{"id":75889,"date":"2003-12-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-12-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003"},"modified":"2016-10-08T01:02:04","modified_gmt":"2016-10-07T19:32:04","slug":"f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003","title":{"rendered":"F.M. Devaru Ganapati Bhat vs Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat on 19 December, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">F.M. Devaru Ganapati Bhat vs Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat on 19 December, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Y Sabharwal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Y.K.Sabharwal, Dr.A.R.Lakshmanan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4385 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nF.M. Devaru Ganapati Bhat\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPrabhakar Ganapathi Bhat\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/12\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nY.K.Sabharwal &amp; Dr.A.R.Lakshmanan\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>Y.K. Sabharwal, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tParties are brothers.  The appellant\/defendant is the elder brother.  The<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff is the younger brother.  The suit for partition and possession<br \/>\nfiled by the respondent claiming one-half share in suit properties has been decreed<br \/>\nby the trial court.  The first appeal of the appellant has been dismissed by the High<br \/>\nCourt by the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>The basis of claim in the suit was the gift deed dated 9th September, 1947<br \/>\nexecuted by Smt. Mahadevi, younger sister of Ganapathi, father of the parties.<br \/>\nWhen gift deed was executed, the appellant was a minor aged 13 years.  At that<br \/>\ntime, respondent was not born.  In the year 1936, the suit properties were sold by<br \/>\nGanapathi to his younger sister Mahadevi.  The sale was effected due to some<br \/>\nhelpless conditions of Ganapathi.  Mahadevi was issueless.  She enjoyed<br \/>\nproperties from the year 1936 upto execution of the gift deed.  The same<br \/>\nproperties were gifted under the gift deed in question.  The dispute in this appeal<br \/>\nis, however, restricted to one gifted property, namely, survey No.306.  The<br \/>\nappellant is not disputing the claim of the respondent in respect of partition of<br \/>\nremaining properties.  According to the appellant, property survey No.306 under<br \/>\nthe gift deed was given to him absolutely and the respondent, on true construction<br \/>\nof the gift deed, has no right to claim partition of the said property.  Alternatively,<br \/>\nit is contended that creation of interest in favour of the respondent who was not<br \/>\nborn when the gift deed was executed is invalid in view of Section 13 of the<br \/>\nTransfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, &#8216;the Act&#8217;).  Both these contentions have<br \/>\nnot found favour with the trial court and the High Court.<br \/>\n\tTwo questions that fall for consideration in this appeal are :\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tConstruction of gift deed dated September 9, 1947; and\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tValidity of creation of interest in the property in question in favour of<br \/>\nrespondent in view of Section 13 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the gift deed, the donor retained property survey No.306 for her<br \/>\nlivelihood till demise.  The contention is that on true construction of the gift deed<br \/>\non demise of Mahadevi, the appellant became the absolute owner of property<br \/>\nsurvey No.306.  The respondent has no right over it.  The answer would depend<br \/>\nupon the construction of the gift deed.  The original gift deed is in Kannada<br \/>\nlanguage.  When translated in English, it reads as under :<br \/>\n&#8220;THIS DEED OF GIFT OF IMMOVABLE<br \/>\nPROPERTIES AND HOUSE in village is executed on<br \/>\nthis the 9th day of September, 1947 by Smt. Mahadevi,<br \/>\nw\/o Subraya Bhat, aged about 25 years, Occupation,<br \/>\nHouse wife, belonging to Havyaka Community, R\/o<br \/>\nKeramane, Yalugar Village of Siddapur Taluk, in<br \/>\nfavour of Devaru Ganapathi Bhat, aged about 13 years,<br \/>\nR\/o Keramane, Yalugar Village of Siddapur Taluk.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWHEREAS, I am the owner of the below<br \/>\nmentioned immovable properties and house.  In order<br \/>\nto protect the interest of the below mentioned<br \/>\nproperties and house, I am thinking to gift all the<br \/>\nproperties by way of a gift to a suitable person.  As<br \/>\nyou are my brother&#8217;s son and also you have gained<br \/>\nlove and affection of mine, and also as the land and<br \/>\nhouse were previously your ancestral property, hence I<br \/>\nhave decided to gift the immovable property and house<br \/>\ntherein to you.  As described herein my malki right in<br \/>\nthe below mentioned schedule immovable property,<br \/>\nhouse and the Betta land\/Bena land and Kumki land,<br \/>\netc., situated in Yelugar village of Keremane in<br \/>\nSiddapur Taluk within the jurisdiction\/range of<br \/>\nSiddapur Sub-Registrar have been gifted and given to<br \/>\nyou today.  Henceforth neither myself nor anybody is<br \/>\nhaving right, title and interest in any manner over the<br \/>\nschedule immovable property and house etc. and you<br \/>\nhave to enjoy this property as full owner.  Therefore,<br \/>\nin future you have to pay and bear the Revenue, Tax,<br \/>\nLocal Funds and repair the Government boundary<br \/>\nstones, etc.  You have to enjoy and succeed to the<br \/>\nproperty as your own.  Since you are a minor, the<br \/>\nschedule property immovable property and house are<br \/>\nto be cultivated\/managed by your father Ganapathi<br \/>\nDevaru Bhat as the guardian of minor child and the<br \/>\nsame is to be reserved for you till you attain the age of<br \/>\nmajority.  Among the property, I have retained the<br \/>\nproperty of Sy.No.306, area 1-6-0, Assessment 16-0-0,<br \/>\nfor my livelihood till my demise and after my death,<br \/>\nthis property will be your and nobody else shall have<br \/>\nright or title over it.  