{"id":112796,"date":"1990-10-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-10-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990"},"modified":"2016-03-06T22:27:42","modified_gmt":"2016-03-06T16:57:42","slug":"smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 993, \t\t 1990 SCR Supl. (2) 213<\/div>\n
Author: M Kania<\/div>\n
Bench: Kania, M.H.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSMT. ISABELLA JOHNSON\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM.A. SUSAI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/10\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nKANIA, M.H.\nBENCH:\nKANIA, M.H.\nOJHA, N.D. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR  993\t\t  1990 SCR  Supl. (2) 213\n 1991 SCC  (1) 494\t  JT 1990 (4)\t406\n 1990 SCALE  (2)928\n\n\nACT:\n    Rent  Control and Eviction: Andhra Pradesh Rent  Control\nAct,   1960:  Section  3--Eviction   suit--Jurisdiction\t  of\nCourts--Res judicata and Estoppel-- Whether applicable.\n    Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Section 11--Jurisdiction  of\nCourts\t--Pure question of law--Res  judicata--Applicability\nof.\n    Evidence,  Act, 1872: Section 115--\t  Estoppel--Applica-\nbility of in regard to jurisdiction of Courts.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t Respondent-landlord filed a suit under\t the  Andhra\nPradesh Rent Control Act for recovery of possession and\t for\nmesne profits. The apPellant-defendant raised a\t preliminary\nobjection  that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction  to\nentertain  the\tsuit. In the two  eviction  petitions  filed\nearlier by the appellant, the Respondent took the plea\tthat\nsince  the alleged tenancy was hit by Section 3 of the\tA.P.\nRent Control Act, eviction suit was not entertainable by the\nRent Controller.\n    Decreeing the suit in favour of the appellant, the trial\nCourt  held that it was not oPen to the Respondent  to\ttake\nsuch  inconsistent  plea  regarding  jurisdiction;  that  he\ncannot\tbe  allowed to approbate and reprobate\tand  he\t was\nestopped  from doing so. On apPeal by respondent, the  deci-\nsion  was upheld by the First Appellate Court. On  a  second\napPeal preferred by the respondent, the High Court  reversed\nthe trial court's order.\n    Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the  appel-\nlant  preferred\t this apPeal, by special  leave,  contending\nthat  the principles of Res Judicata and estopPel  were\t ap-\nplicable.\nDismissing the apPeal, this Court,\n    HELD: 1. A court which has no jurisdiction in law cannot\nbe conferred with the jurisdiction by applying principles of\nres judicata. It is well settled that there can be no estop-\npel on a pure question of law. [217F]\n214\n    Mahtura  Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and Ors. v. Dossibai\tN.B.\nJeejeebhoy,<\/a>  [1970] 3 SCR 830; Sushil Kumar Mehta v.  Gobind\nRam  Bohra<\/a> (dead) thro' his Lrs., [1990] 1 SCC\t193;  relied\non.\n    Avtar Singh and Ors. v. Jagjit Singh and Anr.,<\/a> [1979]  4\nSCC 83; referred to.\n    2. In the instant case, the question of jurisdiction  is\na  pure\t question of law. The High Court was  right  in\t its\nconclusions that in matters of jurisdiction to entertain the\nsuit,  doctrine of estoppel could not be invoked;  and\tthat\nthe  City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to  entertain\t the\nsuit,  as it lay exclusively within the jurisdiction of\t the\nRent Controller. [216A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 277 1  of
\n1981.\n<\/p>\n
    From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.1980 of the Andhra
\nPradesh High Court in S .A. No. 526 of 1977.\n<\/p>\n
Jagdish K. Agarwal (N.P.) for the Appellant.
