{"id":70638,"date":"2010-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-04T12:15:37","modified_gmt":"2017-12-04T06:45:37","slug":"sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri Gopalakrishna K vs Smt Gandhara Devi on 1 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Gopalakrishna K vs Smt Gandhara Devi on 1 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Aravind Kumar<\/div>\n
BETWEEN\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEARAVIND'KUMAAR_ [  \n\nSri Gopalakrishna K., _ _\nS\/0.Shankaranarayan*a..Bhatp' -. A .\n\nMajor, r\/o.Ki1akachi1--EQi:::se.A_  \" ' A\n\nDoddathota Post,   '\n\nKemrajeVi11age,\u00bb  '\n\nSullia      _ u E\n\nD KDistri<_:1:._  .  'V    .. Appellant\n\n(By Sriv_A_1ju'r*1   M Nataraj, Adv.)\nAND   A A A\n\n1. sms:..Gandhai.\u00a7  A\n_ . W \/ 0.1at_e Rangaswamy.\n\n   R'a.m'esh,   """ \n\n _V Aged, x12\u00bb years.\n\n  \n\nAged-.i_1A0 years.\n\n 4. "Sdwmya,\n\nAged 8 years,\n\n.   ""--VFA?\u00e9si;)0ndents 1 to 4 are a1}\n 2 ___R\/o.Koudicharu,\n\nM.F.A N0.7919:}'..20fJ"7_      \n\n\n\nPuttur Taluk,\nDakshina Kannada Dist.\n(Respondents 2-4 being minors<\/pre>\n
are represented by their mother
\nrespondent No.1)<\/p>\n
5. Smt.Dhanalakshmi,
\nMother of late Rangaswamy;<\/p>\n
\nR\/ o.Koudicharu, \nPuttur Taluk, .    = ~  \n<\/pre>\n
Dakshina Kannada Dist’.”–~   Respondents<\/p>\n
(By Kum.Ambika Bhat, Adv.  Adv.)<\/p>\n
This MFA is ri1e::.iinCI\u00a3r  30(1) of the
\nWorkmen’s Cornpensation Act; l’Q;23–j,_~. praying to set
\naside the order’ dated 225.2007 in\u00ab._WCA:SR 6\/2007<\/p>\n
passed by t_he’};La.bour\u20acp Officer’–.”&…..Comm1ssioner for
\nWorkmen’s “Ccm’per;satiQn–,.. _M’arr.galore.<\/p>\n
This  c:\u20ac>rningp”*on lforwadmission this day, the
\ncourt de1i:.’ere’d’.t.he’ fo1lo_v”vi.ng: f<\/p>\n
 ..ll:””—-…il{lDGMENT<\/p>\n
 ‘l’h~oughl” matter: is listed for admission, same is<\/p>\n
 taken final disposal by consent of learned<\/p>\n
lAdvocatesfapppearing for both parties.<\/p>\n
   appeal is directed against the judgment and<\/p>\n
it  dated 22.5.2007 in No.WCA:SR 6\/200″\/(F) passed<\/p>\n
it   the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
Compensation, DK, Sub-DiVision–2, Mangalore,
\nwhereunder the claim petition filed by the respondents
\ncame to be allowed in part and compensatiopniipof
\nRs.1,62,’766\/– with 12% interest p.a. from
\naward till the date of deposit questiiionieid:  ii<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
3. The parties are referrecilV’Vi’t.o_i’i’a_s  tanks in
\nthe Trial Court. The fac;ts’~p\u00abi.n  to the filing
\nof this appeal areas   A h<\/p>\n
4. The ‘tespetmietitte hefetn ‘being the claimants before<\/p>\n
the Coniinissioxierior_iWoi*1s:ntten Compensation had filed<\/p>\n
a clairnpetiitioni in ‘Noi.”WCA:SR 6 \/2007(F) under Section<\/p>\n
 22′ o”ii’:7.t:he,”Wo–iil<menVCoinpensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter<\/p>\n
i"relie.tf19ed:_it\u00bbo.: "a.ise~.Vf_2.3tct' for the sake of brevity) claiming<\/p>\n
corripensation on account of the death of Rangaswamy,<\/p>\n
 husband of the 15? respondent, father of<\/p>\n
 ..fe.spon'dents No.2 to 4 and son of the 5th respondent. It<\/p>\n
  contended in the claim petition that husband of the<\/p>\n
a\/<\/p>\n
19\u00a2 respondent viz: Rangaswarny was employed as a
\nlabourer by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as<\/p>\n
Employer') in the coconut garden belonging<\/p>\n
appellant and in the course of his employmentj<\/p>\n
asked to pluck coconuts and vyhile   <\/p>\n
duties, fell down from a coconut'\u00bb.__tre;e 94.1 <\/p>\n
sustained injuries, on accourit of which heiisuc.cum3bed <\/p>\n
to the same on the same day_.___ :Qn'account:of  death
\nof the said Rangaswari1yii,,–hi-s_  and mother<\/p>\n
filed the afore_said'"'Hi'ci\u00a7;im\ufb02i=–petitioni before the<\/p>\n
Commissioner, foif"Workmei'i""Compensation claiming<\/p>\n
compensation of  with interest.\n<\/p>\n
5.  On regiisteringlthe petition, notice was issued to<\/p>\n
 *th’e__e.n_:1ployier__ and on service of notice, employer<\/p>\n
 filed written statement denying the<\/p>\n
 averments ‘made in the claim petition. It was contended<\/p>\n
A   employer that deceased, Rangaswamy, was his<\/p>\n
neighbour and he was not working under him as a<\/p>\n
CF,<\/p>\n
coolie and he had permitted the said Rangaswamy to
\npluck coconuts since he had sought for permi_ssi’on._to
\npluck coconuts for his personal use and  .
