Hon’ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh celebrates his 54th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Engalaguppe Seetharamaiah Indiresh: Born on 16th April, 1972. Had early education at Pandavapura Town. Secured B.Sc degree from Yuvaraja’s College, Mysore. Obtained degree in Law from Sharada Vilas College, Mysore and LL.M. from University of Mysore. Secured First Rank in Constitutional Law Branch.
Enrolled as an Advocate in the Karnataka State Bar Council on 12.1.1996. Joined the Office of Smt. B.V. Nagarathna, who is presently serving as Judge of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Practiced in different branches like Service, Labour, Education etc.
Served as Panel Advocate for Mysore Sugar Company, KSFC, Karnataka Marketing Federation, Oriental Insurance Company, United India Insurance Company etc.
Worked as Part-time Lecturer in Sharada Vilasa Law College, Mysuru and later worked at Havanur College of Law and Bangalore Institute of Legal Studies at Bangalore. Was a regular faculty at Karnataka Police Academy and had given lectures on preventive Detention matters, particularly, GOONDA Act and Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA).
Served as Government Pleader and as Additional Government Advocate between 2009 till elevation.
Appointed as an Additional Judge of the Karnataka High Court on 07th February, 2020 and Permanent Judge on 25th September, 2021.
Important Judgements delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice E S Indiresh.
| Important Judgements delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice E S Indiresh. Sale of property attached towards permanent alimony granted under the Hindu Marriage Act is hit by the provisions of Section 64 of Code of Civil Procedure and Sections 52 and 100 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Karnataka High Court. https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/yNcbnEmI19cgFMjp208uETNd1 Karnataka Co-operative Society Rules. Auction purchaser who fails to deposit entire bid amount within time under Rule 38(2)(i) loses all claims to the property and becomes liable for loss occasioned by the subsequent sale. Karnataka High Court. https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/GJ99QhLk4S01LfwFPyeSFsMGe Procedural laws should advance substantial justice to the parties. Technicalities should not come in the way of extending benefits to litigants who approach the Court with clean hands. Karnataka High Court. https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/AtRgC9gN30fizTFKXRpS0zPXO |
Auction purchaser withdrawing from the sale due to the property embroiled in further litigation is entitled for refund of the deposit amount under Order XXI Rule 86 of CPC. Karnataka High Court.
Bombay Public Trust Act. Though alienation of immovable property by the public trust without the previous sanction of the Charity Commissioner is null and void, the challenge to such alienation shall be made within reasonable time. Karnataka High Court.
Temporary Injunction. Latest and important judgment. Principles reiterated and laid down. Karnataka High Court.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Erroneous part of an award can be separated under proviso to section 34(2) instead of ordering fresh arbitration. Karnataka High Court.
Civil Procedure Code. When written statement is not filed, the court cannot straightway decree the suit. Court must carefully consider ex-parte evidence and give adequate reasons for its judgment. Karnataka High Court.
Even adopted children are entitled for compassionate appointment. Rule to the contrary is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.
In proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C, family Court must accept address provided in the petition supported by an affidavit. Technicality shall not defeat the purpose of the provision aimed at safeguarding wife and children. Karnataka High Court.
Award of compensation in land acquisition is not as a matter of right and the same is dependent on the persons establishing their title over the property. Karnataka High Court.
Passing of second award for lands acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 is without jurisdiction which can be quashed by a Writ despite the availability of alternate remedy under the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Government has no power to prescribe fee structure in private unaided Schools. Karnataka High Court strikes down offending provisions of the Karnataka Education Act as unconstitutional.
Tahsildar has no power to evict a person from Government lands under Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Succession Act. Amended Section 6 has no application in respect of property already sold prior to 20th December, 2004 even though the daughters have not joined the sale transaction. Karnataka High Court.
Unregistered relinquishment deed can be relied on for the collateral purpose of proving earlier partition and division of joint family status as recited in the deed. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. Authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to decide title of parties. Validity of registered Sale Deed cannot be gone into under Sections 70 and 118 of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for partition. Mere purchase of property in the name of co-sharer does not prove self acquisition when there is joint family nucleus and when independent income is not proved. Karnataka High Court.
