{"id":98457,"date":"2009-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009"},"modified":"2015-10-15T23:19:48","modified_gmt":"2015-10-15T17:49:48","slug":"sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sri D Munireddy vs A S Krishnamurthy on 16 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri D Munireddy vs A S Krishnamurthy on 16 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: H.Billappa<\/div>\n
1N T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.--___\n\nDATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2009\" \"V 1\/\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE:\ufb01:BiLLAPPA  Z  \n\nRFA.No.441\u00a22Q06  \nBETWEEN:  2\"\n\nSri D.Munireddy\n\nS\/0 Late Dyavappa,   ,\n\nAged about 52 years,    _  '\nAVa1anagenaha11iV_i.11age~,.  _    \n\nMandikal Hobli,   .    \nChikballapur          .. APPELLANT\n\n(By Sri R.vee:-,r\u00e9::dr\u00e9\u00a2.sh\u00e9:ma,~.Adv.}  \nAND ;  ' V A\nA.S.Krish11amurfhy  \u00ab \n\nSjo '_Har1_u5\u00a7na1*1thappa.. A __ _\n\nA,ged\"ab0'ut 491 y\"'e.ars, \"\"\" \"\n\nAru_ruV.V1}.1age,\".   __\nMand1ka1 Ho_'t:];1,'j  \n\n A  Chikka.ba3.1apu'rjTa}.uk. ..RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
 _(13y Sri sag Prasad, Adv.)<\/p>\n
    RFA is \ufb01led 11\/ 8.96 of CPC against the judgment
\n decree c1t.28.11.2005 passed in OS No.97\/2001 on the<\/p>\n
1\/”\n<\/p>\n
file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, Chickballapur,
\ndecreeing the Suit for Specific Performance.   <\/p>\n
This RFA coming for “to dictate judgment”  .<\/p>\n
Court delivered the following-\n<\/p>\n
JUEGMENTS<\/p>\n
This appeal by the defendanfis  the
\njudgment and decree, dated .~2z8-l l.r-2{lO:5,l”passed’ ‘by the Civil<\/p>\n
Judge [Sr.[)n.} and JMFC, Ch4i’ck_\u00a5:)allaVpur,:in ;oj.s,No.97\/2001.<\/p>\n
2. By  the Trial
\nCourt has  plainti\u00a3T.Vlfo1X%elternative relief
\nand has directed  pay a sum of Rs.l.00,000\/–<\/p>\n
\nwith interest at  \n\n   \" the appellant has \ufb01led this\nawe  3  pp   _ \n\n4.\"    facts are;\n\n<\/pre>\n
 ‘.V’uI’he  i.e., the respondent herein \ufb01led suit in<\/p>\n
  for specific performance of the sale<\/p>\n
[2<\/p>\n
agreement dated 28-9-1998. According to the plaintiff,—the<\/p>\n
defendant had agreed to sell the suit schedule <\/p>\n
him for a sale consideration of Rs.1,25,000\/\u00ab   9<\/p>\n
Rs.1,00,0()O\/– was paid to the defendant’  1′.l”i\u20ac\u00a7 <\/p>\n
agreement. Thereafter, the defendant wentfon pogst’tponii1g’-thevdf’<\/p>\n
execution of the sale deed, inspite’V’Vo;..f.V”pv1-gpeatedtretquestsf and
\ndemands. The plaintiff
\nThe defendant repliedthe  that he has
\nnot executed the  \u00a3he’h’asfborrowed a sum
\nof Rs.  obtained on the blank
\nstamp papers  rnisused. The plaintiff filed
\nsuit for specifi”c..’_4. the sale– agreement dated
\n     recovery of the amount,<\/p>\n
alternatively.,__ ‘ ‘ a ‘ 9″‘ v<\/p>\n
5.  ..he~,9defendant i.e., the appellant herein resisted<\/p>\n
._.:’suit_. centending that he had not executed the sale<\/p>\n
,\/pp…’,\u00a2v_:ag1f\u20ac:e’1ne11t and he approached the plaintiff for a loan of<\/p>\n
“‘=.__fRa;1’o;oo0\/– and the plaintiff advanced him a sum of<\/p>\n
L\/.\n<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/– and as a security, his signatures were taken.__on<\/p>\n
the blank stamp papers and they have been .<\/p>\n
sale–agreement has been concocted. Therefore,  x<\/p>\n
has prayed for dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
6. The Trial Court has frarnedL”th_e foilovvingf’ <\/p>\n
1. Whether the plaintiff proves: “that. the defendant has
\nexecuted agreerrieritioft p:’28–9–1998 in his
