{"id":49581,"date":"2009-03-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009"},"modified":"2015-01-01T03:18:34","modified_gmt":"2014-12-31T21:48:34","slug":"a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"A Krishnappa vs Jayaram on 20 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
A Krishnappa vs Jayaram on 20 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: N.Ananda<\/div>\n
 \n\nIN THE: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT EA_1\u00a7a\"GAL_<\u00a7_R\u00a3:;_.V  _\n\nname TI~\u00a7iS THE 33" DAY 01:' MARC.\u00a7(f2Q0\u00a2\u00a7i:: ._ 3\n\nBEFORE;\n\nTHE HCJNBLE MR,\u00a2\\I_{IS'FI4(j--!E',V'I\\\u00e9---ANA\u00a7\u00a7I32'\\:V  Q'  \n\nR.F.A,1vo.411';-$99 ;1)E:::*:V_ T \nBETWEEN: V' V" '\n\nSri.A.KIishnappa,   9\n\nS,' 0.Ak};~':appa, V   _  '\n\nMajor,    "    \n\n   V   \n\n1Main t<oa\u00a2.\u00ab,"::v"  'W   \u00bb\n\n  ' . "  "   _ \n\nBangalO_rQj-- 550    '   ...AppcIla.11t\n\n(By sri:.s.shakei~3h_\u00a7tty;"A\u00a71vo\u00a2aie)\nAND: & " V' \ufb02 '\n\nJaya;"am..  A. V V\n\n '~  _ASinf{;ci~<:i;,%Qcascd  'h;is'LR3.\n\n 1%.) \n'*-W\/(0. La:c"'Va3*aram\n\nAgeci\ufb01\ufb01 ycz\u00e9:"js.A\n\n1{b)'.44Ad:iia1'\u00e9@;ana,\n\n -aged 37ycars.\n\n. V' ' --  1{.r,:_] Sishwathanaxayana\n'  e...g<:<;i'35 years.\n\nI'_' A' -1121} Sujatha,\n aged 33 years.\n\n\n\n \n\n1{e) Rajappa,\n\naged 31 years.\n\nNo.1{b) to He) are children\n\nOf Late Jayaz-am,\n\nAll are residing at No.9\n\n11 Main Road, I Block,\n\nGoragunetepalya,  '  A " * ' \nBangalore \u00ab~ 560 022.    -._,,..Respondt::1ts\n\n(By Sn" A.V. A.  _\n\nThis appcalris   9.67'of CFC, against\nthe judgment  V'_.'&cC.'rccj: .s1~at\u00a2a. "12;o.3;1999, passed in\n0.s.No.42681'_1Q39;j'km tP1e_\ufb01}:; orjmga. V Addl. CCJ, Bangalore:\nCity, dismissi;'ing,tht:" \u00e9uit fca5'.d'\u00e9c1a;*ati31:'and possession.\n\nThisV"'T'a\u00a7.s1\u00a7::a1 'ii1\u20acVi'5ri;t'1g"'bce11V"Vhca11ii and reserved for\njudgment 011.2 1';{}'2.-.\u00ab2(}{19',' ~t_1:iis__dacr, the Court pronounced the\nIbliowingi-_ ' '     '\n\n  an' "a}3peal\u00ab'\ufb01led by plainti\ufb01' against judgment\n\n \n\n~12,d3-_1999 passed in O.S.No.4268\/1939. In this\n\na%g;p\u00a7\u00e91%pax1x%' 7;': Wm be mm' to by their array of ranking\n\nV -- Vbcfor\u00e9" t1z1c"  court.\n\n ' V.  The suit for declaration of title and possession of\n\n  schcadulc property was \ufb01lm by plaimzi\ufb02', intar aha,\n\n  \ufb01contcndixlg that elder brother of plainti\ufb01'-Muniswamappa\n\nhad allowed the defendant to mcupy suit schedule pmpcrty\n\n\n\n    iefailed to pmve that deceased Muniswamappa had executed\n\n(vii Whether the plain\ufb01\ufb01 proves   _& \nthe suit? V  'L K    4\n\n(viii) Whether the  \nfuture mesne    if  V\nso at what    \n\n(ix) To what relief: '    \n\n6. The    the following\n\n\ufb01ndings     M \nIs$ue_.Ne;\u00bb.1f\u00a7"  " 1'  \n .. ' "\nIssue '  * \u00e9 ' \n\nV.  No.44": A.Af\ufb011Ine1\ufb01ve\n  \n  V ee\ufb01legative\n\nVissxge ' ?J.ef  Negative\n\n AA  Iszsue:No.8: Negative\n"  Ie\u00e9sue No.9: as per \ufb01nal order\n7". The learned txtiai judge has heki that defendant has\n\nan agreement of sale dated 10.10.1976, general power of\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\nattorney and af\ufb01davit datcd 8.8.1988. The   _  \n\nhas held that the Wife of the defendai1\u00bbfA'Viias   \n\nto suit schedule property by  n \n\nplainti\ufb01' has failed to prove: t1iat%V4\u00a71e\u00a7cndan:@j1ad%%g3zg\u00a3 in %V\n\npossession of suit   lea\u00a7rA W to me).\n\n 1.<\/pre>\n
 ‘of the appeal, the legal<\/p>\n
repmsentativgzs _ of _  defendant have made: an<\/p>\n
 applic\u00e9i\ufb01oia lII}CIv”Ci’w.’ {::.;\u00a51′(it,f#’ 41 Rule 27 (1) CFC along with<\/p>\n
   The plain\ufb01\ufb01” has \ufb01led objections. The<\/p>\n
A\ufb01mrifg  and relevancy of the documents wili<\/p>\n
 _ be    course of the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
 .A Lhavc heard Sri.S.Shakc:r Shctty, learned counscl<\/p>\n
 ‘pl.5;%:i1ti\ufb01” and Sn’.A.V.Ga11gad!1a.rappa, learned ceunscl for<\/p>\n
  d\ufb01f\u00e9zndant<\/p>\n
11. Having heard the learned Cotmscl far particg<\/p>\n
and bearing in mind \ufb01amc of the suit, defence  evidence<\/p>\n
issues. In the aforesaid judgment, the SupI1cmt;\u00ab..f:’;fV3::ji1–:t\u00a7’\u00bb1ias;.
\nheId:-  V’ M %
\n“The Itspondent cvenv-‘iho’ugh   ‘;3-<$V't~
\nappealed may support the d::cn*;'e[ 1.3911 'any
\ngmund but if he wantsV\u00bb$m_4_modify_ ii; he "\ufb01le:  .
