{"id":53959,"date":"2009-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009"},"modified":"2017-06-30T02:17:49","modified_gmt":"2017-06-29T20:47:49","slug":"smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt Manjula vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt Manjula vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit<\/div>\n
1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 15'?\" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009\n\nPRESENT\n\nma HONBLE MR. RD. OINARARAN, CHIEF J'LIS*rIf(;--Rj'~v.I\n\nAND\n\nTHE I-IONBLE MR.JUSTICF;V.G.SAB\ufb01A\ufb01IT.x'  \n\nWRIT APPEAL NO.3345\/I?'Q0\u00a7'_O(OMO?S'fI,fi2I'\u00a7)  _\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nMANJULA, \nAGED ABOUT 34  _ _ ..\nw\/O.L.L;u 23,-FSOUT 38 \n ,Sf.'O.LATE.V.KE2MPALAH,\n _ NC). \"1 1.  i-CROS\u00bbS, 1 MAIN,\n\" :3I\u00a5iOV1P,rxm{A,.  ' A \"\n\nBANGALORE. 4 86.\n\n 8.SR1NIV,,f&SA,\n ,  V \" S\/V,O.LA'1\"='E.KARiYAPPA,\n\"AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,\n_ R\/-AT.NO. 105\/15, 4\"; CROSS,\n  ILMAIN, BHOVIPALYA,\n  ..._BA,NGALORE W86.\n\n9.V.RAJU.\nAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.\n\n\n\nS \/ O .VEERABHADREGOW'DA.\n\nI MAIN, SR1 KANTESHWARANAGAR.\n\nMAHALAKSHM1 LAYOUT.\nBANGALORE -- 86.\n\nIO.D.S.SUB A,\n\nAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.\nS\/O.D.VENIQ\u00b0xTA REDDY.\nR\/AT.NO.1O241~, '77\" CROSS.\n\nI MAIN, VIJAYANANDANAGAR,\n SHM1 LAYOUT, O\nBANGALORE M 86.\n\nI1.N.MUNIRAJU, .  \nAGED ABOUT 37 YEA'Rs;j;~ --\n\nS\/ONARAYANAPPA, __  \nR\/O CI~iANNAYAKANAPAI..Y_A., '\nDASANAPURA HOBLI, ;' '\n\nBANGALOREs__NO':2I'H TL4\\LUK:\n\n   '--R1;3SPONDENTS\n\n[BY SR1 R.O1,KO'::;LiV,  AND R-2\nSR1 T.S\u00a5\u00a3ESFiAGIR\u00a3__ RAQ. ,ADv';---ROR R3 TO R-1 1)\n\n \"\"*,=..>:x==22.~:==a==re:z<\n\nTHIS WRIT APPEZAL IS FILED U\/S 4 OF THE\nKARNATAKA HEGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE\n THE;_ ORDER "PASSED IN WRIT PETITION 330.1795\/2009\n' '  _ DfxTED;.A'24;-7'\/2009'; """ \n\n  -   O.1j'H:zs:.'vxrR;T APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS\n" DAY J., DELNERED THE FOLLOWING:--\n\nNT\n\nJUDGME\n\ndated 24.77.2009 wherein the learned Single Judge of\n\nK}\n\n   This appeal is \ufb02ied by the petitioner in Writ\n\n....I7-'*\u00a7eti1:iOn NO1795\/2009, being aggrieved by the Order\n\n\n\n4\n\nthis Court has declined to interfere with the certificate\n\ndated 13.8.2008 issued by the 2"" respondent -.E5i'strict<\/pre>\n
Registrar and Deputy Commissioner <\/p>\n
Bangalore Rural District at AnneXu1’\u20ac~A \u20ac\u00a7l_Sl_A’61f1dof.rsed long i <\/p>\n
the agreement dated
\npetition. V l l V l l<\/p>\n
2. The     \ufb01led
\nW.P.l\\lo.1795\/2009   Nos.3 to<\/p>\n
11 have filed 0.S.Nof.14S\u00a7.Q’\/20.08 the Civil Judge<\/p>\n
{Sr.Dn’.l];’lVlBarigalld’r’e   Bangalore, against
\nthe   two minor children seeking<\/p>\n
for specified”perforrnancelof the alleged agreement of sale<\/p>\n
 36′.6.”i3.O07 ilnmlrespect of agricultural land bearing<\/p>\n
 of Mallapura village, Kasaba Hobli,<\/p>\n
Neiamaziigailealtaluk, measuring 4 acres 37 guntas. The<\/p>\n
 said a agreement was got up at the instance of<\/p>\n
sglvrlesplondent I\\Eos.3 to 11 and the brother of the<\/p>\n
-\u00bb-pfetitioner. Respondent Nos.3 to 11 got signed the<\/p>\n
agreement from the petitioner drawn up on a stamp<\/p>\n
kin<\/p>\n
paper of RS200\/W and after filing of the suit, the
\npetitioner noticed from the said agreement that the<\/p>\n
possession of the land is also shown as havinsggheven<\/p>\n
handed over to respondent Nos.3 to 11. _”Ehere”*t\u00a5:If’a-s<\/p>\n
such agreement wherein the petitione’r hV’as..fvag1*e’ed “to <\/p>\n
hand over possession nor ‘has_A_As”shes”- par1ed”s_s:”‘wAi’th<\/p>\n
possession of the land. T191-e_:”8\u00a7f<* respondent to"?<\/p>\n