Reclassification of kharab lands after prolonged delay of several decades is impermissible. Revenue authorities must adhere to the established land classifications in the revenue records when determining the nature of the land. Karnataka High Court.
Disputes regarding service conditions of employees in private unaided educational institutions fall under the jurisdiction of the Karnataka Education Act and cannot be adjudicated by Civil Courts under Section 9 of CPC. When a special statute provides a specific remedy, the jurisdiction of civil courts is impliedly barred. Karnataka High Court.
A plaintiff recognized as the owner in an earlier declaratory suit can file a subsequent suit for possession if possession was not previously sought. Mere long-term possession without an intention to exclude the rightful owner does not constitute adverse possession. Karnataka High Court.
Children from a second marriage are entitled to a share in their father’s share in ancestral property, even if their mother had relinquished her rights. Any sale of joint family property without the consent of all co-owners does not affect the inheritance rights of non-consenting legal heirs. Karnataka High Court.
If an acquiring authority fails to take possession of the land and does not issue the award notice within a reasonable time, particularly after three decades, the land acquisition proceedings lapse. Mere issuance of notifications and deposit of compensation belatedly does not validate an acquisition that has effectively been abandoned. Karnataka High Court.
A plaintiff seeking recovery of possession of property alleging dispossession must establish the date and manner of dispossession from the property; failure to do so defeats the claim. Karnataka High Court.
A coparcener has no inherent right of pre-emption over joint family property unless explicitly provided by law or a valid agreement. Suit to enforce pre-emption rights must be filed within one year from the date of knowledge of the sale, failing which it is barred by limitation under Section 97 of the Limitation Act. Karnataka High Court.
Once the land falls within the Corporation area, Planning Authority cannot insist on change in the revenue documents under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for sanction of development/modified plan. Karnataka High Court.
Issuance of Hakkupatras by the Government in respect of private property and change of revenue entry amount to deemed acquisition. Landowner is entitled for payment of suitable compensation. Karnataka High Court.
When party marks secondary evidence to establish the existence of primary evidence, there is no requirement of filing application under Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act. Karnataka High Court.
Children of predeceased brother are also entitled to succeed to the property of the prepositus under the Mysore Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933. Karnataka High Court.
Specific performance. Subsequent escalation in market value is not a ground to refuse specific performance of the agreement when all other factors are proved. Karnataka High Court.
In matters of inheritance for families previously governed by Aliyasanthana Law, if the property owner dies after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the provisions of the 1956 Act—specifically Section 7(2) and Section 17—shall override the customary Madras Aliyasanthana law. Karnataka High Court.
Wakf. A suit instituted by a Wakf Institution cannot be dismissed as not maintainable or abated solely because the Mutawalli who filed the suit has been removed from office or has seen their term expire. Since the Institution itself is the suitor, the litigation must continue to protect the underlying public or religious interest. Karnataka High Court.
A registered Sale Deed executed by a Housing Co-operative Society in favor of its member cannot be cancelled unilaterally by the Society through a subsequent Deed of Cancellation. The power to cancel a registered instrument vests exclusively with the Civil Court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. Any subsequent allotment or sale of the same property to a third party, predicated upon such a void cancellation deed, is invalid and does not affect the absolute ownership of the original purchaser. Karnataka High Court.
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. Order of eviction should not be passed mechanically if the primary objective of maintenance and welfare can be achieved otherwise. Where a residential property contains sufficient separate living space, and the presence of the children in a
separate portion does not impede the well-being or safety of the senior citizens, a summary order of eviction is contrary to the spirit of the Act and constitutes a legal error. Karnataka High Court.
Tender blacklisting. Members of a consortium are jointly and severally liable for the actions of the lead member in the tender process. Even a ‘non-active’ partner who claims to have withdrawn from the consortium can be legally debarred if they failed to notify the tendering authority of the fraud immediately upon discovery, thereby acting as a ‘fence-sitter’. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Stamp Act. Recovery of deficit duty in cases of suppression, cannot be invoked against a Co-operative Housing Society for a sale deed executed for the purchase of undeveloped land meant for distribution as sites to its members. The liability for deficit stamp duty based on the subsequent sale of developed sites to members is a future event that materializes only upon the execution of those subsequent sale deeds by the allottees. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. Statutory authorities under the Act are required to complete the compulsory acquisition process within a reasonable time after issuing a declaration of a ‘slum area’. An undue and unexplained delay in initiating or pursuing the acquisition constitutes a failure to discharge their statutory duty and justifies quashing the original slum declaration on the ground of delay and laches. Karnataka High Court.
