{"id":88877,"date":"2010-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010"},"modified":"2014-03-14T14:09:07","modified_gmt":"2014-03-14T08:39:07","slug":"smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt J Roopa vs Smt Sowbhagya on 26 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt J Roopa vs Smt Sowbhagya on 26 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar<\/div>\n
1\nIN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BAEGALQRE\nDATED THIS THE 26\" DAT or AUGUST, 2o19:Tr\nPRESENT b ]E\nTHE HON'BLE M. JUsTIcE_g,L. MANEEEETEET T\nAND . \u00ab E . . .\nTHE HON'BLE MR. $\ufb01S?IdE E.M3N\u00a7gg#,_ E\nREGULAR FIRST AppEAr?E\u00a7_594}2aEQ5(Ep)\nBETWEEN: A. x   2\nJ.Roopa w\/o Gopalakri\u00e9hna,AE\n\n28 years, R[at,Eo.156;\\4\"yQf\u00a2s$[f'\nII Main Road, Shgvip lya,,jr 'W\n\nMaha1akshmip\u00a7ram}_,\"g,'._r E ,\nBangalore-9$:--g\" W=VV ~_ _\u00a7 .. APPELLANT\n\n(By Advoc\u00e9EeqSrif$pSeshagiri Rao)\nAND:\n\nSowb\ufb01\u00e9gya w\/bu\ufb01,ChEnnagangaiah,\n\n'\"*57 years, R\/at N6 738, I 'F\" Cross,\n\n.'3mvStage,,\u00a7W Block, 15\" Main Road,\n'\u00a7a3ava$hwaran\u00a7gar,\nBang;1\u00a2ree79,* .. RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
(By A\ufb01vdhate Sri.D.R.Sundaresha)<\/p>\n
‘*.TrThis Regular First Appeal is filed under Order-<\/p>\n
 ~4i Rule\u00bb; of CPC against the judgment and decree<\/p>\n
~d\u00e9t\u00e9d 31.3.2010 passed in O.S.No.5766\/2006 on the<\/p>\n
V”=.gi1e of the xxv Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
5\/..\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
Bangalore, decreeing the suit for recovery of money
\nand rejecting the suit for specific performance of
\ncontract.\n<\/p>\n
This .Appeal is coming’ on for’ orders_wthis1 day,
\nMANJUNATH J. delivered the following: ‘ “*-”<\/p>\n
Legality and correctness! of “the. 5\u00a7d\u00a7e\u00a7ng;tand”<\/p>\n
decree passed in o.s.No.5%\u00a76{2oo6Vdeged 3lm3;2010-by
\nthe XXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, hangalore.\n<\/p>\n
2. Though the matter is listed for consideration of<\/p>\n
an applicationff,filedi*@forEAxgrantu of temporary<\/p>\n
injuncticn,–_ both the parties requested<\/p>\n
the court’Ftov dispose} of the appeal on merits.<\/p>\n
therefore. on the request of the counsel for both the<\/p>\n
parties, this appeal is heard on merits.<\/p>\n
fV*3. The appellant instituted the aforesaid suit to<\/p>\n
\u00bbi}grant a decree for specific performance of agreement<\/p>\n
{f”e\u00a3 sale dated 12.8.2605 and 12.1.2606 directing the<\/p>\n
‘ “defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of<\/p>\n
“=piaint A-schedule property failing which requests the<\/p>\n
‘3”?\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
lacs as advance and balance sale consideration was
\nagreed to be paid within six months from” said<\/p>\n
date and the defendant also agreed_ftof pet ‘the<\/p>\n
plaintiff in possession of thewprope’r*tv–;}::j~.Vat-.1:<\/p>\n
of registration of the sale de’ed.:_-~-sf<\/p>\n
4. It is the further  sjthatiiat
\nthe time of negotiationwsi’mo’fr_:’;the property it was
\ninformed to the  t_h.at_’.::.v”‘p_roperty of the
\ndefendant is ft. and north—\n<\/p>\n
south 30   was also physically
\nmeasured. iiii ioffxexecuting the agreement at
\nabout  defendant’s husband<\/p>\n
Channagangaiahvi and A*oth’er members of the family were<\/p>\n
present a_and~na sn:’t:””‘of Rs.5 lacs was paid as advance<\/p>\n
“presence of family members and Gzirija<\/p>\n
  Shankar  friend of defendant has also attested<\/p>\n
 docizment as an attesting witness. At the time of<\/p>\n
if drafting the agreement measurement of the site was<\/p>\n
 as 30′ x 40′ instead of 30′ x 52’. When the<\/p>\n
 ~ ,:.same was questioned, it was informed to the plaintiff<\/p>\n
8\/<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
by the defendant that what has been granted to the
\ndefendant by the EDA is only 30′ x 40′ and there is<\/p>\n
marginal land east-west 12′ and that she has enclcsed<\/p>\n