In case any male children are born<br \/>\nto your parents, you shall enjoy the described<br \/>\nimmovable property and house with those male<br \/>\nchildren as a joint holder.  Therefore, this Deed of Gift<br \/>\nof immovable properties, house etc., has been<br \/>\nexecuted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tDescription\/Scheduled of immovable property<br \/>\nsituated at Yalugar Village of Siddapur Taluk.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe execution of the gift deed is not in question.  The validity of the gift<br \/>\ndeed is also not in question except to the extent indicated hereinbefore.<br \/>\nThe rule of construction is well settled that the intention of the executor of a<br \/>\ndocument is to be ascertained after considering all the words in their ordinary<br \/>\nnatural sense.  The document is required to be read as a whole to ascertain the<br \/>\nintention of the executant.  It is also necessary to take into account the<br \/>\ncircumstances under which any particular words may have been used.<br \/>\nNow, keeping in view the above principles, let us consider the admitted<br \/>\nfacts of the present case.  The donor purchased all properties from her brother on<br \/>\naccount of his helpless conditions.  When the gift was made, the parents of the<br \/>\nparties were alive.  The properties were ancestral.  The donor was issueless.  The<br \/>\nappellant was minor.  The respondent was not born.  Date of birth of the<br \/>\nrespondent is 9th November, 1949.\n<\/p>\n<p>We would now revert to the gift deed.  It clearly shows the intention of the<br \/>\ndonor that if after execution of the gift deed any male children are born, the<br \/>\nproperties should be enjoyed by the appellant with them as joint holder.  With<br \/>\nreference to property survey No.306, the words &#8220;this property will be your and<br \/>\nnobody else shall have right and title over it&#8221; cannot be read in isolation.  These<br \/>\nwords are immediately followed by the words that &#8220;in case any male children are<br \/>\nborn to your parents, you shall enjoy the described immovable property and house<br \/>\nwith those male children as joint holder&#8221;.  No exception is made in respect of<br \/>\nproperty survey No.306.  When the donor stated that &#8216;nobody else shall have right<br \/>\nor title over it&#8217;, she was only reiterating what was stated earlier that she had<br \/>\ndecided to gift the immovable property and house to the appellant since at that<br \/>\ntime, the appellant was the only male child of the brother of the donor.  There are<br \/>\nno such qualifying words in the gift deed to show an intention of the donor to<br \/>\nexclude the unborn male children from the title of property survey No.306 which<br \/>\nshe had retained for maintenance during her livelihood.  The document read as a<br \/>\nwhole clearly shows the intention of the donor that all the properties gifted shall<br \/>\nremain in the family of her brother, being their ancestral properties and shall be<br \/>\nenjoyed by the appellant and other male children as may be born, as joint holders.<br \/>\nThe words in the gift deed upon which reliance has been placed by the appellant<br \/>\ncannot be seen in isolation.  The document read as a whole does not show that the<br \/>\ndonor intended to create an absolute right in favour of the appellant.  The language<br \/>\nand tenor of the document clearly shows that the intention of Mahadevi was to<br \/>\nmake all male children of her brother joint holders of the properties without<br \/>\nexception of any property.  The gift deed has been properly construed by the<br \/>\ncourts below.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe answer to the second question hinges upon the interpretation of<br \/>\nSections 13 and 20 of the Act, which read as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;13. Transfer for benefit of unborn personWhere,<br \/>\non a transfer of property, an interest therein is created<br \/>\nfor the benefit of a person not in existence at the date<br \/>\nof the transfer, subject to a prior interest created by the<br \/>\nsame transfer, the interest created for the benefit of<br \/>\nsuch person shall not take effect, unless it extends to<br \/>\nthe whole of the remaining interest of the transferor in<br \/>\nthe property.\n<\/p>\n<p>20. When unborn person acquires vested interest<br \/>\non transfer for his benefit.Where, on a transfer of<br \/>\nproperty, an interest therein is created for the benefit of<br \/>\na person not then living, he acquires upon his birth,<br \/>\nunless a contrary intention appears from the terms of<br \/>\nthe transfer, a vested interest, although he may not be<br \/>\nentitled to the enjoyment thereof immediately on his<br \/>\nbirth.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that since the donor<br \/>\ndid not create the interest of the entire property survey No.306 for the benefit of<br \/>\nunborn male child, namely, the respondent, the interest sought to be created under<br \/>\nthe gift deed is invalid.  In support, learned counsel places reliance on the<br \/>\nobservations made in para 14 of the decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/1230342\/\">Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v.<br \/>\nThakurain Bakhtraj Kuer<\/a> [AIR 1953 SC 7] which reads as under :<br \/>\n&#8220;Of course this by itself gives no comfort to the<br \/>\ndefendant; she has to establish, in order that she may<br \/>\nbe able to resist the plaintiff&#8217;s claim, that the will<br \/>\ncreated an independent interest in her favour following<br \/>\nthe death of Dhuj Singh.  As we have said already, the<br \/>\ntestator did intend to create successive life estates in<br \/>\nfavour of the successive heirs of Dhuj Singh.  This, it<br \/>\nis contended by the appellant is not permissible in law<br \/>\nand he relied on the case of Tagore v. Tagore [18<br \/>\nW.R.359].  