\ncontended that deceased was Worlitipng
\nrubber plantations and at tirnes
\nplantations and said   the
\nemployer on 26.6.2093.’ seel\u00a7int_r;”per’rnission:to pluck ten
\ncoconuts for his  as such, the
\nemployer  him to pluck
\ncoconuts   belonging to the
\nemployer]   so, he fell down
\nfrom   grievous injuries and later<\/p>\n
on s-u.ccurn’bedw nialafide intention, the claimants<\/p>\n
 nav\u00e9 ,;s1e–ti the ””’ “claim petition contending that<\/p>\n
A  Rangasviainy. V V  was an employee under the<\/p>\n
erri\u00abplo3fe’r\/appellant and that there was no relationship<\/p>\n
  offernrgloyer” and “employee” between the deceased and<\/p>\n
‘ ._tl’1e’*”appel1ant. All other contentions made in the claim<\/p>\n
i V’  “petition were also denied. It was further contended that<\/p>\n
ow<\/p>\n
on humanitarian ground, he had paid a sum of
\nRs.5,000\/~ to the Wife of the deceased and ._ had<\/p>\n
produced the receipt executed by the wife<\/p>\n
deceased and her mother–in-law. It was also .<\/p>\n
that deceased was not a workmarrrrrasydefined”tinder’_the <\/p>\n
rovisioris ofWorkmen’s Corn en’satiori’Acit”.–_A’  4
\nI3 pp  y _ .\n<\/p>\n
6. On the basis of the pleadirig.s, Clo1numi’ssioner has
\nframed issues for  ‘l._cc:<jrisi'de'ration. The 13*
\nclaimant\/wife got her'self::"exa.miried.bias""PWI and got
\nmarked    aisjolexamined her brother
\nSubra:'manyaVVa"s,a.1so IASI of Sullia Police Station<\/p>\n
as Pwaf-yvhg lllideidtiifiedllithe UDR — Ex.P3 and his<\/p>\n
  and"~–n:oV_ document was marked through the<\/p>\n
 'saidVwit1ie's.,ses__. The respondent got himself examined as<\/p>\n
   marked Exs.D1, receipt and D2,<\/p>\n
 attelridazice register and also examined an employee<\/p>\n
 Working under him by name Sri Krishna Maniyani as<\/p>\n
  RW2. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence placed<\/p>\n
%\/<\/p>\n
by the parties, the Commissioner for Workmen
\nCompensation allowed the claim petition in part and<\/p>\n
awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,62,766\/–1i:with<\/p>\n
interest at 12% p.a. payable by the employer  <\/p>\n
heirs of the deceased employee and it is "  <\/p>\n
and award, which is assailed in.'<\/p>\n
the employer.\n<\/p>\n
7. Heard the learned’ the parties,<\/p>\n
8. Sri Arun Sham,g’le’ar:ned._”e,ou_nsel’r”appearing on<\/p>\n
behalf of “Njataraj,iiheonitends that deceased,
\nRangaswamy washrijotii’an”~emp1oyee and he was not a<\/p>\n
workman  defined’. tinder Section 2(1)(n} of the<\/p>\n
itV”v’J.,C’;Aeti..,’and._there”‘was no relationship of “employer”<\/p>\n
 between the appellant and the<\/p>\n
  dece’a__sed> * l\u00e9angaswamy. He would submit that<\/p>\n
deceased’,-“Rangaswamy was working as taper in the<\/p>\n
  plantations and to the said effect, the wife of the<\/p>\n
T ..i_4″‘cle’eeased has admitted in her cross–examination and in<\/p>\n
W,<\/p>\n
8<\/span>
\nView of the same, the plea putforward by the employer<\/p>\n
which is to the effect that deceased had gone to the<\/p>\n
coconut garden of the appellant for the <\/p>\n
plucking coconuts for his own use and notas  ~<\/p>\n
working under the appellant is tobe .acce;p.ted’.~:’_’;p. <\/p>\n
9. Sri Arun Sham, learned  <\/p>\n
would also draw attention torithe  the””e1’oss– ” V<\/p>\n
examination of the of thedeceased to demonstrate
\nthat deceased was residing  quiarte1*s belonging to<\/p>\n
the Government-typwhich  him, is allotted to<\/p>\n
the tapers. “of this admission made by her<\/p>\n
that deceasedvvvyasilresiodienlg in the quarters allotted by<\/p>\n
 the .\u00bbCloye1″nmen’t–,. the__only conclusion to be drawn is that<\/p>\n
 he”wa-sv”no.t”‘working under the appellant, but the<\/p>\n
contentioiifjpuitforward by the appellant is in proximity<\/p>\n
fuwithltruth and as such, he contends that it deserves to<\/p>\n
A ‘*:lf”bela’c_cepted. He would also contend that insofar as the<\/p>\n
  burden that requires to be discharged by the employer<\/p>\n
