{"id":65318,"date":"2010-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-01-10T02:16:40","modified_gmt":"2016-01-09T20:46:40","slug":"junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Junjanna vs Kariyanna on 29 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Junjanna vs Kariyanna on 29 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Jawad Rahim<\/div>\n
 .. \"AND\n\n1\nIN THE HIGH COURT 0!' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 29\"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE I-|ON'BLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD \n\nR. .A. No. 1207 2009\nBETWEEN:   \n\n1. JUNJANNA\nAGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. _\nS\/O PJUNJANNA ' '-\n\n2. SR1 RANGANAHALLI HA!\\E_UM\u00bbAN'7EHAPPA\u00ab_Vv_ \nS\/O P.JUN3ANNA\"~~._ A '\u00a7  \" \"\nAGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.  ;\nR\/O GOMARANAHALLI,  A\nHOSUR POST,   A \nSIRA TA.~LUK_ .'* \n\n3. NARASIMHANNA  \" \nS\/O 'DR,J'uNJANN.DAT' \n, AGED 'ABOUT S3-YEARS\n 1 TO 3 ALLAREAT\nR-ESIDENT OFKRANGANAHALL1\n  HOSORTKPOST)\n TG_Ow'DA6E\u00bbRE HOBLI\n SIRE\"-TALUK TUMKUR DIST\n    PETITIONERS\nA '(By SR1 G S BALAGANGADHAR, ADv.,)\n\n  KARIYANNA\n\nAGED ABOUT 66 YEARS\n\n\n\n\n\n[Q\n\n2\n\n5\/0 SIRADA BHUTHANNA\n\nSANNA BHUTHANNA\nAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS\nS\/O SIRADA BHUTHANNA\nR\/O KRANGANAHALLI\nHOSUR (RDST)\nGOWDAGERE HOBLI\nSIRA TALUK\n\nTUMKUR DIST.\n\nSMT. PUTTAMMA\n\nAGED ABOUT 69 YEARS\nw\/0 LATE KARIYANNAJ \n\nSR1 RAMESH  S\nAGED ABOUT 21 ,Y.EARS,-~~-- _ 'A _\nS\/O LATE KARIYANEIA   A A A\n\nSRISIDDAIAH     \nAGED ABO:UT_15;YEARS _  \nMINOR \u00a72EF'P;ESEi':\u00a7TEl_D\"\"BY_'CQURT----GUARDIAN\n\nSR1 RAR1SANATH.A'R9_A K A\nAv.DvocATE;\"-SI'RA'\"=._  ' A\n3 TO '5% R\/O, K;KTPA._LYAv~\"\nHULIKUNTE HOBL1. \n\n,S1_RA T'A.;,u~:<,v'-Tu'M KUR DIST\n\n S\u00bb--MT."T'RAJAMM'A' A\n\nAGED .ABOUT 25 YEARS\n\n wf\/-0 'RANGANATHA\n\n D\/o.iLAT:E KARIYAN NA\n AGEULAEBOURT 25 YEARS\n\n  "R"\/QEHONNENAHALLI\n GQWDAGERE HOBLI\n'  SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST\n\nEAKUMARA\n\nAGED ABOUT 36 YEARS\nS\/O LATE RAMANNA\n\n\n\n3\n\nAGED ABOURT 36,R\/O K.K.PALYA\nHULIKUNTE HOBLI\n\nSIRA TALUK\n\nTUMKUR DIST\n\nSIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST\n\n3. SMT. PARVATHAMMA\n\nAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS\n\nw\/O JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUR\n\n43 YEARS R\/O KRANGANAHALLI\n\nHOSUR (POST)   \n\nGOWDAGERE HOBLI I\n\nSIRA TALUK V  \n\nTUMKUR DIST      \n\n  .. RES.P.G=ND'ENTS" \n\n(By SRI L DAYANANDA, ADv_., FOR C\/RI'& 2):\n\nRSA FILED U\/S~..,_ 100" 'Or "GPO AGAINST THE\nJUDGEMENT & DECREE.7DATEE\u00a7_:1O8\u00a7O6;'2QO9 PASSED IN\nR.A.NO.77\/2006 ON THE-1FILE"OF _T_HE;.cI~,_rIL JUDGE, (SR.\nDN.), SIRA, D.ISMISSINvGjjTH-EVAPPEALAVAND CONFIRMING\n\nTHE J:tJDGEM4'\u00a7.NTvEND-.:D'E'\u00a7P.EE DATED: 30.11.2006 PASSED\nIN OS'--.NO.158\/"2001~.Qi\u00a5i__ THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL\n3UDGE,'{VJ_F'(._DNt.) a<..'3MPr:_,('(SIRA.\n\n;' 'This Cofninvg on for admission this day, the Court\n\n  deiiizeried the f0\u00a7'iow.i.ng:\n\nQQDQMENT\n\nTVne.V--"ej'j_\u00e9;5DeEiant has questioned the judgment in\n\n R.Ak.7..7:\/C}6.V4'dated 8.6.2009 on the fiie of Civil Judge\n\nit  AA(Sir".~Div"n.), Sira, confirming the judgment and decree in\n\n""Q.'SI158\/01 on the me of Additionai cm: Judge, (}r.Divn.),\n\n\n\n4\nSira, decreeing the suit as prayed for and ordering division\nof properties which were subject matter of the suit and\ngranting 1\/6"' share out of 1\/3"' in the suit schedule\n\nproperties to the respondents.<\/pre>\n
