceeding, notice was duly served on all<\/p>\n
 res’poni:l’ent”sz_ howeifer, only 3″ respondent entered<\/p>\n
   flV\u20ac’~…v:’.3Td defendant in trial Court. As in the earlier<\/p>\n
twn ;)ro\u00a3eedings, respondents 1 and 2 i.e., defendants 1 and<\/p>\n
 2 in “trial Court remained absent in this proceeding also.<\/p>\n
 Court after hearing Counsel for appellant admitted the<\/p>\n
  appeal framing the following substantial questions of lawn<\/p>\n
‘*1<\/p>\n
_ 15 .\n<\/p>\n
” 1) Whether the first appellate Court was right in
\nreversing the judgment and decree of the trial<\/p>\n
Court in not accepting Ex.P.”i, when the \ufb011’St<\/p>\n
deferidant, who is another co–owner of the<\/p>\n
property, had adrnitted the same in the written.
\nstatement filed by her in 08.105\/89 and f1n*’ti’rer;.   , ”<\/p>\n
the first appellate court was right in throjlwvixtg-.1<\/p>\n
the burden upon the plaintiff’  <\/p>\n
defendant had taken up piea  said’:-tr,__.  A’<\/p>\n
document is ante~dated and fabricated?  , V’ 1<\/p>\n
2) Whether the first appell’ate’\u00bbCourt”wastrigtitg\u00e9iriw<\/p>\n
not accepting the:writt.e:1″‘staterrrent I\u00a3\u00a7{,F’8
\nby the first defendant., in 89 on the
\nfile of the _1_earned__AV:ddl.  which<\/p>\n
 \ufb01led bylhthe Si\ufb01xldeiendant for speci\ufb01c<\/p>\n
perftmrnaance-.agai’iist”defendants 1 and 2 and<\/p>\n
whether the iindingsl\u00e9and the reasons recorded<\/p>\n
A. -by  .first..app’ellate Court on the contentious<\/p>\n
 poirits hoIding..tI’1at EXP} is not proved by<\/p>\n
 drawi.r.1g~Vac1verse inference and non–surnmoriing<\/p>\n
:”dVot:u:iment registration register and mark it<\/p>\n
 th_rgiu’g\u00a7_hi:: PW.3 is in conformity with
\nV ” ..s’e;:s;57,5s,67,74, 75 and so of the Evidence
\ni it  Aw<\/p>\n
Um.’<\/p>\n
– 16 –\n<\/p>\n
14. After looking in to the pleadings, the documents<\/p>\n
relied upen by both parties in Courts below and eviderzce<\/p>\n
and judgment of 1*” appellate Court, this Court answer<\/p>\n
substantiai questions of iaw in affirmative for the  ‘4 3<\/p>\n
REASONS<\/p>\n
Heard the counsel for appellant’  ‘1 <\/p>\n
regarding substantia} questions_ of 1a\u00a7arAfra;nedTi:.$y’.tIi1is court”<\/p>\n
at the time of admission of this’V’a;tf:$V'[;ea}, 1)erused;V-ithei\u00e9\ufb01ndings
\ngiven by the courts .\u00a7:’$e~},ow  tiieirjuj-udgmentsfv Before
\nanswering the aforesaid  of law this<\/p>\n
Court would 1ike’:to’1’ana:fyse two ‘setsj_ofv and events with<\/p>\n
referez\ufb01eeffffto retfheirf\u00e9 contended by piairztiff and ST”
\ndefendant in the  <\/p>\n
15.  eouidffbe esteem from records 3*” defendant<\/p>\n
 enteiged “into liagreernent with defendants 1 and 2 on<\/p>\n
\u00bb  foripurrchase of suit schedule property. The saie<\/p>\n
ife\u00a2:;s:;eer2;t1aa;:\u00a7156,000\/–. At the time of entering into<\/p>\n
 a sum of ?”.6,000\/- is paid as advance and<\/p>\n
if  3.50.000\/~ is agreed to be paid at the time of<\/p>\n
ierrectitiorz and registration of saie deed in favour of 3″‘<\/p>\n
“”1<\/p>\n
– 17 –\n<\/p>\n
defendant. In the said agreement, time is also \ufb01xed for<\/p>\n
registration of sale deed i.e., the said sale deed should be
\nexecuted and completed Within three months from<\/p>\n
