{"id":89645,"date":"2008-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-07-06T22:13:31","modified_gmt":"2018-07-06T16:43:31","slug":"k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"K.V. Sudharshan vs A. Ramakrishnappa & Ors on 15 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K.V. Sudharshan vs A. Ramakrishnappa & Ors on 15 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: T Chatterjee<\/div>\n
Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n
                                                  REPORTABLE\n\n         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5646 OF 2008\n       (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21197 of 2006)\n\n\n\nK.V. Sudharshan                       ...Appellants\n\nVERSUS\n\nA. Ramakrishnappa & Ors.              ...Respondents\n\n\n\n                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.\n<\/p>\n
1. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.   This is an appeal by special leave against the<\/p>\n
     judgment and final order dated 24th of July, 2006 of<\/p>\n
     the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA<\/p>\n
     No. 126\/2006 whereby the High Court had affirmed<\/p>\n
                                                      1<\/span>
\n  the decision of the Trial Court dismissing the suit of<\/p>\n
  the appellant for partition and separate possession<\/p>\n
  along with mesne profits.\n<\/p>\n
3. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this<\/p>\n
  appeal, as emerging from the case made out by the<\/p>\n
  appellant in the plaint, are as under :-<\/p>\n
     Late     Anjanappa       had         two    sons     viz.,<\/p>\n
Ramakrishnappa and Venkataramachar, arrayed as<\/p>\n
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit. Defendant<\/p>\n
No.2\/respondent     No.2    is      the     father   of       the<\/p>\n
plaintiff\/appellant. Defendant No. 3\/respondent No.3 is<\/p>\n
the wife of Defendant No. 1\/respondent No.1. When<\/p>\n
Anjanappa was alive, he was serving as an Archak of<\/p>\n
Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple situated in Belesivalaya<\/p>\n
and there were Devadaya inam lands attached to the<\/p>\n
temple,     which   were   cultivated       by   him.     After<\/p>\n
Anjanappa’s death, the said lands were granted to the<\/p>\n
                                                          2<\/span>
\nrespondent No. 1 with the consent of the Tehsildar<\/p>\n
obtained on the ground that he was the eldest son of<\/p>\n
Anjanappa. Apart from these inam lands, Late<\/p>\n
Anjapppa also possessed ancestral and self acquired<\/p>\n
properties and after his demise, the respondent No.1<\/p>\n
was acting as the manager of the family but the joint<\/p>\n
family of the appellant and the respondents possessed<\/p>\n
all these properties as joint family properties described<\/p>\n
in Plaint Schedule A to D of the plaint. Schedule A<\/p>\n
consisted of ancestral properties viz., two agricultural<\/p>\n
lands measuring 4.11 acres and 1.34 acres respectively<\/p>\n
and five house sites. Schedule B property was a vacant<\/p>\n
site. Schedule C property consisted of two agricultural<\/p>\n
lands, which were inam lands, granted subsequently in<\/p>\n
the name of respondent No.1. Schedule D properties<\/p>\n
were moveable properties. There was no partition<\/p>\n
effected by metes and bounds and the respondent No.1,<\/p>\n
                                                    3<\/span>
\ntaking advantage of the simplicity of respondent No.2<\/p>\n
was managing all the properties and had also refused to<\/p>\n
effect partition. On 4th of July, 1988, the appellant<\/p>\n
issued a legal notice to the respondent No.1 demanding<\/p>\n
partition of the joint family properties. The respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 replied to the said notice alleging that the<\/p>\n
moveable properties had already been partitioned on<\/p>\n
23rd of April, 1962 and subsequently on 8th of May,<\/p>\n
1996, the immoveable properties were also partitioned.<\/p>\n
Since the respondent No. 1 refused to partition the<\/p>\n
immovable properties, the appellant was constrained to<\/p>\n
file the suit for partition and separate possession of his<\/p>\n
share in Plaint A to D schedule properties along with<\/p>\n
mesne profits.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   The respondent no.1 and 3 entered appearance by<\/p>\n
filing a written statement in which they denied the<\/p>\n
                                                     4<\/span>
\nmaterial allegations made in the plaint. In the written<\/p>\n
statement, it was alleged by them that since partition<\/p>\n
had already been effected between respondent no.1 and<\/p>\n