4%”\n<\/p>\n
to demonstrate that deceased was not an employee, he<\/p>\n
has produced attendance register to show as<\/p>\n
many persons were working under the <\/p>\n
admittedly the name of the deceased,__Rar1gasvi?a1n3′ doesvi ii”<\/p>\n
not find place in the attendance regis_te*ri and  <\/p>\n
goes to show that RangasWam’y..V_was’ “notvwovrkir1g-Vwuiider ‘~ L’<\/p>\n
the appellant. He would also–~–draW’–~the iattenticin of the
\nCourt that evidence  an employee
\nworking underthe  stated
\nthat  working under the
\nappellantiiianid. appellant to permit
\nhim  his own consumption and<\/p>\n
there. wasiiinof 1’e1.atiovnship of employer and employee.<\/p>\n
“iV”–v.q’phis.i:’eVid_ence uroiildiiprobablise the theory putforward<\/p>\n
 and in the absence of any other<\/p>\n
evid._enc;_e’ placed by the employee, there was no<\/p>\n
it”‘—V.”jL1sptific’ation for the Commissioner for Workmen<\/p>\n
  ‘Co’1npensation to disbelieve the same and this<\/p>\n
We<\/p>\n
l0<\/p>\n
contention having been disbelieved is contrary to the<\/p>\n
facts and records.\n<\/p>\n
10. Sri Arun Sham, learned counsel for <\/p>\n
would also contend that UDR, Ex.P3 <\/p>\n
accepted and the author of  *7-_2vho.i vbieeia, it<\/p>\n
examined as PW3 has V  in” his .\n<\/p>\n
examination that it was prep’are–d byihirn instance <\/p>\n
of his officials and he~..1\ufb021ad:not theispot and as
\nsuch the UDR report  In support<\/p>\n
of his subm_issir;o:r1s, lhez:  the following<\/p>\n
judgrn’ent’s:as   ‘<\/p>\n
1]  .(Lakshrninarayana Shetty —\n<\/p>\n
vs–‘Sh:3.ntha and another}<\/p>\n
 2)  ‘V1986 Ai(:J..i:2i48 :[Rebati Gantayat –vs– Haguru Sethi<\/p>\n
‘ (and”– after hir\ufb02) Hararnoni and others<\/p>\n
 :l$;_- i.l:9\u00a7304iiii1:V:’LLJ page 220 (Kerala) (Kochu Velu –vs–<\/p>\n
”  Joseph;\n<\/p>\n
 4}  i.i’99i8i 11 LLJ page 683 (Madras) (Commissioner,<\/p>\n
A  liovilpatti Municipality, Kovilpatti –vs–
\n” Tamilarasan 8:. 3 others]<\/p>\n
”  E3) (2006) 2 sec 450 (Radha Mohan Singh alias Lal<\/p>\n
Saheb and others –~–vs– State of UP]<\/p>\n
er’<\/p>\n
ll<\/p>\n
11. Per contra, Miss.Arnbika Bhat, learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing on behalf of Sri Chandranath <\/p>\n
support the judgment and award  <\/p>\n
Commissioner for Workmen’s C:ompensatio:ri.a1:.d woruld.<\/p>\n
contend that rnahazar andgothe Ul3R”‘would..”_re1lectv <\/p>\n
how the death has occurredl,’i’t’xi.\\.lI’i1ich  go to<\/p>\n
show that deceased’   coconuts in the
\nmiddle of the  appellant and
\nif it was   would not have
\ngone    garden, which would
\nclearly  discharging his duty as coolie
\nand he by the appellant and as<\/p>\n
relationship of: employer and employee exists. She<\/p>\n
‘;Wo.uld’v”contend that statement of the wife of the<\/p>\n
“d.e’ceaseudj go to show that deceased was working<\/p>\n
as taper and she had been allotted the house<\/p>\n
A  do\/i’l’1;ere she was residing alongwith the deceased and<\/p>\n
isolated statement made in the cross–examination<\/p>\n
gt\/,<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
cannot be relied upon to discredit the witness and as<\/p>\n
such she would contend that claim of the legal hei-.r__s of<\/p>\n
the deceased came to be accepted by Commi’ssio’if1.er,.<\/p>\n
which is based on sound appreciation of evidence”c’a;nd:’ C<\/p>\n
submits that judgment and awaifdiiiin’<\/p>\n
call for interference and prays for__c’onfirmation <\/p>\n
same and seeks for dismissal”‘0i”the appeal. Irifslupport
\nof her submissions, shehas _\u00abrellliedl;up’0n the judgment of
\nthe Apex Court in the   Devi –vs-\n<\/p>\n
Executive Enginegei’, tfdar’~Irrigation Division,
\nJahana.ba\u00a71,–. L}.ayar?e’po:r’te.d in C199′? ACJ 155.<\/p>\n
12. Having heard   Advocates appearing for<\/p>\n
 the parties, this.:vCourt of the considered View that<\/p>\n
AV__afo1:lo-wiiig’sulastantial questions of law would arise for<\/p>\n
sideration  V C it