25.5.1989. Thereafter, it is seen that 3″l defendant ..has<\/p>\n
issued a legal notice to defendants 1 and 2 on <\/p>\n
calling upon them to receive balance sale consideratioiiifandv ~<\/p>\n
execute sale deed, which is at Ex.D_8.-… To  av.’ <\/p>\n
reply is sent. by 181 defendant on 19.7~.,.195l’39-.: the <\/p>\n
she denies entering into  of V   33*
\ndefendant, wherein she t:a.tegt)rioailVlyu \u00e9%’E\u00a71te$’fi1u9:~t:\u00bbsl~\u00a7l\u00a7has not
\nentered into any agrere1ra:e}:tAv\u00a7rith_  _for sale of said
\nproperty. The said   reply, she<\/p>\n
denied V’-her  lerzeot-rte” sale deed in favour of 3″‘<\/p>\n
defendant.”.,_’Ihereafter,”  seen that a suit for specific<\/p>\n
 V. perforniahce isln\ufb01ledv by’:i’3″* defendant on 1.8.1989 numbered<\/p>\n
  During the pendency of said suit<\/p>\n
heffore anj)_b_od$f”eould \ufb01le written statement it is seen that<\/p>\n
deie’n.cla5nts’vll’V’and 2 have agreed to settle the dispute between<\/p>\n
 ]then1selves and 31″” defendant. In this behalf 131- defendant<\/p>\n
ll   and registered. a Power of Attorney in favour of her<\/p>\n
.1″?\n<\/p>\n
-18-<\/span><\/p>\n
son authorising him to convey suit schedule property in
\nfavour of Sr” defendant on behalf of himself and also on her
\nbehalf. Thereafter, on 15.3.1990 the sale deed 1s executed.<\/p>\n
To the said sale deed 13* defendant also affixed her signature.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, on 16.3.1990 the said sale deed is registe1*e_d–cTii1A4<\/p>\n
the office of sub-registrar. In the ineanwi1ilve,VV”=said'”: 9′<\/p>\n
OS.No. 105\/ 1989, which was pendingbefore coi,trtV”li)eiow  if V’<\/p>\n
was posted to 19.4.1989. Now leaving  <\/p>\n
defendant at this stage, let i.1s.afr;-alyseA’the d.at’e.sA  = 9′<\/p>\n
pertaining to the transaction ofVp.1e:.i~r1_tiff._V<\/p>\n
18. Plaintiffs case”‘is”that.Lhiig’ent:ere\u00a7i’i:1to an agreement<\/p>\n
with  27.3.1989 for purchase of suit
\nschedule eipropertydfor  consideration of \u20ac6,000\/–.<\/p>\n
On 4jthe_ same ._da’y”, he paid entire sale consideration.<\/p>\n
 Aeclording tohim, Fragmentation Act, which was in force as<\/p>\n
 oni’_-did not permit registration of suit schedule<\/p>\n
property ‘irifhis name. Hence, execution and registration of<\/p>\n
 sale deed was deferred. Instead, parties entered into an<\/p>\n
9’  agreement wherein vendors, defendants 1 and 2 received<\/p>\n
d  x V entire sale consideration. delivered vacant possession of suit<\/p>\n
“*1<\/p>\n
-19..\n<\/p>\n
schedule property in favour of plaintiff. It is seen that
\nthereafter, nothing has been done by plaintiff until
\n22.3.1990. On that day a notice is issued by him to<\/p>\n
defendants 1 and 2 calling upon them to execute sale deed of<\/p>\n
suit schedule property in his favour. In the said<\/p>\n
which is at ECx.P2 there is no reference to the  ‘<\/p>\n
15.3.1990 executed by defendants 1~a:”3d& 2  <\/p>\n
defendant. Incidentally, said notice is not’~re;i\u00a3ied and <\/p>\n
is acknowledgement to sfi<)'\\)s.f…."t.Y..1\u00a3it it is  ~32"d v 9'<\/p>\n
defendant Narayanaswamy on___   .IVnterestingly,
\neverything starts happening  day i.e., when<\/p>\n
plaintiff-iss1.ied._"not3;ce  1 and 2 on 22.3.1990.