respondent no.3 i.e. the father of the appellant and that<\/p>\n
they were separately enjoying the properties that had<\/p>\n
fallen to their respective shares. It was further alleged<\/p>\n
that after the death of Anjanappa, respondent No.1,<\/p>\n
became the archak of the said temple and he was<\/p>\n
looking after and cultivating the lands attached to the<\/p>\n
said temple i.e. `C’ schedule properties of the plaint.<\/p>\n
After coming into force of the Mysore (Religious and<\/p>\n
Charitable Inams) Abolition Act, 1955, (in short `the<\/p>\n
Act’) the respondent No.1 filed an application for grant<\/p>\n
of occupancy rights in respect of `C’ schedule<\/p>\n
properties as the Archak of the temple which was<\/p>\n
conferred on him.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    5<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
5.   The respondent No.2 supported the plaint case<\/p>\n
and deposed that there was no partition of the<\/p>\n
properties by metes and bounds and that the<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 did not allow him to cultivate the<\/p>\n
lands belonging to the joint family but only a small<\/p>\n
portion of the same was allowed to be cultivated. The<\/p>\n
reason behind staying under separate mess was stated<\/p>\n
to be the quarrel between the women in the family.<\/p>\n
6.   The Trial Court by the judgment and order dated<\/p>\n
25th of January, 1996 dismissed the suit filed by the<\/p>\n
appellant on the ground that the parties were shown to<\/p>\n
be in possession of separate portion of the lands and<\/p>\n
having separate mess. Relying on the deposition of<\/p>\n
respondent No.2, it held that prior partition was<\/p>\n
established in view of the admission of respondent<\/p>\n
                                                 6<\/span>
\nNo.2 and as such the appellant could not demand<\/p>\n
partition. Against this decision of the trial court, the<\/p>\n
appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, which,<\/p>\n
however, was dismissed. The appellant filed a review<\/p>\n
petition in the High Court, which was also dismissed.<\/p>\n
It is this decision of the High Court, which is<\/p>\n
impugned in this appeal in respect of which leave has<\/p>\n
already been granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.   Before we proceed further, we may note that the<\/p>\n
notice in the instant appeal has been issued confined to<\/p>\n
the claim in relation to Schedule `C’ properties of the<\/p>\n
plaint and accordingly, the dispute in the instant appeal<\/p>\n
also revolves only concerning Schedule `C’ properties<\/p>\n
of the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    7<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
8.   Let us, therefore, look at the rival submissions of<\/p>\n
the parties advanced before us. The learned senior<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.B. Sanyal, strongly<\/p>\n
contended that in respect of the Schedule C properties<\/p>\n
(inam properties granted to respondent No. 1), the<\/p>\n
High Court had committed an error by holding that<\/p>\n
since the appellant and the respondent No.2 had not<\/p>\n
performed the duties as Archak of the Inamdar Temple<\/p>\n
and they had not personally cultivated the said lands,<\/p>\n
they were not entitled to the grant of the Inam lands. In<\/p>\n
this regard, he submitted that the courts below were<\/p>\n
not justified in holding that Inam lands were granted to<\/p>\n
the respondent No.1 in his individual capacity as<\/p>\n
Archak of the temple. In support of his contention, he<\/p>\n
relied on a decision of this court in Nagesh Bishto<\/p>\n
Desai Vs. Khando Tirmal Desai [(1982) 2 SCC 79].<\/p>\n
                                                    8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
9.   These submissions of the learned senior counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellant were contested by the learned senior<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, Mr. A.K.<\/p>\n
Ganguli. Mr. Ganguli submitted that the respondent<\/p>\n
no.1 had got the Schedule `C’ properties vacated from<\/p>\n
the tenants who were cultivating the same and was<\/p>\n
personally cultivating them and accordingly, after<\/p>\n
coming into force of the act, an application for grant of<\/p>\n
occupancy rights was moved on his behalf which was<\/p>\n
conferred on him by the competent authority after<\/p>\n
proper inquiry and therefore, the `C’ schedule<\/p>\n
properties were the self acquired properties of the<\/p>\n
respondent no.1 and accordingly, the appellant could<\/p>\n
not claim partition of the same. Mr. Ganguli relied on<\/p>\n
Section 6A of the Act and submitted that the<\/p>\n