\ncross-objccticn to the decujti\u00e9bwhich—ohjaciioiii\u00a7 115
\ncould have takcn_carIicr b1,r  a;:ipc31."_.'\u00a7\n<\/p>\n
15. Sri A.v.Ganga;ihara\u00a7;$a,  Counsel for<\/p>\n
defendant,  V’ c1r-f  Supnzmc Court,<\/p>\n
reportgxi’   _1 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a7’s\u00a2~3.5?1  me of Ravmder’ Kumar
\n  others) has contended that<\/p>\n
\ufb01ling of cxv\u00e9jiss-obj;c E;i<\u00a7i:_,u  the 1976 Amendment is pmtly<\/p>\n
 '~  opf:\u00a7d:1a;1_L\u00e911:c1 not' 3::-datory.<\/p>\n
'   on hand, defendant is assailing that<\/p>\n
\ufb01ncii\ufb01gsv by the trial Court as they relate to proof of<\/p>\n
 agxna\u00e9znz\u00e9nthv\ufb01f sale dated 10.10.1976, General Power of<\/p>\n
  ..:"..A\u00a7tfo:.1:A1cyNdatcd 08.08.1988 and a\ufb01davit dated 08.08.1988.<\/p>\n
    El\u00e9fendant is not seeking modi\ufb01cation of decree.<\/p>\n
 –  M  vhe–\u00abacccptcd. The defendant without \ufb01iing<\/p>\n
   (“an attack adverse \ufb01ndings reoonicd against<\/p>\n
x V’   was not the absolute owner of suit schedule\n<\/p>\n
—   The suit for declaration and possession without<\/p>\n
” miinpieadifxg the wives of deceased Muniswamappa is not<\/p>\n
{I<\/p>\n
16. In a decision reported in AIR 1999 s<:?_j35'2f1: eg ee
\ncase of Ravinder Kumar  Qt'?\n<\/p>\n
others), the Supnzrae Court has heleizg  A’ I T\u00bb A.  b<\/p>\n
“The Iespondentedefepdaxii
\ncan. Without \ufb01ling ciossfelijexz\ufb01gix
\nadverse \ufb01nding    in  has
\nbeen passed agaj\ufb01st’   for the
\npurpose    extent the
\nlower a Sttit against the
\n   of cross–\n<\/p>\n
Gbjecti\u00e9sgvg’  th.e’-._IV_’9;?6″‘!3.m\u00a7cndment is pmeiy<\/p>\n
\u00e9yptiorbai Va”:.;d.._\u00bb1a1’ot \ufb01aa\ufb01datdry.”<\/p>\n
_ ‘F11er\u00a3:ferc,,  made by the learned Counsel<\/p>\n
  Tee learned counse} for defendant has submitted<\/p>\n
‘  \/x._.\n<\/p>\n
maintainabie.\n<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
18. The plain\ufb01\ufb01 has produced partition   _
\nEx.P.1, under which survey No.8\/4,”v\u00a7’hi<:h
\nof suit schedule property was   \u00bb.s}:::aI'v1'=Tt";"v:*vbi "' ~.<\/p>\n
deceased Muniswamappa    ‘V<\/p>\n
of deceased Muniswamappa.\n<\/p>\n
During  lb  ‘ehas admitted
\nthat plaintiff    are direct
\nbmthers. J   issuelcss. There
\nwas no   Muniswamappa. There
\nwas no iiartebztioil  and the wives cf deceased<\/p>\n
Munisw_ama;ipa.V’ In ‘V~.vie\u00bb3v “of documentary evidence as per<\/p>\n
 ‘~ \ufb01x. the oIA’e1″evixienee, defendant cannot be heard to<\/p>\n
$ay i:1’1ajt” no right to \ufb01le suit for declaration and<\/p>\n
  seheduie property.\n<\/p>\n
 Ac  l.9′.=—-I:i3:1 a decisien reported in 1955 (2) ML} 143 (in the<\/p>\n
\u00ab   e_f’Shivangouda Vs. Gangawwa), this Court has hcId:-<\/p>\n
“Where one ca-owner brings a suit for
\nejectment of the ttespasser, the decree must be<\/p>\n
for possession of the entire property and cannot<\/p>\n
be Iimitcd to the plain\ufb01\ufb02lco-owncI”‘s sham  ~ <\/p>\n
I31’0PC1″\u00a3V- _ .\n<\/p>\n
There is a cat:-na of decisions 1vi1icki:’_h,d\u00a2c ” _<\/p>\n
taken the View that one <\/p>\n
bxing a suit for ejecting 3   the”\n<\/p>\n
property owned by  oth\u00e9xs aith\u00e9\ufb01zf  <\/p>\n
or as cwowncrs, the haSi\u00a7df\u00a7$i1;g  hds a
\nright to hold ev\u00e9xg inc\ufb01mdfidfghicfd’-joint pmpmy
\nuntil a division tai{eS_d_13i\u00e91C\u20acE}”{}   ” <\/p>\n
Thcrcfo:t;(\u00a7p\u00a71te;i%io1i: 0″fVd\u00a7\u00a7fc_i1d\u00e91I;\u00a3–V1:;bat plain\ufb01\ufb01 had no
\nlocus   accepted.\n<\/p>\n
26.    that defendant was a<\/p>\n
\ufb01iend ”  ddceagi\u00e9d Mm\ufb01swamappa. The defendant was<\/p>\n
    defendant had resigned \ufb01nm job mld<\/p>\n
  no avocation. Therefore, deceased<\/p>\n
 permitted the defcndmt to occupy suit<\/p>\n
Zsitc to eke out his livelihood by rimnjng a fad<\/p>\n
2}. Per contxa, the defendant has contended that on<\/p>\n
10.10.1976, deceased Muniswaznappa had exccutcd an<\/p>\n
agreement of saie in favour of the wife of   <\/p>\n
delivered possession of suit  \u00a2_<\/p>\n
performance of agreement. It is __ <\/p>\n
deceased Muniswamappa hedv.V:’L’e;2:ecufed._ \u00e9ieioiver of<\/p>\n
Attorney dated 08.08. 1933 a:;d~a;u\u00a73ea\u00a3e:.ea\u00a3\u00a2&’ee.o\u00e9. 1933 in
\ncon\ufb01xma\ufb01on of agreeiiiegxt   figted 10.10.1975.
\nTherefoxe, in on;i_e’1’\ufb02__1;o ayei\u00e9  of  it is necessary
\nto decide     if V ”\n<\/p>\n
  examining himself has
\nexamiiled  DW2-B.1vi.Ma1isWamy Naik
\nand  prove execution of agreement<\/p>\n
of sfa\u00a71e”datedV  19%’), General Power of Attorney dated<\/p>\n
 j’e23A.f(5e. 1\u00a7,\u00a5fseian;i agi\ufb01davit dated 08.08.1988.<\/p>\n
” . h   adverting to appreciation of evidence in<\/p>\n
  Qfeabove documents, it is necessary to state certain<\/p>\n
 V’ aA<A:iiI);:E.i&:&tecv1V" facts, which have beaming in pmof of these<\/p>\n
—  dixzuments.\n<\/p>\n
24. The defendant has contended; on 10. 10.19’3″6 and<\/p>\n
subsequent thereto there was ban on mgsua\ufb01on ofnzvenue<\/p>\n
sites. Therefozm, deceased Muniswamappa couki\ufb01otictacexi V”  <\/p>\n
registered sale deed in favour of fi1\u00e9’m”*ife “pr <\/p>\n
terms of agreement of sale dated 6.  d.efe1i\u00a7:i\u00e9uzA:xt ” ._<\/p>\n
has not pmduced any  evidence   ‘V<\/p>\n
of zegistration of revenue’, sites  time.  <\/p>\n
25. The Plainttiif’  _ notice before
\ninstitution of s11it;’–‘f11c    any Iepiy
\nno\ufb01cc and _he\u00a7’–:  _’._V_1:1o\u00a3.\u00ab   V’  for not
\ncausing      V<\/p>\n
25.4011   .DW3-Munivenkatappa has<\/p>\n
deposed  had sold one of the<\/p>\n
 V.   s1i1’ve3r…!\\Io.8[4 in favour of Jayalakshmamma<\/p>\n
 i_1aa  deed marked as Ex.D.7.\n<\/p>\n
 the contents of Ex.I).’7, we \ufb01nd on<\/p>\n
 deceased Muniswamappa had sold one of the<\/p>\n
   in survey No.8\/4 to one Jayaakshmamma.<\/p>\n
V’  dcfenziant has failed to prove there was bm for<\/p>\n
  ifregistratrion of revenue sites on 10.10.1976 and subsequent<\/p>\n
?11\u20acI’Ct0- (f\\; ‘ ,\u00bb\\,,. umg-ed .<\/p>\n
 for  time on that day and those who
\n him that he is Muniswamappa. The<\/p>\n
 _ yottriger brethet of deceased Muniswamappa had also came
\n  he was a minor, he did not execute the
\n  etoemveient DW2 has depeeed that he cannot identify the
\n  ifshown to him. On page 2 of Ex.D.1, there is no<\/p>\n
Lhsignature of executz-mt. On the back of Ex.{).1 the words<\/p>\n
remember the names of attestors to both the ”
\nDW1-Jayaram was present at the time of exectttzi\u00e9h: of
\n&; Ex.D.2; he does not know whether” ‘.’Z1\\_ii’–.1_
\nEx.I). 1 85 Ex.D.2. The trial  <\/p>\n
this witness as follower-<\/p>\n
\n\n\"The Witness:  the \nThe witness has   the\nname of    the\n\n<\/pre>\n
amount _..ef._ “_’C0I1:Sid\u00a3\ufb01I’\u00e9iiQn=._’:i:!!3.V, ij’Rs.85{)O\/’-,<\/p>\n
Rs. *    “R’\u00a7;1V1′,’\u00a3V(){}O\/ ~, whenever
\nqizaestie-:1  these things he used to
\nlook   “Say the answers.”\n<\/p>\n
 DW2″ A. edmiticd that he saw deceased<\/p>\n
A.Mt111iswamappa are erased as per portion<\/p>\n
 his as   and siwaturc of deceased<\/p>\n
is. marked at Ex.D.1{a). DWI has idcntn\ufb01xd’<\/p>\n
 _.  \u00a3t3x.D.   who are stated to have attested E1x.D.1.<\/p>\n
 15 days prior to 10.10.1976, them was negotiation<\/p>\n
betwmtn defendant and dc-ccasad Muniswamapjpa. The<\/p>\n
on 1010-1976 itscif and thcma\ufb01cr I saw it befo’1~e3\u00a7l_:;\u00a3.\u00a7’1\u00a73T\u00bb .