\nfavour agreeing Ato..:._seliV._  property for<\/p>\n
Rs. 1 ,25,0_0Oi\u00a7}g.t,i1.’ <\/p>\n
2. Whethei’*..V.:t*}i’\u00e9?; ;\u00a71g:ntift’\u00ab–  that he has paid
\nRs.:.1,00;(3QQ _defendant on the date of<\/p>\n
agreement – of”s;a1e”? .. __Z .. t V…<\/p>\n
3. _’}Nhether “th_Ve”‘p1aintiff proves that he is willing to<\/p>\n
V’pei?for1’n,his part of the contract?<\/p>\n
  defendant proves that the plaintiff has
\nobtainewd his signature on blank stamp paper and
\n1*ia,s*misused it and created bogus agreement of sale<\/p>\n
 , “(as contended?\n<\/p>\n
L\/..\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs=___as<\/p>\n
claimed in the suit’?\n<\/p>\n
6. What decree or order?\n<\/p>\n
The Trial Court has answered issue: Z  <\/p>\n
affirmative, issue No.3 and 4 in the 11egatiVe and is’s’ttel\\}o..fjS in  9.<\/p>\n
the affirmative and consequently, ..de-c_reed’th_e:sui;t of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff, for the alternative relfef.. _  it if V<\/p>\n
7. Aggrieved  ‘V tlfat,=: L the “”ap’peVllla.nt–defendant has<\/p>\n
\ufb01led this appeal:  g<\/p>\n
8. The  for the appellant contended
\nthat the sale Vlagrevement~.Vflda=ted 28.09.1998 is fabricated.
\nFurther su.bm.itted”t1*tat the plaintiff has not signed the<\/p>\n
saleagifeeinentl anfd’-..therefore, the sale agreement has no<\/p>\n
7_f”–vs\u00bba_nct1ty  of law. He also submitted that the<\/p>\n
“”l.–7agreement “i.s__fnot duly stamped. Further he submitted that<\/p>\n
 has not received any amount from the plaintiff<\/p>\n
 has not executed the sale agreement and his<\/p>\n
L\/.t<\/p>\n
signatures were taken on the blank stamp papers ands-they<\/p>\n
have been misused. Further he submitted that  3<\/p>\n
of PWs.1 to 3 and DW.2 is totally inconsistent.”__I’i1viti\u00a7ig’ M<\/p>\n
attention to the evidence of PWs.1 to\ufb023,  <\/p>\n
P.W.1 has stated that the sale tall-;s4_too1\u00ab<:'–p'1aee  <\/p>\n
and PW.2 has stated that the utootkd.\n<\/p>\n
5.00 pm. to 6.00 pm.  thatwthe sale
\ntalks took place between  and PWs.2
\nand 3 have  on which the
\nsale talks ti)???  that while one
\nwitness saysgthatt was typed in the Advocates
\nAssociation, the the agreement was typed
\n Qf\ufb01ee  Vthe’V:other witness says, the agreement<\/p>\n
was   premises and the evidence of these<\/p>\n
3e,_,\u00bbyvitnesse;\u00a7-sis Vtotaliyvdtineonsistent. He also submitted that<\/p>\n
 PVuV…1V”h_irrise1f has stated that he was not present when<\/p>\n
‘fthe  agreement Was written i.e., typed, the other witnesses<\/p>\n
‘  PWs.3 and 4 and DW.2 have stated that he was<\/p>\n
I.\/<\/p>\n
present. He, therefore, submitted that the evidence of PWs.1<\/p>\n
to 3 and DW.2 cannot be believed and the Trial <\/p>\n
erred in recording a \ufb01nding that the execution  the ‘<\/p>\n
agreement has been proved. He <\/p>\n
signatures of the defendant have: been”ta’ken  <\/p>\n
stamp papers and thereafter, they\ufb01,+,1-,r\u00a2 been”V’misus:edV and<\/p>\n
the sale agreement has  cc-incocte.d..\u00bb_'”uFurtherJ he
\nsubmitted that the appellant,has’–pr’oVducedtire\u00bb-fierox copies of
\nthe blank stamp whichhisvdsigilatures have been<\/p>\n
taken and it__ciearj$;.  thjesale agreement has<\/p>\n
been concocted–_.*  pgh\u00e9ejsubmitted that the manner in<\/p>\n
– which the sale “agreementV,’h\u00bb-asgbeten typed and a close look at<\/p>\n
the ‘_sale\u00bb<iagreementt-..Virnakies it very clear that the sale<\/p>\n
agreement 11.as.bee'n concocted. Further he submitted that the<\/p>\n
 t.._Jappe11ant'*has  received Rs. 1,00,000\/ — nor executed the<\/p>\n
_j"_'~..s"a'1eVuagreementhvand therefore, the impugned judgment and<\/p>\n
