{"id":54731,"date":"2010-09-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-13T22:04:56","modified_gmt":"2016-06-13T16:34:56","slug":"smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt Munisanjeevamma vs L Muniyappa on 7 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt Munisanjeevamma vs L Muniyappa on 7 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda<\/div>\n
  ('EsyES\"ri T.K.Rajagopala, Adv.)\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 7\" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. vENuGOPALAj\"GOwDA1:.T.\n\nWRIT PETITION NOJ4436\/2010 (G1M\u00bbcfRm' 'Alf    \n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1. Smt. Munisanjeevamma,  \nW\/o. late Ramaiah, ' \nAged 64 years.\n\n2. Munishankar,\nS\/0. late Ramaiah,\nAged 39 ye_arS. \n\n3. R.Seen'a,\u20ac):;I.?:E3\u00bbT'  _  --\nS\/01. iate. RarT:a\u00ab.i_ejh,. p __ - '\nAged'.37..years,>.  \n\n4. R._R,av:,' _ .. .\n $4;?O.vIEate Ram'aia__h,H.v\n _ Aged 33 E'years.\n\n. -An.aTAre\"'~R,\/aaiR'e-z~ao.10 (old No.4\/1)\nV4'-\" Cross-,'3._L\u00e9kshmaiah Garden,\ni\\E'ear'*--.Sri'n\"Evagilu Village,\n  Viv\u20ac:!~V:V_I_'=.3-agar Post,\n2  \" B-aungalore ~-- 560 047.\n' * :PETIT3:ONERS\n\n\n\nAND:\n1. L.Muniyappa,\nAged 69 years.\n\n2. Lchikkamuniyappa,\nAged 64 years. \n\n3. L.Chinnanna,\nAged 59 years. _\n(AEE are S\/0. late Lakhmaiah'}.._V.\n\n4. C.Ramesh,\nS\/0. Chikkamuniyap'\"pa._,\nAged 33 years.  \n\nS. Maduramma,..  A\n\nW\/o. L.Chi_n.na.p'p.a, \n\nAged 54 years;  . \" \nAll R\/0. l\\Eo.4--,\/21,\u00bb4'\"'C--roSS,~  \nLakshhiaitaiii Gatf':J\"en\",',t--.  \"\n\nNear Srinivavgifu'villaig\u00e9p -- '\nViveiaznagar Posit\ufb01y   \nBangal'ere*----v 560 404?.' \n\n_ C,       :RESPONDEl\\lTS\n\n(\ufb01iy M\/s. Y.R;Sadasiyva Reddy & Associates, Advs.\n\n. \"~fo'r R3. 8-.tR3;  \"\"\" \n. V--.Sri .,S.SL:.da--rsana Reddy, Sri K.Venkata Sudheer &\n\n   _.S'ri-- l3::;N_;3a'giaVtieesh Babu, Advs. for R2, R4 & R5)\n\nit i._4:'VdThis.'pet'il\u00a3tion is filed under Articies 226 and 227 of\nthe Constitution of India praying to set aside the impugned\n\n-.-e._'\"-.order \"dated 6.3.2010 at Annexure ---- S passed in\n A \"V--,O*.S...l\u00a7lo.10732\/2006 by the Court of the XLIV Addl. City\n \"--CiviE  Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH~-45).\n\nThis petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'\n\nit  -group this day, the Court made the foilowing.\n\n\n\nQQDER\nPetitioners -- plaintiffs have instituted the suit\nagainst respondents - defendants, seeking reiief of<\/pre>\n
deciaration of titie and possession in respect of the Vs’u_itv’.A’<\/p>\n
and ‘B’ scheduie properties. The petitionersya’:-u.ed.l__:the<\/p>\n
properties for the purpose of payment of  <\/p>\n
S.7(2) of Karnataka Court Fees and <\/p>\n
1958 (for short, the Act) asV.if.4.they”‘a_re* agricu*lituraAi lajjnlds <\/p>\n
iiable to pay land revenue. ll”P..esp_ondlen.tsi’flied’; written
\nstatement to the suit  it yiiasl.lce.ntei:.<ied that. the suit<\/p>\n
scheciuie'llllprepiertiesl'arefnotllagricuitural iands and the
\nvaiuatioln andthe'*.c:ou'irt..l_fee:lpaid are incorrect. The Triai<\/p>\n
Courthas rram'edttpae'~:ssu\u00e9s. Issue No.9 is with regard to<\/p>\n
  cou'rt'**–fee paid by the piaintiffs. Said issue<\/p>\n
'trie'd:_;as"i'a:psfeiiminary issue and it has been heid that<\/p>\n
the,_.lplilaintifii.\u00e9i.V_have not paid the correct court fee and they<\/p>\n