\ntoday only.” {N13, Narsamma. Jayagam   ” ”
\nMuniswamappa were: only present 5112;’
\nNo advance was paid in his pm\ufb01cxgcc. xsaic <\/p>\n
was Rs. 1 1,000\/~.\n<\/p>\n
33. Now advcr\ufb01ng to\ufb01hae\u00a7\u00a7iisii;nL4\u00e9v,;5i’*:\u00a3icf\u00e911dant, at the
\noutset, it is nccf\u00e9\u00e9sjgztgg 3;.”,gta1r:’ :tli\u00e91t.: a\u00e9fec\ufb01cnt of salt dated\n<\/p>\n
10. 10. 1975 ciges; defendant<\/p>\n
  has deposed that deceased
\nMuxziswamafipa had agreement of sale in favour of<\/p>\n
th\u00e9   Hanumanthappa and Chcxmappa, as per<\/p>\n
  cross-examination, DWI has deposed that<\/p>\n
3’\\I k K \/KM. \ufb01x\/x,…\n<\/p>\n
   part of’d_eJeument is marked as Ex.D.2{a).<\/p>\n
  the agreement of sale dated 10.10.1976 {marked as<\/p>\n
agmement of sale was prepared near
\nwrote the agreement of sale. DWI :k1as’depoeee5i K u
\nnot know on how many stamp
\nwas WZ\u00a3’ittl’:’.II; he does not ‘*ve;nd0r”‘ V
\nstamp papers were brpilght VAh3,;:}V1ui2i$wa.1’15appa,A..ibeceased
\nMuniswamappa told  [to  consideration
\nof Rs.2500f — at the time”o\u00a7 e\ufb01zigeeemcnt of sale.\n<\/p>\n
SW1 has    agreement of sale\ndated    does not bear the\nsignatiexe   DWI has admitted\n<\/pre>\n
that  en.’ of first page of agreement is
\neraseti”    marked as E.x.D1(e). DWI has<\/p>\n
‘% V\u00bb  “c1e1:\u00a7i3{s.e\u20acI’ ‘th\u00a7t.;1e deg; eat know if the signature cf deceased<\/p>\n
  was erased and in its place another<\/p>\n
  on page No.3 of EX.D.2. The relevant<\/p>\n
”   35. Thus, on careful examination of the document, i<\/p>\n
Ex.D.1) conta\ufb01ns several manipulations and alteratkms. On<\/p>\n
the back of first page of document, the name”-\u00abdf   <\/p>\n
Muniswamappa has been erased. I-“I’}1e’-\u00abtifatie  <\/p>\n
treasury seal is altered. The second’dpVage_d6f  i;  .,<\/p>\n
bear the signature of the II ‘V<\/p>\n
page the date of treasuryseal ..<\/p>\n
The learned trial d\ufb01dge. (:.);\u00a3’.z\u00ab’\u00bbdi:\u00e91e.i:*i.;2\u00a7ig.’,:ani1_Vthese material
\ndiscrepancies  to the naked
\neye and  to 3 has rightly
\nheid    pmve execution of<\/p>\n
agreement ‘pf 5;:-.1-3 }v:17a>s:::d_: ‘mt. 149}”1v9*.r5.!<\/p>\n
36. On’  and re-appreciation of<\/p>\n
v,evigvieI1C_’=;’3’\u00ab:. I E  not”  any reasons to differ with the<\/p>\n
\u00e9.fQ1es:;tated\u00abv1S;nddf1s1\u00a7g”‘reco:ded by the trial Court Thcrcfom, I<\/p>\n
  hold’.   has failed to prove execution of<\/p>\n
 age eme\u00a7it,pf.g.a\u00a31\u00e9. dated 10.10.1975.<\/p>\n
    The defendant has contended that deceased<\/p>\n
‘  \ufb01\ufb01\ufb01ggjgwamappa had executed General Power of Attorney<\/p>\n
 ‘\u00bb.{i_e;ir:d 08.08.1988 as. per Ex.D.2. This document was also<\/p>\n
  Written by DW2-B.M.Ma\ufb01swamy Naik.
\ng’\\J’ _ . _  \/\\ .\u00e9;\\V\/L\/1. e<\/p>\n
2?\n<\/p>\n
notice that ageement of sale dated ,9\u00bb
\nPower of Attorney dated 08.08. ‘
\n08.08.1988 were written by BfS\u00a742~B.s&;–h(is:iswaysi\u00a7v   ,
\nis not a lioensed deed writer.   in
\nView of glaring intetpolstions    in the
\ndocument and on  oral evidence
\nhas rightly held,    prove execution
\nof ai\ufb01davit      <\/p>\n
47.;    ‘discussion and for the
\nreasonsiv\ufb01st.-ateciwdv   “answer points 1 8; 2 in<\/p>\n
negative.\n<\/p>\n
 V’ ‘Reg. ..’\u00a7?oiH\u00a7\u00a7s.Nos.3: H  “”” ” ‘V<\/p>\n
 ‘her title  suit schedule property by adverse possession.
\n   written statement nms to 17 typed pages, averments
\n Aiyrifzten statement misting to plw of adverse possession<\/p>\n
” very sporadic. The averments of the written statement<\/p>\n
V  V’    statement, it is the contention of the<\/p>\n
  wife namely Narasea had perfected<\/p>\n
relating to plea of adverse possession are as fo1Iows:—<\/p>\n
‘  ”   over the said site property by way of<\/p>\n
A “it could hardly be construed as pica of adverse
\n‘  \ufb01cgsscssian. It is not even staisd that the wife of dcfcndant<\/p>\n
‘4 nttsas in possession of suit schedule pmpcrty from the year<\/p>\n
At the end of para 13 of written   _<\/p>\n
stated : \u00ab<\/p>\n
“…The possession    X t
\nabove said site pmpcrty in
\ndefendant and his has
\nand peaceful since from  isfgthc
\ndate of sale in.f\u00a3i1l9ur_\u00ab”\u00e9t’tiisqi\u00e9fstxdanfs
\nThus the defcnttsxit’ ‘1i’as.i?  “eontinnous
\nposscssricsn . and jc>.3;i\u00a7:xci1t’& ‘of I    property
\nsaid  “mare   to the
\n  and other public
\nmcxudsmg   {as-, V  A.Muniswamappa
\nttrho_  ‘?.:;:e:\u00a7,11 ” – ___<\/p>\n
At the c11ti’–Qf  statement it is statcd:–<\/p>\n
”  “…”‘  dsakndant also submits that his\n<\/p>\n
–  “has  got the prescriptive right of<\/p>\n
  \u00ab ativsrsc’ possession.”\n<\/p>\n
<5;~$\u00a7;':. The avcrments of written statement extracmd<\/p>\n
1976. adverse to the interest of deceased  .<\/p>\n
and theleafter to the interest of <\/p>\n
so. In a decision reported in  2.0(1i8_.AIR  <\/p>\n
the case of Hemaji Waghaji Jai~vsI}f$;s,.3rziiciea;s;eafe:Ki::\u00a7}igeabvui <\/p>\n
Hanjan as Othewsj, the
\ndecided cases regaxding   {possession has
\nheld:-     V %  V 'A<\/p>\n
    is not a punt:\n<\/p>\n
   (me of fact and
\n   claims adverse<\/p>\n
  (a) on what date he<\/p>\n
  4(b) what was the nature of<\/p>\n
4; e his pcV)s:’;.e_ssi1on,  (C) whether the factum of<\/p>\n
V’  1:x;ssess10n” was”knmm t0 the other party, (:1)
\n  _ his possession has continued, and (e)
\n  was open and undisturbed. A
\n_   p1eaci1ng adverse possession has no
\n~~ee{t!i\ufb01es in his flavour. Since he is trying to<\/p>\n
V A’  defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him<\/p>\n
 to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary
\nto establish his adverse pessession.<\/p>\n
The law of adverse possession which casts
\nan owner on the basis of inaction within<\/p>\n
j  important cases decided by the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
 : regarding the principle of adverse possession, which are as<\/p>\n
limitation is irrational, illogical and   %
\ndispropertionate. The  ‘a’s~–.it
\next1’Cm_e1}’ harsh for the iI’ U-Ac
\nWindfall for a dishonest pemon. {a’he’*had  _
\ntaken P\ufb02ssession of  ‘Of   ‘
\nowner. The law qgght 1:0! V:t’0\u00ab.be.1;e\ufb01t’ \u00a33′
\nwho in a cla:3destinezV\u00a7rna:eL_ne::_*’tekgg,  of
\nthe property of the   of
\nlaw. Them  med to \ufb02esh
\nlook  on;\n<\/p>\n
The Ufsi9ni_ \u00a33:\u20ac_ i\ufb01dia  to seriously