decreeegcannot be sustained in law.\n<\/p>\n
L\/<\/p>\n
9. As against this, the learned counsel for.g–“‘the<\/p>\n
respondent submitted that the Trial Court,  a<\/p>\n
consideration of the material on record, has  _ it<\/p>\n
the suit of the plaintiff, for the alternatitze   <\/p>\n
the impugned judgement and ,de_creel”‘._clo*es not’: for <\/p>\n
interference. He also submitted
\nany objection and therefore.,._..’:the:lappellanf’\u00ab.g,annvot”contend
\nthat the agreement is not– Further he
\nsubmitted that  there in the
\nevidence of  consequence. He
\nalso submitted of the original sale-deed i.e.,
\nEx.P5 is   clearly indicates that the
\n  sale agreement. He also<\/p>\n
sul33_1:1it.ted_that,  appellant has failed to prove that his<\/p>\n
7*,_signatu’res\u00bb’wereftai\u00e9en on the blank stamp papers. Further<\/p>\n
 submitted” the appellant, neither in his notice nor in<\/p>\n
 p_’leadings”has stated, as to how, the original sale–cleed is<\/p>\n
 hfirigthe custody of the plaintiff. He also submitted that PW.l<\/p>\n
2\/<\/p>\n
has deposed regarding the payment of the amount and also
\nthe handing over of the document i.e., the original saleideed<\/p>\n
and also regarding his readiness and Willingness to.\u00abjper_forrn<\/p>\n
his part of the contract. Further he submittedft:ha.tiTI5:” ‘<\/p>\n
and 3 who are the witnesses to the sale”’agreerr1egnt”iaudit 99<\/p>\n
who is the scribe have deposed regardliifggit\ufb02hie e)99vitnVess  not seriously challenged, the execution of the sale<\/p>\n
 stands proved. Further piacing reliance on the<\/p>\n
 “_’j~d.ecisio.:1 of this Court reported in ILR 1999 KL} 2539, he<\/p>\n
L\/\/to<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
submitted that non–\ufb01ling of the rejoinder does not aniount to<\/p>\n
admission. He, therefore, submitted that <\/p>\n
judgment and decree does not call for interferen_ce’.~–… ‘  in<\/p>\n
10. In reply, the learned coiuriselo for gppeiklaiit it<\/p>\n
submitted that the sale agreement isbaa  <\/p>\n
Placing reliance on the decision ofthe Privy Cottncil Rreplortedf<\/p>\n
in AIR [31] 1994 Privy Council 1};”‘he’i.:s1il5rnittedthat, the way
\nin which the document is .tA.’rnd_icates that the<\/p>\n
document is forge’d.”‘\u00abg:.gVI%\u00a3e also;  the evidence of<\/p>\n
the witnesses”  and”‘therefore, it cannot be
\nbelieved.   that the plaintiff has not
\nsigned the .,sale4’uagreeInent  therefore, the plaintiff cannot
\n  In support of the submission, he<\/p>\n
 VtVon:’.1-the decision of the Madras High Court<\/p>\n
“reported. in.__v’PilARAl2OO1 Madras Page 447. He, therefore,<\/p>\n
.4 isubhtnittedddthat the impugned judgment and decree cannot be<\/p>\n
V” 2 s_n.stained in law.\n<\/p>\n
Lg<\/p>\n
1 1. I have carefully considered the submissions\ufb01dfe the<\/p>\n
learned counsei for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
12. The point that arises for my cQn_s_id.eratien is”, ._ <\/p>\n
whether the impugned judgment  decree’ <\/p>\n
interference?\n<\/p>\n
13, It is relevant V to.’  dis”-fori specific
\nperformance of the sale  The
\nplaintiff claims, \u00a7.the ‘i_~ t f\u00a2\u00a7;e\u00a2uted the sale
\nagreement date\u00abi’i4’V2f3;–\u00a33′:f:”1’  agreeing to sell the
\nsuit schedule   sale consideration of
\nRs.1,25,o00\/’Q “cif.'”_.i\u00a7s..1,00.000\/– was paid on the<\/p>\n
date of  sale agreement,.\n<\/p>\n
 ‘    has examined PWs.1 to 3 and <\/p>\n
 ” _Exs.P1’ tc”Pl0vhaiJ’e fbeen marked.<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
  15,  defendant has examined DWs 1 and 2.<\/p>\n
L\/<\/p>\n
16. PW.1 has deposed that the sale agreement dated