the marginal land also and further submitted that sheK<\/p>\n
has been negotiating with the EDA is get the marginalV”<\/p>\n
land in her favour and that she would deceive the
\nplaintiff and that she would execute the sale deed
\nfor 30′ x 52′ after getting th\u00e9y%Qrginal land from
\nthe sun. Therefcxe, p1sint1fs_s1gned the document on
\n12.3.2005. rmt is iue\ufb01sst stated that a sum of Rs.l
\nlac was \u00a7\u00a7iacg\u00a7 egnfig\ufb01\ufb01\ufb01; e sen of Rs.2.20 lacs was
\npaid on 23_9.\u00e9603e e s\ufb01m’cf Rs.3 lacs was paid on
\n19.10.2005 and e sen ct hs.2 lacs on 23.11.2005 was<\/p>\n
paid by was of cash.: According to the plaintiff, in<\/p>\n
ail ‘Rs 13.20 Elacs was received by the defendant<\/p>\n
  the back of the agreement dated<\/p>\n
7; i2.3.2005;l She further states that in the first week<\/p>\n
1\ufb01cfedanuary}2006 she met the defendant and her husband<\/p>\n
i\u00a2;and2:eqnested the defendant to execute the sale deed<\/p>\n
las she was ready and willing to take the sale deed by<\/p>\n
6%”\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
paying balance sale consideration. Accordingly,
\nanother agreement dated 12.1.2006 came into existence
\nas a continuation of the earlier agreement on<\/p>\n
12.8.2005 in respect of the marginal land. ‘is as the<\/p>\n
case of the plaintiff that plaintiff was ready and)<\/p>\n
willing to perform his part; of 7the” contract;%”<\/p>\n
defendant went on postponing to execute the sale deed
\nand later on further advances were also paid and she
\nnarrates how further advances eereHPaidu According
\nto the plaintiff, in are a see cf 2s.19,70,000\/– was
\npaid as stasaq in para5i0 ape; cf the plaint. Since
\nthe defendant Wdi\ufb01 inot_’execute the sale deed,
\nplaintiff gotissn\u00e9a a iegal notice on 22.4.2006 for<\/p>\n
which _an nuntenehle ireply was sent on 15.5.2006,<\/p>\n
therefore aplaintiff filed suit to enforce the<\/p>\n
ag:sc\ufb01cnt”5ca;sc” 12.3.2005 and 12.1.2006 describing<\/p>\n
Vkg the propertyl agreed to be sold under the first<\/p>\n
.f:’agr\u00a5eenxe_ntVV”‘as A-schedule property and describing the<\/p>\n
“”,gpropert\u00a7 agreed to be sold under second agreement as<\/p>\n
%”‘s.i a\u00a5schedu1e. .\n<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
5. Defendant appeared before the court and filed
\nthe written statement. According to the _4.de:E_rendant,<\/p>\n
she is an illiterate lady and she is<\/p>\n
the owner of the property and paccord.iri9″‘i:\u00a7\u00a7.,,,,;;1er <\/p>\n
is no transaction between’-._  ‘=p1axin’titff’=::y and. —<\/p>\n
defendant. One Girija Shanipar  who
\nused to advance loan to  whenever her
\nhusband approached  III Floor of
\nthe building.  ‘signatures were
\nobtained by  promise that the
\ndocuments ”  the defendant would be<\/p>\n
returned:7__aft.erV’the:V”loan”-is discharged. Believing the<\/p>\n
representation V of  Shankar she has signed the.<\/p>\n
4’documet’;\u00e9:t’v and that Girija Shankar hand”-in-glove with<\/p>\n
the  to make unlawful gain, mis-used the<\/p>\n
documents.’  by the defendant and filed suit on<\/p>\n
false ‘Iand: . frivolous grounds . She further contends<\/p>\n
 if the plaintiff has paid any amount to Naveen<\/p>\n
 Ki.1:n”a-rifis not binding on her as the said amount cannot<\/p>\n
 “la-e”V’treated as amount paid to the defendant. It is<\/p>\n
a&\/’<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
also the case of the defendant that plaintiff has no
\nfinancial capacity and was not ready and willing to
\nfulfil the terms of the agreement of sale and’-._su_it is<\/p>\n
instituted at the instance of Girija3V_:WSha11.}{a-3:._”‘by<\/p>\n
suppressing the real facts._mVbAccerdi–ng.i’\u00bbtoV <\/p>\n
plaintiff has not come with c3,ea:n..hands’..x”It:”ieis*::Vralso”~. -‘<\/p>\n
contended by the defendant’.-‘Vpt.l__-iatl’
\nof any transaction nor  property,
\nmarket value of the   value of the
\nbuilding and  make unlawful
\ngain;  was also filed on