have given a letter;-'.it:O the~ .2'n.<i'"~respondentVE–District
\nRegistrar and Dep\ufb02utyf'  of Stamps,<\/p>\n
Bangalore   for~.s.s"_adjt1\u00e9i'ication of proper<\/p>\n
starnjj"    duty of Rs.20\/– on
\n13.8.2zO(V)'8- andvspvthifjepv2"".:res~pondent, without holding any<\/p>\n
enqjiiry or" r_nain'tainin\u00a7g any records in his office as<\/p>\n
 resqtiired "t1nderdsV'Iai7dQ, appears to have collected the<\/p>\n
 ai_Ieged"'–det\u00e9c~it:'.i.~stamp duty of Rs.16,20,100\/~\u00bb from the<\/p>\n
3Y\u00a2i~..__respcndent and endorsed the same on the second<\/p>\n
 pagessoftsthe agreement dated 3.3.200"\/Awherein, it is<\/p>\n
is 'tipcerti\ufb01ed inter alia that stamp duty has been collected<\/p>\n
  -\u00bbv–tinder Article 5[e) (i) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957<\/p>\n
and that the document is duiy stamped. The certified<\/p>\n
\\w\/”*><\/p>\n
copy of the agreement dated 6.6.200′? was filed in<\/p>\n
O.S.No. 1490\/2008. T he petitioner approached.Vthe~.,2ii<1<\/p>\n
respondent with a request to furnish the  <\/p>\n
of the entire proceedings held on the ap_pIicati_on"fit1ed by"<\/p>\n
respondent No.3 herein. 21"? re.spo"rid'eni;t._inforrned_th.e<\/p>\n
petitioner that no proceedings… are held to".eo'i1eet..defieit*.0'<\/p>\n
stamp duty and a surn of \u00a5'is._'coi:leeted by
\nlooking into the copy -produced by the
\nparty and eeiiified 0' computing the
\nstamp duty   availabie to the
\npetitioner."  copy of the application
\nfiled  .r2eepent1ettt.No:. \u00a7_3 dated 13.8.2008 before the sine<\/p>\n
re9PDndenht""  niadd\u00e9: available and the same is<\/p>\n
"V""'e.pr:}d.'tieed  Antie\u00a7:ttre–B to the writ petition. It is<\/p>\n
 that being aggrieved by the said<\/p>\n
end.orseme'fit,t writ petition is filed for quashing the said<\/p>\n
"'endors'ei\u00abi"1ent dated 13.8.2008 and the agreement of sale<\/p>\n
   6.6.2007, contending that the 2"" respondent has<\/p>\n
  -\u00bbv.nFot held any enquiry as contemplated under Section 31<\/p>\n
of the Karnataka Stamp Act and has failed to exercise<\/p>\n
‘\\,.\n<\/p>\n
\\,_,>><\/p>\n
statutory power and therefore, the impugned<\/p>\n
endorsement is liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
3. The learned Single judge,  V’ <\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the p:etitionei’,..lthe’learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for res’po__ndentsl”3  <\/p>\n
learned High Court Governrnent Header: appearing for
\nrespondent Nos.1 and  o1;:f_der”Vdjatied’b 24.7.2009, held
\nthat Section 3.1. of  Act does not<\/p>\n
contemplat.-:-5.,    it llilmplroceeding and<\/p>\n
if any”    notice of the Deputy
\nComrnissioner’ of the officer as to the stamp<\/p>\n
duty. ,Charg’cahl’-e.  said document and payable<\/p>\n
thereoifi; the concerned authority Viz., the Deputy<\/p>\n
 determine the duty with which the<\/p>\n
inst.rur}:1en:ti’~w’  chargeable and sub-section of (2) of<\/p>\n
 Section-331 would come into play only when the Deputy<\/p>\n
 . l ‘Comrnissioner is of the View that af\ufb01davit and some<\/p>\n
 -~–other evidence is required for determination of the<\/p>\n
stamp duty payable and he can call upon the persenter<\/p>\n
to produce such evidence and in the present case, sale<\/p>\n
consideration under the agreement is .p”about<\/p>\n
Rs.2,16,00,000\/- Statement of objections  <\/p>\n
respondent No.2 indicating that the valt1_e:”‘refieLeted K<\/p>\n
the agreement to sell is much <\/p>\n
VEi.l1.1\u20ac determined by the: _competent avultholrilty<\/p>\n
hence, respondent No.2 did   ‘necelssaiiy to call
\nupon the applicant  evidence by
\nway of an af\ufb01davit aspptovihthe Value of the<\/p>\n
land and  was: co_nter.o.plated. The learned<\/p>\n
Single ‘iJnldge’:iVffnrt:hVe1″   View of the decision of
\nthe Homes  in GOVERNMENT or<\/p>\n
UTT\u00a5*R PRAD.ESHrsANiD”oTHERs Vs. RAJA MOHAMMED<\/p>\n