\ncorisidcr \u00a7 \u00a7t111dAv’:i\u00e9:x&1ke’~siiita%\u00a7ie”eliangcs in the law
\nofadvetscv   ” ‘ ‘
\n‘I11 4fhe’iIn$t}\u00a7i1t:_ f;a\u00a7e;’. it was held that the
\n” ha\ufb01\ufb01g  to plead the case of
\n   and no issues having been
\n  that behalf and the plaintiff having
\n   to establish title to the suit
\n.’ *  Vtiiie suit for declaration and possession
\n\u00b0m;g1;:”i;ot have been deemed on mama of<\/p>\n
 ..  adverse possession.”\n<\/p>\n
 ‘:5 the afomsaid decision, the Supreme Court has dealt<\/p>\n
f0110Ws:–  \/’_W.~C1_’\\<\/p>\n
 ssbsema as <\/p>\n
V    is well settled that in curler to
\n‘ .__”sstab1iSI:; ‘adv\u00e9rsc possession of ncm–eo~hcit as<\/p>\n
 * gpxls” out of thsm is in soak: possession and
\n”  eynjoymcnt of the pro\ufb01ts, of that propcrtics.<\/p>\n
’12. In Sccnztary of State for ‘mc1;=:g vi
\nLa! Khan, AIR 1934 PC r23,__it was  I<\/p>\n
the oxtiinaxy classical
\npossession is that it should  <\/p>\n
ncc pmcario   must<\/p>\n
be adequate; in   and in
\nextent      to<\/p>\n
me     <\/p>\n
13. This   Raddy v. L.Lakshm;i
\nRcd’c1y_r,”A1RV.V195f? ;sc:s’3’i4, while following the
\nratio (ii? VDebvc{–nd3.fa *LaI Khaxfs case (supra)<\/p>\n
 another it is not enough to show that<\/p>\n
Custer of the non-possessing oowhcir by the co-
\nhcir in possession of one on-heir is consid-cmd,
\nin law, as possession of all! the co-heirs. when<\/p>\n
one cowlxcir is found to be in possession of the<\/p>\n
32<\/span><\/p>\n
properties it is presumed to be on the basis of—.__<\/p>\n
joint title. The oo–heir in possession <\/p>\n
tender his possession advezse to the ..  ;_. A’ <\/p>\n
heir, not in possession, merely by  L” %<\/p>\n
hostile 3111111′ us on his own part \u00bbin&de_iog;;’1i:Iou’  ‘ of  _V
\nthe other co–heir’s title. It iss set\ufb01e\u00a5”3 mgr  A<\/p>\n
that as between co–hci;is there”z3:_u 1st be eeiiidenee  <\/p>\n
of open assertion of  titie,  ‘<\/p>\n
exclusive possession am_i__VVei:jo5′:\u00a7nen’t’ hyVV_91;\u00a7% of
\nthem to be  of . \u00a3i1e__vofhe_r so as to<\/p>\n
constitute ouster.”  _  ‘
\nThe couiif   V — A<\/p>\n
_   out ouster is on the
\n  \u00bb\ufb01::@lis1s1ace the lawful title of a<\/p>\n
ctrheir by  adverse possession.”<\/p>\n
. A   “I3;  Vs. Bibi Sakixaa, AIR1964 so
\n  1 i2ES4’_,’i:~”i’is1ayat11i]ah J. speaking for the court<\/p>\n
 .  ob\ufb01zyetfss under:\n<\/p>\n
H   ‘fidverse mssession must be adequate in
\neon\ufb01ntiitji, in publicity and extent and a plea is<\/p>\n
 required at the least to show when possession<\/p>\n
becomes adverse so that the starting point of
\n\ufb01xnitation against the party a\ufb01ected can be<\/p>\n
found. There is no evidence hem when<\/p>\n
 ‘i’xssiVs”taVi:1t1–A”e’A Cbmmissie\ufb01er that the appe\ufb01ant<\/p>\n
   possession from 1968, he<\/p>\n
  have not ,been pleaded. Admittedly the appellant
\n “into possession by a derivative title from
\n ‘:_j_jt1iL:V61’i\u00a7na1 grantee. It is seen that the original
\n   has no right to alienate the land.<\/p>\n
  ;<'I'herefore, having come into possession under<\/p>\n
possession became adverse, if it at all did 555;:
\nmere suggestion in the relief clause.  .
\nwas an umhterrupted
\nyears" or that the
\nabsolute title was not:7en_puglV1"  Ia5se' \u00e9u1ch_VVg
\nplea. Lang possession i.\u00a7V"net\u00bbncceSs.a1ii}–\u00e9deexse
\npossession and  the  eiause  a
\nsubstitute for 3 Pie\u00e9\u00a3."._  u V' <\/p>\n
15. Thefaets 85 Ors. v.\n<\/p>\n
State 9f”. .3;  {;99s)”6″ see 309 are
\nsun’ 1la1″‘ to the    ease, this<\/p>\n
court   . ‘
\n” The-q\ufb01esticm: is. the appellant
\nhas  titile  a\ufb01vetse possession. It<\/p>\n
is  that a cbzxte\ufb01tiofx was raised before the<\/p>\n
 by adverse possession. But
\nthe   to constitute adverse possession<\/p>\n
eoiour of title \ufb01om original grantee, if the<\/p>\n
{fv , 5\/L\/\\,~\u20ac\u00e9,. :-\n<\/p>\n
appellant intends to plead adverse possession as
\nagainst the State, he must disclaim his em-. and . “,<\/p>\n
plead his hostile claim to the knowledge of \ufb02ies.
\nState and that the State had’ not     <\/p>\n
action thereon within the p1escribe_d__  _<\/p>\n
Thereby, the appellant’s [possession  ‘  <\/p>\n
become adverse. No such stsndi\ufb01reis take}: nor 1<\/p>\n
evidence has been adduioeagi     .\n<\/p>\n
counsel in fa1m’ ess,  his “‘;agg’\u00a2’g.-;ch;\ufb02: is<\/p>\n
unable       such plea
\nhavi11g”Vbeet1 ‘i:’ea3;en”b3,: sfp\ufb01ce\ufb02ant.”<\/p>\n
  Am. vs. State of
\n  $1997) 7 sec. 557 this<\/p>\n
 eta  z1s\u00bb–ui:1;ier:\n<\/p>\n
  the absence of crucial<\/p>\n
  which constitute adverse possession
\n_ V’  to show that the petitioners have
\n  continuous an\ufb01 uninterrupted<\/p>\n
 possession of the lands in question c}anmn’ ‘ g<\/p>\n
zigiit, title and interest in the lands in question<\/p>\n
 ‘\ufb02ellostile to the right, title and interest of the
\noriginal grantees, the petitioners cannot claim<\/p>\n
that they have perfected their title by adverse<\/p>\n
possession.”\n<\/p>\n
_ ‘\/L-\u00ab.. 5;x.t-‘LA _<\/p>\n
35<\/span><\/p>\n
17. In Md.Moh.ammad Ali (Dead) -by
\nJagadish Kalita 85 Others (2004) 11’SCo.e’o2?’r,   ”<\/p>\n
paras 21-22, this Court obseLgred.aefjuix\u00a3ie1j’  ‘<\/p>\n
“2 1. For the  of   <\/p>\n
possession] ouster, the __gi”efeI;d;a11t.’muet <\/p>\n
prove amm’ us po\u00e9eidendi _ VA  –. . <\/p>\n
22.  We.:.1nay that in
\na proper  the   to construe
\nthe g:;:1t1i4neV   in come to a
\nconc111siVo’3t11’V.;u.:;s  the pmper plea of
\n  hz-_1s– Voeea raised in the
\n ” not which can also be
\ngatl\ufb01eged _ oumulative e\ufb01eet of the<\/p>\n
; ‘avermentsi1’1\u00e9de therein.”<\/p>\n
  ;:iY\u00a3–?, _Kan:1ata.ka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of
\n i13.{1yia1 (2QQ4( 10 sec 779 at para 11, this oourt<\/p>\n
 ob$e’1’ve;d”as under:\n<\/p>\n
” “:31 the eye of the law, an owner would be<\/p>\n
 ; deeme\u00e9 to be in possession ofa property so long
\n as there is no intrusion. Noxruse of the property<\/p>\n
by the owner even for a long time Wozft a\ufb01ect his
\ntitle. But the position will be altered when
\nanother person takes possession of the property<\/p>\n
JV , ($1\/kw <\/p>\n
3   other ,**7{_1)  long his possession has
\n A   his possession was open and
\n  A pezson pleading adverse<\/p>\n
 has no equities in his favour. Since<\/p>\n
as<\/p>\n
and asserts a light over it. Adverse possession is<\/p>\n
a hostile possession by clearly asserting hosfqik?