\nthe ground ybcvo\u00abns_ideration of the property is
\nmore thanilthe   in the plaint and the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has suppressed the value of the property.<\/p>\n
“A2fheref_ore_v,:’ eppdefendant requested the court to dismiss<\/p>\n
the’ Sufi? 3  ..\n<\/p>\n
 Basedfon the above pleadings, following issues<\/p>\n
weire vfraemed by the court below:\n<\/p>\n
1 . Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant
\n” entere\u00e9 into agreement for sale dated
\n12 . 8 . 2005 in respect of A and B Schedule<\/p>\n
6\/<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
property and paid Rs.5,00,000\/- as earnest
\nmoney on the date of execution of agreement
\nfor sale? V”\n<\/p>\n
2. Whether plaintiff further pray\u00e9sfg that
\ndefendant executed another agree\ufb02ent’for sale
\ndated 12.1.2006? V ‘T’ r– ”\n<\/p>\n
3. Whether plaintiff proyesppthat\u00a5’plaintiff7 on_i
\nvarious dates paid the amounts as mentioned*”<\/p>\n
in endorsement in agreement for,sale?<\/p>\n
4. Whether plaintiff preyes that she was and is
\nalways ready and willing to perform her part
\nof contract? V’ ‘ * ”\n<\/p>\n
5. Whether’ defendant, prdyesphthat agreement for
\nsale was _executed aforl security of loan
\nadvanced at the behest of Girija Shankar?<\/p>\n
entries mags been made and agreement for sale
\nhas -been ‘created .by plaintiff on blank
\nsignatures given by defendant?\n<\/p>\n
6. Whether” defendant: prbves that fraudulent<\/p>\n
7. Whether” plaintiff is entitled for specific
\n_ performance of contract?\n<\/p>\n
V”.3F What order or what relief?\n<\/p>\n
A”.Addl}f1ss\ufb01eE Whether the relief as claimed by<\/p>\n
‘the plaintiff by way of amendment is barred by
\nLimitation?\n<\/p>\n
f’7ff i\ufb01 order to prove their respective contentions,<\/p>\n
ff”,r’f,plaintiff got herself examined as PW-1, Girija<\/p>\n
V'”a_\u00a7hankar was examined as ?W-2, one Gopalakrishna was<\/p>\n
<9"\n<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
examined as PW-3 who is none other than the husband
\nof the plaintiff, and one Kranthi Kumar was<\/p>\n
examined as PW–4 and also relied upon \ufb01wsf\ufb01fl tol5.<\/p>\n
On behalf of the de\u00a3endant,:””herfa’hushand\ufb01<\/p>\n
Channagangaiah was examined as :;a:~z~l-1?,_\u00a2ni \u00a2’\u00a7;:ound’.. –:<\/p>\n
that the defendant was unV_–‘w.ellV”‘and V  fventier
\ninto the witness box. s  appreciating
\nthe entire evidence let_in by the parties held that
\nissues 1 to 4 in:  5 to ‘7 and
\nAddl. Issue  uuitimately suit came
\nto be  thiepppppdelfendant to refund an
\namount of__  interest at 6% from the
\ndate of   of realisation. Court<\/p>\n
exercisfingae. dis-::.retio’:nary power refused to grant<\/p>\n
lspeciafic fperfermance on the ground that it would<\/p>\n
causeV”f.–._\u00a3ioVr’e”_~v.,,__hardship to the defendant than the<\/p>\n
:9i.aint’i”f\u00a3.-lifv”relief is not granted to the Plaintiff.<\/p>\n
.\u00ab_ag\u00a7’rieved by the judgment of non-wgrant of<\/p>\n
V<iecree"'Afor specific performance, present appeal is<\/p>\n
T i'l"e'd.\n<\/p>\n
6\/<\/p>\n
1}<\/p>\n
8. We have heard. Mr.T.Seshagiri Rao, counsel for
\nthe appellant and Mm.D.R.Sundaresh, counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n
9. The main contention of the appellantVhefore.us,<\/p>\n
is that the trial court has comitted an error in not_w<\/p>\n
granting relief of specific performance even though
\nthe plaintiff has proved  pi  aacarding to
\nhim, when the agreemeat executed ty the detendant has
\nbeen proved and when the plaint$f\u00a3e\ufb01a\u00a7-further proved<\/p>\n
that she was ready and willing to perform her part of<\/p>\n
the contract;\u00abe;iai court had no jurisdiction to deny
\nthe relief lof ‘specific iperformance and the trial
\ncourt has committed serious error in c\ufb02xecting the
\n:defendant to refund the advance. He further contends<\/p>\n
that even if the court had come to the conclusion<\/p>\n
v”<that Agreater, hardship would be caused to the<\/p>\n