 Amii\u00e9i AH1\\\/IED K”H’ANll(AiR 1961 so 787), no limitation is<\/p>\n
  regalrding seeking of opinion as to the duty<\/p>\n
payablerand accordingly, held that there is no merit in<\/p>\n
  petition and dismissed the same. Being<\/p>\n
  aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the writ<\/p>\n
  petitioner has preferred this writ appeal.<\/p>\n
\\.__f:>\u00b0<\/p>\n
4. We have heard the learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the appellant and the learned Governrnent<\/p>\n
AdV0C3t”3 aPDeariI1g for respondent Nos. 1  ”    .<\/p>\n
5. The learned counsel 1’_ap’pearirigl’ for”—..t’hTe<\/p>\n
appellant submitted that the”~1.earned: Single  was-it<\/p>\n
not justified in disrnissirig petition”  holding
\nthat the endorsement Vi:ll2\u00a3f1′<1_vrespondent on
\nthe agreemevrlpaf sailed by accepting
\nstamp dutyjgiilstified. The learned
\n   of the provisions of
\nSections the Karnataka Stamp Act, the<\/p>\n
document lc'ould..not"'-have been validated after expiry of<\/p>\n
'l V' "–ithee~-pei:iod"i'of limitation prescribed under the above said<\/p>\n
 the Writ petition ought to have<\/p>\n
been al_1oived A.\n<\/p>\n
  The learned Government Advocate submitted<\/p>\n
 .._that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is<\/p>\n
V justified as the stamp duty has been collected on the<\/p>\n
\\’><\/p>\n
10<\/span>
\nagreement of sale and endorsement has been made. In<\/p>\n
any View of the matter, the suit filed by the 3″‘<\/p>\n
respondent in the writ petition is pending consideration<\/p>\n
and all contentions can be taken at the time <\/p>\n
agreement of sale is sought to be marked. <\/p>\n
7. We have given carefi\ufb02 co_nside’i_*at’1on~ tQ”the~,<\/p>\n
contentions of the learnec1′–._,{;{jL1nsel  the’<\/p>\n
parties and scrutinize”d..V_the .rnaterial”on record.”<\/p>\n
1’33.’   on llreclord would clearly show
\nthat  to 11 have \ufb01led<\/p>\n
O.SiVNo.l4iQ()\/2008 Aonllvthe file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn),<\/p>\n
E3an.,lc:\u00a7al.ore”l’ Rural llll “lvDistr1’ct, seeking for speci\ufb01c<\/p>\n
 the agreement of sale dated 6.6.2007<\/p>\n
and__ it forrespondent Nos.3 to 11 to prove the said<\/p>\n
agreement and the requisite conditions for seeking<\/p>\n
A’ ‘specific performance of agreement of sale and that the<\/p>\n
it  -\u00abagreement has been entered into in accordance with law<\/p>\n
and that could be done only by producing the<\/p>\n
\\’_#}1’?\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
agreement of sale in the suit. if the agreement of sale<\/p>\n
was not properly stamped or there was any in<\/p>\n
the endorsement made by 2136 respondent <\/p>\n
Registrar and Deputy Commissioner oft’<\/p>\n
agreement of sale dated 6.6.2007,   almfagrs <\/p>\n
the appellant herein to raise\u00e9lobjection  the”<\/p>\n
said agreement of sale.’dated-“6l..6:;2’0’07 in \ufb01tlriei evidence of
\nthe plaintiff in  the Court
\nwill decide   said document
\nin regard to the stamp duty<\/p>\n
paid onMthe..agreerncnl:\u00bb..of sale was also the endorsement<\/p>\n
made by the Zi\u00e9ftriespo-nd’erit and this Court, in exercise<\/p>\n
of power u’nd.VervAi*tic’}eV’2..26 of the Constitution of India,<\/p>\n
 ‘limited .jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the<\/p>\n
 the endorsement made by 2nd<\/p>\n
resp_onden_tf:oln the agreement of sale dated 6.6.2007.<\/p>\n
 “therefore, keep open the said question about the<\/p>\n
  admissibility of the agreement of sale dated 6.6.2007 in<\/p>\n
…eTtridence in O.S.l\\lo.l490\/2008 with liberty to the<\/p>\n
appellant herein to raise all objections regarding<\/p>\n
\\;’>’<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
admissibility of the said document including payment of
\nappropriate stamp duty on the document and-,ythe<\/p>\n
