{"id":98045,"date":"2009-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009"},"modified":"2015-03-08T01:35:04","modified_gmt":"2015-03-07T20:05:04","slug":"a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"A C Veerappa S\/O Shetra Kallappa vs M Gurumurthaiah S\/O Halaiah on 16 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
A C Veerappa S\/O Shetra Kallappa vs M Gurumurthaiah S\/O Halaiah on 16 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana<\/div>\n
I\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 16\"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HONTSLE MR JUSTECE K N KEsHAvANAn=:*A3f.A;1~:3y:\" \n\nR.S.A. No 1610\/2008\n\ncgw. , ~ --\nR.S.A NO.161 .1-e\/'zoos \n\nBETWEEN:\n\n1. A.C. Veerappa,\nS\/0. Shetra Kallappa,\nAged about 55 years; \n\n2. Devendrappa, E 'E  E' \nS \/ 0. Pujari Hanumappa, f\nAged about\u00a7.50\u00ab,y\u00a7:ars:,_ 3: \n\nBoth are agrieu\u00a7_:uri':{:s  Qrnfession\nResident of {)0dda~bfbige1'V ' =Vi13__age,\nCheI1nagi1'i_ 'I'a1uk',. A' \" * _ E' ' \"\nDavangere D\u00abist1':'.ct re 5773001\n\n..... . APPELLANT S\n\n   are common in both the appeals)\n\n  S\u00a7d'dappa, Advocate)\n\n . AND: \n\nH M'  \"44\"'V.VResp9ndents in RSA 1 61 O\/2008\n\n..  Cnifumurthaiah, M V\n  .___?S\/0. Haiaiah,\n\nAged about 75 years, \n\n\n\n2. Rudrappa.\nS\/ o. Mariveerappa,\nAged about 55 years,\n\nBoth are agriculturists by profession\nResident of Doddabbigere Village,\nChennagiri Taluk,\n\n. Bavangere District -- 577 001\n\n(By Smt. H.R. Anitha, Advocate, fo'1jR1'.__)i ~ 'll\n\nRespondent in RSA 1 61 1\/230:3 _<\/pre>\n
Gurumurthaiah, M,
\nS\/0.Ha1a1’ah, ‘ ‘<\/p>\n
Aged about 75 years, .  A.\n<\/p>\n
Agriculturist by profession  v_  -‘ iv.”
\nResident of Dodcliabbigere V1’i}.age…Vi’–.V_ ‘  ”\n<\/p>\n
Chennagiri  V ,    _e
\nDavangere Tg)ist’_ri_ct-   ‘<\/p>\n
(By Seat.  Avr_1gitl11a,dAdi}ocate)<\/p>\n
  RSE’A\u00e91’:JVio;._1610\/2008 is filed under Section 100 of cpc
\n“‘.agaignst”the.,j’t:dgment and Decree dated 19.02.2008 passed<\/p>\n
in  ,’.2003 on the file of the Additional Sessions
\nJudge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Davangere,<\/p>\n
_ partiy allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment
\n V’a1’Id decree dated 13.11.2002 passed in O.S. NO.120\/I992
\n Won \u00abthe “file of the Civil Judge (Jr. D11.) and JMF’C.,
\nA  V.’-Chaniiagiri.\n<\/p>\n
RSA N0.1611\/2008 is \ufb01led under Section 100 of CPC<\/p>\n
 “against the judgment and Decree dated 19.02.2008 passed<\/p>\n
3] M. Gururnurthaiah, the plaintiff in <\/p>\n
filed the said suit initially for the relief <\/p>\n
injunction against the common Vappella.nt’sv>–:.::j’_1Dti: *2 <\/p>\n
Rudrappa, the Std defendant, re:spe5etA’o’f”~’landq:”tbea,tfing <\/p>\n
sy.No. 143 \/ 2, Doddabbigere “\\_ZviilageV,”   Ham’
\nChannagiri Taluk, measuring interajigpl\u00e9bontending
\nthat he is the absolute and enjoyment
\nof the said prop_erty  therein, who
\nhave no   over the same are
\ntrying to.  and enjoyment of the
\nsaid property,  are required to be restrained<\/p>\n
by means of\u00ab-..perniaI_._ient ‘injunction from interfering with his<\/p>\n
 V. possession and enjogrment of this property.<\/p>\n
 “ff,”‘*The.l’Vv’appellants herein as Defendants — 1 81 2 as<\/p>\n
 _well has .-Rudrappa, the 3113’ defendant, resisted the suit<\/p>\n
denying the ease of the plaintiff–Gummurthaiah. They<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule<\/p>\n
f uilproperty. They contended that the plaintiff is not in<\/p>\n
g<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of the entire extent of 19 guntas in Sy.1\\io.1-43\/2. 2
\nThey further contended that the plaintiff is in  of
\nonly 6 guntas in Sy. No.14?\u00bb\/2, which is the