\n4l(i)  Whether the Commissioner for Workmen<\/p>\n
Compensation was correct in holding that<\/p>\n
there exists relationship of “employer” and<\/p>\n
ar”\n<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
“employee” between the appellant and
\ndeceased, Rangaswamy?\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Whether the deceased Rangaswa1’\u00a5}}’l<\/p>\n
workman as defined under Section 2a(1;'(n–}  ~
\nthe w.c Act?  A  i ”\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Whether the deceased. Rangaswianiyi,’-di.ed,in’<\/p>\n
the course of Vemploymlent
\narose during the     2 i
\nSUBSTANTIAL  To 4:’\n<\/p>\n
13. These points  any finding
\ngiven on     with other, both
\nare consiideration and for being<\/p>\n
an swe_red.–\n<\/p>\n
l4._. _lt  _the”,’-co’nte’ntion of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
‘i V’  . ap:pearinge– for theiiappellant\/employer that deceased was<\/p>\n
  under the appellant and he had<\/p>\n
approachefdhim as a neighbour to accommodate him to<\/p>\n
 ..plucl<"\u00bbc:oconuts in the coconut garden belonging to the<\/p>\n
i "',_lap'p'ellant for his personal use and on being permitted to<\/p>\n
 " '-"pluck the coconuts, he is said to have fallen down and<\/p>\n
di\/<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
whether the contract of employment was made
\nbefore or after the passing of this Act and whether
\nsuch contract is expressed or implied, oral orin
\nwriting; but does not include any person working,’<\/p>\n
in the capacity of a member of {the Armed
\nof the Union] and any reference to a workm;a11\u00abvvh.o ~
\nhas been injured shall, where the worlirnanypii-s”l .  ‘<\/p>\n
dead, include a reference to his depenclantsfor”–any
\nof them.   a    =<\/p>\n
(2) The exercise and  <\/p>\n
powers and duties of a lo\u20ac.al authority :o’r}ovf,_,_an,\\,%’
\ndepartment [acting on behalfiof the..GoV_”e;rn’rnent]
\nshall, for the purposes of\ufb02this Act,._,unless a
\ncontrary intention appears,””oe”deemed to be the
\ntrade or business of —such ‘aut_hori.ty. or department.<\/p>\n
[(3) ‘=il’he,’*-Central\u00a3fj’Go’ve’iinme’nt or the State
\nGovernment,” by nctificaticfkin the Official Gazette,
\nafter’l’givi11.g:iinot three months’ notice of
\nits intention ‘s.o=- to diogrnay, by a like notification,
\nadd to. Schedule A:_’I~l_ any*cl~ass of persons employed
\nin any”woccupation= vghich it is satis\ufb01ed is a
\nhazarous”occupation,and the provisions of this
\nActshall there.1r1pon.apply, in case of a notification<\/p>\n
‘  by-. th’e<C'entra1 Government, within the territories
\n_ \u00bb :to_,which'\u00ab.,the Act extends, or, in the case of a
\n 'notl1fic:ationV"t-by the State Government, within the<\/p>\n
'-State, tosuch classes of persons:<\/p>\n
itpaoaatea that in making addition, the Central<\/p>\n
 Governinent or the State Government, as the case
\nff  be, may direct that the provisions of this Act
\nshall apply to such classes of persons in respect of<\/p>\n
  'specified injuries only]" 4\/<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
15. The presence of the deceased, Rangaswarny in the<\/p>\n
coconut grove of the appellant is not in dispute?-:i’~.<<l_:'I71f1e<\/p>\n
falling of the deceased from coconut tree  _<\/p>\n
the coconuts is also not in dispute as als"o"t'l'i'e.d'eath of "'<\/p>\n
Rangaswarny, which occurred ion1'ac~cou1a_t"'olf injuifies<\/p>\n
sustained after having  <\/p>\n
tree while plucking  The  reirolves as
\nto whether the decealsedwas, coolie under
\nthe appellant.5?:-.not;\u00e9ll  about 12.00
\np.m., the is said to have fallen
\n  land:"'i'rrilmediately on his falling
\ndownihe was hospital in a Maruthi van<\/p>\n
"5<\/p>\n
belon.ginglt"o._:the"appellant and on being admitted he is<\/p>\n
 said toihave expifedi. On the same day at about 14.15<\/p>\n
    a police complaint has been lodged by<\/p>\n
 apvp'clVlant whereunder it is stated that appellant is<\/p>\n