\ntitle in denial of the title of the true owner mess  ”
\nwell-settled principle that a party  “‘ <\/p>\n
adverse possession must     <\/p>\n
possession is “nec vi, nee c:}.am:…1ie\u00bbc jproe\u00e9rio\ufb02’  f<\/p>\n
that is, P\ufb01acefule \u00b0P”m,= and \u20aci9’iiiinu0″\u00a7.”.’, .i:'”\u00a3’1ie   vi<\/p>\n
possession must be a\ufb01eq\ufb01at   <\/p>\n
publicity and in exten:___:”t.o,_ sluiowihihst
\npossession is  toiihe   Iiiust
\nstart with a  dispiisitioii-iojf_i1;e iightfui
\nowner ancdibe aetiisl,’ v.ei:cl.\u00a7iisi\u00a7e, hostile<\/p>\n
and continued over ‘ehe  . ‘<\/p>\n
The court furthei eeseseeeieeeieieite.-it\u00bb. plea of
\nadverse possessiozgi isiiot sqiiestion of law
\nbut a hleiided oiieaoif ‘Therefoxe, a
\nperson v\u00e9iio ‘  ~  .. possession should
\nshcssz: fa)  into possession,\n<\/p>\n
(b)  was  ns.mr_ej=of his possession, (C),
\nWhetiiex   possession was known to<\/p>\n
he”~a:e”‘veying to defeat the rights of the true
\nowneijsit is for him to ciearly plead and establish<\/p>\n
U ‘\\\/\\  4\/\u00bb A<\/p>\n
all facts necessary to establish his ‘.  j” .’<\/p>\n
possession.”\n<\/p>\n
19. In Saroorp singh v. Ba;;to;”%20k’?S)’j’8 S00   <\/p>\n
this court obsexved:\n<\/p>\n
“29. In terms of  =55 rim\u00bb
\npoint of }i}::1it211:io11A..’_t.;’i’;,3-t:s   \ufb01ofmuthc
\ndate when the right of   to the
\nplain\ufb01\ufb01    date the
\ndefendalsfs   ‘ “adverse.” (Sec
\nVasaritjbai\ufb01  V. V.    ” V. Somnath
\nMmgib\ufb01ag Nz\u00a7\u00a7:ai{ (QQG4) 13860376).<\/p>\n
‘\u00ab  * 33\u00a2:-ssidcndi’ is one of the<\/p>\n
ingredients of adverse u’po_sscssiQn;;_ “listless the
\nperson p9sscssi;1g thc _V_ 1 1as I a xtquisitc
\nanimus   Ebvfcz-r  does not
\ncommence;   case, the appellant
\ncatiigogica\ufb02y .st,v:\u00ab’1’t’:=..~s ..h is’ posscssion is not
\nadv\u00e9rss Vvas  off we owner, the logical<\/p>\n
comiia_[\u00a7yv’\u00ab\u00abis’-\u00bbthat h\u00e9  not have the Iequisitc<\/p>\n
  sa;’f;nt1s’\u00ab(St’\u00e9\u00a7:+ MdtMohammad Ali (Dead) by ms.
\n = \u00ab 1vg;’;1’agca~;s1:; I{aiifaAand others (2004) 1 sec 27).”<\/p>\n
 A f2{).__  This principle has been reitcratcd
\nlat\u00e9rthe case of M.Durai V. Muthu and others<\/p>\n
(2007) 3 sec 114 para 7. This court obsetve\u00a5c\u00a5_’V:—::__: r\u00bb <\/p>\n
as under.\n<\/p>\n
“In terms of Articles  ‘the- old} A {V7 –‘
\nLimitation Act, the  was Bound  gjxt\ufb01\u00e9e  <\/p>\n
his tri\ufb02e as also possessio\ufb01u…
\npreceding the date of  ‘of  suit
\nunder the Limitstt\u00e9on   ” once H the
\np1aint:i\ufb01”proves his \ufb01tte,1bu.r;iej::.sh\u00a7fts to the
\ndefendaot.t:)v.est.at3Iish’:ti1a;tt\u00abi:eV_hsasgfreifocted his<\/p>\n
titie by po’ssessio;1.”j– V t <\/p>\n
 —-  to examine
\nthe ._   of_ possession in<\/p>\n
T\ufb01ojanappgi’ Q35  Somalingappa 85 Am.<\/p>\n
(2006)..   The court obsenred that a<\/p>\n
..  poison who bases his title on adverse possession<\/p>\n
 ‘show by clear and unequivocal evidence<\/p>\n
  1  was hostile to the meal owner and
\nt’  azxioimted to denial of his title to the property<\/p>\n
 The court further obsexved that the<\/p>\n
ttelzissical requirexnents of acquisition of title by<\/p>\n
H adverse possession are that such possession in
\ndenial of the true owncfs title must be peaceful,<\/p>\n
open and continuous. The possession must be
\nopen and hostile enough to be capable of being
\nknown by the pagtties interested in the ploperty,<\/p>\n
39<\/span><\/p>\n
thongs it is not necessaxy that theme shank;<\/p>\n
evidence of the adverse possessor aeimaliy   :”<\/p>\n
informing the read owner of the fotme\ufb01e\u00bb  .<\/p>\n
action.\n<\/p>\n
22. In a xelatrivegr \u00abfeeent   ”\n<\/p>\n
F’.T.M1n1ichikk:-mna Reddyefiso 018. V.’  <\/p>\n
Ors. (2007) 6 see 59) “ooiizi agaii1~hac}..’\u00a7an
\noccasion to    of adverse
\npossession in detgj1;- i;*1ai\u00a2e’%\u00a7\u00a7au:1;TV’a;e.c;e’eaxamined
\nthe legal: fp0si’EA1A1’o1:r\u00bb1′    countries<\/p>\n
pa1″t:i<:::1:;3'\u00a3;21fI_\\\u00a7;i:ALj: i1:_:   Aniefican system.<\/p>\n
We deem it appmpg\u00e9iafev <\/p>\n
passages in extensol-_ The' coi~i it..Vde's1io'g
\nadverse possession in paras S aiizdk\ufb01l  as<\/p>\n
under:–\n<\/p>\n
\u00ab 5.. AA_d\\’rAe’1~\u00bb5e’ g:o’s.session in one sense is
\nbased on  ntheoi3,r_T’o;f” pieevsump\ufb01on that the
\nowner\ufb02has abmicioned ‘ like property to the<\/p>\n
adverse_ yossessof oiethe acquiescence of the<\/p>\n
K hostile-* “acts and claims of the<\/p>\n
 ” ‘V –  fpoissesjsion. It follows that sound<\/p>\n
 _of’.”a typical adverse possession lie in it<\/p>\n
Vb”eing__ o}:ei1;’ ” continuous and hostile. (See<\/p>\n
Deming—\u00ab v. Bind 100 So.2d57 (F1a.1958),
\nArkaztisas Commemorative Commission V. City of<\/p>\n
3x? ,   J34, x -\u00ab OLA ,<\/p>\n
studying the Amciican notion of  <\/p>\n
possession, especially in he   ” is<\/p>\n
Limitation Statutes, that  int\u00a3:i11ioi’i_Vvbfo:  t 1′  <\/p>\n
dispossess cannot be given fa coiafipl\u00e9izc ‘: ii
\nSimple application of Limitaiioxi”.Vshall.’v:ioi,\u00bb.b.c”
\nenough by itself for thc.__\u00e9u,ooes\u00e9;” of  <\/p>\n
possession claim.”\n<\/p>\n
23. Then: is \u00a3ir;ot31\u00e9:_thc matter,
\nwhich needs to
\n   right of
\n   be not only a
\n   fright but also a
\n    case, this Court
\nobsorvcd .    rights have been
\nhjsierggauy? in tho realm of individual<\/p>\n
_; i rights sign” as, right to health, right to
\n livciihood,  shelter and employment ctc.,
\n   human rights are gaining a<\/p>\n
   dimension. Right to property is<\/p>\n
a\u00a7so.Vooi1sidcrcd vciy much a party of the new<\/p>\n
, “r1ifucnsion. Therefom, even claim of adverse
\nAA  possession has to be read in that context. The
\n: ac\ufb01vist approach of the English Cbouxts is quite:<\/p>\n
visible from the judgments of Bcaulanc
\nPrope\ufb01ios Ltd. V. Paimor (2005) 3 WLR 554 and
\nJA Pyc (Oxfovd) Ltd. V. Unitcd Kingdom (2005)<\/p>\n
49 ERG 90. The couirt herein tried to ma\u00e9z   <\/p>\n
human \ufb01ghts position in the  0f’ad\u00a7?e1\u00a7e: =<\/p>\n
possession. But What is ca\u00a7i1mei1dab.1c -iis  <\/p>\n
the dimensions of human  [ywide\ufb01cd ” 3<\/p>\n
so much that new pmjwe\ufb01zy dispute eis$\ufb01e\u00e9;;_’areVV
\nalso being raised within  61′
\nTights.” ”  V’  <\/p>\n
24. With the c:cpa:;diz5g’Jji:1:asj5;7u;i\u00a2::ee of the
\n     court has
\ntaken.     Ve\u00e9iieejzst of adverse
\npossessiq\ufb01j\ufb01tigment of JA Pyc
\n(\u20ac}::tfcm.1.)’:L;V E\ufb01ij,   Kingdom which
\n   bwnezship of land by