\n1=-9% defendant '..xVrh'e':'i:-*._fie_ri1:riiiir1g' marriage of her daughter on<\/p>\n
23.3..i.990"',__' takes  'to seek advancement of<\/p>\n
 os,,m%\u00a7.'1e5\/1.9Sa.._fi-em i9.4.1.99o to 23.3.1990. On the same<\/p>\n
 .fiies'\u00ab-written statement in the said suit stating that<\/p>\n
  entered into agreement with plaintiff on<\/p>\n
27.13.1989-,for sale of suit; schedule property for valuable<\/p>\n
 consideration of Rs.6,()O0\/~ and she has put him in<\/p>\n
9' possrassion of suit property aiong with her son. On the same<\/p>\n
''''''i<\/p>\n
-29-<\/span><\/p>\n
Clay, she also lodges a complaint before Tahsildar, wherein
\nshe reiterates the so called agreement of sale entered into<\/p>\n
between herself and plaintiff and prays that her <\/p>\n
should be removed from revenue register in respect.-*,j”::)xf_.f’s.L’1’it<\/p>\n
schedule property as kathedar and to register  ~<\/p>\n
favour of plaintiff as he has been put .i_1_’1 poslsessioin l’ofV”s.1.1i.tV <\/p>\n
schedule property way back on 27.:3i1Q89;V <\/p>\n
24.3.1990 she prepares a privat-ex cornplaint  <\/p>\n
200 Cr.P.C. to be \ufb01led  ‘–A(3:lv:tiefvvvf?Judicia1
\nMagistrate, Kolar. again::3t_A ‘?’;*’-‘=’*__ defendant, 31″}
\ndefendant and persons.\u00bbV–w:ho.  and scribe to
\nagreement     of 3rd defendant
\nalleging’ that “eo_:l’1uc’ie’d together and created false
\nand \ufb01ctitieus  of 3′” defendant. Though<\/p>\n
saipdrdoeunaent ‘iSVV:}v)I’\u20acp:aI’@(l on 24.3.1990 itself, she changes<\/p>\n
 it;s_.Vlt\u00a7at’e:p.ag”-_3(),3.’l99O and subsequently changes it to<\/p>\n
  that private complaint. The result of said<\/p>\n
private.-__’eom:plaint is not placed on the records of this Court<\/p>\n
   thisscourt is not aware about that. In the meanwhile 3″‘<\/p>\n
” ‘edefendarit who has filed OS.No.l05\/1989 withdraws the<\/p>\n
Rat]<\/p>\n
-21-<\/span>
\nsame on the ground that in the light of suit schedule<\/p>\n
property being registered in his favour under sale deed dated<\/p>\n
15.3.1990 suit does not survive.\n<\/p>\n
17. In the background of these two sets  _<\/p>\n
represented by plaintiff and 3rd defendant,_.me  <\/p>\n
questions of law frajned in thislappeal} w”jll.:4.hav’e’~<\/p>\n
analysed. In OS.No.239\/199(}*\ufb01led 15y._;5laintiff”den ,}t’4.:[;9\u00e9)o <\/p>\n
trial Court after recording etiidetice  has
\nproceeded to accept’ Tithe a;\\drerItner;tsdiA’~-nlade  plaintiff
\nregarding dates and events ‘in  th_e tifandsaction between<\/p>\n
plaintiff and defendants 1.;  have taken place<\/p>\n
ignoring the eikeptsuwhi’cth'”hauef taken in chronological order
\nwith reference to’*r.iates and events so far as it pertains to 3″‘<\/p>\n
defendant and has”come to a conclusion that agreement of<\/p>\n
   between plaintiff and defendants 1. and 2<\/p>\n
  has.-:*’co1ne into place on 27.3.1989, during the<\/p>\n
snbsist_ence}’of E)x..l?’1 transaction between defendants 1, 2<\/p>\n
 and   come into place culminating in execution of sale<\/p>\n
 (lead of suit schedule property in favour of 3″‘ defendant.<\/p>\n
   ,V___’i%’I”1erefore, the sale deed. which is executed by<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
-22..\n<\/p>\n
defendants 1 and 2 in favour of 3rd defendant is not valid.