 ..a,n_. agriculturist by profession and on that day, deceased<\/p>\n
l\u00b0.iRa1ilgaswamy was engaged in the job of plucking the<\/p>\n
l V' "coconuts in his land and during the course of plucking<\/p>\n
%"\n<\/p>\n
the coconuts, he fell downqrorn coconut tree at 12.00
\np.rr1. and suffered injuries and he was shifted to the<\/p>\n
Government hospital at Sullia. The said complairithas<\/p>\n
been marked as Ex.P1 and signature of <\/p>\n
has been marked as E:-<.Pl(a). not'?<\/p>\n
dispute that it is not his signatiJ,re;. <\/p>\n
objections statement filed,-.__ there 'is no'grefere:j:nce<\/p>\n
regarding filing of complaintiiibyi him  the police
\nauthorities. The said?"ob3l.ect;ioin's_'g'statement filed on<\/p>\n
24.9.2004 is silent  reg'ardliV_to'"'.floidging of the<\/p>\n
complainti before  police authorities. If
\nit was the 'caseoi that deceased was not<\/p>\n
an employee 1,in'd.er theliappellant and if it was the case<\/p>\n
~' V.,..'0f{  appellant  the deceased was a neighbourer<\/p>\n
am his coconut garden for the purpose of<\/p>\n
pluckingcpoiconuts only for his own consumption, the<\/p>\n
  factiwould have been stated in his complaint at the<\/p>\n
  first-A'instance. Having not stated so, the theory now<\/p>\n
  pntforward by the appellant that deceased Rangaswarny<\/p>\n
a\/<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
was not an employee of the appellant and he was not
\nworking as a coolie, would not inspire c0nfiden_ceV_:it_he<\/p>\n
Court to accept such submission.\n<\/p>\n
16. Even otherwise it is to <\/p>\n
appellant has been improving his_c::-.se stagevi’by ‘$t.age”;<\/p>\n
and step by step. At the   the
\nappellant did not   deceased
\nhaving Visited._his   By further
\nimproving.   \ufb01led’ he
\nstatedv_that’~  “some other rubber
\n  also states in his written
\nstatemefitg Rangaswamy was working<\/p>\n
in\u00bb*5f’soiitne oth–erv_ arecanut plantations” and now a<\/p>\n
‘ ;conVte–n’ti~o’n_Ais_ raised in this appeal contending that<\/p>\n
ideceasedbFiangaswamy was a taper in the rubber<\/p>\n
 plantations belonging to the Forest Department. This<\/p>\n
will i.clie”a_rly goes to show as to how the appellant ~ employer<\/p>\n
thin order to avoid and evade his liability of paying<\/p>\n
W,<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
compensation is attempting to improve his case stage by
\nstage and step by step. In View of the
\ncontention of the learned counsel for the
\nthere was no relationship of emp_loye:'””
\nbetween the deceased <\/p>\n
cannot be acceded to.\n<\/p>\n
17. Be that as it     EX.P3 do
\nnot disclose these  ‘thiel’employer in the
\n  report. Even
\nthe   behalf of the appellant
\n  as DW2 has not stated
\nabout  having come to the<\/p>\n
 V gard’-env______be1onging to the appellant for the<\/p>\n
 :’of’v._plucking the coconuts for his personal<\/p>\n
”  Though Sri Arun Sham would rely upon<\/p>\n
the Lnltdgrnent of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of<\/p>\n
 bldladha Mohan Singh referred to supra by drawing<\/p>\n
attention to paragraphs 14 and 15, this Court of the<\/p>\n
We<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
considered View that principles enunciated therein
\nwould be squarely applicable to the facts of the present
\ncase, but in favour of the claimants inasmuch astheir<\/p>\n
lordship have interpreted Section 149 of IPC <\/p>\n
a conclusion that in the absence of any.V\\__Nit=ne’sses n’o–ti_ V’<\/p>\n
being re\ufb02ected in the UDR report ‘itseii<\/p>\n
a ground to discard the testimony’—-of”the wimessi, <\/p>\n
does not find place in  reVp~o_rt’_s  View of
\nproposition of law do.i}irn_tyh’e..yApeisV<"l Court, the
\ncontention of the learniedy ibr._i.'–appel1ant that<\/p>\n
witnesVse's,"ex5fho  t_he"'statements in the UDR
\nreporti\ufb01havei  version and as such UDR<\/p>\n
report caiiriot 'oes looked into by this Court cannot be<\/p>\n
'i V.  accepted and aclcvordingly it is hereby rejected. The co-<\/p>\n
