{"id":67688,"date":"2010-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-10T07:27:33","modified_gmt":"2015-05-10T01:57:33","slug":"ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ramu Baddu Lamani vs Revanasiddayya Channaveerayya … on 9 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Ramu Baddu Lamani vs Revanasiddayya Channaveerayya … on 9 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: H.N.Nagamohan Das<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA\n\nCIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA\n\nDATE9 THIS THE gm DAY OF FEBRUARY:--20i   \n\nBEFORE   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE  \n\nREGULAR SECOND  No_,9'3\u00a2\u00a7\/Coir'  \nREGULAR SECOCNDA\u00a75pi1:1;L&C;g;\u00a7;\u00a7A570 \/ 04\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nR.s.A.N0.93'6'\/'C14  \"  C\n\nRamu E\u20acadd1._11 L\u00e91.m_a1ii, -, \nAge: 49 years, ' V I\" _ C =\nOcc: Agri(:u_1fL1Are'  V  _  \nR\/0 Utnai, Taluk Bijapnla\n\n ., 1   ~ APPELLANT\n\nC  if 'a{_ByS1'H1'HSar1jayA. Patil, adv.)\n\nCV _ 1. R\u00e9':ran.aSid:f3ayya Channaveerayya\n Muddabihalmath, [deceased by his L.Rs.)\n\n   C\ufb01undayya Revanasiddayya Muddebihalmath,\n\n \" 'Age: 36 years, Occ: Agriculture,\n1 R\/0 Managu1iTa1uk. B. Bagewadi.\n\n\ufb02L\\j\\\u00bb\\\n\n\n\n1.8) Virupakshayya Revanasiddayya\nMuddebihalmath, Age: 32 years,\nOcc: Agriculture\nR\/ 0 Managuli\nTaluk B. Bagewadi.\n\n1.c) Murugayya Revanasiddayyrg'Mudc1ebi\ufb01\u00e91IriSE[I1,V \"  E\n\nAge: 30 years,\n\nOcc: Agriculture\n\nR\/0 Managuli _\nTaluk B. Bagewadi. \" _ \n\n1.1)) Neelaganagwwfcl    \n\nw\/0 Revanasidciayya\" M_udc.iebih.a1math,\nAge: 63 Years,    .. \n\nOcc: Househoid wo_ri;.\"_V \n\nR\/0 Mana_gu1i\/W  .'  ~ \n\nTaluk' B.\",;11?.a8eWai:li'.\" ~ _  -V \n\n2. Chandrayfga Reva\ufb01asid'dayy'a~Nligddebihalmath.\nOcc::.AgriCi11\u20ac:;1re'3V.V 'V _ _ -\nR\/0 Managuli; a r  _  ~ _\nTaluk  Bagewadi'.~   \n\n3. Parqtayya Irayya\"Cr1imastimath,\n n ,_ [Cailing himself age adopted\n sofa 0f\"}\\\/Iahatayya Muddebihalmath,\n. ' a.g\"e46.,y'ea;rs',' \n 'Gee: agfieul\ufb01ure,\nR0 Managuli,\nTa1uk.--._ B.vBageWadi. RESPONDENTS\n\n'   Sri Remesh B. Anneppanavar for C\/R2 8: R--1[A-D)\n\nSri Ravindra Reddy, adv. for R\u00ab-3)\n\n*****\n<\/pre>\n
\/\/we<\/p>\n
K)<\/p>\n
R.S.A.NO.1 170\/O4<\/p>\n
BETVVEEN:\n<\/p>\n
Parutayya Irayya Gumatimath<\/p>\n
S \/ 0 Mahantayyan Muddebihalmath,
\nAge: about 55 years,<\/p>\n
Occ: Agriculture,<\/p>\n
R\/0 Manguli, Tq. Basavan Bagewa_d.i., <\/p>\n
Dist: Bijapur.\n<\/p>\n
(By Sri Somnath Reddy and Sri_4Ra\\r4i1=1\u00a7’Ii’a Re(3.’dy,t ac\u00abivsi) ” V<\/p>\n
AND:\n<\/p>\n
1 . Sri Revanasiddayya  \u00ab . y
\nMuddebihalmath, % I ”\n<\/p>\n
Since deceasedy by his__LV.>Rs. V ._  ” <\/p>\n