rafdefendant_if she is directed to execute the sale deed<\/p>\n
econitthei\ufb02ground. that the consideration shown in 'the<\/p>\n
iT3\ufb01reement Rs.48,20,00D\/- is not the actual market<\/p>\n
:3 'value, the court should have considered the<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
E2<\/p>\n
transaction as a distress sale and if a party in her
\nurgency has agreed to sell the property forV_d~.1}:re_ need<\/p>\n
for a lesser amount, same cannot be <\/p>\n
reject the relief of specific perforsiafnycei ~on_r<\/p>\n
ground that the sale considerationsA.}i.s2_nolt'- r:aar'ket"~.A I<\/p>\n
value of the property. _. _ V V\n<\/p>\n
10. Per contra, counse’l,g””l.for i:h_e’.= respondent<\/p>\n
Mr.Sundaresh contendsthat:i'”trial\\'”-.court”‘is justified
\nin refusing to grantlll   of specific<\/p>\n
performance sint’3s’_’–val_ue.-Z: of=,At’he___proVperty as on the<\/p>\n
date of  notlvlllllless than a crore of
\nrupees.  property is situated in<\/p>\n
Basavesh_w_raran”ag_ar_.V’–  it has a three storied<\/p>\n
. 2,)-s,\u00a77>&;.\ufb01!intiif’f””‘had no money to Purchase the<\/p>\n
property. not placed any material to show that<\/p>\n
‘ V….’\u00bbshe   and willing to perform her part of the<\/p>\n
~l.l’_:’:..-:.o’r.tract; _ taking undue advantage of the situation<\/p>\n
 has placed, filed a false and frivolous<\/p>\n
caise\ufb01 therefore trial court is justified in refusing<\/p>\n
  grant discretionary relief of specific<\/p>\n
6)\/.\n<\/p>\n
E3<\/p>\n
performance. He further contends that even though
\nplaintiff has not proved issue No.4 by._p-gioducing<\/p>\n
cogent evidence, still the trial court.<\/p>\n
held issue No.4 in favour ofmthe <\/p>\n
further contends that even though_—npci   .:<\/p>\n
objections are filed by<l'l–'…he V"\u00a33'._e'f\u00ab.?.v1'1d.a';1'i:1'\u00bb{-,%:'_V_V.Vstglilliiilby
\nmaking use of the provisions"-V'.V:o.\u00a7__Orderjfill::}Rt:1e–22 of
\nCPC he can urge   that finding on
\nissue No.4 as bad be reversed by
\nthis court. _  plaintiff hand
\nin glove  filed the suit to
\nsuite heir' <:onve11i.enc'e.e.T:'Acciording to him, plaintiff<\/p>\n
has a6.mitted_ in ~cr'_oss–examination that she does<\/p>\n
not kn-afwiv the value of the building or site on the<\/p>\n
date \u00abofu agreement and the defendant has placed<\/p>\n
mate~ria.1  what was the value of the property<\/p>\n
as on uthe"'–VAda't.e of the agreement. He further contends<\/p>\n
 'ithough nw–1 has stated that the value of the<\/p>\n
  as on the date of agreement of sale was not<\/p>\n
.348 lacs and it was more than Rs.85 lacs, for the<\/p>\n
8*"\n<\/p>\n
E4<\/p>\n
reasons best known to the plaintiff’s counsel he does
\nnot touch upon the market value of the propert\u00a7 while<\/p>\n
cross-\u00abexamining DW-1. Therefore he <\/p>\n
market value of the property was contended ‘gbyj <\/p>\n
defendant has not been denied   is, -:\n<\/p>\n
placed before the court *that* the g\u00a7al\ufb01\u00a7 got the
\nproperty as on the; date: dg.padtesednt} was only
\nRs.48,20,000\/-. Since:”evi.de:nce”–.VoA.t:’i)W–l in regard to
\nthe market value. of” the _t;d\u00a7d\u00a7ty; has not been
\nchallenged. hy\ufb02nthep plainti\ufb01ri or “her counsel, trial
\ncourt 5.s___  that the defendant
\nwould  putAllVtvef_hiore..l_Th–ardship in directing her to<\/p>\n
sell the property north more than Rs.8S lacs for a<\/p>\n
.paultrg! sum of,pRs.e8 lacs. Mr.Sundaresh further<\/p>\n
subAm:i\u00abts that::*#;he contention of the counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant*that the sale is a distress sale would only<\/p>\n
v5_ show that amount of Rs.48,20,090\/M is not the actual<\/p>\n
.xV\ufb01arketl value. He further contends that when the<\/p>\n
hkp appellant now contends that the transaction is a<\/p>\n
“distress sale, appellant has not laid any foundation<\/p>\n
@\/<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
either by pleading or letting evidence that the sale
\nconsideration agreed was on account of distress sale.