\nand binding, plaintiff having entered into agreement vide<\/p>\n
Ex..IP1 and having taken possession of suit schedule property<\/p>\n
under Ex.P1 is entitled to get saie deed of suit\u00ab~~.s.eh:e’d\u00e9’i1e” <\/p>\n
property executed in his favour not only by de.fend.ant{s’i.1l’ano* <\/p>\n
2 and aiso by 3*” defendant.\n<\/p>\n
18. Whereas ’15’ appellate court’.he.’sV_ the <\/p>\n
In a difference perspectlvei”by fran1p11gj  it for it<\/p>\n
consideration as referred. to abo’v’e. “a–ns’werecl them.-ivn favour
\nof 3″‘ defendant, which is ei1a”i}._ei1ged”ienthis appeal and in
\nrespect of which’aforesaidtsugjbst\ufb01tiai Vqtievstions of law are<\/p>\n
framed. . ,  a   — .\n<\/p>\n
is’). C_<)ming\u00ab.to'i'1%f*–st.;bstantia1 question of law, it<\/p>\n
revolves aroundVre.\u00a7ee~tihg"\u00bbiV1%2x.P1, agreement of sale dated<\/p>\n
  as not 'b.E.\u20ac'.'71 proved and established by plainti\ufb02"<\/p>\n
 'beyend\u00bb_aH reasonable doubt that it has come into existence<\/p>\n
axis?  also finding of courts below that burden of<\/p>\n
 estaxbiisiiinhg\ufb01 said document is on plaintiff, is held to be<\/p>\n
V' .. e()'rreet for the following reasons.<\/p>\n
W1.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-23..\n<\/p>\n
20. As could be seen from dates and events of<\/p>\n
incidents referred to above,f\u00a3x.P1 is alleged to have come into<\/p>\n
existence on 27.3.1989. Plamtiff has not establisiieriV:”oe:foi’e’<\/p>\n
this Court what was the value of suit schec1uie~,”:\ufb01rQper’.\u20acv”les”1 ”<\/p>\n
on that date. it is said that he entered into  it<\/p>\n
purchase of 1 acre E6 guntasd-\u00a2of:’_’_’ <\/p>\n
consideration of 3.6.000\/~. Int.h’e,saidAagreementciause is * V<\/p>\n
included to say that though   consideration was
\npaid at the time of eiaieiriiig.iii;0f.:..a;\u00a7fe–\u00a2:;i,}\u00a7:i: sale deed could
\nnot be executed,’ifo r tligireaf\u00e9onv   Act that
\nis in force.      suit schedule
\nproperhi   _ Ijf”1V’\\\u00a7\u00a7vAI)port of execution of this
\nagreexnent plaintiff 3 witnesses. Among them<\/p>\n
PW.3-   iiisliddaiah Shetty in his evidence<\/p>\n
it  eai.e\u00a7oriCa3E3I..&states””that he never mentioned at the time of<\/p>\n
  entering ‘agreement that Fragmentation Act would come<\/p>\n
in  i’of’registratioI1 of suit schedule property in favour<\/p>\n
 of plaintiff. It is further seen that plaintiff while issuing<\/p>\n
  on 22.3.1990 has stated for the first time that 15 days<\/p>\n
  prior to issue of said notice he has come to know that<\/p>\n
“*1<\/p>\n
-24-<\/span><\/p>\n
Fragmentation Act wouid not come in the way of execution of<\/p>\n
