{"id":101635,"date":"2003-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003"},"modified":"2016-01-25T17:34:59","modified_gmt":"2016-01-25T12:04:59","slug":"d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003","title":{"rendered":"D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: Y Sabharwal<\/div>\n
Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, B. N. Agrawal.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2089 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nD.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr.\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVs.\n\nL. Balasubramanyam & Anr.\t\t\t\t\n\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/08\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nY.K. Sabharwal & B. N. Agrawal.\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tAppellant No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife <\/p>\n
respectively.  Respondent No.1 is their son.  The second appellant <\/p>\n
purchased the property in question from the first appellant.<\/p>\n
\tThe respondents in this appeal are original plaintiffs.  They filed a <\/p>\n
suit for declaration of their 2\/3rd share, partition and possession thereof in <\/p>\n
respect of two properties described as Item No.1 and Item No.2.  <\/p>\n
According to them, Schedule Item No.2 property came to appellant No.1 <\/p>\n
(original defendant No.1 in the suit) in partition between him and his <\/p>\n
brothers and it is an ancestral property.  The Item No.1 property, according <\/p>\n
to the averments in the plaint, was acquired by plaintiffs and the first <\/p>\n
defendant out of joint Hindu family funds and the first defendant was trying <\/p>\n
to alienate the suit property for his self benefit and not for the benefit of the <\/p>\n
members of the family.  When, during the pendency of the suit, it came to <\/p>\n
notice of the plaintiffs that Item No.1 property had been sold by the first <\/p>\n
appellant, on their application, appellant No.2 was impleded as defendant <\/p>\n
No.2 in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe trial court decreed the suit holding that the respondents are <\/p>\n
entitled to 2\/3rd share in the properties as also possession thereof and also <\/p>\n
granting other consequential reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe first appellate court, however, allowed two separate appeals <\/p>\n
that had been filed by each of the appellant and the suit was ordered to be <\/p>\n
dismissed.  It was held that the respondents have failed to prove that Item <\/p>\n
No.1 property was joint Hindu family property.  The said property was held <\/p>\n
to be the self acquired property of the first appellant.  It further held that <\/p>\n
respondent No.1 has failed to prove that any amount of income was <\/p>\n
available in the hands of the first appellant to purchase Item No.1 property <\/p>\n
noticing that except 15 guntas of land (Item No.2 property), there was no <\/p>\n
ancestral property with the first appellant and that the trial court was not <\/p>\n
correct in observing that it was for the first appellant to show that no <\/p>\n
nucleus of ancestral property was available with him to purchase Item No.1 <\/p>\n
property.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe judgment and decree of the first appellate court was challenged <\/p>\n
by the respondents before the High Court in a second appeal (Regular <\/p>\n
Second Appeal No.213\/91).  That appeal was filed by son and mother.  On <\/p>\n
a memo filed by respondent No.1 who was first appellant before the High <\/p>\n
Court, his second appeal was dismissed and only the claim of his mother <\/p>\n
who prosecuted the second appeal was examined by the High Court.  The <\/p>\n
High Court by the impugned judgment restored the judgment and decree <\/p>\n
of the trial court, setting aside that of the first appellate court.  <\/p>\n
\tThe High Court has held that Item No.2 property has been proved to <\/p>\n
be joint Hindu family property and the respondents have share in it.  The <\/p>\n
finding in respect of Item No.2 property has not been challenged before us.  <\/p>\n
Even otherwise, there is no ground to upset the said finding of fact.  The <\/p>\n
only controversy that has been raised before us is in respect of Item No.1 <\/p>\n
property.  The said property was purchased by the first appellant in the <\/p>\n
year 1970-71.  It was sold by him in favour of the second appellant in the <\/p>\n
year 1987 after filing of the suit.  The only question to be examined is <\/p>\n
whether Item No.1 property was self-acquired property of the first appellant <\/p>\n
or it was joint Hindu family property in which the respondents\/plaintiffs had <\/p>\n
2\/3rd share.  Answering this question in favour of the respondents, the High <\/p>\n
Court has held that the second appellant could only be entitled to purchase <\/p>\n
1\/3rd share from the first appellant who had no right to sell the remaining <\/p>\n
2\/3rd share in Item No.1 property<\/p>\n
\tThe question to be determined in the present case is as to who  is <\/p>\n
required to prove the nature of property whether it is joint Hindu family <\/p>\n
property or self-acquired property of the first appellant.  <\/p>\n
\tThere was evidence and it has been established that Item No.2 <\/p>\n
measuring 15 guntas of land was joint Hindu family property but, <\/p>\n
admittedly, no evidence has been led that the said joint Hindu family <\/p>\n
property was yielding any income or that any nucleus was available with <\/p>\n
the aid whereof Item No.1 property could be purchased by the first <\/p>\n
appellant.  Admittedly, no evidence has been led on behalf of the <\/p>\n
respondents\/plaintiffs to show income from Item No.2 property or value of <\/p>\n