a) Sri Dundi;’1y’y}?z\u00bba:.Reyanasi\u00e9ldayya’Muddebihalmath
\nAge: ab’c51;’if4._~\u00a21\u00a3E)v-3#_,\u00e9:ars5\u00ab.._K  ‘  <\/p>\n
b) Sri”-Vir;;1pa.i\u00a7Sii’ayy’\u00bbavA’\u00a5{;a\u00a7,?:1;1′;asiddayya
\nMuda:1_eb111alaniafh,” about 38 years.<\/p>\n
C) {Sri  R\u00e9vaiaasiddayya
\n._fN’Mq\u00a71deb1haIr11\u00bbat.h’Age: about 36 years.<\/p>\n
‘ ;d)” -VSnxt;IV!:urjt1gayya Revanasiddayya<\/p>\n
  y  1\\\/i’ud’d\u00a7:bi1V1a1math, age: about 70 years.<\/p>\n
 _ 2. Sfi\u00ab.Char1ci\u00abfayya Revanasiddayya Muddebihalmath
\n Age: ~~ab\u00a7>ut 42 years.\n<\/p>\n
 . ‘ Aifare 1″\/0 Managuli, Tq. Basavan Bagewadi,
\n‘._District, Bijapur.\n<\/p>\n
aw<\/p>\n
3. Sri. Ramu Baddu Lamani,
\nAge: about 56 years, r\/0 Utnal,
\nTq: Bijapur. RESPONDENTS<\/p>\n
(By Sri Ramesh B. Aneppanavar for C\/R~2 8: R-1(A;~’D)
\nSri Sanjay A Patil, adv. for R-3)   V<\/p>\n
*****<\/p>\n
These Regular Second Appeals are fileczl\ufb01,\/. of ‘  _  <\/p>\n
c.1=>.c. against the Judgment .J’and. z)ectr’sds’:t ddtsd
\n13\/9\/2004 passed in RA. No.32′,\/03_oj’r1_;, the’Afi1e4ef~._the_f
\nCivil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Basavan Begewadi, al1ewvir:g”
\nappeal and setting aside the Judgrrient arid. _Deereet
\ndated 25\/ 1\/ 1996 passed in No.25,z8et_snt tids\ufb01is of<\/p>\n
the Addl. Munsiff, B. Bagewadi.W__’
\nThese Regular Seedand  eomtng on for<\/p>\n
hearing this day, the Court’dei.iXieredp’the.Vfeljowing:<\/p>\n
” — f{t._ K 31:’: nf_(}  T<\/p>\n
‘i’hese*.__4twVox”  are directed against the<\/p>\n
 anddl\ufb01ecree dated 13th day of Sept. 2005 in<\/p>\n
A”:_VR.tX;No.32\/(}3A\u00b0passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Basavan<\/p>\n
sagswadi; ;  t<\/p>\n
22. Appellants in these two appeals are defendants<\/p>\n
    2 and respondents are thejplajntiffs before the<\/p>\n
trial Court. In this judgnient; for convenience the<\/p>\n
1;)a1’t,i\u20acss are 1’\u20ac’.f\u20acI”1’\u20ac’.d to theii’ stratus befora the trial Court.<\/p>\n
8. It is the case of planiiiriffs that Comi\ufb01dri<\/p>\n
pmp0sii:o1* Basaiah had two sons by name Maifiaiit;cyy\u00e92 .__’4 <\/p>\n
and Channaveeiuyya and they are dead_:’P1ai–.r;1i’,i.t”f5 <\/p>\n
repixtseiit {.113 breincih of Che1.1i=i1aVteter}11yy;i’ <\/p>\n
cie’1’e1i1da11t c:o1i1i:en’ds E11211. he?   \u00a31r’1op\u20ac.’\u00e9Cl’_A .3011 jofvi<\/p>\n
Mahani.a.yya. The genea1ogi(:a\u00bbl””-I:r’c–<:3 of'."'i'_hi\u00a7: fa1"j;'1i}y of
\nBasaiah is as under:\n<\/p>\n
Me1ha1″1t:215\/Ya.,:. ~;;:fi.;  bz\/’.Q’t.’Vr1e\u00ab1″ Charinaver-:r21YYa_
\nC}u1’aVVa”‘{_wife)’ _ ‘   V\u00bb ”  (father) Revanasiddayya<\/p>\n
{piaimiff No. 1}<\/p>\n
  .Ii’ayya Chandiappa @ Chandrayya
\n“‘{;1d0p’i’ad”S&()\u00a73 ]”  ”\n<\/p>\n
iii-.~1’en_da’ri:’i*;\\a_g.v (plaintiff No.2)<\/p>\n