\nThe said contention could have been considered by the<\/p>\n
court provided the appellant had paidf”theH entire<\/p>\n
consideration of Rs.48,20,000\/~ forthwithQ*\u00aeWhen”the,<\/p>\n
agreement is of” the year 2005 :and iii rthesrsuit} iep\ufb01<\/p>\n
filed in the year 2006 and e\ufb01tgee consideration is
\nnot paid, purpose of distress_ sale twa\ufb01ia also be
\ntaken away and that the t\ufb01e\u00a7g\u00a7,af.ais\u00a3\u00a7\u00a2ss sale has
\nbeen invented by the appellae%–\u00a7#”erder to over–come
\nof the judgment end.deQ%\u00a7el\u00a7\u00a5’the;\u00a3rial court. In
\nthe circemstances; he requests the court to dismiss<\/p>\n
the appeal{V\ufb02”\n<\/p>\n
gilp. Heuing'”heardf the counsel for the parties, the<\/p>\n
only point that arises for our consideration in this<\/p>\n
‘V=appeal_is;.lg’<\/p>\n
. “Whether the trial court is justified in not
\n\u00bbx’&irecting the defendant to execute the sale deed
\nxinT’ respect of plaint A and B schedule<\/p>\n
Rsproperties?”\n<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
12. Having heard the counsel for the parties, it is
\nnot in dispute that the defendant is the owner of the
\nplaint schedule property. As on the wdate of<\/p>\n
agreement dated 12 . 8 . 2005 Bwschedule : not<\/p>\n
owned by the defendant and  <\/p>\n
marginal land has been allottedvtioher”–hy.’the’V.i_:Bl5i=L:.and”‘ J<\/p>\n
she has spent enormous    iiir\ufb01arginal
\nland measuring 12′ x,—-\u00a70′   her”vca.s}e that she
\ndid not enter into ah the plaintiff
\nand that she  cioouments in favour
\nof one Girijaiziaoney lender and who
\nis in vei;-Ay._ the plaintiff. She has<\/p>\n
also denied’-gtlae xvalueg\ufb01of\u00e9\u00e9ithe property on the date of<\/p>\n
agreement “of   In this back-ground, what is<\/p>\n
‘required considered by this court is whether<\/p>\n
the ~.  *:$r’a1ue of the suit property was<\/p>\n
 Rsy.48,’.2\u00a3),Cl:(&).O’\/;- only. Whether the transaction between<\/p>\n
 “plaintiff and defendant can be treated as a<\/p>\n
 d;i.,st–ress sale and whether the property as on the date<\/p>\n
 agreement was worth more than Rs.85 lacs and<\/p>\n
We<\/p>\n
E7<\/p>\n
whether the trial court is justified in not directing
\nthe defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of
\nproperty for a sum of Rs.48,20,990\/- as against its<\/p>\n
market value of Rs.85 lacs.\n<\/p>\n
13. Though the defendant Vhas td\u00e9niedr the :agreement<\/p>\n
entered into between the partiesg’ejidence on record
\ndiscloses that the \ufb01\u00e9isement\ufb02ha\u00e9 been entered into
\nbetween the parties, since defen\ufb01e\ufb01\ufb01 has admitted her
\nsignature on gone o\ufb01 the dopa\ufb01\ufb01ntsr When once the
\ndefendant has adnittedfn\u00e9x signature in some places
\non Ex.P-$ \u00a7”3; this court has come to the conclusion
\nthat an agreemene beg been entered into between the<\/p>\n
plaintiff and the defendant. Ex.P–1 is the agreement<\/p>\n
;inarespect,of the property measuring east–west 40 ftm<\/p>\n
and ‘-30 ft.. In the schedule mentioned in<\/p>\n
i 7 \u00bbEx.Pe1g it_ is }clearly mentioned that there exists<\/p>\n
~f house property of 30 sq. RC C roof building.<\/p>\n
‘[‘9nepe;\u00a3y is admittedly situated in Basaveshwaranagar.<\/p>\n
“*I\u00a3 a site measuring 39′ x 40’ in Basaveshwaranagar,<\/p>\n
h”\u00bbhest of Chord Road which is known to be one of the<\/p>\n
6\/<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
best locality with 30 sq. RCC roof building, is it
\npossible for any party to sell for a paultry sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.48,20,000\/-. This court has to examine the actual<\/p>\n
value of the property or the nature of evidence let<\/p>\n