\n28.09.1998 was executed in his favour and a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,00,000\/– was paid to the defendant on the dateef the<\/p>\n
sale agreement in presence of the Witnesses. InHhisV”e:ifo.ss.–<\/p>\n
exalnination, PW}. has stated that the sale talks     <\/p>\n
his house on 28.8.1998 between 7.0c\u00a7”13\u00a7rr:;\u00abto’1s\u00ab.8.oof.:p’.t1\ufb01:t”sand.<\/p>\n
the defendant had purchased theg.starnfp..1d’apers <\/p>\n
and the defendant himself got  the’  agreement. 8<\/p>\n
Further he has stated thatihe pres.ent  the sale
\nagreement was written i.e.,   otily? ‘thje’-Witnesses were<\/p>\n
present andafter W-has typed, it was brought to
\nthe Court preni’is__ets_
\n17,81′ .2, in evidence has stated that the sale<\/p>\n
agreernent  e\u00e9teented on 28–9– 1998 and the sale talks took<\/p>\n
 place.  that and a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/– was<\/p>\n
V\ufb02paid to  defendant on the date of the sale agreement and<\/p>\n
cjhe has ‘signed the sale agreement. In his cross–examination,<\/p>\n
8′  stated that he does not know the date of sale talks and<\/p>\n
L\/’<\/p>\n
the sale talks took place in the house of PW.1 between<\/p>\n
5.00 p.111. to 6.00 p.m. Further he has stated <\/p>\n
not know the survey number or extent of theM1a:nd.’    <\/p>\n
also stated that the defendant wanted <\/p>\n
his bore machine was not wel1.V.e’Eurther”he hasV–t. <\/p>\n
the sale agreement was executed  the  (Jr. Dn)<\/p>\n
Court and he does not knowxwhere th.e”agreement was typed.<\/p>\n
18. PW.3    that the sale
\nagreement was’   and a sum of
\nRs.1,00,00Q’\/’I’  ddheth\ufb02fhas signed ‘the sale
\nagreemeflg    he has stated that he
\ncannot say.   date of the sale agreement.
\n  sgtated\ufb02dthat four persons were present when<\/p>\n
the  and it was in the morning between<\/p>\n
 a’:n1.V__to  p.n1. He has stated that the defendant<\/p>\n
 sell the property as the money was required to<\/p>\n
 the house. He has also stated that sale agreement<\/p>\n
txi;as””‘twritten (typed) in the Advocates Association at<\/p>\n
V<\/p>\n
Chikkaballapur and at that time, himself, plaintiff, defendant,<\/p>\n
I-Ianumappa and Advocate were present and the agreement<\/p>\n
was typed as per the instructions of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
defendant.\n<\/p>\n
19. DW.2 in his evidence  eieted<\/p>\n
agreement was done on 28–9–1998_:and he got. per” V<\/p>\n
the instructions of the defendaritr.””‘   alsfostated that a
\nsum of Rs.1,00,000\/– was paid  the witnesses<\/p>\n
and himself haV6;SigI1\u20acd the sa1e.. agreernent. In his cross-<\/p>\n
exaininationfffhe  ‘agreement was typed in
\nthe Taluk Cfficef time, the plaintiff and the
\ndefendantwere’present. A’He”‘has stated that the amount was<\/p>\n
 the ‘re.1u1; of\ufb01ee;”t’ ‘<\/p>\n
   from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and<\/p>\n
7…._I)”\\,’K,fV__?2.’, that evidence is totally inconsistent. PW.i has<\/p>\n
that the sale talks took place in his house on<\/p>\n
it  ie, one month prior to the date of sale agreement.<\/p>\n
L\/<\/p>\n
The other witnesses have stated that the sale talks toolgplace<\/p>\n
one day prior to the sale agreement. PW. 1 has  <\/p>\n
was not present when the sale agreement was__typed.A;.”~   <\/p>\n
has stated that he does not know  <\/p>\n
was typed. But, PW.3 has stated that,_the saleedagfeei’;n.e11t:”g<\/p>\n
was written (typed) in the   Qgssjociatioh at
\nChikkaballapur and at    ‘plaintiff i.e.,
\nPW1, the defendant._i.e.,   PW2 and
\nAdvocate were _’._a1i:d.  typed as per the
\ninstructions’  But, DW.2 has
\nstated thatgthe’  was typed at Taluk Office.