 "ha.sb}~given a statement that at the time of<\/p>\n
pA1u_cki_ng  coconuts in discharge of his duty as coolie,<\/p>\n
 the deceased Rangaswamy fell down from the coconut<\/p>\n
i and sustained injuries and succumbed to the said<\/p>\n
 " -"injuries. The said statement made in the UDR report<\/p>\n
av<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
can be considered and examined in the limited scope to<\/p>\n
ascertain apparent cause of death and~.L~the<\/p>\n
circumstances surrounding it and nothing__ <\/p>\n
Hence, I am of the consideredryiew that” ‘~.\u00a2f  <\/p>\n
Radha Mohan’s case relied upon by the learn:ed_:Vco’L1nsel<\/p>\n
for appellant is to be held_v:appliciabl_e~in’iv:fa\u00a5iour..  theiii<\/p>\n
respondents.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18. Insofar as…  — Ex.D2
\nproduced    Commissioner for
\nWorkmg\ufb01   that all the names
\nof \u00ab.;,%;\u00a7:i7l.\u00a2cted in the attendance register
\nand   the name of the deceased<\/p>\n
 to be held that said Rangaswarny was<\/p>\n
‘ rpnot wVo’r.kingv in agricultural operations of the appellant,<\/p>\n
“1’s”t’o be-uejxarriined with circumspection since appellant<\/p>\n
has stated about maintaining of attendance register<\/p>\n
 ipeiitljier in the complaint lodged before the jurisdictional<\/p>\n
lgpolice or in his objections statement filed on 24.9.2004<\/p>\n
as\/’<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
since the appellant has not stated about maintaining of<\/p>\n
attendance register either in the complaint lodg_ed_yb_efore<\/p>\n
the jurisdictional police or in his objection\u00e9i <\/p>\n
filed on 24.9.2004 said register.cann*ot”‘b.e’_’:p <\/p>\n
Those persons whose name is in Ex;’D2 petcetoiso<\/p>\n
not exaniined. Said registeprwips not.__counvter*._;s’i~gned by,’<\/p>\n
any statutory authorities,,.t-‘Th.’e’- lautheriticvityyiof Ex.D2
\nitself is in doubt.’ ll  such attendant
\ncircumstancezg,  would rely upon Ex.D2<\/p>\n
attendance :.e’gilste1′., — , <\/p>\n
19.  u ‘ aspect, which requires to be
\nnoticed,”is”that ,eooe1.ieotl has paid a sum of Rs.5,000\/–<\/p>\n
to’-i:.he__llV.rife aIid.th_e,:nother of the deceased, for which he<\/p>\n
‘  ~obtairi’ed receipt. It is the contention of the<\/p>\n
l’ einployeif on humanitarian ground, he has paid the<\/p>\n
said varnount to the wife and the mother of the deceased.<\/p>\n
  author of Ex.D1 — receipt is not examined. The said<\/p>\n
 receipt, when perused, wouid reflect that it is factually<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
not so. In the said EXD1 penultimate sentence reads<\/p>\n
as under:\n<\/p>\n
“cam ea  aiam made oeeobefg aomcszgsed
\nwe 5JU”\u00a7@C;1JcDOCi3 as aidrao\u00e9 k%\u20acL?O\\i):U&rn’-\\)L):’$Ql\u00b0\ufb01.”  l’ l’<\/p>\n
(we state that there will no further ‘”<\/p>\n
amount payable to us)<\/p>\n
If it was the case of the appellant that__decease’d”Wasj not ll<\/p>\n
an employee Working..under~ap’pellant, lthverevvlwas no
\nnecessity or requirement”toe..ir1::se1fteev.the\u00b0 above referred<\/p>\n
sentence, whvich’ v-re\ufb02elctsl_:t.hat”*~in_anticipation of any<\/p>\n
probablet”‘e1n.;jr;;n that “legal of the deceased may
\nlodge avgainstl  the said sentence has been<\/p>\n
incorporated. “In_’yiew of the some also, the contention<\/p>\n
 \u00ab._of  8\u00abiP:13e1lant’slco’unse1 that there was no relationship<\/p>\n
  “employee” cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
~V 20.  .. ””vEr1s’o.lfar as the judgments relied upon by the<\/p>\n
ll”l::t.1e’arnedllllCounsel for the appellant, in the case of<\/p>\n
‘  Li\ufb02cshminarayana Shetty’s case (supra), the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
 Apex Court has held that in the said case there was no<\/p>\n
$\/,<\/p>\n
24<\/span>
\nrelationship of employer and employee, for the reasons<\/p>\n
mentioned therein and on admitted facts it was found<\/p>\n