\nA Subba Rao for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n.\n<\/p>\n
    KANIA,  J. This is an appeal by special leave  from\t the
\ndecision  of  a learned Single Judge of the  Andhra  Pradesh
\nHigh Court in Second Appeal No. 526 of 1977.\n<\/p>\n
    As\twe are, with respect, in agreement with the  conclu-
\nsions  arrived\tat by the learned Single Judge of  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\twe propose to set out only the bare facts  essential
\nfor the purposes of our judgment.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent\t was
\nthe  defendant\tin Suit. O.S. No. 789 of 1973 filed  in\t the
\nCourt  of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,\tHyd-
\nerabad.\t The appellant prayed for a decree for\trecovery  of
\npossession of the suit premises from the respondent and\t for
\nmesne  profits till the delivery of possession of the  prem-
\nises.  The case of the appellant was that she was the  owner
\nof  the suit premises and the respondent was in the  occupa-
\ntion of the said premises on payment of Rs.30 per month. The
\nrespondent had been
\n215<\/span>
\nirregular  in  the payment of the said rent and had  been  a
\nsource of perpetual nuisance. It was on this ground that the
\neviction of the premises was sought by the appellant. In his
\nwritten\t statement the respondent took a preliminary  objec-
\ntion that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to enter-
\ntain  the suit as the suit fell within the  jurisdiction  of
\nthe Rent Controller at Hyderabad. Two petitions had  earlier
\nbeen  filed by the appellant before the Rent Controller\t for
\neviction  of  the  respondent and the  Rent  Controller\t had
\nrejected  the same on the ground that the purported  tenancy
\nof  the\t respondent was hit by section 3 of  the  A.P.\tRent
\nControl Act and hence, the eviction suit was not  entertain-
\nable  by the Court of Rent Controller. This  conclusion\t was
\narrived\t at  on a plea to the said effect taken by  the\t re-
\nspondent.  In the Court of learned Third Assistant Judge  of
\nthe City Civil Court at Hyderabad the respondent took up the
\nplea that the suit fell exclusively within the\tjurisdiction
\nof the Rent Controller and hence the City Civil Court had no
\njurisdiction to entertain the suit. Certain pleas were\tmade
\nregarding  amendments in the law with which we are not\tcon-
\ncerned\tin  this appeal. What is material to  note  for\t our
\npurposes  is that the learned Assistant Judge took the\tview
\nthat  as  the respondent had, before  the  Rent\t Controller,
\ntaken  up the plea that it was not the Rent  Controller\t but
\nthe City Civil Court which had the jurisdiction to entertain
\nthe  eviction  petition against him, and the said  plea\t was
\nupheld,\t it  was not open to the respondent to take  up\t the
\ninconsistent  plea before the City Civil Court that  it\t was
\nthe  Rent Controller and not the City Civil Court which\t had
\njurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. It was held\tthat
\nthe respondent could not be allowed to approbate and  repro-
\nbate and that he was estopped by way of pleading to take  up
\nan inconsistent plea regarding jurisdiction.
\n    On\tthe basis of this conclusion, and other\t conclusions
\nwith which we are not concerned, the suit was decreed by the
\nlearned\t Assistant  Judge in favour of\tthe  appellant.\t The
\ndecision  of  the learned Assistant Judge was upheld  in  an
\nappeal\tfiled by the respondent in the Court of the  learned
\nAdditional Chief Judge of the City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
\nOn a second appeal preferred by the respondent, the  learned
\nSingle Judge of the High Court took the view that in matters
\nof jurisdiction the question of estoppel does not arise.  If
\nthe  City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to  entertain\t the
\nsuit, the doctrine of estoppel could not be invoked so as to
\nconfer jurisdiction on the Court of City Civil Court. On the
\nquestion  of  jurisdiction the learned Judge took  the\tview
\nthat  the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to  entertain
\nthe  suit as it lay exclusively within the  jurisdiction  of
\nthe Rent Controller.\n<\/p>\n
216<\/span><\/p>\n
    Learned  counsel  for the appellant submitted  that\t the
\nlearned Judge of the High Court was in error,as the  earlier
\ndecisions  of the Rent Controller to the effect that it\t was
\nthe City Civil Court and not the Rent Controller who had the
\njurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction filed by the
\nappellant  against the respondent, constituted res  judicata
\nbetween the parties on the question of jurisdiction. It\t was
\nsubmitted by him that, even if that decision was wrong,\t the
\nissue  of jurisdiction was finally decided between the\tpar-
\nties  and that decision was that it was the Civil Court\t and
\nnot the Rent Controller that had the jurisdiction to  enter-
\ntain  and dispose of the suit for eviction. He further\tsub-
\nmitted\tthat the respondent could not be permitted  to\ttake
\ninconsistent  pleas  as he was barred by the  principles  of
\nestoppel from taking up the plea before the Civil Court that
\nit  was the Rent Controller who had the exclusive  jurisdic-
\ntion to entertain the suit. He placed reliance on a decision
\nrendered  by a Division Bench comprising two learned  Judges
\nof this Court in Avtar Singh and Others v. Jagjit Singh\t and
\nAnother,<\/a> [1979] 4 SCC 83 which took the view that the  Civil
\nCourt’s decision regarding lack of jurisdiction will operate
\nas res judicata in a subsequent suit. In that case the Civil
\nCourt  declined jurisdiction. The Civil Court took the\tview
\nthat it had no jurisdiction to try the suit in question\t and
\ndirected the return of the plaint for representation to\t the
\nappropriate  Revenue Court. When the claim was filed in\t the
\nRevenue Court, the Court took the view that it had no juris-
\ndiction to try the claim. Thereupon, a suit was again insti-
\ntuted  in  the Civil Court for the lame\t relief.  This\tsuit
\nfailed\tthroughout on the ground of res judicata. I?he\tHigh
\nCourt affirmed the dismissal and the Division Bench of\tthis
\nCourt took the view that the High Court was right in  taking
\nthe view hat the principles of res judicata were  applicable
\nto the issue of jurisdiction. In our opinion, the contention
\nof  learned counsel for the appellant cannot be\t upheld.  We
\nfind  that  in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal  and  Others  v.
\nDossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy,<\/a> [1970] 3 SCR 830 at p. 836 a Bench
\ncomprising three learned Judges of this Court has taken\t the
\nview that a decision on the question of jurisdiction of\t the
\ncourt  or a sure question of law unrelated to the  right  of
\nthe  parties to a previous suit, is not res judicata in\t the
\nsubsequent suit. The Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
“It is true that in determining the application of the\trule
\nof res judicata the Court is not concerned with the correct-
\nness  or  otherwise of the earlier judgment. The  matter  in
\nissue,\tif it is one purely of fact, decided in the  earlier
\nproceeding by a competent court must in a subsequent litiga-
\ntion between the same parties be regarded as finally decided
\nand  cannot  be reopened. A mixed question of law  and\tfact
\ndetermined
\n217<\/span>
\nin the earlier proceeding between the same parties may\tnot,
\nfor the same reason, be questioned in a subsequent  proceed-
\ning between the same parties. But, where the decision is  on
\na question of law, i.e. the interpretation of a statute,  it
\nwill be res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between\t the
\nsame parties where the cause of action is the same, for\t the
\nexpression  “the  matter in issue” in S. 11 of the  Code  of
\nCivil  Procedure means the right litigated between the\tpar-
\nties, i.e. the facts on which the right is claimed or denied
\nand  the law applicable to the determination of that  issue.
\nWhere,\thowever,  the question is one purely of law  and  it
\nrelates\t to the jurisdiction of the Court or a\tdecision  of
\nthe Court sanctioning something which is illegal, by  resort
\nto the rule of res judicata a party affected by the decision
\nwill not be precluded from challenging the validity of\tthat
\norder  under the rule of res judicata, for a rule of  proce-
\ndure cannot supersede the law of the land.”\n<\/p>\n
    The same view has been reiterated by a Bench  comprising
\nthree learned Judges of this Court in Sushil Kumar Mehta  v.
\nGobind Ram Bohra<\/a> (dead) through his Lrs., [1990] 1 SCC\t193.
\nWe  find that the decision of three learned Judges  of\tthis
\nCourt in Mathurn Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and Others v. Dossibai
\nN.S. Jeejeebhoy,<\/a> has not been noticed at all by the Division
\nBench  comprising  two learned Judges of  this\tCourt  which
\ndelivered  the judgment in Avtar Singh and Others v.  Jagjit
\nSingh and Another, and<\/a> hence, to the extent, that the  judg-
\nment in Avtar Singh’s case takes the view that the principle
\nof  res judicata is applicable to an erroneous\tdecision  on
\njurisdiction,  it  cannot be regarded as good  law.  In\t our
\nopinion\t a court which has no jurisdiction in law cannot  be
\nconferred  with the jurisdiction by applying  principles  of
\nres judicata. It is well settled that there can be no estop-
\npel on a pure question of law and in this case the  question
\nof jurisdiction is a pure question of law.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tour  view, therefore, the High Court was,  with\t re-
\nspect,\tright in its conclusions arrived at and\t the  appeal
\nmust be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t appeal is dismissed. