{"id":10382,"date":"2009-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009"},"modified":"2016-10-16T09:43:16","modified_gmt":"2016-10-16T04:13:16","slug":"nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Nelapatla Ramaiah & Ors vs Kamatam Bikshamaiah & Ors on 15 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Nelapatla Ramaiah & Ors vs Kamatam Bikshamaiah & Ors on 15 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph<\/div>\n
                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n     SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.24089 OF 2005\n\n\n\n\nNelapatla Ramaiah & Ors.              .. Petitioners\n\n                           Vs.\n\nKamatam Bikshamaiah & Ors.            .. Respondents\n\n                         With\n\n        CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 110 OF 2006\n\n                           IN\n\n     SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.24089 OF 2005\n\n\n\n\n                    J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.     This SLP is    directed   against   the   judgment<\/p>\n
and order dated 20th September, 2005, passed by the
\n                                                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
Andhra      Pradesh       High   Court     in    Second     Appeal<\/p>\n
No.648\/2004, allowing            the same and setting aside<\/p>\n
the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2004, passed by<\/p>\n
the   2nd   Additional       District     Judge    (Fast     Track<\/p>\n
Court-I), Khammam in             A.S. No.17\/2002.          By its<\/p>\n
judgment, the First Appellate Court had reversed<\/p>\n
the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1999 passed by<\/p>\n
the   Senior      Civil    Judge,    Kothagudam,     being    O.S.<\/p>\n
No.54 of 1991, dismissing the suit.<\/p>\n
2.    Initially, the suit was filed for injunction<\/p>\n
simpliciter        before the learned District Munsif,<\/p>\n
Yallandu. Subsequently, the plaint was amended to<\/p>\n
include the relief for declaration of title and<\/p>\n
delivery     of    possession       of   the    plaint    schedule<\/p>\n
property.         During the pendency of the suit the<\/p>\n
first plaintiff died and his legal representatives<\/p>\n
were brought on record as the plaintiff Nos. 2 to<\/p>\n
9. Subsequently, the plaintiff No.9 also expired.
\n                                                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
3.      The    case    made    out    in   the     plaint    by   the<\/p>\n
plaintiff was that he was the owner and possessor<\/p>\n
of the suit scheduled lands and the defendants had<\/p>\n
no right, title and interest therein, nor did they<\/p>\n
have any right to demand that                they be allowed to<\/p>\n
cultivate the land on a crop-sharing basis. The<\/p>\n
dispute which had arisen regarding the cultivation<\/p>\n
of lands in question resulted in the filing of the<\/p>\n
suit.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.      From the facts as disclosed, it appears that<\/p>\n
on 25.5.1961 the original plaintiff agreed to sell<\/p>\n
3.01 acres in Survey No.87             and 92 and 3.13 acres<\/p>\n
in   Survey     No.3.08    to   one    Bathula      Veeraiah      and<\/p>\n
Enika    Pitchaiah under an agreement for sale and<\/p>\n
made    over    physical      possession      of    the   lands    in<\/p>\n
question to the said two persons.                   Subsequently,<\/p>\n
on 15th April, 1962, the original plaintiff also<\/p>\n
sold    another       portion    of    the       plaint     schedule<\/p>\n
property      to the    said    two    persons      under   another
\n                                                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
agreement      for    sale     and         made     over        physical<\/p>\n
possession      of      the     said            lands      to      them.<\/p>\n
Consequently,        from     the        said     two   dates,       the<\/p>\n
original plaintiff was out of possession of the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
\n5       On 5th February, 1968, Bathula Veeraiah and<\/p>\n
Enika     Pitchaiah     agreed to sell 0.37=                acres of<\/p>\n
land in Survey Nos.284 and 292, 3.01 acres out of<\/p>\n
Survey No.87 and 92 and 3.13 acres out of survey<\/p>\n
No.308, forming item Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the suit<\/p>\n
schedule property to M\/s Yedlapalli Ramaiah and<\/p>\n
Royalla Laxmaiah under an agreement for sale and<\/p>\n
made over physical possession of the suit lands to<\/p>\n
the intending purchasers who took possession of<\/p>\n
the     suit   properties.          On     15.8.1969       Yedlapalli<\/p>\n
Ramaiah and Royalla Laxmaiah agreed to sell item<\/p>\n
No.1 of the plaint schedule property to the 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant, the respondent No.8 herein, under an<\/p>\n
agreement      for     sale     and         delivered           physical
\n                                                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of the suit lands to him. On the same<\/p>\n
day,    the    said     Yedlapalli       Ramaiah     and     Royalla<\/p>\n
Laxmaiah also agreed to sell 2.27 acres in Survey<\/p>\n
No.92 and 0.14 acres in Survey No.87, in favour of<\/p>\n
the 1st defendant the appellant No.1 herein, under<\/p>\n
an     agreement      for    sale     and   delivered      physical<\/p>\n
possession of the lands to him. Since then the 1st<\/p>\n
appellant is in possession of the 1st item of the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property. By yet another agreement<\/p>\n
for sale Yedlapalli Ramaiah and Royalla Laxmaiah<\/p>\n
agreed to sell 1.22 acres in Survey No.308 to the<\/p>\n
wife    of the     defendant        No.3,   the    appellant      No.2<\/p>\n
herein,       under    an    agreement       for     sale.         The<\/p>\n
defendant Nos. 4 and 5, namely, the appellant No.5<\/p>\n
and    respondent      No.9,    are    in   possession       of   the<\/p>\n
remaining 1.22 acres in Survey No. 308.<\/p>\n
6.      As    indicated       hereinabove,         the    suit    was<\/p>\n
initially dismissed, but was decreed by the 1st<\/p>\n
appellate      Court    on     the    finding      that    all    the
\n                                                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