sale deed. in his favour. However, he has not piaced<\/p>\n
anything on record to show that in the first iristancei <\/p>\n
was in force restricting execution and registrationisicf ‘sale<\/p>\n
deed of suit schedule property in  favour <\/p>\n
and said Fragmentation Act was subsequentiy r;;:pAealed.n <\/p>\n
entire averment of plaintiff  to he it
\nis with an intention to  \u00a73eii’evei_:that_Ex.Pi ivsgenuine. It
\nis also to be noted  also a Stamp
\nVendor has stai’:e(1.._in   inairitained a
\nregister,   in favour of
\npurchasers ‘incidentally, in this case 3*”
\nciefendant’–at  of his written statement had
\ntaken a   is a concocted document,<\/p>\n
 has coriie” into place subsequent to the sale deed in his<\/p>\n
,Af8t’ef,().i\/iI’\\\\p..,  such kind of serious allegations regarding<\/p>\n
geii.nine1ie_ss ()V:fC{0CU.IIi\u20acIIt, it is expected of piaintiff not only<\/p>\n
to “prod.ucev”said document, it is incumbent upon him to<\/p>\n
h   esiablisiiffthat the stamp paper on which said document is<\/p>\n
”-created was purchased on the date mentioned therein i.e.,<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
\/
\n4′:\n<\/p>\n
h   answered in affirmative.\n<\/p>\n
– 25 –\n<\/p>\n
on 27.3.1989. Though the scribe PW.3 states that he<\/p>\n
maintained register, steps are not taken to produce said<\/p>\n
register in the court to denionstrate that Ex.P1 has actiially<\/p>\n
_ come into existence on 27.3. 1989 itseif with refereyI.1.(:_t”:_&\u00bbl;'<:3'f.'sale"
\nof stamp paper on which said agreement
\nlnspite of there being  speci\ufb01c a\u00e9niaz.\n<\/p>\n
regarding existence of EXP: on  ‘and”tb.er.e <\/p>\n
speci\ufb01c allegation that it is  ‘c_on-“ii . avp_o’ellate'”‘–co’urt’ has rightly come to the<\/p>\n
conclusiori4_tnatE2\u00a3;Pl  a concocted document. The<\/p>\n
concltision  at  IS’ appellate court is also based on<\/p>\n
the above siiirnises and conjectures appears to be just and<\/p>\n
prop_er”r1ot call for interference by this Court in this<\/p>\n
second Therefore, IS’ substantial question of law is<\/p>\n
Ltjk\/1′<\/p>\n
..2\ufb01…\n<\/p>\n
21. Now coming to second substantial question of law,
\nwhich is regarding e.xecu.tion of sale deed at Ex.D6 which is<\/p>\n
said to have come into place after 3″} defendant hadgclear<\/p>\n
notice of Ex.P1, again we have to refer to the eventsl:’w..lLii.cl2..<\/p>\n
are referred to in earlier paragraphs in 1 V’<\/p>\n
with reference to the dates. As could’ be seen from records,<\/p>\n
3″-1 defendant had \ufb01led suit for Zlspeeiiiel <\/p>\n
OS.No.105\/1989 on 1.8.1989.__V”‘-m the\ufb02said _suit,’\u00a7g,’urnrnions = ”<\/p>\n