4Z, fAI?1’1e? plaintiffs C.’,()1’1{\u20ac311d\u20acd that the schedule<\/p>\n
 jV.’L;_r0pef’::’ties are the _j0in1_. family propeiiies. The 15*<\/p>\n
  gicfeiideiiiti Claming to be the adopted 8011 of i\\\/iahaniayya<\/p>\n
J\/,\\\/V’<\/p>\n
(3<\/p>\n
sold one item of schedule property in favour of 2*”-‘
\ndefendaint. and t:he1*ef0re the  is not binding on<\/p>\n
them. The alleged adoption of 15’ ciefendant is bogus.<\/p>\n
c:or1e0ct.ed and invalid in law. ‘I”he1’ef0re, the \u00a7)}29,’}viv1″V1′:E’.’i\ufb02’\u00bb’\u00e9.Z,’<\/p>\n
filed the suit to declare them as the 0w:1e1*s.–\u00a7:;)i'” <\/p>\n
schedule properties and for perpeti1_i_a.} ,i_1″1ju1fi'(5ti()*ri}”ii} the <\/p>\n
al;ter1’1a.iiive {he plaintiffs have p1’\u00e9:iyeL*1j’*\ufb01*)r iip2i1’ti’t.iei1.70? if<\/p>\n
their 1\/2, share in the plaint. sctizedule properties.\n<\/p>\n
5. The defezradarits.ent’e1jec’..2ip15eara1″1e.e’before the<\/p>\n
trial Court and filed sepeiifate ‘-V.}1″::Vt1.\u20acf’i”I.’_ sLa’ii–“”d_e’feiida11i’. under a registered<\/p>\n
adop1:i\u00a7j1’i   2×1\/E;\/1976. Since 1*” ciefeiidam is<\/p>\n
   50% share in the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
1;>”‘rr_)p-i=_:_i’i;.ic’3’.:~:{‘”1i.3’2;1s\u00bbV.i:s<'i'id one item and therefore the same is<\/p>\n
.vaiidI"— T'1ier:'2"*' defendant eonte11ds that he is the<\/p>\n
'Epomifidy'"purcl*1aser for vaiuabie c0nside_rai'ior1 of one<\/p>\n
_' plaim schedule property and the same is valid.<\/p>\n
On. these groiirids the defendants opposed the claim of
\nplaintiff's. 011 the basis of pleadings the trial Court
\nframed the following issues and additional issues:.<\/p>\n
E. Wli'1ei;he1' the plaintiffs prove that
\nthe suit properties are joint family  ll
\np1'Op\u20ac:1'ti\u20acS of deceased Mahantayya \u00a3il']_'L"l;V– ll
\nChaiiaveerayya'?  ll<\/p>\n
2. Does T.l’1e defeiid:;-1i’1ti:TN0?’ pi’Qv’eAs ”
\nthat, he  the lawful . 2 ll
\np1.1reh.asei’ of suit
\nN0.25l9 for valua.ble_e6i<1:s'id_eraii()nl_ief
\nRs.20.000\/– fm;ii;def.%\u00a7i1.;:_an:e_._V_p:\u00a75;2? V<\/p>\n
3. Whether the  <\/p>\n
 -.  Wh  it  id-ecrree’?\n<\/p>\n
Add[i–i: _l()i7] al issu e 1′ A\n<\/p>\n
  1.  the plaintiffs fui’i:.hei’
\n the defei1da.i’1i’ No.1. is not
\n  ‘v;5{clsr_>i_3v.i_ed son of deceased Gurubai<\/p>\n
a1’1(ixs:’i_i.l:*j’e adopticm deed is bogus and<\/p>\n
\u00abW<\/p>\n
l . 1;3Qt.’bil’1diI’1g on them’?\n<\/p>\n
 Before the trial Court plaintiffs examined six
\nwitnesses as P.W. I to P.W.6 and got marked Ex.P\u00ab1 to
\n13-9. The defendants examined six witriesses  <\/p>\n
to ll).W.6 and g(>t marked Ex.D–1 to D~11.<\/p>\n
7. The trial Court after hearing the a1’gL.:,:ij’e:ieit’s:’and <\/p>\n
on appreciat’i0n of pleadings. oral jandv ‘d\u00a73.t?.t\u00a3r11en’t.et1’yA1.1f<\/p>\n
