{"id":66354,"date":"2010-08-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010"},"modified":"2014-06-13T03:08:56","modified_gmt":"2014-06-12T21:38:56","slug":"sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri M.N. Vasudeva S\/O Lt R … vs M.N. Satya Kumar S\/O Lt R … on 23 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri M.N. Vasudeva S\/O Lt R … vs M.N. Satya Kumar S\/O Lt R … on 23 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COUR? or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 23\" DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'l3LE MR. JUSTICE A.N. vENuGol\u00e9__;\\L;\u00a7 GjoyLio%A'  \n\nWRIT PETITION No.52o8,~'261o  _  \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nSr: M.N.VaSudeva,\n\nAged about 55 years,\n\nS\/o. late R.Nanjundaia.=',~.__\nR\/o. D.l\\\u00a3o.607,   , ,\nVishvamanava Double Road,\nKuvempunagar,   V\nMysore.   1\n\n   . .     PETITIONER\n(By Sri T.N{Rag'hu\";3'at.hy,\"-Ady';)._  \"\n\nAND:\n\n1.<\/pre>\n
 M.N.Savtyal\u00a7<;m'1a:-";.',' – V
\nAged about '6J,_yea'r_s,"""\n<\/p>\n
35,:\/o’. late R.’Na_njundvaiah,
\nV-Rio.;,_–No.~351, 8″””‘C*ross,<\/p>\n
 ~_Nea_r’ \\,\/yidyapeeta, Sir M.V.Marga,
\n _  ,_III.S’ta’g:-1,’Banashankari,
\n” ._ “‘Ban’g’ai’o..re’\u00a2”56O O85.\n<\/p>\n
 _ 2. S’mt;..’Ya’il”emma,<\/p>\n
Aged about 85 years,<\/p>\n
* by ;W\/o.””iate R.Nanjunclaiah,
\n” , R’\/_o. D.No.607,<\/p>\n
,_ Vishvamanava Double road,
\n Kuvempunagar,
\nMysore.\n<\/p>\n
the suit can be raised at any time of the proceedings.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel submitted that, the suit being one for<\/p>\n
partition and separation, each party being both a pia’intiff<\/p>\n
and defendant, the prayer in the application <\/p>\n
been allowed. Learned counsel submitted <\/p>\n
in I.A No.4 could be granted by <\/p>\n
rebuttal evidence to the plaintiff in*.or”cler to, mannmsfe<\/p>\n
litigation and also to decide the-rielal mattersbdr coingtlroversy
\nbetween the parties. .\n<\/p>\n
3. Sri Manmohan lAe’arn~ed advocate<\/p>\n
appearii’ngi’for.,ethe  resptonde.nt”‘contended that, since the
\ntrial has..commence’d., ‘frso_’f’arn.endment is permissible in view<\/p>\n
of proviso its R’ule_3~.7lAo_f ‘ofder 6 C.P.C, which is mandatory.<\/p>\n
“V.__AHev-Visbbgnfiittegd th’at’,”—\u00abthe jurisdictional fact as envisaged in<\/p>\n
  ‘pto’vi:_sC..’t’o.:Rule 17 of Order 6 having been found to be<\/p>\n
tithe trial court is justified in passing the<\/p>\n
“.__impug~~net:! order. He placed reliance on the decision of the<\/p>\n
A Court in the case of VIDYABAI AND OTHERS VS.<\/p>\n
 P);\\oMALA’rHA AND ANOTHER, reported at (2009) 2 scc<\/p>\n
\\-\n<\/p>\n
\/i<\/p>\n
409 and the decision in W.P No.5138\/2008 __.dated<\/p>\n
i19–0?i.+2Q99-r. Learner? sense’ u\u00a79btmit.tsd I. tr-fatline (I <\/p>\n
impugned order is neither irrational nor illegal’:andlp”ii’enc:e–,\u00ab *<\/p>\n
no interference is called for.\n<\/p>\n
4. I have perused thewrit ‘papers.\n<\/p>\n
5. In view of the rivai;ccntenti’o_ns;e–the.\u00b0;point for
\nconsideration is:\n<\/p>\n
Whether the  isiirrational<\/p>\n
and .;ai’!s  inte\u00a2feren’Ce_? ‘  I<\/p>\n
6. itolllv-:\u00bbth~e written statement
\nproposedmin”   as foiilovws:\n<\/p>\n
 rliternatitfely’  defendants submit that in case
\nthislll’I<{ori7b1e .Co1_1rt…_\u00a7vere to come to conclusion that
\n_; plaintiff isentitled for 1\/5"? share in the suit schedule
\nA  apropeiity thenwitlis submitted that each one of these
\n  may also allotted I\/5'3' share in all the\n<\/p>\n
-._’plain’t\u00ab._sel*1edu1e properties inclusive of the property
\n mentioned in written statement schedule which is
\nCleliioerately excluded by the plaintiff in the suit. As
\nit .._stated above the written statement schedule property<\/p>\n
 “is constructed by the funds generously contributed by<\/p>\n
the 15* defendant. The requisite court fee is paid.<\/p>\n
\/’<\/p>\n
I’u–\n<\/p>\n
 N9-2a In .th.e_ P178??? _C.Q1*.l1’Ii.1\u00a5…,.0f ..t1″1’3._…”_’f’V.1’i.lit.\u20acI1.=.- ,<\/p>\n
statement after the words justice and equitjwpthe<\/p>\n
following sentences may kindly be permitted’w..t_o._V’be<\/p>\n
inserted which is as follows:–\n<\/p>\n
these defendants may also granted l\/5″-i’share.einv-.’<\/p>\n
all the plaint schedule prolpertiesinfclus-iye <\/p>\n
Alternatively it is submitted that_\ufb01each:.A_1onpe of:<\/p>\n