in by the parties to know the aezue of the pr\u00e9pertyg ;<\/p>\n
Another agreement of sale. ExfB\u00a72,>iit.:i\u00a7yMdetedA<\/p>\n
12.1.2006. It is in Vrespect’ of e\ufb01g\u00a7,~\ufb01yop\u00e9rty
\nmeasuring east-west V\ufb01ap ft.”=enawggor\u00a3\ufb01;$o\u00a3th 30 ft_
\nwith 30 sq. RCC roof building. (Consideration to be
\npayable for the ercess land is also not mentioned in
\nEx.P–2. Theieferei whet is to be considered while<\/p>\n
considering the market value is the actual extent of<\/p>\n
the site and building thereon. The property measuring<\/p>\n
east-west’ 30 aft. and north–south 52 ft., total<\/p>\n
measurement of the property would be 1560 sft. along<\/p>\n
with \u00a70\u00absg},RCC roof building. PW-1 has stated as<\/p>\n
“-.Vg property at that time.”\n<\/p>\n
hereunderi “l
\n“‘V’I< \ufb01es not aware of the market value of the<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
6%"\n<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
By looking into the entire evidence of ?W-1 it is
\nclear that she is only a name–lender to the agreement
\nand she does not know the actual transaction between<\/p>\n
the defendant and herself. Ex.Pm10 is the photograph<\/p>\n
of the building which has been taken from the reari<\/p>\n
side of the building which the”.\n<\/p>\n
construction put up by the defendant g Building is of
\na quality construction,$”tdrrlng the* “bear 2005
\nconstruction value in ‘3s5g$i\u00a7e\u00a75 is rrespect of RCC
\nroof of good guality could not hate been less than
\nRs.80,000\/-  is to be<\/p>\n
calculated ._perV’7Tsqg.7ggas_T”‘vc_o*st of construction of the<\/p>\n
building ina?0O5} fsrf\ufb01h\u00e9 building of 30 sq. it comes<\/p>\n
to Rs,Z#ulacsfW_if the value of the building itself<\/p>\n
comes to Rs,24 lacs, then this court has to examine<\/p>\n
what_Would re the value of the vacant site in respect<\/p>\n
V?” of ISEO fsfti. Admittedly the suit property is<\/p>\n
jisituated in West of Chord Road, Bangalore which is<\/p>\n
“FL \ufb01ery near to the Bangalore City Railway Station and<\/p>\n
Bangalore Central Bus Stand and it is known to be<\/p>\n
8\/<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
upper middle class locality and there is a great
\ndemand for site and building. The market value of<\/p>\n
the site in that area in the year 1985 aguxa not be<\/p>\n
less than p.s.5ooo\/- to Rs.6oo0_\/rrr.Per_~’\u00e9’q”.~~’f’_\u00a3\u00a3”:” <\/p>\n
same is considered ‘the value; o\u00a3”fthe_”site;\\_itse1fF’<\/p>\n
would be more than Rs.70″lacsthwthe\u00a5\u00e9foreW if D\ufb01rl
\nhas deposed that as on the date of acreenent, value
\nof the property was note than Rst\ufb01\ufb01 lacs, it cannot
\nbe said that there “is ;any,iexa\u00a7\u00a7eration in his
\nevidence. According to dwgln value of the property as
\non the date of aaegegg\ufb01g \ufb01gs Bs.h5 lacs which portion
\nof the evidenea ;g culled out by us as hereunder:<\/p>\n
“We will he put to hardship if property is lost<\/p>\n
or sold or ordered to be sold. I submit on oath<\/p>\n
__ that ithe marketv value of the property’ in the
\n“W.year:y20Q5 is “more “”” than Rs.85 lacs and no
\ne_. qpestion_* of selling the property to the
\n‘\u00a7;;laint..if\u00bbf’Aet.f’or sum of p.s.4s,2o,ooo\/–. Mr.G:i.rija
\n~shank’ar_”_v\u00bb.__u’::\u00a7ed to advance loan has created this<\/p>\n
document and it is he who created the documents
\nExs.P&1″& 2 to make unlawful gain.”\n<\/p>\n
ujs\u00a2g_\u00a3a:y as this piece of evidence is concerned,<\/p>\n
‘h”7_ oh; plaintiff’s counsel has not at all cross–examined<\/p>\n
.h’,_ EH41} When there is no cross–examination in regard<\/p>\n
6\/<\/p>\n
23<\/span>
\nto the market value of the property by the plaintiff