respondent no.1 was admittedly the archak of the<\/p>\n
temple and he was also cultivating the properties<\/p>\n
                                                    9<\/span>
\npersonally for a continuous period of 3 years prior to<\/p>\n
the date of vesting and therefore, he was entitled to<\/p>\n
apply for registration of his rights under the act to the<\/p>\n
competent authority. He vehemently contended that the<\/p>\n
grant of such right is a personal right which cannot be<\/p>\n
characterized as an ancestral right because in this case,<\/p>\n
even if Anjanappa was alive, he could not have<\/p>\n
become entitled to grant of occupancy rights because<\/p>\n
he was not cultivating the lands and that the lands were<\/p>\n
being cultivated by the tenants. He also submitted that<\/p>\n
the authority relied upon would not apply to the<\/p>\n
present case as it pertains to Karnataka Village Offices<\/p>\n
Abolition Act whose scheme is entirely different from<\/p>\n
the present act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10. At this stage, we may note the findings of the<\/p>\n
High Court as also the trial court with regard to the<\/p>\n
                                                    10<\/span>
\nproperties comprised in Schedule `C’ only. The High<\/p>\n
Court arrived at the following findings: –<\/p>\n
     “………once there is division of status, the
\n     same is applicable to the granted or
\n     tenanted lands also. It is also to be noted
\n     that Anjanappa died in the year 1964 and
\n     thereafter, admittedly and undisputedly it is
\n     defendant no.1 who alone was the Archak of
\n     the temple. Only after coming into force of
\n     the land reforms act, he has got the
\n     occupancy rights conferred on himself. On
\n     perusal of the evidence of both plaintiff and
\n     his father\/defendant No.2, it is clear that
\n     there was absolutely no evidence to show
\n     that at any point of time either plaintiff of
\n     his father\/defendant no.2 acted or
\n     performed the archakship of the temple and
\n     also enjoyed the lands…………….If one
\n     peruses the Karnakata Land Reforms Act
\n     and the Karnataka Hindu Religious
\n     Institution and Charitable Endowments act,
\n     under Section 6(a) of the Act which came
\n     into force on 7.12.1973 two types of people
\n     were entitled to grant of occupancy rights…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     …………As we find that neither plaintiff has
\n     performed the duties of Archak to the temple
\n     nor there is any material to show that along
\n     with the defendant no.2, he cultivated and
\n     enjoyed the lands, the grant of occupancy
\n     rights of these inam lands must be held in<\/p>\n
                                                         11<\/span>
\n     the individual capacity of the Archak viz.,
\n     defendant no.1…….”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties<\/p>\n
and after examining the judgment of the High Court as<\/p>\n
well as of the trial court and other materials on record<\/p>\n
including the depositions of respondent Nos.1 and 2<\/p>\n
before the trial court, we are of the view that this<\/p>\n
appeal deserves to be allowed for the reasons set out<\/p>\n
hereinafter.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12. Let us first see if the submission of the appellant<\/p>\n
regarding Schedule C properties, which, as noted<\/p>\n
herein earlier, are the inam lands granted to the<\/p>\n
respondent no.1 holds any water. In order to ascertain<\/p>\n
this, we need to see whether the respondent no.1 had<\/p>\n
been granted occupancy rights in his individual<\/p>\n
                                                   12<\/span>
\ncapacity as an Archak under Section 6A of the Act. It<\/p>\n
is clear from the judgment of the High Court that it has<\/p>\n
proceeded on the assumption that since only the archak<\/p>\n
of the religious institution is entitled to be granted such<\/p>\n
inam lands, it becomes self acquired and individual<\/p>\n
property of such grantee. In Nagesh Bishto Desai Vs.<\/p>\n
Khando Tirmal Desai etc. [(1982) 2 SCC 79], it was<\/p>\n
held that inam lands granted to a member of joint<\/p>\n
family upon abolition of inams cannot be considered as<\/p>\n
indvidual property of such grantee and should be<\/p>\n
considered as a joint family property available for<\/p>\n
partition. In the present case, the grant in favour of<\/p>\n
respondent no.1 was made because his father was the<\/p>\n
archak of the temple and he, being the eldest in the<\/p>\n
family, there was no objection expressed for granting<\/p>\n
the land to him. In this view of the matter, we are of<\/p>\n