various transactions were hit by Sections 47 and<\/p>\n
50B    of    the    Hyderabad         Tenancy       and     Agricultural<\/p>\n
Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the<\/p>\n
1950    Act”).       It    was        held    that       the     plaintiffs<\/p>\n
continued     to    be    in    possession          of     the    lands     in<\/p>\n
question      through      the        defendants           who     had     not<\/p>\n
acquired      any     right       to        the    lands         and     their<\/p>\n
possession          therein           was         merely         permissive<\/p>\n
possession.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.     The    High    Court       allowed          the    Second       Appeal<\/p>\n
upon     holding         that     the         possession           of      the<\/p>\n
beneficiaries         of        the          various        transactions<\/p>\n
involving the land was adverse to the interest of<\/p>\n
the    plaintiffs and           the    said       transfers       were     not<\/p>\n
effected by the provisions of Sections 47 and 50B<\/p>\n
of the 1950 Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.     The High Court took note of the fact that<\/p>\n
Section 47 of the Act had been repealed from the<\/p>\n
statute book even before 1969 and even otherwise
\n                                                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
the provisions of the Act are applicable between<\/p>\n
landlord      and    tenant         and    have       no    application<\/p>\n
insofar       as      third      parties           are       concerned.<\/p>\n
Accordingly,         the     High     Court        held       that     the<\/p>\n
transactions         were hit by Section               47 of the 1950<\/p>\n
Act    and   consequently       Section         50B    was    also     not<\/p>\n
required to be invoked. The High Court observed<\/p>\n
that    the        original     plaintiff          had        lost     his<\/p>\n
possession      in    the     land    on        25.5.1961      when     he<\/p>\n
executed      the    agreement       for    sale      and    made     over<\/p>\n
possession      of     the    lands        in    question       to     the<\/p>\n
intending          purchaser.        Thereafter,             possession<\/p>\n
changed hands several times. It was observed that<\/p>\n
had the defendants claimed directly through the<\/p>\n
original      plaintiff      No.1    under       the       agreement    of<\/p>\n
sale      dated 25.5.1961, it could always be said<\/p>\n
that they were in permitted possession                       and not in<\/p>\n
adverse      possession      which    was,       however,       not    the<\/p>\n
case as far as the suit properties were concerned,<\/p>\n
since possession had changed lands at least twice
\n                                                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
and   at    least    from       15.8.1969      till    the    date     of<\/p>\n
filing of the suit it could be contended that the<\/p>\n
defendants      were      in     adverse       possession      of     the<\/p>\n
properties      as        far     as     the     plaintiffs         were<\/p>\n
concerned.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.        The substantial        question       of    law    framed    in<\/p>\n
the Second Appeal as to whether the transactions<\/p>\n
in question were hit by Sections 47 and 50B of the<\/p>\n
1950 Act and whether the plaintiffs were entitled<\/p>\n
to    a    decree    as    prayed      for,      were,      therefore,<\/p>\n
answered by the High Court in the Second Appeal in<\/p>\n
the negative.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10. On behalf of the petitioners, it was sought to<\/p>\n
be pointed out that the High Court had erred in<\/p>\n
reversing     the judgment         and     decree     of     the    first<\/p>\n
Appellate Court on the erroneous premise that the<\/p>\n
possession     of    the       defendants      in    the    suit    were<\/p>\n
adverse to the interests of the plaintiffs, since<\/p>\n
all the transferees derived their claims to the
\n                                                                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
lands through the petitioner. It was urged that it<\/p>\n
was   on     account      of    the    first      Agreement      to   Sell<\/p>\n
dated 25.5.1961 that the subsequent occupants of<\/p>\n
the land acquired possession thereof. Their claim,<\/p>\n
therefore,         had    to     be        traced     from    the     said<\/p>\n
Agreement for Sale dated 25.5.1961 and not on the<\/p>\n
basis of the Agreements for Sale executed in their<\/p>\n
favour subsequently. It was urged that the High<\/p>\n
Court had committed an error of law in holding<\/p>\n
that the possession of the defendants was adverse<\/p>\n
to    that    of    the    plaintiffs          and    permissible       in<\/p>\n
nature.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11. Even on the question of the applicability of<\/p>\n
Sections      47    and    50B        of    the     1950   Act   to   the<\/p>\n
transactions relating to the suit lands after the<\/p>\n
initial agreement for sale, it was contended                            on<\/p>\n
behalf       of     the        petitioners          that     since     the<\/p>\n
defendants derived the right, if any, to possess<\/p>\n
the suit lands from the original plaintiff, the
\n                                                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
question of a third party interest did not arise,<\/p>\n
and,    accordingly,        the     High    Court   was    wrong    in<\/p>\n
holding    that       the   transactions       were   not    hit    by<\/p>\n
Section 47 of the 1950 Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12. It was, therefore, urged that the judgment and<\/p>\n
decree of the High Court was liable to be set<\/p>\n
aside.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.     Learned counsel for the respondents, on the<\/p>\n
other hand, strongly supported the decision of the<\/p>\n
High Court and submitted that the same did not<\/p>\n
warrant any interference.                  It was submitted that<\/p>\n
there     was    no    dispute      that      the   suit    property<\/p>\n