2. The appeal is posted for admission aft_e’i=..:notiic.e’tothgy’<\/p>\n
respondents.\n<\/p>\n
3. Before adverting to the contentious issues ‘i”ais:.eee <\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the app:e’ilant aVgalin’st’-ithleiimpugned’<\/p>\n
judgments, a referenceto co’nte>kt-u;a|_’fa.cts reveals as under:<\/p>\n
a)i~-‘i4.a:ri~van;ria–.al’o’ng_V’vi’it’h..th’ree others filed a suit in\n<\/p>\n
0.S.1\u00a7~8\/01  \u00bbi.d4ecla’i’ati’on that they are entitled to<\/p>\n
1\/6″‘ shareiin.  of the schedule property which,<\/p>\n
 ac_r;c-.:rd:in’g V’ to.’ “th.em_,_\u00bb had devolved according to Hindu<\/p>\n
‘ Wtagksvh a ra’ \u00ab.law._ of succession.\n<\/p>\n
H =   to the genealogy, tracing succession right<\/p>\n
from’.o.ne'”xKenchappa, they averred that he married<\/p>\n
 Junjamrna through whom he had 3 daughters–Marakka,<\/p>\n
“i\ufb01elnchamma and Puttamma. Appellants are children of<\/p>\n
S
\nKenchamma, while respondents 1 and 2 are sons of<\/p>\n
Marai<i<a; respondents 4 to 8 are children of Putta.rhrnia_V_who<\/p>\n
pre–deceased. The properties described <\/p>\n
were acquired by Kenchappa who died <\/p>\n
death, the properties devolved,  ''<\/p>\n
daughters. Since the properties <\/p>\n
claim was denied by the re'sp;on_dents'.- ._l?;e':ferri,ng to the
\nfactum of possession Aasjoint andw-q_ua'ritifying their share of
\n1\/6"' out of 1\/ 3,79, they..so'ughtV..parti'tion'.:51_= <\/p>\n
c) ApVp.ella:{nts hwerein_’VJwe.re.Vthe”‘c’ontesting defendants<\/p>\n
who dveniedug’the’:’j3\u00a7:iaintifr’s.l’c\u00e9laimwori the plea that Junjamma
\nhad  property in question by
\ntestamentarby\u00bb. d’is_posi”tio:ri i.e. by way of a will dated<\/p>\n
 by “v–irtu___e.\u00abof which the entire property devolved<\/p>\n
‘ or”.  terms of the said will, soon after her death,<\/p>\n
they rebstjmeid possession and got entries in the revenue<\/p>\n
recor,d’s.,’rn1″Jtated and updated their right in respect of the<\/p>\n
2 Aischedu\ufb02le properties. Since then, they are in physical<\/p>\n
“possession and enjoyment of the properties exercising all<\/p>\n
6<\/span>
\nrights of ownership to the exclusion of other members of<\/p>\n
the family, i.e. descendants of Marakka and Puttanjrna;._V_<\/p>\n
d) Respondents 4 to 8 representing <\/p>\n
Puttamma denied execution of the will,so=\u00e9j5\u00a75′”‘~p|aiVnti,ffs;,’\\’~-_V<\/p>\n
In the suit, therefore, reievant issues-A-w,ere’eifrari*ied”h:a._set{on<\/p>\n
the relevant propositions in -the ple_adings.’V:of.,:the<\/p>\n
Since the will was propoundedhy the appieiilants, the onus<\/p>\n
naturally was Cast on  3;\u00bb  ” ‘ .\n<\/p>\n
e) Plaintiffs. tciii  V’ their ciaim tendered
\nevidence  ‘ PW2–Marudappa while<\/p>\n
the ci:Vefen’dAan’ts aii four witnesses apart from
\nexamining’ _DV\u00a21\u00ab%3id’nj:_arh:n1a. They placed reliance on<\/p>\n
revjemle recorcisv-“Ext;-D3? and Patta Book-Ex.D-4, besides<\/p>\n
.  reiiance ounmthe wili dated 16.8.1974 (Ex.D1) and<\/p>\n
  ‘partition deed (Ex.D2).\n<\/p>\n
E)’  learned trial judge considering the testimony of<\/p>\n
 Kariyarna (PW1) and Marudappa (PW2) in the fight of<\/p>\n
 to P13. and also evidence on behalf of the<\/p>\n
 = …defendants, held evidence tendered by the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
aw<\/p>\n
7<\/span>
\noutweighed the defence and decreed the suit granting the
\nreiief sought for, against which appeliants preferred<\/p>\n
R.A.77\/06 reiterating the same piea which found’4.no.,:’fayour<\/p>\n