\nand Defendant No.1 is in possess_i_or1_of   to
\nthe North of the portion in possesasionof
\ndefendant No.2 is in possessio:n..V_of to
\nSouth of the portion in” possaessfion”–~of  ‘p.laif1tiff. They
\nfurther contended  of both the
\nportions for over to   \ufb02ay have perfected<\/p>\n
their title   They gave description of<\/p>\n
the portions their occupation as Schedule –‘A’ 81<\/p>\n
‘B’ to wrfitte,n’  Therefore, they sought for<\/p>\n
disrnipssaltiy of   Subsequently, the plaintiff-<\/p>\n
  arnlended the plaint by seeking an<\/p>\n
a1tCfnatiV9e*\u00ab.pra,yer for possession pleading that in the event<\/p>\n
S if _ of the— Co.urte’oming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not<\/p>\n
 possvession of the suit schedule property, a decree for<\/p>\n
 of possession of the suit schedule property be<\/p>\n
S ordered. The defendants filed their additional written<\/p>\n
6<\/span>
\nstatement to the amended plaint contending that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is not entitled for the said alternative relief;”—.gIn the<\/p>\n
meanwhile, the appellants herein filed the<\/p>\n
340\/98 against Gurumurthaiah for the reiiefpfrz;1\u00a7\u00e91;:ra\u00a3ipl1\u00ab.,_<\/p>\n
that they have perfected their title   in <\/p>\n
respect of ‘A’ 8: ‘B’ schedule propertiesV.,’whie1’1iarefthe
\nportions of Sy. No.14?)\/2 V
\nThey interalia contended’:\u00ab.tha;t.’the’y\u00ab possession of the
\nsuit Sehedule–‘A’__& ‘B’   the portions of<\/p>\n
Sy. No.14?\u00bb\/2 ?for:;1ieo.\\'(erv::40\u20acto  .yexa.rs–;:therefore, they have<\/p>\n
perfected thei’I”5i:itle advers_e “possession and the defendant<\/p>\n
therein, xliigg’ Gnrnrnnrti:.aiah, who has no manner of right,<\/p>\n
title er ‘interest. oV’e’r  No. 143\/2 is trying to interfere with<\/p>\n
 jvtlpo\ufb02ssession and enjoyment of the property. Sri.<\/p>\n
fC3n1~fg;nurthV,aial*l~”resisted the said suit interalia contending<\/p>\n
it _ that” he-Q’ tile. the absolute owner of the land bearing<\/p>\n
.$y*.I5Io.l4i3;\/2 and the plaintiffs therein are not entitled for<\/p>\n
  th.e”de:elaration as sought. &<\/p>\n
5] On the basis of the pieadings of the parties, the<\/p>\n
trial Court framed several issues in both the <\/p>\n
suits were clubbed and common evidence”‘\u00abx\u00a7}as:*ere’eord_ed’; <\/p>\n
After the parties led evidence, the itria1″CQti,rt,.;  it<\/p>\n
of oral and documentary _ evidweiice,  *
\nGururnurthaiah– plaintiff in  “failed
\nprove that he is in  oi the entire
\nextent of land in Sy.   not furnished
\nproper   t the property in
\npossession  there is no pleading
\nregardir:r:g”hpis  the suit schedule property
\nby the ” the suit for the relief of<\/p>\n
possessioh is hot’ riiairitainable. In that View of the matter,<\/p>\n
 theirs; e;;u”mrdismiss\u00a7ed the suit in o.s. No.12()\/1992. The<\/p>\n
 held that the appellants herein who were I<\/p>\n
 the piain.tiEs’:””in 0.S. No.34c0\/98 have faiied to prove that<\/p>\n
 perfected their title by adverse possession in<\/p>\n
‘_’_p~re”:\u00bb.p’ect of ‘A’ & ‘B’ schedule properties and therefore, they<\/p>\n
 not entitled for the relief of deciaration and aiso for<\/p>\n
E.\n<\/p>\n
9<\/span>
\nplaintiff in 0.8. 120\/92, has been in possession of the land<\/p>\n
to an extent of 6 guntas in Sy. i\\lo.148\/2, which forms the
\nmiddle portion while the defendants therein’e’..:’ar_e in<\/p>\n
possession of 2 bits of land each measuring Si\u00e9\u00e9llgan-tas;.V_one<\/p>\n
on the Northern side and the other\ufb02on  <\/p>\n
Sy. No.143\/ 2. The Lower Appellate  the’? V<\/p>\n
observations of the trial Court; that-since
\nnot pleaded as to when he wa_s”‘dis—posse’s\u00absed from the suit