changed    hands at         least    twice    after   the    initial<\/p>\n
Agreement       for    Sale     dated      25.5.1961,      which    in<\/p>\n
itself was an indication that such possession was<\/p>\n
hostile     and       adverse     to    the    interest     of     the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs.       The High Court, could not, therefore,<\/p>\n
be faulted in arriving at the finding that the
\n                                                                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of the defendants was adverse to that<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff and not permissible as submitted<\/p>\n
on behalf of the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14. It was also submitted that the High Court had<\/p>\n
correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 47<\/p>\n
of the 1950 Act in their application to the facts<\/p>\n
of   the   instant   case    and    did    not       call    for    any<\/p>\n
interference.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15. We have carefully considered the submissions<\/p>\n
made on behalf of the parties and are unable to<\/p>\n
accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the<\/p>\n
petitioners.      That      there      were      a     series        of<\/p>\n
transactions involving the suit lands after the<\/p>\n
original plaintiff executed the Agreement for Sale<\/p>\n
on 25.5.1961 and lost possession thereof, is not<\/p>\n
disputed.    It   is     also   not       disputed          that     the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs had not at any point of time objected<\/p>\n
to   the   Agreements    for    Sale      entered      into        after<\/p>\n
25.5.1961 despite the same being adverse to their
\n                                                                         12<\/span><\/p>\n
interest.          The High Court, in our view, correctly<\/p>\n
held     that the         possession      of   the   defendants         was<\/p>\n
adverse to the interests of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
16. As to the question of the applicability of<\/p>\n
Section       47    of     the     1950    Act      to    the      several<\/p>\n
transactions which had taken place with regard to<\/p>\n
the plaint schedule property, it is difficult to<\/p>\n
accept     the      submissions       made     on    behalf        of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner         that    since     possession          of   the    lands<\/p>\n
could be traced back to the original                            agreement<\/p>\n
for sale dated 25.5.1961, it must be held that all<\/p>\n
the      subsequent         occupants,         claimed        possessory<\/p>\n
rights under the original Agreement for Sale dated<\/p>\n
25.5.1961.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17.    Such    being       the   case     we   see       no   reason     to<\/p>\n
interfere with the judgment and decree of the High<\/p>\n
Court.     The Special Leave Petition is, therefore,<\/p>\n
dismissed,       but     without    any    orders        as   to    costs.<\/p>\n
Consequently,          the notice issued on the Contempt
\n                                                                                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
Petition is discharged     and the Contempt Petition<\/p>\n
is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    ……………………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                (ALTAMAS KABIR)<\/p>\n
                               ……………………………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 (CYRIAC JOESPH)
\nNew Delhi
\nDated: December 15, 2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Nelapatla Ramaiah & Ors vs Kamatam Bikshamaiah & Ors on 15 December, 2009 Author: A Kabir Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.24089 OF 2005 Nelapatla Ramaiah & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Kamatam Bikshamaiah & Ors. .. Respondents With […]<\/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-10382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNelapatla Ramaiah & Ors vs Kamatam Bikshamaiah & Ors on 15 December, 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\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nelapatla Ramaiah & Ors vs Kamatam Bikshamaiah & Ors on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-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=\"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-16T04:13:16+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nelapatla Ramaiah & Ors vs Kamatam Bikshamaiah & Ors on 15 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-16T04:13:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1610,\"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\\\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Nelapatla Ramaiah & Ors vs Kamatam Bikshamaiah & Ors on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-16T04:13:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nelapatla Ramaiah & Ors vs Kamatam Bikshamaiah & Ors on 15 December, 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":"Nelapatla Ramaiah & Ors vs Kamatam Bikshamaiah & Ors on 15 December, 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\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nelapatla Ramaiah & Ors vs Kamatam Bikshamaiah & Ors on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-16T04:13:16+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nelapatla Ramaiah & Ors vs Kamatam Bikshamaiah & Ors on 15 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-16T04:13:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009"},"wordCount":1610,"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\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009","name":"Nelapatla Ramaiah & Ors vs Kamatam Bikshamaiah & Ors on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-16T04:13:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nelapatla-ramaiah-ors-vs-kamatam-bikshamaiah-ors-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nelapatla Ramaiah & Ors vs Kamatam Bikshamaiah & Ors on 15 December, 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\/10382","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=10382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10382\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}