the property.  At the same time no evidence has also been led by the first <\/p>\n
appellant to prove that he had any separate income so as to acquire Item <\/p>\n
No.1 property.  In absence of evidence either way which party would <\/p>\n
succeed and which fail, is the question.  The legal position is well settled <\/p>\n
as we will presently notice.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurti & Ors. [AIR 1947 PC <\/p>\n
189], in a partition suit filed against their father by minor sons from the first <\/p>\n
marriage, the father claimed the properties in question were his self-<\/p>\n
acquired properties and denied that the plaintiffs had any right to seek <\/p>\n
partition.  The High Court, reversing the judgment of the trial court, held <\/p>\n
that the view expressed by the trial court that only joint family property was <\/p>\n
that which the father took under partition Exhibit A was not correct and <\/p>\n
further held that whole of the property set out in Schedule to the written <\/p>\n
statement of the appellant\/father, which had been acquired after partition <\/p>\n
Exhibit A was joint family property.  The contention accepted by the High <\/p>\n
Court was that the share which the father took under Exhibit A formed the <\/p>\n
nucleus from which all his further acquisitions sprang.  The plea of the <\/p>\n
father that was accepted by the Privy Council was that the whole of the <\/p>\n
property that came to him under Exhibit A was intact and unencumbered <\/p>\n
except a small portion sold which amount had been debited against <\/p>\n
household expenditure.  The Privy Council held that the Hindu law upon <\/p>\n
this aspect of the case is well settled.  Proof of the existence of a joint <\/p>\n
family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member <\/p>\n
of the family is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any <\/p>\n
item of property is joint to establish the fact.  But where it is established <\/p>\n
that the family possessed some joint property which from its nature and <\/p>\n
relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the property in <\/p>\n
question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging <\/p>\n
self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired <\/p>\n
without the aid of the joint family property.  In the case before the Privy <\/p>\n
Council, on facts, it was held that the burden had shifted to the father to <\/p>\n
prove self-acquisition of properties as it was established that the family <\/p>\n
possessed joint property which from its nature and relative value, may <\/p>\n
have formed the nucleus to acquire the property in question.  Those <\/p>\n
properties were large in number and have been noticed in Privy Council <\/p>\n
decision.  However, on further facts found, it was held that the father had <\/p>\n
discharged that burden.  The properties were held to be self-acquired <\/p>\n
properties of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango & Ors.<\/a> <\/p>\n
[AIR 1954 SC 379], the contention that was urged on behalf of the <\/p>\n
appellant was that the burden was wrongly cast on the plaintiff of proving <\/p>\n
that the acquisition of the properties were made with the aid of joint family <\/p>\n
funds, the argument being that as the family admittedly possessed the <\/p>\n
ancestral Watan lands of the extent of 56 acres, it must be presumed that <\/p>\n
the acquisitions were made with the aid of joint family funds and, therefore, <\/p>\n
the burden lay on the defendants who claimed that they were self-acquired <\/p>\n
acquisitions to establish that they were made without the aid of joint family <\/p>\n
funds and that the evidence adduced by them fell far short of it and that the <\/p>\n
presumption in favour of the plaintiff stood unrebutted.  It was noticed by <\/p>\n
this Court that on the question of the nucleus, the only properties which <\/p>\n
were proved to belong to the joint family were the Watan lands of the <\/p>\n
extent of about 56 acres bearing an annual assessment of Rs.49\/-.  There <\/p>\n
was no satisfactory evidence about the income which these lands were <\/p>\n
yielding at the material time.  Under these circumstances, noticing with <\/p>\n
approval the aforesaid Privy Council decision, it was held that whether the <\/p>\n
evidence adduced by the plaintiff was sufficient to shift the burden which <\/p>\n
initially rested on him to establish that there was adequate nucleus out of <\/p>\n
which the acquisition could have made is one of fact depending on the <\/p>\n
nature and extent of the nucleus.  The important thing to consider is the <\/p>\n
income which the nucleus yields.  A building in the occupation of the <\/p>\n
members of a family and yielding no income could not be a nucleus out of <\/p>\n
which acquisitions could be made, even though it might be of considerable <\/p>\n
value.  On the other hand, a running business in which the capital invested <\/p>\n
is comparatively small might conceivably produce substantial income <\/p>\n
which may well form the foundation of the subsequent acquisitions.<\/p>\n
\tIn Mudi Gowda Gowdappa Sankh v. Ram Chandra Ravagowda <\/p>\n
Sankh<\/a> [(1969) 1 SCC 386], noticing the observations of Sir John <\/p>\n
Beaumont in Appalaswami’s case (supra), it was reiterated that the <\/p>\n
burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property in the <\/p>\n
first instance is upon the person who claims it to be so.  But if the <\/p>\n
possession of a nucleus of the joint family property is either admitted or <\/p>\n
proved, any acquisition made by a member of the joint family is presumed <\/p>\n
to be joint family property.  This is, however, subject to the limitation that <\/p>\n