\nvlritge’ of  giee\u00e9ce\u00e9sion.\n<\/p>\n
  In   case, ‘the appiicant company<\/p>\n
e V V. ‘#51’-.=:~ the  owner of a plot of 23 hectares
\n  of land. The owners of a property
\n”  2;dj\u00e9e:,~<::ng't\u00a2 the land, Mnand Mrs\ufb01sraham ("the<\/p>\n
 occupied the land under a gazing<\/p>\n
"agieemcnt. A\ufb01er a brief exchange of documents
\nA I  in December 1983 a chartcntd smvcyor acting
\n for the agaplicants wrote to the Gzahams noting<\/p>\n
that the grazing agreemeazvgwas about to expire
\nand requiring them to vacate the land."<\/p>\n
(me.<\/p>\n
\n\n  \n\nf5_,_ pk\/b.~..,;\u00a3\ufb02\\ ,\n\n\n\necas\u00e9e;'\u00a3snpra)=\n\nV    the appiicants moved the\n<\/pre>\n
  Cgsmmission of Human Rights (ECHR)
\n  \ufb02i\u00e9it the United Kingdom law on advemc
\n by which they lost land jg a<\/p>\n
28. The court expnessed its astomahme\ufb01\ufb02t  A’<\/p>\n
the prevalent iaw ousting an owner iizzf .\u00ab1:_nef”
\ntaking action Within iimitatlcm is”  ‘<\/p>\n
29. The applicant  : ‘A<\/p>\n
said judgment \ufb01led an”aj3peal and the 9;
\nAppeal reversed the  demeiu\ufb01. . ‘\u00a7’he
\nGrahams then Bim\ufb01aled ”   2  Seuss’ ‘df~Lm9r;1s,
\nWhich, allowed  . a;;p;;:a;1 ‘4 the
\norderofth\u00a2.Hi\u20ac-h\u00a7543.1e1_1’t,  i =  <\/p>\n
    Pye (Oxford)
\nLtd. 1%   1i,Ae,%4’19 observed that
\nthe Grahams
\nordinary sense of fzvor\ufb02,  the
\napplicant company  of it
\nWithin the  of  “Li31 1’itavtion Act of
\n   .   …..\n<\/p>\n
 31.  V6’Leeni”  to reproduce the<\/p>\n
 portion of theljildgment in FEcvamma’s<\/p>\n
\u20ac\\}. C  \u00a3’7\\”‘-\u00bb-\u00a7j\\.-“k,”~’ ” -“T;<\/p>\n
” .;  ‘V  54.   qfxes\ufb01on nevertheless remains<\/p>\n
A  ‘iv\ufb02iet\ufb01er, eveximii\u00e9ving negani to the lack of care
\nVA   TAa;1c;i’e?:1z#:ive1tence on the part of the applicants<\/p>\n
  the deprivation of their titie<\/p>\n
   Aiegistered land and the transfer of<\/p>\n
 ‘T \u00ab.._possessioi1 struck a fair balance with any\n<\/p>\n
—  ieg\ufb01xnate public interest sewed.<\/p>\n
This Court in Revamma’s ease
\nmentioned that the Europeajxi
\nRights importantly laid do\u00a7ir11
\ntest to judge the interfezienee oftlie
\nwith the right of  eitjoi \u00e9Ix1\u00a7\u00e9n1;\ufb02\u00a7of
\nDmiierty”.\n<\/p>\n
53. In Beyeler vs,   of
\n1996 108-.1’4…was”;\ufb01\u00e9m that the
\n   the principle
\nof %  5 Iegi\ufb01matc aim
\n{13tib’1ie :i5′  by reasonably
\n\ufb01\u00e9ropnoriieiia\ufb01fp sought to be maimed’ .<\/p>\n
The <\/p>\n
iztveiie\ufb01cial owzuership to those in unautho\ufb01zaed<\/p>\n
7’\\;’   in 2<\/p>\n
\u00a337<\/p>\n
in these circumstances, the Court  <\/p>\n
that the application of the pmvisions of   ht”.<\/p>\n
and 1980 Acts to deprive the
\ncompanies 01″ their title to the :regi$’tereti–   ‘V<\/p>\n
imposed on them an individual and e:s\u00a7fseesi931s ‘   “other.\n<\/p>\n
Theta'    violation of\nArt::c' 16,; H j     \n   of the application of Article\n<\/pre>\n
43, was V xefeit\ufb01e-d_’t1o the ,.-Grand Chamber Hearing
\nof   sets the field of adverse<\/p>\n
_; ‘po$sessit511_V_VV3}t1d hits interface with the ugh’ t to<\/p>\n
 peace\ufb01\ufb02 enjojfhient in all its complexity.<\/p>\n
  it will have to he kept in
\n   courts around the World are talcing an
\na  View towards statutes of hm1’ta\ufb01oz1<\/p>\n
 A. ,  o$”etIidiI1g property rights.”<\/p>\n
\\. &’L~~<'[\u00ab-W<\/p>\n
51. In order to defeat the rights of   _
\nof adverse possession, person who
\nshould Plead and establish:-  L  ‘ : Jj %% V’  <\/p>\n
1. On what date he came   ”\n<\/p>\n
II. What was his natvtme of  \u00ab<\/p>\n
III. Whether factum   to other
\nIV. How <\/p>\n
V.   v\u00e9vasgpen and undisturbed?\n<\/p>\n
52:\/i’1’1e IVawLi sa settled that defendant must<\/p>\n
plead Varuxd  not the corpus possidendi but also<\/p>\n
    person setting up title by adveme<\/p>\n
   plead and establish both corpus<\/p>\n
po\u00e9eiiendi  \ufb01ossidendi. He must estabtish that<\/p>\n
  open and hostile and adverse to the interest<\/p>\n
    to his kncswledge.\n<\/p>\n
‘ “In the case on hand, I have extracted the averments of<\/p>\n
” etatement relating to plea of adverse possessicn. As<\/p>\n
‘ already stated, animus possidendi is the main ingedient of<\/p>\n
5<\\\u00ab'.\n<\/p>\n
49<\/span><\/p>\n
adverse possessakm. The defendant has pleaded thfit’  _<\/p>\n
had acquired prescription of right to suit   dd ” 2 <\/p>\n
by Way of adverse possession.\n<\/p>\n
53. Animus is a state  What wad in d’ V<\/p>\n
the mind of the Wife qf. defe;;d.dI)i._
\nthrough the defendant;  tlle.  it is I19
\nwhere stated that the  the suit
\nschedule   adverse to the
\niI1tCI’CSt{i'{‘3″f:  and plainti\ufb01’. The
\nalleged ad’vere~eV hot examined before the Court<\/p>\n
be1oW.AvTheIefcie,d piea of-ad\u00a7}.erse possession as set out in the<\/p>\n
  statement  it could hardly be construed<\/p>\n
‘  Va’ ‘ind’   adverse possession.<\/p>\n
  defendant has alleged that deceased<\/p>\n
.4 M ”   had delivered possession of suit schedule
\nV   to the wife of defendant in part performance of
\n  ofsale dated 10.10.1976. The defendmzt has also”<\/p>\n
‘A  ” ” Vrelied on Genera! Power of Attorney dated 08.08.1988 and<\/p>\n
a\ufb01davit dated 08.08.1988, sad to have been executed by<\/p>\n
av  9″\n<\/p>\n
   property under agreement of sale:<\/p>\n
 Atmmey 08.08.1988, it is clearly stated that as on
\nIj98t\u00a7,’v…25’\\.M1n\ufb01swamappa was in possession of suit<\/p>\n
d  w\ufb01\u00e9dduze dg\u00e9roperty.\n<\/p>\n
 ‘   answe\ufb01ng points I 85 2, I have concurreezi with<\/p>\n
  \ufb01ndings recorded by the trial Com’: that defendant has<\/p>\n
deceased Muniswamappa in favour of the
\nIn the a\ufb01davit said to have been e;:\u00a7eet1’tcri_
\nMuniswamappa, it is stated that as
\nMuniswamappa was in pf sditw ‘V
\nand he delivered possessign of\u00e9esutt.  to the
\nwife of defendant on   ine\ufb01mted in the
\nyear 1939. In ages;  I   mrcmnlac to
\nagmement      possession
\nsought    documents apwt \ufb01om
\nbeing   gs? untenable. The alleged
\nadverse poseeseer–y\u00a7}ife  was not exmincd<\/p>\n
before    pdove that the brother of plaintiff<\/p>\n
datedE(}.V1AU;:v1’9?f6V..nf\u00a7)\ufb01i the other hand, in the General Power<\/p>\n
62. During pendency of this; egppealg.’  “~ <\/p>\n
filed an application under Order    ‘.1t}A..(V:-‘\u00a743tE’3V::\u00a3’.:I_()1’i;.V’._–,”‘<\/p>\n
with 27 documents. From  hens  a<\/p>\n
sought to establish that suit
\nby Eangaiore Developme\ufb01t.  the  1975.