\nschedule property,  _  :V.foi’f~ possession is not<\/p>\n
maintainable, is pervers’e”‘ar1d law. In that View<\/p>\n
of the rr1atter’;’lf’t–he Court in exercise of its
\npower under Order “7”‘of CPC moulded the decree and<\/p>\n
held that  plaintifl-Guruinurthaiah is entitled for<\/p>\n
 pospsvessiori pf._the properties described in ‘A’ & ‘B’ schedule<\/p>\n
lb};  herein both in their written statement \ufb01led<\/p>\n
 _ in (is. lilo.-v*i20\/92 and in the plaint filed by them in o.s.<\/p>\n
“In that View of the matter, the Lower Appellate<\/p>\n
Court: dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants<\/p>\n
 “continuing the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
1.0
\nsuit in O.S. No.340\/98 and allowed the appeal filed by<\/p>\n
Gurumurthaiah against the judgment in 0.8. l2()]’92, set<\/p>\n
aside the judgment of the trial Court dismissj.n.g’ said<\/p>\n
suit and decreed the said suit in partp’:A”dire_etilng <\/p>\n
appellants herein to deliver possession’ of the  <\/p>\n
property in their possession vdesCril:\u00a7ed”as Schedule-‘A’ 8: V’Bi’p
\nin their written statement \ufb01led’V’in.._V’OuS.   plaintii\ufb01
\nGurumurthaiah. It is  these.V_j1,id\u00abgrnentHoAf the Courts<\/p>\n
below, the appellants haveV:presJentecf”these\u00ab appeals.\n<\/p>\n
6) I  learned counsel
\nappearing for  in these appeals and<\/p>\n
perused the Courts below. After hearing the<\/p>\n
-“‘.learr\u00a7e}d E(::ounsel”‘for.__..the appellants and on perusal of the<\/p>\n
judgi11ent.,s”u:11d:er. appeal, I am of the opinion, that the appeal<\/p>\n
cloesiiot  any question of law rnuchless substantial<\/p>\n
” e  . ,.  ‘ ‘question of law.\n<\/p>\n
  As could be seen from the judgments under<\/p>\n
 ..__”‘.appeal, there is no serious dispute that Sy. No.143\/2 totally<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
itself does not extinguish the right of the true owner to seek
\npossession of the property from the person who is in<\/p>\n
possession of the same. It is Well–settled law<\/p>\n
owner of the property is entitled to remain  <\/p>\n
if the property owned by him is i:nmp\u00bbos’ses\u00absiori oi”-.anyl”o_tl;1er <\/p>\n
person without any authority oflll-aw,  2
\nentitled to seek possession of tlieEpropert3r  person
\nin accordance with  lyitlljehypverson  pleads that
\nhe has perfected his  to show that<\/p>\n
he has perfe%_ctel\u00a7l\u00bbl’ ‘hiss title by adverse possession by<\/p>\n
remaining  the same openly and hostile to
\nthe interest of true and to the knowledge of the true<\/p>\n
owner; ”\n<\/p>\n
 _ in  Inthe caselon hand, both the Courts below have<\/p>\n
  that the appellants have failed to prove<\/p>\n
 _ that’~they’ have perfected their title by adverse possession<\/p>\n
 the “said plea of the appellants has been rejected on the<\/p>\n
 that they have not admitted title of the defendant-<\/p>\n
ll Gtirumurthaiah in respect of the portions of the property in<\/p>\n
\ufb01r<\/p>\n
I3<\/p>\n
their possession. Perusal of the judgments under appeal
\nindicate that the appellants have disputed tlrieftitle of
\nGurumurthajah in respect of the land bearing <\/p>\n
Therefore, the Courts below have rightly pleat {Iii<\/p>\n
the appellants that they have perfected     <\/p>\n
possession. The finding recorded –the Couprt-s.Vlt)’elo\\l2sf’;\n<\/p>\n
regard being a \ufb01nding of     of
\nperversity in the   in second
\nappeal under Section   \/g\ufb02terfere with the<\/p>\n
said finding. H  the.lju’dgrneIit”‘:of the Courts below<\/p>\n
dismissing thesuitlof the~\u00abl_’appellants for declaration of their
\ntitle is   law and does not call for<\/p>\n
interference   ‘lColurtl.\n<\/p>\n
‘  9) iidoubt, Sri. Gurumurthaiah initially filed the<\/p>\n