with the iearned appeiiate judge. The appeai wash<\/p>\n
by the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
4. On the same grounds VurgeciK_E_3ef,ore th’e.’,.c’ourts<\/p>\n
this second appeai is fi|ed,’*v..c,’;.b5ut learned-…c_”ouVn-sei”‘for the<\/p>\n
appeiiants suppiemen”ted  more iega-i ‘propositions
\nwith reference to Sectionsuccession Act,<\/p>\n
Section 63 of –:1;h_e Iriidian_:jSucce’ssiVofhfnct and doctrine of<\/p>\n
‘ouster’i”co\\re:sfed\u00e9\u00b0’-:i’y’– Section ‘.t’1G’of the Limitation Act. Aii<\/p>\n
theseV”contentior’u~s”‘ihav.e”rece_ived my serious consideration.<\/p>\n
5, 3 “Though several grounds are urged, it boils down to<\/p>\n
 the Foi”i’owiVing._ aspects oniy:\n<\/p>\n
   a case of this nature there is no dispute<\/p>\n
 the original propositus was Kenchappa who
\n died intestate, ieaving behind his survivors viz., his
\nwife and 3 daughters–Marai<i<a, Kenchamma and
\nPuttamma, was Junjamma, his wife, competent to
\ndispose of the properties by testamentary<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
disposition in view of the bar envisaged under<\/p>\n
Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act?\n<\/p>\n
2) Even if we were to hold that Jun}amma’s legitimate
\nshare in the property could have been dis’po’sed of
\nby testamentary disposition, is the wil.i..’execijted. in<\/p>\n
the manner prescribed under iaw?\n<\/p>\n
3) Have the appellants est’abiis..h,ed tihualti’.thV\u00a2yT.~ha’veSi’ <\/p>\n
perfected title on the do;c*trir’ieo”f ‘ou_ster:’?,’   ”<\/p>\n
6. The first contention  hoid’ utgrerdifiongi, The<\/p>\n
admitted facts manifersting from’theV”pleadi’ng5..ofythe parties<\/p>\n
reveal, Kenchappa, the”  intestate without<\/p>\n
disposing  ‘properties.  “avrii,iv”\u00a7manner. Therefore, the
\nproperties ‘had\ufb01fj~b:ecoV_me'”‘ divisible equally among four
\npersons,V”\u00bb.yiz._.VSilulrijamlrna, Marakka, Kenchamma and<\/p>\n
 In”‘su_c.h.ia situation, execution of the will dated<\/p>\n
‘ .:it3–.8A. Junjamma was certainly without titie and had<\/p>\n
‘ino”ieffect.V~’OjnV.’ithe right, title and interest of other co–sharers.<\/p>\n
Junjamrna\u00e9 could have disposed of by testamentary<\/p>\n
2 xpdlispyosiltion oniy 1\/4″‘ share she had succeeded from her<\/p>\n
Adihusband, but for that also the wili had to be proved as<\/p>\n
‘required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.<\/p>\n
9<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
7. When confronted with the provision of Section 30 of<\/p>\n
the Hindu Succession Act, learned counsel for the ,ap.p’el.lVants<\/p>\n
would contend that though under that prov_isi’o’ri\u00a7.,’a.’._:wicI:o’irii<\/p>\n
could not have disposed of properties formingfjthe-l.,estAate”of>4\u00b0~.._V<\/p>\n
the original propositus as she had a,cqufiire–d .’o_ni’y ‘one__ sha.i’e ‘<\/p>\n
along with other heirs, the.\u00bbsa.i_d rest.r_ic’tion wast remojj.\/ed as.<\/p>\n
the will executed by her is  avvhdvllbyl\ufb01ohseht of other
\nheirs of the original pro”p–o_silfVus,-_’.Awords,whe submits
\nthat though the decevased  daughters, two
\nof them,  fanid  had consented to
\n and have attested the
\nwill   Elle-“~:’..wouidwcontend that Marakka and
\nPuttamma\u00e9’ to the will, they could not have<\/p>\n
retracted the.iVrV’cons.entwand thus, the bequeath is a valid<\/p>\n
 ,peiqije’ath.?’ Rgegardliln\u00e9g the necessity to examine the attestors<\/p>\n
 theeiruillvl iVt’o.,prove that the will was genuine, he submits<\/p>\n
that  the two attestors namely, Marakka and<\/p>\n
 ,,Putanmia, Marakka was not alive and hence, she could not<\/p>\n