that deceased was carrying on the painting<\/p>\n
behalf of the painting contractor in the house  <\/p>\n
to the appellant (Lakshminarayana  V’<\/p>\n
such, it was held that there :9..vas_’lnlo <\/p>\n
employer and employee   the\u00bb<\/p>\n
appellant therein. In\u00bb the  ease, itllisvnotadmitted
\nby the legal heirs of ‘theifdelceasedl\u00bbRangaswamy that<\/p>\n
there was no employer  e-mp’l_joyfe’elrelationship.<\/p>\n
21. asathel’Rebafi”‘Gdntayat’s1 case referred
\nto sup’1’\u00abal, ‘itlhasthat onus is on the claimant<\/p>\n
to prove cl\u00e9eeased was a workman, is of<\/p>\n
 persuasiVe..ppvalue\ufb02mas also the judgment in the Case of<\/p>\n
  referred to supra.\n<\/p>\n
 22; .. lie; \ufb01ebati Gantayat’s case, it has been held at<\/p>\n
A  iiplar=agraph 4 of the judgment to the following effect:<\/p>\n
4″\n<\/p>\n
‘ l986 ACJ 248<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
“-4. ………. ..tt is not possible to enumerate the
\nnature of employment exhaustively in 0:
\ngrowing society where the scope and nature”–.9
\nof employment is every expanding ……….. .._,v’\u00bb’.  <\/p>\n
On facts it has been held that there was <\/p>\n
of employer and employee. In__the in_stan’t:’_’;cas’ey;_’_xth-e ll<\/p>\n
documents at Exhibits P1, P3, R121.’ would  <\/p>\n
theory put forward by the’a_pp,ellant that  no<\/p>\n
employer and employee relati-o.n’ship..ycannotvvbeaccepted
\nfor the reasons ablo’\\;\u00e9., vyijenpce, the said
\njudgments relied “counsel for the
\nappellant   and circumstances<\/p>\n
of the ease.’  <\/p>\n
23. A. -Sri  counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
l  has vehemently argued that in View of the<\/p>\n
 by the wife of the deceased that<\/p>\n
Ran’gas’fv’am.y iwas residing in the quarters allotted to the<\/p>\n
 Dtapcers itself is sufficient to hold that deceased was not<\/p>\n
 “employee under the claimant. But, when the entire<\/p>\n
Web<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence is examined, it would reveal the following<\/p>\n
facts:–\n<\/p>\n
a) the wife of the deceased is an uned,i.iCa,t:eVdhs:”‘  V’<\/p>\n
and illiterate lady.    _ _ _ V _V\n<\/p>\n
b) at one breath, she has:=,kstatelcnI}  Al<\/p>\n
quarters belonging to Ran-gaswarn\u00a7’r\u00ab”.lothelrs  <\/p>\n
were residing. V  3 V   <\/p>\n
In the later portion of. the 3eroAs’s_–examin’ati0nA,.E she has
\nstated that, at the tirnue   he was
\nnot carrying Q\ufb02ttlfle tapping. At the
\nsame time;   as RW–1 in
\nhis ‘ it  ‘himself admitted that
\nRangas-warny   and was working in the<\/p>\n
plantation”be’longing_\u00bb  others in his own words. It<\/p>\n
 ‘~  .Are2{C_1\\S as followszl  “”” ” ‘V<\/p>\n
 ogamaosae eemeomeaacgm<\/p>\n
  he:-e\ufb01ti) wee eggs \u00e9raetscjg ea,-1 mmgggm.<\/p>\n
” ga\u00e9g\ufb01 eaadtiu we o5o’aa3)de 6&6 menace ai3a\u00a9E%c3
\ne9’\u20ac%cii>e; \u00e9ega\u00e9yadsg am a$5ad3eDc;m”. 4\/<\/p>\n
27<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
24. If it were to be so, the appellant could have<\/p>\n
examined any of his neighbours to demonstrate and<\/p>\n
establish the contention raised in the examir1atio”n;in–<\/p>\n
chief to the effect that the deceased  <\/p>\n
under the appellant, but was working.elsewhere,_   <\/p>\n
25. In the absence of any evidence<\/p>\n
placed by the employer–aplp’ella_nt has -tAo:”be*-iheldlljthatlVV<\/p>\n
the deceased was wor.king””un_del1*n.the lappelllant and
\nwhen it is so acceptedgl   legislation of<\/p>\n
Workmen’s C}o*rn._pjensation.:..Ac’t.ie’n[ac:t’ed’ for the welfare of<\/p>\n
the employee  in favour of Whom the said<\/p>\n
legislationihas be_en..venai’cted. In view of the same, the<\/p>\n
 que’stio1is of law 1 to 4 formulated<\/p>\n
l’*V.y’l1VereinaboV\u00e9._ld–eserves to be answered against the<\/p>\n
appellant in favour of the respondent.<\/p>\n
3.26. ” In View of the discussions made hereinabove,<\/p>\n
u”li.tl1iys:lf.C0urt is of the considered View that judgment and<\/p>\n