lg_are iiabie to pay court fee by separateiy valuing the<\/p>\n
'*:i."prop'eArty as per estimated market value as on the date of<\/p>\n
  the suit. Office objections regarding court fee was upheld<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
\/'<\/p>\n
\/'<\/p>\n
and issue 9 was answered in the negative. Aggrieved, the<\/p>\n
piaintiffs have filed this writ petition.<\/p>\n
2. Sri T.K.Rajagopaia, learned    *<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioners firstiy~~contended’:’–that,.4_’_the_<\/p>\n
View of the Trial Court that the \u00a7:;it’.’sc~iiediiuie’i <\/p>\n
have to be valued on the matri\u00a7’etV_vaiij’eV_is~oVp’pose’d*V~to*”the * L’<\/p>\n
decision reported at  .1995V(i}…)VV:'”LSC’C_ STEATE OF
\nKARNATAKA AND OTHVE’i–i.’::i.TEXTILE MILLS
\nLTD.). Secondv|y_,:”tt_}e  atieen converted
\nfor  of the Karnataka
\nLand  tth\u00e9ettvtproperties are situated in
\nthe BBMP  of paying court fee on the<\/p>\n
market value of.th–e Apuroperties does not arise. Reliance<\/p>\n
“”\u00ab…Was.__”‘:p|aa:edi.Aon “th’e”~”decision reported in the case of<\/p>\n
   NANJUNDASWAMY & OTHERS, reported in<\/p>\n
II._R__’2too5pAKARXHC) S.i\\l.20. Thirdiy, to pass the impugned<\/p>\n
‘yorder, reiiance piaced on the decision reported in ILR<\/p>\n
 KAR 60 (J.ivi. NARAYANA AND OTHERS Vs.<\/p>\n
CORPORATION OF THE CITY or BANGALORE AND<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
OTHERS) is incorrect as the said decision has no<\/p>\n
application to the present case.\n<\/p>\n
3. Sri Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, learned adpvocate<\/p>\n
appearing for the respondents, on the <\/p>\n
submitted that the properties are situated   <\/p>\n
iimits. The suit schedule properties.-a.re not..a’gric~iii-tiirei.’<\/p>\n
lands but are piots as is evide’nt_\\froniit_he des.cr’ipAtl:on given <\/p>\n
in the piaint scheduie. Learnedtcounsei  retifiance on
\nthe decision in the casef–of  (supra) and
\nSubmitted that the 5FUDil1:.Q’ned..tA\u00ab\u00a7i’d’er’t’i’:ni._’* the facts and<\/p>\n
circumf;ta’n’ces’f’of th3%e”‘ca’set.”is justified and no interference is
\ncaiied ray. L 2 ‘<\/p>\n
 heard: the learned counsel on both<\/p>\n
 and~vl.navinVg””p’e’rdsed the writ petition papers, the<\/p>\n
 ,__point’foiricontsiwdejration is:<\/p>\n
‘A  isirrationai or iilegal?” \\u<\/p>\n
“Wheth.ei’ the order passed by the Trial Court on
\nissue No.9 with regard to insufficiency of court fee<\/p>\n
\/3<\/p>\n
‘n<\/p>\n
5. The suit is for the reiief of declaration,<\/p>\n
possession and injunction in respect of the two i.teril\u00ab.si’of<\/p>\n
the suit scheduie properties. The valuation  .<\/p>\n
plaintiffs wouid show that they h_a.yeg__vaiu’ed”‘iisubject <\/p>\n
matter of the suit treating the suit-.  as;<\/p>\n
agrictliturai iands and have p’ai’d-._the courtufe\u00e9; a7ti._’2v5yVtii”nes \u00bb L’<\/p>\n
the iand revenue with regard  relief and
\npermanent injunction  Act. The office
\nof the Triai Court upor}.”s’crutiny of the suit,
\nraised objection   of court fee
\npaid onthe”pla’i’:Vi1t.i:::_’ also raised objections
\nin that–,_ regardii’-“inv.._:ti1egi’i~.,”Ai;vir_itten statement. Issue 9 as
\naiready   to the insufficiency of court
\nfee  on the  f<\/p>\n
 i\ufb01gnquiry has takenplace. Evidence of PW–1<\/p>\n
  the properties soio under Exs.D3 and D4<\/p>\n
 are \u00e9situatehdywithin the BBEVEP area and the property sold<\/p>\n
uV””..j\u00bb..i:ndie.r  is adjacent to Sy. No.4\/1 i.e., the suit<\/p>\n
 ptoijperty. PW–1 has admitted that buildings have been<\/p>\n
is<\/p>\n
\/’<\/p>\n
( 4<\/p>\n
constructed after the suit and that the area is deveioped
\nby the side of ring road in Eajipura. Defendants have<\/p>\n
produced Exs.D1 to D44 i.e., partition deed, khata_,e):\u00a7tralct,<\/p>\n
c <\/p>\n
notices from the BBMP, receipt for pa\u00a7rMrn’ent;-i._fo’i.___, _<\/p>\n
development charges, copy of__ the.'””‘a-ppl,ications,v”<\/p>\n
photographs etc. to show that Zthegsuit <\/p>\n
situated within the BBMP area.,__ 1Ex.’:)ts, is’,:t’t~:e..ic;az.ette <\/p>\n
Notification showing that Eajip_tii”ra:_Villageand’ Srinivagilu
\nVillage and the adjoinViri:gV:,”BDiA have been brought<\/p>\n
within the iirnitsaof the~Corporatio_n”.\u00abofVfiiiityli of Bangalore.<\/p>\n
indisptttedly, 7the\u00ab\u00a7i1\u00a7j’ibtopertiesV.are;s,i’tu’a’t’\u00e9d at BBMP limits.
\nNo record ‘V’pro’d.nTced* by the plaintiffs to show that
\nthe suit \u00abpro4_pertie’s hafve’:”c<)"ntinued to be agricultural lands<\/p>\n
evegnhgfafter inci'bs_ion inithe BBMP area, as on the date the<\/p>\n
visuiitiwas insti'ttited.\n<\/p>\n
~_7″.\u00bb.__”_in_’the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND<\/p>\n
OThi’ERS.f.”v*{isn.pra), the questions which arose for<\/p>\n
‘i._Vconsidera;tion were (1) Whether the land can be deemed to<\/p>\n
A i~fj’*ha{r\u00e9*~._.been permitted to be converted Rog non–agricultural<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
-\\<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
use merely because it was used for non–agrlcultural
\npurpose although, admittedly, no permission under<\/p>\n
S.95(2) of the Land Revenue Act was taken, to do so,’;”~–._(2)<\/p>\n
Whether under S.79–B of the Karnataka Land Re.fo_’rrnS’4’i?lct’,’ up<\/p>\n
the land vests in the State Government prospectivelyVvfrornf ‘  <\/p>\n
the date of Notification or retrospecti’ve’i*,*,_from of’.<\/p>\n
coming into operation of the Act. ih_eis_sue w,i_th”regard’–to”~.<\/p>\n
the valuation to be made and”~vilu:iVa’biiity”‘fee in V<\/p>\n
terms of the provisions “tsh,der.V*t’h’e”\/lothaving not arisen not
\nconsidered in the said’ Vcaise,-\ufb01inv .l’_’o.pi’nion, the said
\ndecision has  ‘1’appiicati’o.n -fort”.j_’~d,ete\u00a7rhination of the
\nquestion whicphharisevfor-.consid-eration on I.A.9 filed in the
\nTrial Court,” ~<\/p>\n
  In .case, of R.Al\\lANDA (supra), noticing that<\/p>\n
 th’e–\u00bb_,pr’oVpertyV””w_as an agricultural land, assessment was<\/p>\n
‘revenue authority, RTC extracts produced<\/p>\n
-V show that: it ‘was an agricultural land and was not assessed<\/p>\n
 “jto the Corporation taxes and had not lost its agricultural<\/p>\n
—  character, it was held that the Trial Cog’: had committed<\/p>\n
\/”\n<\/p>\n
\/’<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
an error in calling upon the petitioner to pay additional
\ncourt fee by filing a fresh valuation slip. While passing the
\nsaid order, the Division Bench decision in the case of 3.M.<\/p>\n
NARAYANA (supra) has not been brought to the n.oti\u00bbceI.of<\/p>\n
the Court and appears to have not been<\/p>\n
consideration, the case has been>AHVdecide*d”‘on.the =f_a\u00ab:t’  it<\/p>\n
situation obtained therein. I i<\/p>\n
9. In the case of  <\/p>\n
property had stood included  the'<3or'po'rat'i'onlimits<\/p>\n
in terms of a Notification\ufb02issuecl' e\u00e9i:i\u00e9'r-._to the'"fiEi'ng of the<\/p>\n
suit.' A:s"'a'Vl'res'u,lt  it was held that taxes
\napplicalziie"withinplthie.C'orpo.ra.tion limits would by operation<\/p>\n
of law andi'u~nd'er_sub~~._\u00a7'Section 4 of S4 of the Municipal<\/p>\n
Act,V"Vbe-come applicable to the extended area<\/p>\n
further held that even assuming the land in<\/p>\n
question_walsliagricultural land before its inclusion in the<\/p>\n
<._Corporation limits, the same would not necessarily mean<\/p>\n
 either has continued to pay land revenue or such<\/p>\n
 land was exempted from payment of the property tax<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
\/'<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
under the Land Revenue Act. S.110 of the Karnataka
\nMunicipai Corporation Act, 19376 which covers the payment<\/p>\n
of property tax qua oniy such iands are registered. <\/p>\n
revenue records of the Government and has act’ual!’yr~..u:s3ed4 <\/p>\n
for cultivation of crops was noticed and it. that”  <\/p>\n
just because of a iand being inclu_ded..4ginj. the’:i.Cor’pol\u00bba’:fiAon<\/p>\n
limits is registered or used for.4_agric”ui_tu’rai puirppsei would <\/p>\n
not imply that the said iand co’ntin_ue_s toiipayiandigrevenue
\nunder the Land Revenue\u00e9ct  Land
\nRevenue Act wouid  the property
\nis brought  The appeilant
\nthereiri-,_Aha_d~ was not paying any land
\nrevenue’inc:tiie_ia’nd’in since for the iand was in<\/p>\n
the_(\u00a7o”rporatio’ii~i question of the owner being liable<\/p>\n
 ttoupa~y yvlandtjyrevenue on the property does not arise. The<\/p>\n
“m_a’t.teir”w:\u00e9i’s.V_e;rarhined with respect to S.? of the Act and it<\/p>\n
_ has””bee~n: .heid as follows:\n<\/p>\n
it *  ”  There is another angle from which the issue can<\/p>\n
   ..u5be viewed. Section 7 of the Karnataka Court Fees<\/p>\n
and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 creates a legal fiction<\/p>\n
’92<\/p>\n
1}<\/p>\n
regarding the market value of lands that form an
\nentire estate or a definite share of an estate are
\nconcerned. A closer reading of Section 7(2)(i3)
\nwould show that not only should the land be an
\nentire estate or a definite share of an estate-;._:i:’3_ul_t’~\u00bb.iVt<\/p>\n
must be paying annual revenue to the Governr:1:e_nt,__”~<\/p>\n
The expression “paying annual revenuVe’1ftoth’e~il_’ <\/p>\n
Government” in Section 7(2)(‘b’)’–~is. significalrit andkin-.A<\/p>\n
our opinion implies that the li’_ai3i’iityV_to _:’pa:yi7i~a.nti.j<\/p>\n
revenue must be ciear,\u00bban__c_l subs,iv_sting oi*1’\u00e9;Vi.:1Vn cases <\/p>\n
where such liability ceas\u00e9sito exist”o_n”ac’t:ou*nt of the
\nincorporation of .—the area-. :witi=.i_!1 the”-limiiyts of a
\nMunicipal Corpora’tio'”n.,_ the\u00a7.yla:ri{:i-Vicannot be said to be<\/p>\n
paying annual revenuelto.Atlie’\u00b0Govern’ment. That is<\/p>\n
be’calu’se}vfthe’Aiifiabiilityto any such revenue must
\nbe dielernedlitoilhavvepceased from the moment the<\/p>\n
lands-its iinclu’clei:l.:’in ithe\u00e9\u00e9extended Corporation limits.”<\/p>\n
_;’1lo;. The his Court, rightly following the decision in<\/p>\n
  :of.:3:.’i!iV._ NARAYANA (supra), has held that the suit<\/p>\n
alllasth.._b\u00abeeii””_u.nd~e’i’vaiued and the plaintiffs are required to<\/p>\n
V. sepa’rate’l:y’vvalue the properties as per the estimated<\/p>\n