ll =._\u00b0be examined. PW1 denied being a consenting witness and<\/p>\n
 V. ._..therefore, she was not examined, noticing adverse animus.<\/p>\n
1.2\n<\/p>\n
9. In the instant case, none of the attestors to the will
\nhave been examined. One is said to be dead and the other,
\naccording to the appellants, was won over by the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
But that is no excuse. The provision of Section”-63(c)<\/p>\n
referred to above compels examination of ,.~e.n’e..’_of’.;~ ythe<\/p>\n
attestors. Since one of the attestors is adrni’tted!?y”~alive,litif<\/p>\n
was incumbent to have surnrnoned her’for’\u00ab_exam’:iiiat,iVon’hand<\/p>\n
nonwsummoning merely on the plea-that she ,wLoul’d”noi: ‘h~av’e,<\/p>\n
tendered favourable evidenclegist no e’x~c_u’seV.-3 ‘Even if we<\/p>\n
accept such contention,.,_su,,\ufb01m_or:ing,’llof. the attestor was a
\nmust. Only on her exat_nl’inVat’ioVnf’if.–‘s.he-l.jwe_ire to turn hostile<\/p>\n
or if she_h.ad’l’l’showed’\u00aba:d~v.erse_’ animus, she could have been
\ncross~e’$ca_rraiinedasis p’e~r:t’ni’ssible in law. That was the right<\/p>\n
c:ou,_rs’e,_forxthe_”a’ppel|ants to follow which they have not<\/p>\n
 lglpolne.E””.l:’fl”hierefore,the proof that is required to be laid to<\/p>\n
 viiill–:”is totally lacking in this case, particularly<\/p>\n
because’  plaintiffs are none else than the legal heirs of<\/p>\n
 .P,u_ttar’n-nwa, so called alleged attestor to the will.<\/p>\n
V’;10. Besides, the successors of Puttarnrna have denied that<\/p>\n
their mother was the attestor, that part of the evidence is<\/p>\n
14<\/span>
\nadversely to the interest of other co–sharers by ouster has<\/p>\n
to be examined under the provision of Section 110f:of, the<\/p>\n
Limitation Act. Section 110 prescribes a period~—o,f~’:t__w’elve,<\/p>\n
years. To sustain such plea, it was inc.ii.nfii3-.ent.l,”~o’n tire <\/p>\n
appellants to have established that they’we\u00abre’1i’n’ <\/p>\n
uninterrupted exclusive Possession ein_d’etrime\u00bbn;.t.’,tVo the right,<\/p>\n
of other co~sharers\/claimants’  other co-V<\/p>\n
sharers\/claimants whic_h’,~t..in case.elncludesyeethe plaintiffs,<\/p>\n
had i<nowledge_of it. 'AiI,_2V'.._'.*,~\/ears has to be<\/p>\n
reckoned  of the adversary. In
\nthe instant'  "had put forward their
\ndefen\u00e9e 'ou'stgW\u00a7V;'nd;th'erefo're',vthey had to establish the
\ndate onwhich  knowledge of the plaintiffs that<\/p>\n
they"vhave\u00e9ebeeno"ousted. by the appellants. There is no<\/p>\n
 .r,rijaterE1~\u00a7i proof in  regard. However, it is seen that in the<\/p>\n
    a long period of time after the death of the<\/p>\n
ori\u00abginai 'o.w3nAer, the appellants got revenue records mutated.<\/p>\n
..The..'p-laintiffs, i.e. heirs of Puttamma questioned the<\/p>\n
9' 'l.,_''mutation entries in the year 1999 and thereafter filed the<\/p>\n
-Fisuit in the year 2001. Therefore, the respondents<\/p>\n
6921\/<\/p>\n
15<\/span>
\n(plaintiffs) had enforced their right to seek partition to get<\/p>\n
their legitimate share within 12 years from the date of<\/p>\n
knowledge, Le. 1999. Hence, the doctrine of <\/p>\n
not apply to non~suit the plaintiffs in_.t_he’i.r. <\/p>\n
partition.\n<\/p>\n
13. Last but not the least,_Tthe coriter:ti_oi\u00a5..::’that\u00bb…plaintiffsV:*<\/p>\n
are not entitled to 1\/69′.share..hasv.toxbe  as there
\nis no dispute with reg’ard..toygenetiwcv’relationship between
\nthe parties andthe fa’ct’:.t:hatV’~theylfalrel’-llttie only surviving
\nheirs of  the  Consequently,
\nby operation7..p:f_:_th’e_\u00bb Act to which the