\nor by her counsel, this court has to accept ‘that the<\/p>\n
market value of the property as on  of<\/p>\n
agreement was not less than Rs.85 _1.ac:s.,xW:therefo,re.,__<\/p>\n
plaintiff’ s counsel did not  touch.   or’.._ <\/p>\n
evidence and did not chal1,_enge”._!t’he 1  the
\ncontrary, plaintiff’s counsiel_V”v’has to m\u00a7–1
\nas hereunder:  i in  if
\n“It is false to  property is
\nsold to a_third;_party,__”\u00abJj–.,_wou’.1d get more money<\/p>\n
and if the paropeirtgf “Vise .sold——~for Rs . 48, 20, 000\/-
\nto the , \u00ab._I…__wou.’!.d’*\u00ab,be_ put to loss.”<\/p>\n
From   ciliear that if the property
\nwas agreed to  a third party, property<\/p>\n
would fetch a*xI}ore’,’– money and if it is sold for<\/p>\n
 t\u00a7”‘t*n\u00a2_~ plaintiff, defendant would be<\/p>\n
 \u00ab.:”_Ihis suggestion is made to DW-l on<\/p>\n
 court is also required to be<\/p>\n
~ifjv\u00bb~c.on~sidered__A’3~ that from 2007 onwards value of the<\/p>\n
p–r”ope.rty in Bangalore has been reduced on account of<\/p>\n
recesfsion in real estate. If the suggestion is made<\/p>\n
 the plaintiff’s counsel on 19.8.2009 that if the<\/p>\n
69\/<\/p>\n
22.
\nsame is soid it would fetch more value than
\nRs . 48 , 20 , 000\/– , naturally when the property was<\/p>\n
agreed to be sold in favour of the {when<\/p>\n
there was a boom in the real estate_”=Jou*siness” _m__<\/p>\n
Bangalore, value of the property  a4n’y.:  of.._ <\/p>\n
imagination cannot be
\nconsidering the hardship  to the
\ndefendant and that    in the
\nagreement is not__the  as rightly
\ndirected  o.n’l3}B the advance sale<\/p>\n
considerationpgg  “‘1’xerV’fV By refusing to grant<\/p>\n
relief of speciifuizs _p pegrfornman-ce .<\/p>\n
14. Though  vl\u00e9arvned counsel for the plaintiff<\/p>\n
;\u00a2\u00a7:onten’c1s’ that. it wasiva distress sale, no material is<\/p>\n
pliaced  plaintiff in her evidence that<\/p>\n
V”-~ie’defendant  to sell the property for a sum of<\/p>\n
*\u00ab.i\u00abi..j’jv.i%sV.’~48,20;0VQ1~0\/~\u00bb as she was in distress. This court<\/p>\n
x_e45{.a:mined in the back-drop of the written<\/p>\n
statement of the defendant that defendant had taken<\/p>\n
V”V3,\u00a2’an from Girija Shankar, Girija Shankar had obtained<\/p>\n
6\/<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
document from the defendant and plaintiff has made
\nuse of the same at the instance of Girij_aa.y_:S.ha._nkar.<\/p>\n
Though the appellant’s counsel contends\u00bbthatff:s.ale.’is<\/p>\n
a distress sale, as rightJ,y__  cute if<\/p>\n
Mr.Sundaresh there is no proper p’1e’ading  I\u00e9~;iee\u00a2nc\u00a7”‘~. ”<\/p>\n
to show that the defendan:\u00a7,___qpas”A’v-aggreedif the
\nproperty for a sum of  \ufb01ne was in
\ndistress. By considering.    advanced by
\nthe counsel fa’!-y”‘  the defendant
\nagreed to  sale would
\nonly discVJ_._ose”‘,t’1xai;:_ of the property
\nwas not – but it was much more.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, *yconsidering=’ the arguments of the<\/p>\n
a_ppel1a.nt’V’s counsel, ‘this court has to confirm the<\/p>\n
 .VpAand,T”decree of the trial court. In the<\/p>\n
circum’st’ance%’5_,V’;;Vwe do not see any infirmity in the<\/p>\n
 judgment andfsdecree o the trial court. However, we<\/p>\n
”  the trial court did not consider the<\/p>\n
V4″a.__adva’n:cbe”A amount paid by the plaintiff in a sum of<\/p>\n
 R–sf.”i’9,7G,00O\/-. When the defendant had made use of<\/p>\n
6\/<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.19,70,0\u20ac}0\/– of the plaintiff, it would be unfair
\nfor the court to direct interest on the  sum.<\/p>\n
Considering the actual market value of gti1et’VV’.;Ioiro.Fnerty<\/p>\n
and that the plaintiff had paid faaeQ’sun'”,of_<\/p>\n