endorsement made by the 29″ responden.t…_”f-Distrilcty<\/p>\n
Registrar and Deputy Commissioner Starr1mp’s~,_Bangllalor*ep’ <\/p>\n
Rural District. We hold that itl_:li’s3 <\/p>\n
interfere with the order passed lbyllthe lcealirzied <\/p>\n
Judge and keep open the llcolntentions referred to
\nabove to be urged the ofadmission of the
\ndocument -agreementofihsialell_date’d*B.’r’3;2i’)07 in the suit<\/p>\n
   the objections<\/p>\n
taken:v’llby’c’  shall be considered in
\naccordance  appropriate time in the suit<\/p>\n
without b\u00e9ingl iiifiuenced by the observations made by<\/p>\n
it it \u00b0-the-learnedSinglellldudge on the merits of the case. We<\/p>\n
1-..do;~not.Wits}; toexpress any opinion on the merits of the<\/p>\n
case asthel question of urging the admissibility of<\/p>\n
vlagreernent of sale in evidence has been kept open and<\/p>\n
  any-observation will prejudice the case of the parties.<\/p>\n
x?=<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
Accordingly. the writ appeal is disposed of w1’f,h_.1:_he<\/p>\n
above said observations.\n<\/p>\n
Chigf.\n<\/p>\n
Index: Yes\/No  .\n<\/p>\n
Web Host ‘E*\u00e9s\/N\u00e9i\ufb02<\/p>\n
bkv*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt Manjula vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2009 Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15′?” DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009 PRESENT ma HONBLE MR. RD. OINARARAN, CHIEF J’LIS*rIf(;–Rj’~v.I AND THE I-IONBLE MR.JUSTICF;V.G.SAB\ufb01A\ufb01IT.x’ WRIT APPEAL NO.3345\/I?’Q0\u00a7’_O(OMO?S’fI,fi2I’\u00a7) _ BETWEEN: MANJULA, AGED ABOUT 34 […]<\/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-53959","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Manjula vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 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\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Manjula vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-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=\"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-29T20:47:49+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Manjula vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T20:47:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1463,\"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\\\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt Manjula vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T20:47:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Manjula vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 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":"Smt Manjula vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 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\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Manjula vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-29T20:47:49+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Manjula vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T20:47:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009"},"wordCount":1463,"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\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009","name":"Smt Manjula vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T20:47:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-manjula-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Manjula vs State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 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\/53959","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=53959"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53959\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53959"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53959"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53959"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}