the joint family property must be such as with its aid the property in <\/p>\n
question could have been acquired.  It is only after the possession of an <\/p>\n
adequate nucleus is shown, that the onus shifts on to the person who <\/p>\n
claims the property as self-acquisition to affirmatively make out that the <\/p>\n
property was acquired without any aid from the family estate.  We are <\/p>\n
unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that <\/p>\n
the aforesaid later observations have been made without reasons or that <\/p>\n
the Privy Council’s decision does not hold so.  The observation that only <\/p>\n
after possession of adequate nucleus is shown that the onus shifts also get <\/p>\n
support from  Srinivas Krishnarao Kango’s case (supra) where, while <\/p>\n
considering the question of shifting of burden, it has been held that the <\/p>\n
important thing to consider is the income which the nucleus yields.<\/p>\n
\tIn Baikuntha Nath Paramanik (dead) by His L.Rs. & Heirs v. <\/p>\n
Sashi Bhusan Pramanik<\/a> (dead) by his L.Rs. & Ors. [(1973) 2 SCC 334], <\/p>\n
this Court again held that when a joint family is found to be in possession <\/p>\n
of nucleus sufficient to make the impugned acquisitions then a <\/p>\n
presumption arises that the acquisitions standing in the names of the <\/p>\n
person who were in the management of the family properties are family <\/p>\n
acquisitions.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Surendra Kumar v. Phoolchand (dead) through LRs & Anr. <\/p>\n
[(1996) 2 SCC 491], this Court held that where it is established or admitted <\/p>\n
that the family which possessed joint property which from its nature and <\/p>\n
relative value may have formed sufficient nucleus from which the property <\/p>\n
in question may have been acquired, the presumption arises that it was the <\/p>\n
joint property and the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to <\/p>\n
establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the <\/p>\n
joint family funds.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe may now refer to three decisions whereupon reliance has been <\/p>\n
placed by learned counsel for the respondents.  In Mallesappa Bandeppa <\/p>\n
Desai & Anr. V. Desai Mallappa<\/a> alias Mallesappa & Anr. [AIR 1961 SC <\/p>\n
1268], this Court held that where a manager claims that any immovable <\/p>\n
property has been acquired by him with his own separate funds and not <\/p>\n
with the help of the joint family funds of which he was in possession and <\/p>\n
charge, it is for him to prove by clear and satisfactory evidence his plea <\/p>\n
that the purchase money proceeded from his separate fund.  The onus of <\/p>\n
proof in such a case has to be placed on the manager and not on his <\/p>\n
coparceners.  It is difficult to comprehend how this decision lends any <\/p>\n
support to the contention of the respondents that in absence of leading any <\/p>\n
evidence, the claim of appellant No.1 of the property being self-acquired <\/p>\n
has to fail.  In the cited decision, the manager was found to be in <\/p>\n
possession and in charge of joint family funds and, therefore, it was for him <\/p>\n
to prove that despite it he purchased the property from his separate funds.  <\/p>\n
In the present case, admittedly, no evidence has been led by the <\/p>\n
respondents that the first appellant was in possession of any such joint <\/p>\n
family funds or as to value or income, if any, of Item No.2 property.<\/p>\n
\tIn Achuthan Nair v. Chinnammu Amma & Ors.<\/a> [AIR 1966 SC <\/p>\n
411], it was noticed that there were number of properties owned by joint <\/p>\n
family which were received at the time of separation under a decree <\/p>\n
passed in a partition suit.  The claim of the defendants in the written <\/p>\n
statement was that the property in question had been purchased from the <\/p>\n
private funds of defendant No.1 and her son defendant No.4.  In this <\/p>\n
decision too, it was reiterated that when it is proved or admitted that a <\/p>\n
family possessed sufficient nucleus with the aid of which the member <\/p>\n
might have made the acquisition, the law raises a presumption that it is a <\/p>\n
joint family property and the onus is shifted to the individual member to <\/p>\n
establish that the property was acquired by him without the aid of the said <\/p>\n
nucleus.  After noticing this settled propositions, it was observed that if a <\/p>\n
property is acquired in the name of a karanvan, there is a strong <\/p>\n
presumption that it is a tarwad (joint Hindu family) property and the <\/p>\n
presumption must hold good unless and until it is rebutted by acceptable <\/p>\n
evidence.  This Court did not hold that if a property is acquired in the name <\/p>\n
of karta, the law as to presumption or shifting of onus would be different.  <\/p>\n
The question of presumption would depend upon the facts established in <\/p>\n
each case.  In the present case, no evidence of nucleus having been led, <\/p>\n
onus remained on the respondents and, therefore, there could be no <\/p>\n
question of presumption about the property being joint family property.<\/p>\n
\tThe last decision relied upon is Malappa Girimallappa Betgeri & <\/p>\n
Ors. v. R. Yellappagouda Patil & Ors. [AIR 1959 SC 906].  It cites with <\/p>\n
approval the earlier decision in the case of Srinivas Krishnarao Kango <\/p>\n
(supra).  On facts, it was noticed that the courts below had held that the <\/p>\n
property provided a sufficient nucleus of joint family property out of which <\/p>\n
the properties in question might have been acquired and the sufficiency of <\/p>\n
nucleus is again a question of fact.  In view of those circumstances, there <\/p>\n
was presumption of the properties being properties of joint family and the <\/p>\n