A mortgagee cannot claim right over the mortgaged property just because long period of time has been lapsed since in the case of usufructuary mortgage, unlike other types of mortgages, the Mortgagee cannot claim ownership over the suit property even after the expiry of thirty years from the date of mortgage. Karnataka High Court.
An unregistered document, which is compulsorily registrable, even if admitted in evidence without objection from the opposing party, does not become admissible in law and cannot confer any rights upon the parties. Karnataka High Court.
An agreement to sell property, when execution of the sale deed is postponed due to the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, is not void. A suit for specific performance can be decreed once the Fragmentation Act is repealed. Karnataka High Court.
Rectification of an instrument is permissible only by the original parties or all their legal successors in interest. A Rectification Deed executed by only some of the legal representatives, excluding others, is void ab initio and cannot be considered legally enforceable. Any Sale Deed executed based on such an invalid Rectification Deed is also rendered void and not binding upon the parties lawfully entitled to the property. Karnataka High Court.
Property obtained by a person through a partition of joint family property retains its ancestral character. On the father’s death, all his children are entitled to an equal share, and he cannot gift such ancestral property to one child to the exclusion of the others. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. A person who has been previously evicted by a court order is not entitled to occupancy rights, especially when the eviction order has reached finality and there is no evidence of a continuing tenancy. A land tribunal cannot disregard final judgments and decrees from civil and tenancy courts that have established the landlord’s possession and the tenant’s eviction. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. A family dispute concerning agricultural land cannot be treated as a landlord–tenant matter under the Act. Mere possession and cultivation of the land do not establish tenancy; the burden lies on the claimant to prove the existence of a tenancy. Karnataka High Court.
Writ Jurisdiction. When authorities fail to comply with repeated remand directions despite the settled legal position, the Court may grant appropriate relief directly rather than remanding the matter once again. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The order of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 67(2) is considered final, and the Regional Commissioner has no power to review or act on it under Section 56 of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
When certified copies of land grant orders are issued by the Tahsildar and the Regional Commissioner, the authenticity of the grants cannot be questioned, as it shows that the originals were held in their custody. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. An appeal against an order made by the Tahsildar must be filed by an aggrieved party, and not by the Tahsildar himself. An appeal filed by the Tahsildar to the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 108-D (6) is invalid and renders the entire proceedings illegal. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. A mortgagee in possession of a property cannot be considered a ‘deemed tenant’. An order of a Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights to a person who is a mortgagee is contrary to the law. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. An established Land Tribunal order granting occupancy rights, found in official records and reflected in long-standing mutation entries, prevails over a conflicting, unsigned, and procedurally flawed handwritten order. Karnataka High Court.
Where ancestral property of the original propositus devolves upon one of his sons through partition, his wife and daughter from the first marriage are each entitled to an equal share in the properties that devolved to the son’s share. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. Prior notice under Section 482 is mandatory for suits against municipal authority, officers and agents even when it pertains to permanent as well as mandatory injunction. Karnataka High Court.
Civil Court has no jurisdiction in matters relating to service conditions of employees of educational institutions where such issues are governed by a special statute, Karnataka Education Act, which provides a specific and exclusive forum for the redressal of such grievances. Karnataka High Court.
A suit for partition of joint family properties is based on a ‘continuing cause of action’ and is generally not barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, even if certain properties were omitted from a previous suit, unless the causes of action in both suits are identical in substance. Karnataka High Court.
A second suit for partition of joint family properties is not maintainable if such properties were known to the parties at the time of a previous, comprehensive partition suit. Second suit violates the principles of res judicata under Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Karnataka High Court.
Partition. Mere filing of ‘Vardi’ does not prove family arrangement. Prior partition must be supported by strong evidence. If no such arrangement is convincingly proven, the property of the deceased should be divided equally among the legal heirs. Karnataka High Court.
When lands are acquired under the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, Court cannot award solatium and interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. Karnataka High Court.
Daksha Legal 