suit for periiisfient injunction on the premise that he is in<\/p>\n
7.,.gpgossession of the entire extent of property and that the<\/p>\n
   are ‘trying to interfere with his possession of the<\/p>\n
V. llproperty. However, in the light of the written statement \ufb01led<\/p>\n
 the appellants herein contending that they are in<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of two portions of the suit schedule property, the
\nplaintiff–Gurumurtha.iah sought amendment of thepplaint
\nseeking an alternative prayer for possession,  e:4tih:at,.pin<\/p>\n
the event of the Court coming to the concvItision:yl_tha’ti  <\/p>\n
not in possession of the entire   <\/p>\n
directed to deliver possession
\noccupation. The suit was   the   The
\namendment was     It is the
\ncontention of theAl_earned.  that there
\nis no propepri:    the prayer for
\npossession; ‘lit’ _contention that the plaintiff ~
\n the proper description of the<\/p>\n
property in possesslion oi the defendants and therefore, the<\/p>\n
    ought not to have decreed the suit for<\/p>\n
 contended that the trial Court was right<\/p>\n
it _ in ohservfing that there is no pleading as to when exactly the<\/p>\n
.p1aintiff\u00a5Giirumurthaiah was dis–possessed from the<\/p>\n
 and in the absence of such pleading he is not<\/p>\n
“entitled for the relief of possession, was in accordance with<\/p>\n
(\u00e9r\/\/<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
that the appellants are in possession of the portions of the
\nproperty to which they have no title and their4.pr\u00bba’yer for<\/p>\n
declaration that they have perfected their <\/p>\n
possession having been rejected.   right “of<\/p>\n
plaintiff-Gurumurthaiah to seek  :th,’e’V:prOp.e:rty <\/p>\n
is not extinguished in termsot”  If
\nthe Limitation Act, he  entitl.ed~v:tow~.seei{ possession of the
\nsame. No doubt, the  has included
\nthe entire ext\u20acn_*\u00a7’O_f’  schedule to the<\/p>\n
plaint in I.\u00a7S;   the fact that the<\/p>\n
appellants hderein  the plaintiff–Gururnurthaiah is
\nin possession of 6 in the middle portion of the<\/p>\n
land.  true that the”plaintiff-Gurumurthaiah should have<\/p>\n
  “describecl the portions in occupation of the<\/p>\n
 fW.}iil6 lleeking the relief of possession.<\/p>\n
 _Neve’1*’thel.ess,’:”” the relief which is granted by the Lower<\/p>\n
3’4.”‘Appel_late'”Court is not in excess of the relief sought. The<\/p>\n
.’_gjreliei’ of possession was for the entire extent of 19 guntas<\/p>\n
T ‘\u00ab’..:VVWhereas, the Lower Appellate Court has granted the relief of<\/p>\n
&\/<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
possession only to an extent of 13 guntas which is described<\/p>\n
in schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ to the written statement._\ufb01le’tf:’hy’~.the<\/p>\n
appellants herein in O.S.}20\/92. Since the”‘\u00ab’i;dentity<\/p>\n
property in possession of the ap;pellajits?i_s \u00bb\u00abin._disp.ute, <\/p>\n
the Lower Appellate Court has it
\ndirecting the appellants to dellivler\u00bbposses.s_ion.Vof
\nof the property in   In frnyfvconsidered
\nopinion, the judgment of  Court granting
\nthe relief of”    of the plaintiff\u00bb
\n perversity, illegality
\nor  Court in exercise of its
\npower  C’  evidence both oral and<\/p>\n
documentary has corne to the right conclusion that the<\/p>\n
  is entitled for possession of the<\/p>\n
portions”‘vvof.\/,,lv_tliVevvproperty in occupation of the appellants<\/p>\n
 _herei”n as”des?cribed by them in Schedule —‘A’ 8: ‘B’ in their<\/p>\n
:”.’4.4″y\u00a7fritten statement. The judgment of the Lower Appellate<\/p>\n
‘.’_t’~_Court”:does not call for interference by this Court. The<\/p>\n
by<\/p>\n