was duly served on (ief\u00a7~3r1dar1tVs_._f:l.:A’~@d_ 2. lhllnf. suit
\neven before \ufb01ling of   1 and 2
\ncame forward to settle  who is
\nplaintiff in  Wiheijeftrvllil\u00e9it”d\u00e9fendam agreed to
\nexecutea  attorney in favour of her son
\n2nd defendant to (l.3:lT::f’\u00a7’rvldefendant, to get sale deed of suit<\/p>\n
scl1eii.1ule~ property in his favour from 21*” defendant, which he<\/p>\n
.vvo_uld heA.executing not only on his behalf but also on behalf<\/p>\n
 Of his  defendant. It is seen that with the help of<\/p>\n
said regilstered power of attorney 21*’? defendant executed sale<\/p>\n
H   deed infavour of 3?” defendant on 15.3.1990. it is also seen<\/p>\n
l  on 15.3.1990 though 131 defendant has<\/p>\n
W:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-27..\n<\/p>\n
executed power of attorney in favour of her son to execute<\/p>\n
the registered sale deed, she has also executed sale deed by<\/p>\n
affixing her thumb impression. However, on 16.3.1.99O\u00ab<.4fth.e<\/p>\n
said sale deed is presented by her son and the \u00bb<\/p>\n
registered on the strength of registered power" .attor'neyv <\/p>\n
that was executed by 181 defendar1t:_"'a.n'dfsuitV"'scihee:1u'iej<\/p>\n
property got conveyed in favr__)_ur M,  tiefejndanti on <\/p>\n
16.3.1990. As on 16.3.1990 sagn;tp\u00a2s;NGift:os\/raga was
\nposted to 19.4.1990  ii1i:ng\u00a7;:'~.writter1 statement by
\ndefendants '1 and__2. It  seer:   to execution
\nand registraticih  3"' defendant 15*-\n<\/p>\n
defendant  V. i*ro1:i”‘\u00bb\u00a719;4.:990 to 23.3.1990
\nand  her  on that date. it is for the first
\ntime that  \u00e9ffeentention that she has already<\/p>\n
soidtsuit sch’ed._uie property in favour of plaintiff on<\/p>\n
 .b:”A’i’hvis submission. of hat defendant will have to be<\/p>\n
an’ai_ysed:’wivthtreferenee to Ex.B7 which is a reply sent by her<\/p>\n
to 3?” defendant to a notice issued by 3’4 defendant calling<\/p>\n
  upora her to execute sale deed of suit scheduie property in<\/p>\n
 favour pursuant to Ex.D5 which was executed by her<\/p>\n
‘*1<\/p>\n
-28-<\/span><\/p>\n
and her son on 25.5.1989. in the said reply on 19.7.1989,<\/p>\n
she had taken a speci\ufb01c contention that she is absolute<\/p>\n
owner of suit schedule property and she has not en.tei*ed’ir1t,o” ..<\/p>\n
agreement of sale with anybody, much less 3*?-..defe11dar1t,–..’9<\/p>\n
who had caiied upon her to exec1.1te.’saie”deed, If? is”.<\/p>\n
read with reference to written state-trictit \ufb01leci;  here ‘Ont’<\/p>\n
23.3.1990 it is obvious that 13*’-…defer1dar1t.isaajhpathoio\u00e9ical 1′<\/p>\n
iier. As she was makihgya fa.1se”st_a;terit’.eht irii’1er~”r:epiy dt.