\nThese documents  the following
\nreasons:–\n<\/p>\n
In the no plea to the e\ufb01ect
\nthat  w\u00e9kgaequned by B.D.A. in the
\nyear   are accepted on their
\nface jvaitxeg db  any way establish the pica of<\/p>\n
 V’  . ad\u00a7;e;SeA”‘,;.:os$essiei1″put forth by the defendant. On the other<\/p>\n
   are contrary to the case of defendant.<\/p>\n
v.’Fhe  has produced copy of gazette<\/p>\n
udateds08.04.197S to shew that City Improvement<\/p>\n
 notice under section 16(1) of the City of<\/p>\n
  improvement Act, 1945 (Mysore Act V of 1945) to<\/p>\n
 a part of survey No.8\/4. It is the ease of defendant<\/p>\n
tltat in furtherance of agreement dated 10.lO.i9’.76, the Wife<\/p>\n
g\\\u00bb3  Cg L ,<\/p>\n
‘V    Counsel for defendant relying on the
\n Court, reported in AIR 1970 so 1773<\/p>\n
 (in  of State of West Bengal Vs. The Dalhousie<\/p>\n
 V’ ~ Society), has contended even if passession of suit
\n‘   property to the wife of defendant is held to be<\/p>\n
” iln\u00e9er an invalid agreement, such possession assumes the<\/p>\n
of defendant was put in possession by
\nMuniswamappa. If suit schedule pmperty had <\/p>\n
by C’..I.’F.B. (now B.I).A.) in the year   .e
\ndefendant could not have derived
\nproperty on 10.10. 1976. The {est
\nacquisition of part of sm”veyV  of  and
\naward made in respect  “ul:’he  has not<\/p>\n
pleaded that suit schedele    by C.i.’E’.B.<\/p>\n
{now E\u00a5.VI).._A_.)”‘ 1j97s;.ss%rj-K7′ defendant by relying on
\nthese   that the wife of defendant<\/p>\n
had  laef’   schedule property by adverse<\/p>\n
possessian.\n<\/p>\n
chamcter of adverse possession. 3V _  ‘x ,,,,, ,,{‘\u00ab\/\u00bb\\.-4.,\u00bb-C[\\_;” 3<\/p>\n
64. A\ufb01aer going through the above judgnentf  ‘<\/p>\n
in the aforesaid case ce:rm1n’ lands      K ‘<\/p>\n
Institute Society. However, there ‘Wen  3;} 1. j <\/p>\n
irneguiarities in the matter of  of }.’\u00a5.\\’neis..  to\u00e9<\/p>\n
gant of  Dalhoumie    as the
\nowner of said am: not oixigrzizyifiele  Qotyxna\ufb01onnilbat
\nalso by the Gove:mr1en\ufb01:.”* 1:1 ” jecognition m’
\newnezslxip, tirn:     ‘ ‘I5zali1o11sie Enstritttlte
\nsociety is  <\/p>\n
In   deceased Muniswamappa<\/p>\n
nor  of defendant as the owner<\/p>\n
 ‘~   of eiiit\u00bb property. Therefore, what has<\/p>\n
V *–.bee1i’ held, ii:1  decision is not appiicable to thecase<\/p>\n
o1ih’.a:1d..v A  V. H<\/p>\n
 x j 6E;>;v._\u00a7i1 View of the foregoing discussion and far the<\/p>\n
\u00ab   stated heminbcfore, I hold that-<\/p>\n
I. there is no speci\ufb01c plea of adverse possession
\nii. the alieged adverse possessor was not examined<\/p>\n
before trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
 failed,’ _to.VA_p:ov\u00a7”*–ti;at his wife N  had pcrfnctcd her<\/p>\n
   ncgativc.\n<\/p>\n
  R. \ufb01g: Point No.4\u00bb:\n<\/p>\n
EH. The defendant having pleaded that ”
\nin possession of suit schedule   H
\nagxeemcnt of sale
\nmiserably failed :9. _p1t:x;ft:..Ab:1i.’t1&_t:.’..
\ndelivery of posscssio\ufb01%.\/Ligindcr\u00e9aaid <\/p>\n
IV. General ‘_ of-.\u00a7atcAfi  “03~;($3.198s<\/p>\n
stated to    by deceased<\/p>\n
    proved by
\n   would rcvcai that
\n_:\u00a7{\u00e9 dgn\ufb01\ufb01sed Muniswamappa was<\/p>\n
   Sziit schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
  “In  ‘~ci:\u00a7_\u00a7:g1r.1stanccs, defendant has misexably<\/p>\n
  property by adverse possession.<\/p>\n
67_. En View of the above discussions, I answer point<\/p>\n
68. The: learned trial Judge relying on a stray sentence<\/p>\n
in the evidence of plainti\ufb01 has held that  has
\n N tax.\/'((7<\/p>\n
_ house} a<\/p>\n
 H  “veaiinoi ~bveg_iseIated out of context The alleged admission
\n  in page 14 of the mess-examination of plainti\ufb02 reads<\/p>\n
admitted possession of suit schedule property by lime’ <\/p>\n
defendant {mm the year 1976.   _<\/p>\n
It is seen from the evideizee of  ..