\npartiesgare  were divisible into four<\/p>\n
shares nameivy,V’3sinj.amnn’a and her three daughters. Since<\/p>\n
  is n”ot…_a_l_i\\-ie, her share is divisible among the 3<\/p>\n
‘ :”S_ince they are also not alive, plaintiffs and<\/p>\n
l’re’sponde7nts’i1’wouid be entitled to a share out of 1\/3″‘ branch<\/p>\n
they. represent. The trial court has examined this issue and<\/p>\n
 iyglranted to the plaintiffs 1\/6*” out of 1\/3″ which was the<\/p>\n
V\ufb01share of their mother~Marakl<a. Such finding is fully<\/p>\n
rm'<\/p>\n
16<\/span>
\nstrongiy supported by not oniy evidence, but aiso by the<\/p>\n
position of iaw, and caiis for no interference.<\/p>\n
14. In the result, I do not find any ground\ufb01o  <\/p>\n
appeal itseif. Accordingiy, it is rejected,’<\/p>\n
vgh*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Junjanna vs Kariyanna on 29 September, 2010 Author: Jawad Rahim .. “AND 1 IN THE HIGH COURT 0!’ KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29″‘ DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 BEFORE THE I-|ON’BLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD R. .A. No. 1207 2009 BETWEEN: 1. JUNJANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. _ S\/O PJUNJANNA ‘ ‘- 2. […]<\/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-65318","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJunjanna vs Kariyanna on 29 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\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Junjanna vs Kariyanna on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-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=\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-09T20:46:40+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\\\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Junjanna vs Kariyanna on 29 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-09T20:46:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1697,\"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\\\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Junjanna vs Kariyanna on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-09T20:46:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Junjanna vs Kariyanna on 29 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Junjanna vs Kariyanna on 29 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\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Junjanna vs Kariyanna on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-09T20:46:40+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\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Junjanna vs Kariyanna on 29 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-09T20:46:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010"},"wordCount":1697,"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\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010","name":"Junjanna vs Kariyanna on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-09T20:46:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/junjanna-vs-kariyanna-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Junjanna vs Kariyanna on 29 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65318","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=65318"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65318\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65318"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65318"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65318"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}