evidence held that l~’=’* deleridant is the” 1<\/p>\n
Guravva the wife of Mal1a11tayy*3;;..V1″lThe s\u00e9iielof one “item
\nof plaint. sChedt:’1e pr0}\u00a7e*\u00ab1ft;y _b;’-J d;efer’1dz3h1~.iN().l in favour<\/p>\n
(>l”cle{‘e11datnt:’ l\\l0.2ai.s vali.d–.~–v\ufb02caneequeritly;the trial Court<\/p>\n
deereeda_ t.he_lAplvi:–;i11t:.i\u00a7?fs –.,si;:\u00abit. in part for pa1’t’.it’.i01’1 vide<\/p>\n
“]’1.IC1gi’I1\u20acTI1″‘.’Cl\u00a7}.lf.E?’Cl  1995. Aggrieved by this<\/p>\n
Jtldgniierite. ()’flt:l’1e”t.1*izii Court’. the [Jl8.i1′]l’.iffS filed an<\/p>\n
 eijatie\u00e9il  the lower appellate Court: in RA.<\/p>\n
l\\i”‘<)..LT3~l'._2_\/1 1034}.?l'ter*"l1ea1'i1ig a1*gurnen1'.s the lower appellate<\/p>\n
V _ C0ur'1':–E'1'ehied"lt.l1e following points for its conside1'at.i0n.<\/p>\n
1 1. Wl1et.he1' the AppellantS\/plaintiff
\nprove that. the adoption deed dated
\n21\/12\/1978 adoptirig defer1dant. No.1<\/p>\n
glee<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
by Gurubai is concoctted, invalid and
\nsame  not binding on them?\n<\/p>\n
2. W’het.her the appellants prove that
\nthe affirmative filldings recorded by the
\nlower court on issue No.2 is erroneous
\nand legally not ssustainable’?\n<\/p>\n
3. Whether this (:ou1’t in view__l”o~tf.
\nexe1*cissmg powers U\/
\nrequired to frame the
\npoint of limitation aaf1d\u00ab–._give2 <\/p>\n
4. Whethe 1? ~ ‘I’: her ” “J  la\ufb01d V
\nDecree of the lower   any
\niI1teri’e1’e_t1-ate l:>y,t’.l’1″i~:-} :C(iu1’_E7?_l K  V <\/p>\n
8.  =C()urt on re~appreciatio11 of
\nthe ehtire n’rat.eV1Afial.7′()1Ar’-reteord held that the ac.loptio_11 of
\n registered adoption deed dated
\n in view of the bar u_1’1der Sc->(~t.lO (iv)
\nof A tile.   Adoption and Maimenarlce Act.<\/p>\n
:C91’f1seqL:Vehtly, the lower appellate Court allowed the<\/p>\n
 ._a’ppea’.l, set, aside the Judgment of the trial Court and<\/p>\n
a\\~’*<\/p>\n
H)<\/p>\n
deacreed the suit of plaintiffs declaring them as l’,1’l\u20ac;’.<\/p>\n
absolute owners of plaint schedule properties. d_ireCted<\/p>\n
the defendants to hand over possession of some_’of_”‘t1’1t:_<\/p>\n
S(2l’1\u20actdLl1t’? p1’oper’r,ics. He1aoe. these two s<::co11di_ <\/p>\n
by the defendam.s.\n<\/p>\n
9. This Court Vida order  <\/p>\n
adxzlitoting HIE”-_’St’. two 21ppe.211s””‘~~fran1\u00e9d__  Vi'”‘oV14I(‘m*1″1’1g
\ns1s.1bs1:a1’1tia1 qm:\u00e9s’r.i<_)n of law:<\/p>\n
"\\Nhethe1'    <\/p>\n
2:1pp<:11aI.'r;f'  Cr4:.){.':'1"VI'-it .fs,\u00a7r\u00bbs3;'sing'  the<\/p>\n
 by the
\n:R\u00a7',ria1* Cc\u00bb)\u00e9;t.1*t_\u00bb1:'a1jCi\u00bb_:\ufb01ie_<:re'eing the suit of
\nt.h::'~:_. 41)1e1ii1I1=i\u00abff:is :_\u00e9o_'1:oii.t*'.211'y to mat.eria] on
\n rce\\\/ laid down by the
\n}i:{:c3:1_’%)l_e AAS’L1vp1rsr11c> Court in AER 1991 SC.