written statement schedule property”.<\/p>\n
7. The trial court top____rejeet_v_the”apelicaiiion has<\/p>\n
held as follows:–\n<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
_ ‘However<\/p>\n
Whether  p’ropei’tyv_ also joint family<\/p>\n
 or”;not'”or.”it_Vis.”a~::q:uired out of joint<\/p>\n
 “o’r3′-a,_1ot’-is-. Vth–e__ fnatter for final adjudication.<\/p>\n
._ -Ind ‘th–e._v'”eve’ntV'”\u00bbof — the defendants succeed in
\n” V ‘esta’olish;ing”t.l_’_iat the house in Bangalore is also<\/p>\n
 joint ‘v.faInily~.-‘property, the suit of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
 ‘hayfe to go being one for partial partition.<\/p>\n
raising a counter~claim after<\/p>\n
 d ~vcorn”n1encement of evidence in respect of the said<\/p>\n
‘ dfitetn cannot be entertained.\n<\/p>\n
5-3<\/p>\n
The proposed amendment is not necessary for<\/p>\n
proper adjudication of the matter in dispute<\/p>\n
‘E\/.\n<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
‘7<\/p>\n
 .  first is ho digpiieilile. reeseiite reii;.t;o’asi.’lp it<\/p>\n
between the parties. The suit is one for partition and<\/p>\n
separate possession of the joint family propertiesf.[The<\/p>\n
__defendants have stated that in case the court  _<\/p>\n
that plaintiff is entitled to 1\/5″?’ share in th.e–suu’i:t,V  <\/p>\n
property, then as members of the <\/p>\n
entitled for the 1\/5″‘ share eiiythe ‘s’te_iV_t”‘scherd’u-\u00e9elipropierty <\/p>\n
including the written statemen’t’t.:schedule’-p_Vro’perty, which
\nhas been omitted by vl1rt_the\u00ab.written statement
\nit has been stated that, given by
\nthe 15′  building, which
\nthe plai_ntiff~’ in the schedule. Thus it has
\nbeen conVter1de’d”e.A:t;h.a’L statement schecluie<\/p>\n
prope’rtye..is also ..a_tjointl”iamily property.
\n  The Doytieir under Rule 17 of Order 6 can be<\/p>\n
 e._e$<e.rcirse:d–.e:Alib4Vetal_i.y prior to the commencement of the trial.<\/p>\n
If  that despite due diligence the party could not<\/p>\n
V'-have ra.i"sed the matter before the commencement of trail<\/p>\n
  y""xand_  it is also shown that the amendmergwill not work<\/p>\n
\/'<\/p>\n
r'-\n<\/p>\n
which stage an application seeking amendment of the<\/p>\n
written statement was filed. I The applicationfrwas<\/p>\n
dismissed by the trial court holding that it <\/p>\n
new case and the contention that the defendaerits. could not _A V’ <\/p>\n
gather the materials and informatizzonllnlecessary time’:<\/p>\n
of filing of written statement note.g’.iii.ri’t’l”\u00bblir1 ntn’eiVr”-<\/p>\n
knowledge. The said order wats:’reversed_V_byt on<\/p>\n
the ground that, an ame~n_dm_elnt ‘aVe;VijplVi’ca.tion can be filed at
\nany stage of the proceeding :’fili.n_g”vAOj’f.i’a_ffidavit by way
\nof evidence itse~\u00ablf:yj’~is inot;   to reject the<\/p>\n
appiication led” of written statement.<\/p>\n
The said _ordlVe’ir”‘Vwas<setgasidefby the Supreme Court by
\nholding thVa4t,l,provis'oVA"a.-i\ufb01ieiinded to Order 6 Rule 17 of the<\/p>\n
Codefre.stricts" power of the court and it puts an<\/p>\n
,'e'm_,bargio.A_orivexercise of its jurisdiction and the court's<\/p>\n
"'J=uri'sdictio'n.,,.y_in:;"a" case of that nature is limited and unless<\/p>\n
the"'juriv.s':cl'ic\u00bbt'i'onaI fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be<\/p>\n
V. the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow<\/p>\n
  'the amendment of the plaint. E<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
| ‘\\<\/p>\n
M10 .\n<\/p>\n
11. In the decision dated 10.07.2009 in<\/p>\n
W.P.N0.S138\/2008, which was rendered tai<i:r1gi'~–.l_in\u00abto<\/p>\n
consideration the fact situation, it has beer?!<\/p>\n
_ court should b_e satisfied that inspyiteof  K"<\/p>\n
applicant could not have made the iappi'iication_."atV'eiariieif<\/p>\n
.. point of time,      ..\n<\/p>\n
12. The writtr\u00a7n..,.\u00e9_sta,te’nj”e–\u00a7jj;   plea that,
\nwritten statement  a joint family
\nproperty. “i’ij.~e”:’iyfitter:iA__  indicate that the
\ndefendants’ Vlioveir the Banashankari,
\nVidya they has not specificaily
\nprayediufor   plea which had been taken<\/p>\n
in respectioi’ V_t’he_’said_ property is sought to be amplified<\/p>\n
 prayer to'”g’r*a’nt 1\/5″‘ share inclusive of the written<\/p>\n
 s’ch:e’diile property. Since the defendants are<\/p>\n
rightly  for leading of rebuttal evidence by the<\/p>\n