the considered opinion that the inam lands cannot be<\/p>\n
                                                      13<\/span>
\nregarded as the individual property of the grantee and<\/p>\n
the High Court has committed an error by holding that<\/p>\n
since the appellant has not performed functions as<\/p>\n
archak, nor cultivated the land personally, he was not<\/p>\n
entitled to seek partition. We are not inclined to accept<\/p>\n
the submission of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent Nos. 1 and 3 that the decision in Nagesh<\/p>\n
Bishto’s case (supra) would not apply to the facts of<\/p>\n
the present case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13. There is another aspect of the matter. Under the<\/p>\n
scheme of the Act, inam lands are liable to be granted<\/p>\n
to the tiller of such lands, be, as it may, as tenants,<\/p>\n
archaks or office bearers of the inamdar temple.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, we are of the view that such grants are<\/p>\n
meant for the benefit of the family of the tiller and not<\/p>\n
him individually and for this reason, there can be no<\/p>\n
                                                    14<\/span>
\njustification to disregard the rights of the junior<\/p>\n
members of the family if their eldest member was<\/p>\n
performing the duties of archak with the consent of<\/p>\n
others. For this reason and in view of the decision of<\/p>\n
this court in Nagesh Bishto’s case [supra], we are of<\/p>\n
the view that grant of land to archak cannot disentitle<\/p>\n
the other members of the family of the right to the land<\/p>\n
and such granted land, therefore, is also available for<\/p>\n
partition. Furthermore, it also emerges from the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Trial Court that the tenants cultivating<\/p>\n
the land had stated that respondent no.2 had requested<\/p>\n
his father, Anjanappa to allow him to cultivate the<\/p>\n
lands who accordingly gave his consent before the land<\/p>\n
tribunal also. Such being the position, if other<\/p>\n
members of the family had not objected to his<\/p>\n
becoming the archak of the temple because he was the<\/p>\n
eldest and also allowed him to cultivate the lands then,<\/p>\n
                                                   15<\/span>
\nif subsequently he was, by virtue of the fact that he<\/p>\n
was the archak and also personally cultivating the<\/p>\n
lands, granted the lands, he cannot take away the rights<\/p>\n
of such other members of the family in the granted<\/p>\n
lands.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14. We may look at this case from yet another angle.<\/p>\n
It is pellucid that respondent no.2 is relying only on<\/p>\n
Section 6A to submit that he was granted the<\/p>\n
occupancy rights. When we look at Section 6A, it is<\/p>\n
clear that the respondent no.2 satisfied the conditions<\/p>\n
enumerated therein and for that reason, he was granted<\/p>\n
the occupancy rights. If we look at this in isolation, we<\/p>\n
may well come to the conclusion that since respondent<\/p>\n
no.2 had fulfilled the conditions of Section 6A, he was<\/p>\n
granted the occupancy rights and the question of<\/p>\n
bringing the other family members did not arise.<\/p>\n
                                                    16<\/span>
\nHowever, we are not inclined to look at Section 6A in<\/p>\n
isolation. If seen in totality, it is discernible that the<\/p>\n
father of respondent no.2 gave his consent and allowed<\/p>\n
respondent no.2 to cultivate the land after taking the<\/p>\n
same from the tenants. Even the land tribunal, while<\/p>\n
passing the order granting occupancy rights, had not<\/p>\n
confined itself to the fact that the conditions in Section<\/p>\n
6A were fulfilled. Rather, the land tribunal had<\/p>\n
observed that the father of respondent no. 2 was the<\/p>\n
archak and anubhavdar of the temple and this was a<\/p>\n
prime consideration in granting occupancy rights to the<\/p>\n
respondent no.2. Therefore, it would be wrong to hold<\/p>\n
that simply because the conditions in Section 6A were<\/p>\n
fulfilled, the respondent no. 2 was granted occupancy<\/p>\n
rights and it was his individual rights. The truth is that<\/p>\n
the respondent No.2 became the Archak after the death<\/p>\n
of his father because he was the eldest in the family<\/p>\n
                                                     17<\/span>
\nand only then came the question of satisfying the<\/p>\n
conditions of Section 6A.\n<\/p>\n
15. Apart from this, it is wrong on the part of the<\/p>\n
respondent no.2 to say that his father, even if he had<\/p>\n
been alive, would not have been granted occupancy<\/p>\n