\n+1 1.80}? ~– V _<\/p>\n
“._””‘.._i0x.”\u00abf?ie_a1’\u00a7i” Iea1’n<:?d advocates on both side and<\/p>\n
— perulsed “f:he”\u00e911t.ire appeal papers.<\/p>\n
”  1. ‘Tl’1e 1’e]at.ic):r1ship laeiweeri the plaintiffs and 15’-<\/p>\n
-.Tf.-c1efe11da11l is not in dispute. It  also not in dispute<\/p>\n
d~\\,~,\\_,,_\/’xv<\/p>\n
iii) ———- —\n<\/p>\n
iv) he 01* she  not Completed the
\nage of fifteen years. unless there is a
\nCust.0rr1 or usage applicable” to the
\nparties which permits persons whQ~~–”  ‘V
\nhave completed the  of fiftieen  <\/p>\n
being taken in adoption.\n<\/p>\n
12. The Supreme C0″L,ir’t–~….0f  <\/p>\n
RAMA PAP\/{L VS. NA_RA__YAN  1991
\nSC 1180 while i11t,e1’pref’iii\u00a7–Se{j[‘\u00a7.C1′ \u00a7i*Vii:;1i’\u00a7A;:ti held that a
\neu_s’L0m judicieillyi\u00e9’   iiiliaiie proved in
\nsubseqtieriwf  Judge of this
\nCourt iii”-SiiI:RI  Vs. SMT. MALLAMMA AND
\n.OTHERS i’e'[i5(3r1_ed:Vi’11  Kar. 1648 held that the
\n ’12.eee’e:\u00a7’it.y-eiiioI7ggleaieii\ufb01gkind proof of custom in eveiy
\n l’ the privy Council  by law
\n {here is a Custom amongst the sudras to<\/p>\n
 ‘adopt 21 bfjy who is aged above 15 years.<\/p>\n
d\\. \\,Jm<\/p>\n
the Act. came into force and also subsequent to the Act.<\/p>\n
came into force the judicial pronouncement recognised<\/p>\n
in the old Bombay State custom and usage <\/p>\n
a person above the age of 15 years”. InH__vlewfof. “thisf<\/p>\n
judicial recognition of the custom and. “‘1[1s1age:’–ir}_VO’ld<\/p>\n
Bombay State it is not r1ecessa_ry inC’subseq11el1’1t,.”cases to V’<\/p>\n
plead and prove the very sarnrzd’ c_ust.om “and Lrsage of
\nadopting 3. child who is l:[‘.Il.O1’_”\u20ac \u00a7;h,9c’1ra,_ l_5\u00ab.years age a1’isir1g
\nfrom the very same  The loWer.’j_appellat,e Court<\/p>\n
without   of ithe ‘matter committed an
\nerror in  _t.l’:e’V’2jd.o;otiol\u00a71 deed Ex.D~7 is invalid<\/p>\n
in View C’  Sec.lO {iv} of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
‘i’herefore,’—. V.{‘ir1ldi_rtg,:_l’.t)l’ the lower appellate Court is<\/p>\n
  to  seAt”‘a.s_ide. The question of law framed above<\/p>\n
 _ “is 31.13%-1:eld’ a-ff’1rma.t.ively.<\/p>\n
 =\u00a7l4′.v ‘Sri Ramesh B. Anneppanavar, learned counsel<\/p>\n
 ” for t.lie pla’1I1tiffs relying on two decisions of this Court.<\/p>\n
 reoort.ed in MR 1972 Kar 73 and ILR 2008 Kar 1667<\/p>\n
c%V””\n<\/p>\n
contends that in the absence of pleadings and proof of
\ncustom the adoptiori deed Ex.D-7 is to be held as<\/p>\n
invalid in the eye of law. There is no dispuvtetfnrith<\/p>\n
regard to the legal preposition that p1eadi1igs;”ai’iTd_~..prooi*.A<\/p>\n
is necessary in support. of t.he Custom~v—-o1f’:”~L:.s-age   2<\/p>\n
spe(:i;I’ied in sub. see. {iv} of See.  ofihie ‘jti:d_iVei.al.A<\/p>\n
p1’OE’10lI1’1C\u20ac”;f11E3I1lZ has reeogni’se__d a aparxtieulg-if”g;L1st.or11 or <\/p>\n
usage in a comriiuriity or in a\ufb01groyiriee,’ it need not be<\/p>\n
necessarily pleaded ai\u00b0id:”proyed iri”Vsfuh’sequent. disputes.<\/p>\n
This is the law laid down.    Court in the<\/p>\n
ease of  and this Court. in
\n is not in dispute that the<\/p>\n
parties iI1’t.l;1e-ins~taAI:.t” \u00a7~i.t~igat.io1i are from a place which<\/p>\n
  part u’o{…_____r_)ld Bombay State. The judicial<\/p>\n
 ‘ pi’o1ioL:ii.1eef11eiit held that in the province of old Bombay<\/p>\n
State a custom and usage to adopt a child who<\/p>\n
is morethaii 15 years of age. Therefore, the decisions<\/p>\n
 on by t.he learned Counsel for plaimiffs will not be<\/p>\n
   of any use to them.\n<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