It is quite true that no interest could be<br \/>\ncreated in favour of an unborn person but when the gift<br \/>\nis made to a class or series of persons, some of whom<br \/>\nare in existence and some are not, it does not fail in its<br \/>\nentirety, it is valid with regard to the persons, who are<br \/>\nin existence at the time of the testator&#8217;s death and is<br \/>\ninvalid as to the rest.  The widow, who is the next heir<br \/>\nof Dhuj Singh, was in existence when the testator died<br \/>\nand the life interest created in her favour should<br \/>\ncertainly take effect.  She thus acquired under the will<br \/>\nan interest in the suit properties after the death of her<br \/>\nhusband, commensurate with the period of her own<br \/>\nnatural life and the plaintiff consequently has no<br \/>\npresent right to possession.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe brief facts of the relied decision are that a will was executed by one<br \/>\nRaja Bisheshwar Bux Singh.  The will, inter alia, stated that after the death of the<br \/>\ntestator his younger son and his heirs and successors, generation after generation,<br \/>\nmay not feel any trouble and that there may not be any quarrel between them,<br \/>\ntherefore, it as being executed with respect to certain villages so that after the<br \/>\ndeath of the testator, his younger son may enjoy the said properties.  The younger<br \/>\nson and his heirs, without power of transfer, shall exercise other rights in respect<br \/>\nof the said properties.  When the will was executed, the defendant, being the wife<br \/>\nof the younger son of Raja Bisheshwar Bux Singh was already there.  On the<br \/>\nconstruction of the will, it was held that the younger son had only a life interest in<br \/>\nthe properties under the terms of his father&#8217;s will.  Had it been an absolute interest,<br \/>\nthe property would have reverted to the elder son of the testator.  Construing the<br \/>\nwill, it was held that the testator did intend to create successive life interest in<br \/>\nfavour of the successive heirs of his younger son that was held to be not<br \/>\npermissible in law.  Under these circumstances, the Court observed that no interest<br \/>\ncould be created in favour of an unborn person.  The decision relied upon has no<br \/>\napplicability in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.  The present is not<br \/>\na case where any successive interest has been created under the gift deed.<br \/>\nThere is no ban on the transfer of interest in favour of an unborn person.<br \/>\nSection 20 permits an interest being created for the benefit of an unborn person<br \/>\nwho acquires interest upon his birth.  No provision has been brought to our notice<br \/>\nwhich stipulates that full interest in a property cannot be created in favour of<br \/>\nunborn person.  Section 13 has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\nthe present case.  In the present case, the donor gifted the property in favour of the<br \/>\nappellant, then living, and also stipulated that if other male children are later born<br \/>\nto her brother they shall be joint holders with the appellant.  Such a stipulation is<br \/>\nnot hit by Section 13 of the Act.  Creation of such a right is permissible under<br \/>\nSection 20 of the Act.  The respondent, thus, became entitled to the property on his<br \/>\nbirth.  In this view, there is also no substance in the second contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.  The parties are left to<br \/>\nbear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India F.M. Devaru Ganapati Bhat vs Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat on 19 December, 2003 Author: Y Sabharwal Bench: Y.K.Sabharwal, Dr.A.R.Lakshmanan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4385 of 2001 PETITIONER: F.M. Devaru Ganapati Bhat RESPONDENT: Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/12\/2003 BENCH: Y.K.Sabharwal &amp; Dr.A.R.Lakshmanan JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-75889","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>F.M. Devaru Ganapati Bhat vs Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat on 19 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"F.M. Devaru Ganapati Bhat vs Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat on 19 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-07T19:32:04+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"F.M. Devaru Ganapati Bhat vs Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat on 19 December, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-07T19:32:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2231,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003\",\"name\":\"F.M. Devaru Ganapati Bhat vs Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat on 19 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-07T19:32:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"F.M. Devaru Ganapati Bhat vs Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat on 19 December, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"F.M. Devaru Ganapati Bhat vs Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat on 19 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"F.M. Devaru Ganapati Bhat vs Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat on 19 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-07T19:32:04+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"F.M. Devaru Ganapati Bhat vs Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat on 19 December, 2003","datePublished":"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-07T19:32:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003"},"wordCount":2231,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003","name":"F.M. Devaru Ganapati Bhat vs Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat on 19 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-07T19:32:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/f-m-devaru-ganapati-bhat-vs-prabhakar-ganapathi-bhat-on-19-december-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"F.M. Devaru Ganapati Bhat vs Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat on 19 December, 2003"}]},{"@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\/75889","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=75889"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75889\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}