pmairltetvalue as on the date of the suit and pay the court<\/p>\n
  fee;’ The direction issued for filing of the valuation slip and<\/p>\n
law<\/p>\n
\/’I’<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
12′<\/p>\n
payment of the correct court fee in the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case cannot be heici to b_ev..V_e-ither<\/p>\n
irrationai or iliegai.\n<\/p>\n
In the resuit, the writ petition fails  nu<\/p>\n
dismissed. The petitioners –~ p|ai.nti?fs”ivare’-giarnenii <\/p>\n
weeks’ time from today to fiie-fresh Vai21_atioVn”-.sIi’o:and”jpay ” it<\/p>\n
the difference of court fee in th.e-;fri–ai”Court.”‘  <\/p>\n
 i i  iuaqe<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt Munisanjeevamma vs L Muniyappa on 7 September, 2010 Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda (‘EsyES”ri T.K.Rajagopala, Adv.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 7″ DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. vENuGOPALAj”GOwDA1:.T. WRIT PETITION NOJ4436\/2010 (G1M\u00bbcfRm’ ‘Alf BETWEEN: 1. Smt. Munisanjeevamma, W\/o. late Ramaiah, ‘ Aged […]<\/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-54731","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Munisanjeevamma vs L Muniyappa on 7 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Munisanjeevamma vs L Muniyappa on 7 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-13T16:34:56+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=\"10 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-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Munisanjeevamma vs L Muniyappa on 7 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-13T16:34:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1769,\"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-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt Munisanjeevamma vs L Muniyappa on 7 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-13T16:34:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Munisanjeevamma vs L Muniyappa on 7 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/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":"Smt Munisanjeevamma vs L Muniyappa on 7 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Munisanjeevamma vs L Muniyappa on 7 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-13T16:34:56+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Munisanjeevamma vs L Muniyappa on 7 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-13T16:34:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010"},"wordCount":1769,"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-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010","name":"Smt Munisanjeevamma vs L Muniyappa on 7 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-13T16:34:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-munisanjeevamma-vs-l-muniyappa-on-7-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Munisanjeevamma vs L Muniyappa on 7 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/54731","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=54731"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54731\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54731"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54731"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54731"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}