For the reasons st.a{.ed above, the following:<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
“[3165:-se. two appeals  h(:1je’_0y aI1″c5w’\u00e9fc_1., j’I7h.e_ V<\/p>\n
impuggxled J1,.1dgn1e,m: and I)ecre\u00e9~,  <\/p>\n
RA No.32\/O3 passed by Ciw;_Iv”‘J;..1dg’\u00e9”~{S1″..I)1}.’)’A\ufb01\u00e9isa\ufb01stlaa ” %\u00bb<\/p>\n
Bagewadi is he-reby   Tlge ;HEL71fgH1f3EI1T and
\nDecrme of the trial vA.’,A1:\\.?c)..v25\/86′ dated
\n25\/I\/3996 pz1s\u00a7L~.cu1′  Basavana
\nBagevwu\ufb02i E? %@\u00a5\u00a7i$f ?\u00e9\u00a7\u00a7rn@\u00e9d aura }es:ored (H1 \ufb01k:\n<\/p>\n
Parties      V  \n\nii%%ld,f\"\nLEUDGE\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Ramu Baddu Lamani vs Revanasiddayya Channaveerayya … on 9 February, 2010 Author: H.N.Nagamohan Das IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA DATE9 THIS THE gm DAY OF FEBRUARY:–20i BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE REGULAR SECOND No_,9’3\u00a2\u00a7\/Coir’ REGULAR SECOCNDA\u00a75pi1:1;L&C;g;\u00a7;\u00a7A570 \/ 04 BETWEEN: R.s.A.N0.93’6’\/’C14 ” C Ramu E\u20acadd1._11 L\u00e91.m_a1ii, -, Age: 49 […]<\/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-67688","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamu Baddu Lamani vs Revanasiddayya Channaveerayya ... on 9 February, 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\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramu Baddu Lamani vs Revanasiddayya Channaveerayya ... on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-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=\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-10T01:57:33+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramu Baddu Lamani vs Revanasiddayya Channaveerayya … on 9 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-10T01:57:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2071,\"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\\\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Ramu Baddu Lamani vs Revanasiddayya Channaveerayya ... on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-10T01:57:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramu Baddu Lamani vs Revanasiddayya Channaveerayya … on 9 February, 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":"Ramu Baddu Lamani vs Revanasiddayya Channaveerayya ... on 9 February, 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\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramu Baddu Lamani vs Revanasiddayya Channaveerayya ... on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-10T01:57:33+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramu Baddu Lamani vs Revanasiddayya Channaveerayya … on 9 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-10T01:57:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010"},"wordCount":2071,"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\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010","name":"Ramu Baddu Lamani vs Revanasiddayya Channaveerayya ... on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-10T01:57:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramu-baddu-lamani-vs-revanasiddayya-channaveerayya-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramu Baddu Lamani vs Revanasiddayya Channaveerayya … on 9 February, 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\/67688","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=67688"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67688\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}