\nexamined on several dates
\n13.09.1995, 2I.1I.199S:*’ai1d  th1\ufb01’e1igh””eut, the
\nplaintiff has consistently     defendant is
\nin possession of    year I9′?’6.\n<\/p>\n
The learned    sentence found
\nin the   ‘1:ag…e1:\u00a7e1c1 that plainti\ufb01” has
\nadII1ittec:i.._Ath;at  is in possession of suit<\/p>\n
schedule  ” ‘year 1976 by constructing a<\/p>\n
V   “It. is. to state that evidence has to be read in<\/p>\n
 ‘  cider to appreciate evidenceia stray sentence<\/p>\n
“It is not correct to suggest that my
\nbrother has entered into an agreement of sale<\/p>\n
ax} _  1\u00a2’\u00ab\\,,x-‘–CL’.\n<\/p>\n
 the evtgiettce   has isolated a siray sentence to<\/p>\n
of defendant has perfected her title to suit<\/p>\n
  is seen \ufb01om e1oss~exaz:nination of defendant, he
\n    a categorical admission to the e\ufb01ect “I have no<\/p>\n
  to show that I am residing in the suit schedule<\/p>\n
   fp:rope11,y since 1976,\u00bb av’ C <\/p>\n
with the defendant’s wife in the year 1976. The
\ndefendants are in possession of the property  _V
\nfrom the year 1976 after constructing a house;  ~
\nis not correct to suggest that my bmthee  V’
\nexecuted a General Power of V\ufb01ttorney’  V
\nAffidavit after receiving balance  It  ‘, J 1:’
\nis not correct to suggest that   “a:*e* Vt
\nenjoying the suit
\nsince 1976.”  t   <\/p>\n
69. After going th1of\ufb021gVl\u00e9,’iIie.ei1;tire’&’evVzt;ee+<j;\u00a7cami11ation of
\nplaintiff, 1 end ':the\u00a7it" ':f3ia::'n"  "cqnsiszenuy denied' that
\ndefendant' 'This  in  of suit schedule
\npropen:}r;"'-.I\u00a7v'et1 "p3:r1';3"' .  H cted above, them is demo' I<\/p>\n
to said e\ufb01'eet;;–._V;l'heV  Judge Without appzeciating<\/p>\n
sehecmle  shy adveme possession.<\/p>\n
V poss\u00a7g\u00a7\u00a7end.i   \u00e9possidendi. T he learned trial judge<\/p>\n
    an adverse infezence for non-\n<\/p>\n
 Wife of defendant The learxzed trial judge<\/p>\n
  L by X   mung that elder brother of plainti\ufb01”
\n 4″-._V:(r3.eeeased…A\u00e9Muniswamappa) had failed to pmve that duxing
\n  :%’\u00a79a3″-$4 defendant was permitted to occupy suit
\n‘ eefiedtlle pmrperty on leave and licence bassist, has helci that<\/p>\n
 the wife of defendant had perfected title by adverse<\/p>\n
7″}. The leamed tiiai Judge has A’
\nadmission. Therefore, the learned   Llhae’   b
\nerrcneously appreciated the evidence  ve <\/p>\n
\ufb01nding of adverse possession favou rQf’defende;11f\u00a7 ” ” V<\/p>\n
72. The learned    eedsions
\ndealing with the sett1edV;’>eE:i1eAi;;1ef.’  to adverse
\npossession. The if\/8I116d:13i’\u00a7.’E.!.1 notice that
\nplea of adverse  Vie  statement is
\ndevaid of    plea of adverse
\npossessii-;n:a.._  ju\u00e9ige has \ufb01ailed to notice that<\/p>\n
defe11da11t  bade zgeithesrj \u00a71\u00a73a_\u00ab_;i\u00a7:& nior established the corpus<\/p>\n
W’ (ggi\/1.-‘\\–\u00ab—3\/’L”\\,\/”~J\u00bb’.<\/p>\n
possession. The learned trial judge has failed i” ‘  <\/p>\n
various documents relied upon b3:”defe1;;da.n:.  _
\nsu\ufb01cient to pmve the actual, co11’tizii:.1c_3t:i–:-*._i
\npossessien of suit schedule   ii<\/p>\n
of deceased Muniswamappa or 2.\n<\/p>\n
73. In a decision    330 (in the
\ncase of SAROOP  B1\u00a7m;;\u00a2hss;gpmc Court has
\nheld:–    ii is  2  A<\/p>\n
 “””    starting point of
\nliriajtaitiozz Vdees_’dnQf~s._ebz1;1n1ence \ufb01mn the date
\nwhei1._Lti3ee 1ighf.iA’of:'””‘—gi\ufb01vinership arises to the<\/p>\n
”  ieommeiaces from the date the<\/p>\n
_” ‘i\u00a5efe1idant’s f,i0s._….s\u00a23.-,.s’sio11 becomes adverse.”<\/p>\n
V   vifs\u00e9preme Court in a decision reported in
\n  (20029 3 ,\u00ab.;o:,\u20ac.ii.1i1i4 (in the ease ofMZDumr’ vs. Mama 85 0:3.)
\n.x ‘ ‘ ‘  jv ‘ ~ _ ‘_ih:w1s held:—V ii’
\ni 44    “In terms of Articles 142 and 144 of the
\nold Limitation Act, the plaintiff was bound to
\nprove his title as also possession within twelve<\/p>\n
years preceding the date of institution of the suit
\nunder the Limitation Act, 1963, once the<\/p>\n
g\\; V  xx. pa \u00bb “Ci\/\\._ .\\<\/p>\n
 V’ Mu\ufb01\u00e9drmnappa)  the defendant to occupy the<\/p>\n
  on leave and licence basis, therefore,<\/p>\n
 ‘ete suit  property by adverse possession is opposed<\/p>\n
    established by evidence on Ieoord andksettled<\/p>\n
title the burden would shift 1:0 the defendant
\nthat he has perfected his title by adverse  dd
\ntitie of plain\ufb01\ufb02 to the suit SChCdul6::.J13;I;(\u00a7I.\u00a7\u20ac11p\\g”\u00abiS
\ndefendant The learned trial judge xeee-failed V’
\ntitle of plaintiff was never Vddidddhmedhvh  sthe ‘V
\ndefendant. The defendan~i;V.&haseve eepmved iiiaeizis wife<\/p>\n
has been in possesesion   and such
\npossession waevvdvor title and the
\nsame was       of deceased<\/p>\n
Muniswamag\ufb01aeydnhd  A’<\/p>\n
75.d”*;f1ee  by the ieameti trial judge<\/p>\n
when hais  his elder bmther (deceased<\/p>\n
it iseebe  that wife of defendant has perfected title<\/p>\n
,1 \/_),\\ <\/p>\n
.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a71Che1ii\u00a7;:1eE1\u00a7\u00a7mpert)r” plainti\ufb02 within unee months \ufb01um
\nk*\u00a2\ufb02\u00e9y.\n<\/p>\n
principles of law relating to adverse posscss4joj::i}’~…V \u00a7 ‘I’h{f:*xv:.:forifi;’ -A .V <\/p>\n
the impugcd judgment and  V  . { <\/p>\n
77. In the result, Ipass . ‘   <\/p>\n
     I’<\/p>\n
The appeal  aOCAtA:p'{;;}’d _V   and decree
\ndated 12.03.1999’j.g\u00e9isse(\u00a7._ ixr:t:3.;’:S.1’fEz\u00a7:;?I’t’\u00a3VZ6\u00a2’3,lwi989 on the \ufb01le of
\nV Add}. City   set aids. The suit in
\no.s.No.-j;26″3\/  costs. The legal
\nI’cp1’escn:\ufb01aIi;J:;:sVof dcfendarxt (R-1(a) ta R-1(a) in<\/p>\n
this appeal)  quit \u00e9:ad”‘t’.’iclivnr vacmt posscssirm of suit<\/p>\n
S\u00e9f
\nEudge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court A Krishnappa vs Jayaram on 20 March, 2009 Author: N.Ananda IN THE: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT EA_1\u00a7a”GAL_<\u00a7_R\u00a3:;_.V _ name TI~\u00a7iS THE 33" DAY 01:' MARC.\u00a7(f2Q0\u00a2\u00a7i:: ._ 3 BEFORE; THE HCJNBLE MR,\u00a2\\I_{IS'FI4(j–!E',V'I\\\u00e9—ANA\u00a7\u00a7I32'\\:V Q' R.F.A,1vo.411';-$99 ;1)E:::*:V_ T BETWEEN: V' V" ' Sri.A.KIishnappa, 9 S,' 0.Ak};~':appa, V _ ' Major, " V 1Main t<oa\u00a2.\u00ab,"::v" […]<\/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-49581","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA Krishnappa vs Jayaram on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A Krishnappa vs Jayaram on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-31T21:48:34+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=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A Krishnappa vs Jayaram on 20 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-31T21:48:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":6135,\"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\\\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009\",\"name\":\"A Krishnappa vs Jayaram on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-31T21:48:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A Krishnappa vs Jayaram on 20 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A Krishnappa vs Jayaram on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A Krishnappa vs Jayaram on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-31T21:48:34+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":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A Krishnappa vs Jayaram on 20 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-31T21:48:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009"},"wordCount":6135,"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\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009","name":"A Krishnappa vs Jayaram on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-31T21:48:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-krishnappa-vs-jayaram-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A Krishnappa vs Jayaram on 20 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49581","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=49581"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49581\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49581"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49581"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49581"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}