rights because the lands at that time were cultivated by<\/p>\n
the tenants. For grant of occupancy rights, personal<\/p>\n
cultivation is just one condition. The other conditions<\/p>\n
include that if a person is managing the properties,<\/p>\n
which his father was doing, would also be entitled to<\/p>\n
the grant of occupancy rights. We are, therefore,<\/p>\n
clearly of the view that the respondent no. 1 was made<\/p>\n
archak after the death of his father because he was the<\/p>\n
eldest member of the family. Being the archak, he<\/p>\n
cultivated the lands and obtained occupancy rights. In<\/p>\n
such circumstances, it would be highly unjust to<\/p>\n
deprive the other members of the family from getting<\/p>\n
                                                   18<\/span>
\ntheir share in Schedule `C’ properties by relying only<\/p>\n
on Section 6A. Therefore, we are also of the opinion<\/p>\n
that the granted lands are also available for partition.<\/p>\n
In our view, grant of occupancy to one member will<\/p>\n
not disentitle the other members. This principle can<\/p>\n
also be found in the case of Appi Belchadthi & Ors.<\/p>\n
vs. Sheshi Belchadthi & Ors. (1982) 2 Karnataka<\/p>\n
Law Journal 565.\n<\/p>\n
16. For    the   aforesaid   reasons,   the   impugned<\/p>\n
     Judgment is set aside and the appeal is remanded<\/p>\n
     back to the High Court to decide the share of each<\/p>\n
     party in respect of Schedule `C’ properties within<\/p>\n
     3 months from the date of supply of a copy of this<\/p>\n
     judgment to it. The appeal is thus allowed to the<\/p>\n
     extent indicated above. There will be no order as<\/p>\n
     to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   19<\/span>
\n                      ……………………J.<\/p>\n
\n                                        [Tarun\nChatterjee]\n\nNew Delhi;                     .....................\n...J.\n<\/pre>\n
September 15, 2008.     [Harjit Singh Bedi]<\/p>\n
                                       20<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K.V. Sudharshan vs A. Ramakrishnappa & Ors on 15 September, 2008 Author: T Chatterjee Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, Harjit Singh Bedi REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5646 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21197 of 2006) K.V. Sudharshan …Appellants VERSUS A. Ramakrishnappa […]<\/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-89645","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK.V. Sudharshan vs A. Ramakrishnappa & Ors on 15 September, 2008 - 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\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.V. Sudharshan vs A. Ramakrishnappa & Ors on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-06T16:43:31+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.V. Sudharshan vs A. Ramakrishnappa & Ors on 15 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-06T16:43:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2675,\"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\\\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008\",\"name\":\"K.V. Sudharshan vs A. Ramakrishnappa & Ors on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-06T16:43:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.V. Sudharshan vs A. Ramakrishnappa & Ors on 15 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"K.V. Sudharshan vs A. Ramakrishnappa & Ors on 15 September, 2008 - 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\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.V. Sudharshan vs A. Ramakrishnappa & Ors on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-06T16:43:31+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.V. Sudharshan vs A. Ramakrishnappa & Ors on 15 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-06T16:43:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008"},"wordCount":2675,"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\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008","name":"K.V. Sudharshan vs A. Ramakrishnappa & Ors on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-06T16:43:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-sudharshan-vs-a-ramakrishnappa-ors-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.V. Sudharshan vs A. Ramakrishnappa & Ors on 15 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/89645","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=89645"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89645\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89645"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89645"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89645"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}