“i.,’plainti’ff”*with regard to amended plea and taking into<\/p>\n
“:if”‘cons”ideration the relationship of the parties and to<\/p>\n
 rr;in.imise the litigation, the proposed amendment is<\/p>\n
is<\/p>\n
4,’.\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
necessary to determine the real tiiuestions in controversy<\/p>\n
between the parties. The application ought to havethieren<\/p>\n
ailowed by the Trial Court by subjecting the defende’nts__V’:to:_ _<\/p>\n
terms. By not doing so, the order passed,–,.:f:irrr’p:Lig.ned:”  <\/p>\n
herein, is irrational.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, I pass the   ‘  V ”\n<\/p>\n
,~,0RDER\u00a7;u
\ni. Writ petition is order rejecting
\nLA W asmt\u00a2ii;agiiiec,,r.i,i:rr i i
\nii. LA   iwsebiijiect to petitioner
\n  the plaintiff in the trial
\nVucotsrt  the amendment within two
\n_ _ weel<s_:fro  to'di'ay\u00a7\u00bbiV
\n  Aplaiun'tiff*'is'Vg ranted leave to present the written
\n  r.  to the counter–claim made by the
\nd\u20ac#\u00e9–i.itl:antS in the written statement.
\niv."  plaintiff shall file the replication\/written<\/p>\n
statement within two weeks from the date the copy<\/p>\n
is.\n<\/p>\n
\/’<\/p>\n
\/J7<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri M.N. Vasudeva S\/O Lt R … vs M.N. Satya Kumar S\/O Lt R … on 23 August, 2010 Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda IN THE HIGH COUR? or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 23″ DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 BEFORE THE HON’l3LE MR. JUSTICE A.N. vENuGol\u00e9__;\\L;\u00a7 GjoyLio%A’ WRIT PETITION No.52o8,~’261o _ BETWEEN: Sr: […]<\/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-66354","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri M.N. Vasudeva S\/O Lt R ... vs M.N. Satya Kumar S\/O Lt R ... on 23 August, 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\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri M.N. Vasudeva S\/O Lt R ... vs M.N. Satya Kumar S\/O Lt R ... on 23 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-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=\"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-12T21:38:56+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri M.N. Vasudeva S\\\/O Lt R … vs M.N. Satya Kumar S\\\/O Lt R … on 23 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-12T21:38:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1356,\"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\\\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri M.N. Vasudeva S\\\/O Lt R ... vs M.N. Satya Kumar S\\\/O Lt R ... on 23 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-12T21:38:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri M.N. Vasudeva S\\\/O Lt R … vs M.N. Satya Kumar S\\\/O Lt R … on 23 August, 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":"Sri M.N. Vasudeva S\/O Lt R ... vs M.N. Satya Kumar S\/O Lt R ... on 23 August, 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\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri M.N. Vasudeva S\/O Lt R ... vs M.N. Satya Kumar S\/O Lt R ... on 23 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-12T21:38:56+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri M.N. Vasudeva S\/O Lt R … vs M.N. Satya Kumar S\/O Lt R … on 23 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-12T21:38:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010"},"wordCount":1356,"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\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010","name":"Sri M.N. Vasudeva S\/O Lt R ... vs M.N. Satya Kumar S\/O Lt R ... on 23 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-12T21:38:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-m-n-vasudeva-so-lt-r-vs-m-n-satya-kumar-so-lt-r-on-23-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri M.N. Vasudeva S\/O Lt R … vs M.N. Satya Kumar S\/O Lt R … on 23 August, 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\/66354","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=66354"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66354\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66354"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66354"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66354"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}