Rs.19,70,000\/~, we are of the fqp:nienfu;het_?the_i<\/p>\n
judgment and decree of ttheu  coagir-ti. ‘ii-;oij”1’,>e
\nmodified by holding that in eeei;i\u00a2n he the refund of
\nRs.19,’70,000\/- with   the date
\nof suit till the date  defendant is
\nalso to be    damages of Rs.S<\/p>\n
lacs towards. C__t\u00bbhe   incurred by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff; andallas”=-xicof\ufb01pen-sat.-‘ion for having used the<\/p>\n
said amount “Joy” the ‘defendant .\n<\/p>\n
  result; “”” “this appeal is allowed in part.<\/p>\n
Judgments. decree of the trial court in refusing to<\/p>\n
i’-~aV’grant’  specific performance is affirmed. In<\/p>\n
~ifjvmod-if:i.cat.io~n of the decree of the trial court to<\/p>\n
 sum of Rs.19,20,000\/- with interest at 6%<\/p>\n
 from the date of suit till the date of<\/p>\n
d*realization, we hold that the plaintiff is entitled<\/p>\n
\u00abE\u00bb\/A<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
for a sum of Rs.19,?D,000\/– with interest at 6% p.a.
\nfrom the date of suit till the date of realisation.<\/p>\n
In addition appellantwplaintiff is entitled for a sum<\/p>\n
of Rs.5 lacs as liquidated damages. Wdwe dirent the<\/p>\n
defendant to pay the aforesaid anount within a period 5<\/p>\n
of three months. If the amount is \ufb01not’ paid uor
\ndeposited within a period of three months \ufb01rom todey,
\naforesaid, amount shails caf\u00a3y{ interest eat 18% p.a.<\/p>\n
from today.\n<\/p>\n
 *~R[3oo31o<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt J Roopa vs Smt Sowbhagya on 26 August, 2010 Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BAEGALQRE DATED THIS THE 26″ DAT or AUGUST, 2o19:Tr PRESENT b ]E THE HON’BLE M. JUsTIcE_g,L. MANEEEETEET T AND . \u00ab E . . . THE HON’BLE MR. $\ufb01S?IdE E.M3N\u00a7gg#,_ […]<\/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-88877","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt J Roopa vs Smt Sowbhagya on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt J Roopa vs Smt Sowbhagya on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-14T08:39:07+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt J Roopa vs Smt Sowbhagya on 26 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-14T08:39:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4025,\"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\\\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt J Roopa vs Smt Sowbhagya on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-14T08:39:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt J Roopa vs Smt Sowbhagya on 26 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt J Roopa vs Smt Sowbhagya on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt J Roopa vs Smt Sowbhagya on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-14T08:39:07+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt J Roopa vs Smt Sowbhagya on 26 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-14T08:39:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010"},"wordCount":4025,"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\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010","name":"Smt J Roopa vs Smt Sowbhagya on 26 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-14T08:39:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-j-roopa-vs-smt-sowbhagya-on-26-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt J Roopa vs Smt Sowbhagya on 26 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88877","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=88877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88877\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}