\n19.7.1989 wherein she  agreement with
\n3″? defendant .i;orv.._sai-at property and
\ncategorically”    suit schedule
\nproperty    the first time on
\n23.3.l990to execution of sale deed in
\nfavour of  idefei1darit’* taken a pica that she has<\/p>\n
ente\ufb01ed into agreeriientiuzith plaintiff for sale of suit schedule<\/p>\n
 repeated the same in her complaint dated<\/p>\n
9′”2_37′;9.”‘;’_s__p Tahsiidar. She has aiso repeated the<\/p>\n
 ir:_’her”‘private complaint which was initialiy drafted on<\/p>\n
24..3.19’9(\u00a2), subsequentiy fiied into court on 2.4.1990. By<\/p>\n
“AAlVookir1g into all these things, it is clearly seen that 3″‘<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
-29-<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant when he purchased suit schedule property right
\nfrom 25.5. 1989 to 15.53.1990 Ie., the date when suit schedule
\nproperty was executed in his favour vide Ex.I)6 he was not<\/p>\n
aware of alleged sale transaction between plaintiff’ and<\/p>\n
defendants 1 and 2. It was not brought to  V.<\/p>\n
anybody i.e., either plaintiff or (1.efen(1a.nts”‘\u00ab’._f1  M<\/p>\n
‘1L’herefore, as on 15.3..199() 3?” de’fenCi’ant ‘was “t;non’af1de’*;<\/p>\n
purchaser of suit schedule   ‘~ <\/p>\n
consideration from defendants and 2. V. ‘ITherefovre.”\u00abSaie deed ”<\/p>\n
vide Ex.D6 dated 1.5.3.3990 is-~not*.a”dAocurne1f:vt.. which was
\nexeenteti. in his favour when  gnritiee to him with
\nreference to alle;-:_.{ed__ agreement   27.3.1989 said<\/p>\n
to have beerii.e\u00a7u(ee’t.i,t.e(l. 4by:.'(i–ei’ei1dants 1 and 2 in favour of
\nplaintiff.  Cotirt answer hoth suhstantiai<\/p>\n
q’11esi.ti0nS of law,i&1’1 favolir of 3*” defendant and while doing<\/p>\n
. so ofjserve that there is clear attempt on the part of<\/p>\n
  2 with connivance of plaintiff in creating<\/p>\n
Ex.i\u00b01 with  intention to deny legitimate transaction which<\/p>\n
  was entered. into between 3″‘ defendant and defendants 1<\/p>\n
K_;1.r1;c:72 on 25.5.1989 Vide Ex.D5 which cnllninated in sale<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
– 39 –\n<\/p>\n
deed dated 15.3.1990 vide ECx..D6 and which was registered<\/p>\n
in the office of Sub-Registrar on 16.3.1990 and pursuant, to
\nwhich 31″” ciefenclarlt is in po-s:~3essi<)n and enjoyrnent of suit<\/p>\n
schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
22. In the result, the judgment and (iee_:1’Hee”‘ .<\/p>\n
17.9.2003 in RA.N0.75\/199.1 1’ev(~3rsi;;g the: 3;:1ci,,”  a<\/p>\n
decree dated 22.7.1991. in ‘..eV0n’firV\u00a7ne(},;Ve_A\u00ab<\/p>\n
consequently the second ap1)e2\u00a7.[-\ufb01led Vby ‘}V5\u00a73.i{1tiff” i_S.1f_t\u00e95jec:\u00a7teci<\/p>\n
with exemplary costs of 15,000 \/;4L’pe:.yz1191e  ciefefgdaxnt.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court N Somanatha Gowda vs Puttamma on 8 November, 2010 Author: S.N.Satyanarayana IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT EBANGALORE DATED THIS “ma 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019*-._bT BEFORE .. . THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE s.N.sATYANA\u00a3’%gf\u00a7YAfV:’A:”‘ ” RsA.NO.8g2Og5;_”’\u00ab. \u00ab_ Between sm.N.soma\u00a7;ha Gowda, S\/O late Nanjegowda, Major, [\/0 Arahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Kola: Taluk, Kolar District. […]<\/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-4467","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN Somanatha Gowda vs Puttamma on 8 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\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N Somanatha Gowda vs Puttamma on 8 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-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=\"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-11T07:13:10+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N Somanatha Gowda vs Puttamma on 8 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-11T07:13:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4114,\"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\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010\",\"name\":\"N Somanatha Gowda vs Puttamma on 8 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-11T07:13:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N Somanatha Gowda vs Puttamma on 8 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"N Somanatha Gowda vs Puttamma on 8 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\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N Somanatha Gowda vs Puttamma on 8 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-11T07:13:10+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N Somanatha Gowda vs Puttamma on 8 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-11T07:13:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010"},"wordCount":4114,"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\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010","name":"N Somanatha Gowda vs Puttamma on 8 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-11T07:13:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-somanatha-gowda-vs-puttamma-on-8-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N Somanatha Gowda vs Puttamma on 8 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/4467","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=4467"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4467\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4467"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4467"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4467"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}