 passed by the Workmen’s Compensation<\/p>\n
4\/<\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
Commissioner does not suffer from any infirmities<\/p>\n
either on facts or on law and the same deserves to be<\/p>\n
con\ufb01rmed. Accordingly, the following order is passedgf<\/p>\n
bl<\/p>\n
ORDER
\nAppeal is dismissed.  9<\/p>\n
Judgment and award  <\/p>\n
Officer and Commissioner fo_r77?W’orkIi}1en’s’*a<\/p>\n
 WCA it<\/p>\n
Compensation,  Mangalore’  r  in,<\/p>\n
No.6\/200′? (NF)<\/p>\n
.t’d’at.i\u00a2’diVV’22.5.2OO7  hereby<\/p>\n
confirmed} ‘  ‘-\n<\/p>\n
Registry igmdiirected\u00bbV.ptoiii’trai’is’;r1it the amount<\/p>\n
  i_’th:e”-K”–appellant to the<\/p>\n
jur:sdictior1al_pV ‘i\u00a5_V\\\u00ab’o4rlx’_rr1en’–s Compensation
\nCommissioner \u00bbi  for  ..1\u00a7eing disbursed in<\/p>\n
accordance  judgment and award<\/p>\n
 byiit’he_CoAmmissioner for WCA dated<\/p>\n
 22.5.2007.\n<\/p>\n
 ye)<\/p>\n
  i   <\/p>\n
._-No g’raer’ aspjto costs.\n<\/p>\n
 draw the award accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/5
\nTudgw\u00e9<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Gopalakrishna K vs Smt Gandhara Devi on 1 September, 2010 Author: Aravind Kumar BETWEEN IN THE HIGH COURT OF’ KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICEARAVIND’KUMAAR_ [ Sri Gopalakrishna K., _ _ S\/0.Shankaranarayan*a..Bhatp’ -. A . Major, r\/o.Ki1akachi1–EQi:::se.A_ ” ‘ A Doddathota Post, […]<\/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-70638","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Gopalakrishna K vs Smt Gandhara Devi on 1 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\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Gopalakrishna K vs Smt Gandhara Devi on 1 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-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=\"2010-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-04T06:45:37+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=\"20 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-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Gopalakrishna K vs Smt Gandhara Devi on 1 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-04T06:45:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4039,\"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-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri Gopalakrishna K vs Smt Gandhara Devi on 1 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-04T06:45:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Gopalakrishna K vs Smt Gandhara Devi on 1 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":"Sri Gopalakrishna K vs Smt Gandhara Devi on 1 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\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Gopalakrishna K vs Smt Gandhara Devi on 1 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-04T06:45:37+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Gopalakrishna K vs Smt Gandhara Devi on 1 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-04T06:45:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010"},"wordCount":4039,"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-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010","name":"Sri Gopalakrishna K vs Smt Gandhara Devi on 1 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-04T06:45:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-gopalakrishna-k-vs-smt-gandhara-devi-on-1-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Gopalakrishna K vs Smt Gandhara Devi on 1 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\/70638","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=70638"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70638\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70638"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70638"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70638"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}