I8<\/p>\n
appeais do not involve any question of Law muchless<\/p>\n
substantial question of law.\n<\/p>\n
11) Learned counsel for the plaintiff-(:;druni{itthej;th\u00ab–_V_<\/p>\n
submitted that the judgment 8;iid”‘(}eAc1:*ee_;’  <\/p>\n
Appeiiate Court has aIready been
\nGurumurthaiah has been    sof the
\nproperty in question plat’:-:1\ufb021an_td’t’e’:th.ei,deIeiverttt\u00e9ifaittant issued
\nby the Executing  matter, I see no<\/p>\n
ground to admitihese appeals.    ‘V <\/p>\n
   are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-3
\nJUDGE<\/p>\n
‘hLKGRea 3’<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court A C Veerappa S\/O Shetra Kallappa vs M Gurumurthaiah S\/O Halaiah on 16 September, 2009 Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16″‘ DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009 BEFORE THE HONTSLE MR JUSTECE K N KEsHAvANAn=:*A3f.A;1~:3y:” R.S.A. No 1610\/2008 cgw. , ~ — R.S.A NO.161 .1-e\/’zoos […]<\/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-98045","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA C Veerappa S\/O Shetra Kallappa vs M Gurumurthaiah S\/O Halaiah on 16 September, 2009 - 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\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A C Veerappa S\/O Shetra Kallappa vs M Gurumurthaiah S\/O Halaiah on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-07T20:05:04+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\\\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A C Veerappa S\\\/O Shetra Kallappa vs M Gurumurthaiah S\\\/O Halaiah on 16 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-07T20:05:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1992,\"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\\\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009\",\"name\":\"A C Veerappa S\\\/O Shetra Kallappa vs M Gurumurthaiah S\\\/O Halaiah on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-07T20:05:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A C Veerappa S\\\/O Shetra Kallappa vs M Gurumurthaiah S\\\/O Halaiah on 16 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"A C Veerappa S\/O Shetra Kallappa vs M Gurumurthaiah S\/O Halaiah on 16 September, 2009 - 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\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A C Veerappa S\/O Shetra Kallappa vs M Gurumurthaiah S\/O Halaiah on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-07T20:05:04+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\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A C Veerappa S\/O Shetra Kallappa vs M Gurumurthaiah S\/O Halaiah on 16 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-07T20:05:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009"},"wordCount":1992,"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\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009","name":"A C Veerappa S\/O Shetra Kallappa vs M Gurumurthaiah S\/O Halaiah on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-07T20:05:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-c-veerappa-so-shetra-kallappa-vs-m-gurumurthaiah-so-halaiah-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A C Veerappa S\/O Shetra Kallappa vs M Gurumurthaiah S\/O Halaiah on 16 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/98045","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=98045"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98045\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98045"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98045"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98045"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}