said presumption had not been displaced.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of the aforesaid discussion, the respondents having failed to <\/p>\n
discharge the initial burden of establishing that there was any nucleus in <\/p>\n
the form of any income whatsoever from Item No.2 property and no other <\/p>\n
nucleus was claimed, the burden remained on the respondents to establish <\/p>\n
that Item No.1 property was joint family property.  In this view, the fact that <\/p>\n
the first appellant has not led any evidence to establish his separate <\/p>\n
income is of no consequence insofar as the claim of the respondents is <\/p>\n
concerned.  Under these circumstances, for failure to lead evidence, the <\/p>\n
respondents’ claim of Item No.1 to be joint family property would fail as <\/p>\n
rightly held by the first appellate court.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a <\/p>\n
property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint <\/p>\n
Hindu family.  The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint <\/p>\n
family property.  If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was <\/p>\n
nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would <\/p>\n
be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the <\/p>\n
person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he <\/p>\n
purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family <\/p>\n
nucleus that was available.\n<\/p>\n
\tAnother contention urged for the respondents was that assuming <\/p>\n
Item No.1 property to be self-acquired property of appellant No.1, he <\/p>\n
blended the said property with the joint family property and, therefore, it <\/p>\n
has become the joint family property.  Assuming the respondents can be <\/p>\n
permitted to raise such a plea without evidence in support thereof, the law <\/p>\n
on the aspect of blending is well settled that property separate or self-<\/p>\n
acquired of a member of joint Hindu family may be impressed with the <\/p>\n
character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by the owner into <\/p>\n
the common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim <\/p>\n
therein but to establish such abandonment a clear intention to waive <\/p>\n
separate rights must be established.  From the mere fact that other <\/p>\n
members of the family were allowed to use the property jointly with himself, <\/p>\n
or that the income of the separate property was utilized out of generosity to <\/p>\n
support persons whom the holder was not bound to support, or from the <\/p>\n
failure to maintain separate accounts, abandonment cannot be inferred, for <\/p>\n
an act of generosity or kindness will not ordinarily be regarded as an <\/p>\n
admission of a legal obligation {see Lakkireddi Chinna Venkata Reddy v. <\/p>\n
Lakkireddi Lakshamama<\/a> [1964 (2) SCR 172] and K.V. Narayanan v. <\/p>\n
K.V. Ranganadhan & Ors.<\/a> [(1977) 1 SCC 244]}.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the present case, respondents have not led any evidence on the <\/p>\n
aforesaid aspects and, therefore, it cannot be held that the first appellant <\/p>\n
blended Item No.1 property into the joint family account.<\/p>\n
\tIn view of aforesaid discussion, Item No.1 property cannot be held to <\/p>\n
be joint family property.  The impugned judgment of the High Court is, <\/p>\n
therefore, set aside and the appeal allowed and the judgment and decree <\/p>\n
of the first appellate court is restored.  In the circumstances of the case, <\/p>\n
parties are left to bear their own costs.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003 Author: Y Sabharwal Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, B. N. Agrawal. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2089 of 2000 PETITIONER: D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr. RESPONDENT: Vs. L. Balasubramanyam & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/08\/2003 BENCH: Y.K. Sabharwal & B. N. Agrawal. […]<\/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-101635","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nD.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003 - 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\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-25T12:04:59+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-25T12:04:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3089,\"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\\\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003\",\"name\":\"D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-25T12:04:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003 - 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\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-25T12:04:59+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003","datePublished":"2003-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-25T12:04:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003"},"wordCount":3089,"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\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003","name":"D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-25T12:04:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-lakshmaiah-anr-vs-l-balasubramanyam-anr-on-27-august-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003"}]},{"@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\/101635","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=101635"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101635\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101635"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101635"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101635"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}