\nPW.3 has stated,  was paid in the court
\n stated that the sale consideration<\/p>\n
was   Office. PW.2 has stated that the<\/p>\n
I-‘V’va\/ppdefendant’  sell the property as his bore machine<\/p>\n
_was_not  PWZ3 has stated that the defendant wanted<\/p>\n
 the property as he required money to construct the<\/p>\n
 The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and DW.2 is totally<\/p>\n
1\/<\/p>\n
inconsistent and cannot be believed. The Trial Court has<\/p>\n
failed to consider this. The speci\ufb01c case of the defendant is<\/p>\n
that he had approached the plaintiff for a loan of <\/p>\n
and it was advanced to him and his signatures..we:I*’e_ taken on .. by <\/p>\n
two blank stamp papers and they have been <\/p>\n
sale agreement has been forged..=”T.he defe’ndant”iVj’e5.d:\u00a7W:\u00a71″<\/p>\n
his evidence stated that he   a ivv\ufb01suin of
\nRs. 10,000 \/- agreeing to pay\u00a7..d\u00a3}’1ey  perrnonth and
\nhe has paid the amount.  that he has not
\nexecuted the saie.   it–4Vis.a’concocted document.
\nIt is relevant ,>’CE’efenciant has produced the xerox
\ncopies of the hlarik   on which his signatures
\nhave beven!   marked and they are part of the<\/p>\n
recordV,”i”tVis,_evident_,_ the stamp papers have been purchased<\/p>\n
 28#9u\u00bb’ie99.8  signatures of the defendant have been<\/p>\n
Htaken on ddtliedblank stamp papers. The contents of Ex.P.4 i.e,<\/p>\n
\u00ab:._’_’V’t17:1_er~?sa;1eagreement have been typed to adjust the signatures<\/p>\n
V” thevddefendaut on the blank stamp papers. The signatures<\/p>\n
L\/<\/p>\n
‘taken _.\n<\/p>\n
of the defendant have been  on the biank .s:tamp<\/p>\n
papers and thereafter. the contents have been <\/p>\n
evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and DW.2 is totally    <\/p>\n
jheygkar\ufb01’ in 77111 Ca\ufb02\ufb01.  .’
\ncannot be believed. A The Trial Court was not just-iz\ufb01 d in’<\/p>\n
decreeing the suit of the p1aintiff..s’fQi’ the” ;iJIternati\u00a7}*+;Vtifeliefi  V<\/p>\n
21. Accordingly, the     the
\nimpugned judgment and dt3\u00a7l’e_e   Court in
\nO.S.No.97\/2001 is heifebyi,set\u00a5\u00e9isidel\u00bb.pTh’ev_.’stiittt\ufb01of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
is dismissed. The shall bear theirittj\ufb01vn costs.<\/p>\n
Sd\/*
\nIUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri D Munireddy vs A S Krishnamurthy on 16 March, 2009 Author: H.Billappa 1N T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.–___ DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2009″ “V 1\/ BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE:\ufb01:BiLLAPPA Z RFA.No.441\u00a22Q06 BETWEEN: 2” Sri D.Munireddy S\/0 Late Dyavappa, , Aged about 52 years, _ ‘ AVa1anagenaha11iV_i.11age~,. […]<\/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-98457","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri D Munireddy vs A S Krishnamurthy on 16 March, 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\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri D Munireddy vs A S Krishnamurthy on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-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=\"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-15T17:49:48+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri D Munireddy vs A S Krishnamurthy on 16 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-15T17:49:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2231,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Sri D Munireddy vs A S Krishnamurthy on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-15T17:49:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri D Munireddy vs A S Krishnamurthy on 16 March, 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":"Sri D Munireddy vs A S Krishnamurthy on 16 March, 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\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri D Munireddy vs A S Krishnamurthy on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-15T17:49:48+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri D Munireddy vs A S Krishnamurthy on 16 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-15T17:49:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009"},"wordCount":2231,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009","name":"Sri D Munireddy vs A S Krishnamurthy on 16 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-15T17:49:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-d-munireddy-vs-a-s-krishnamurthy-on-16-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri D Munireddy vs A S Krishnamurthy on 16 March, 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\/98457","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=98457"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98457\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}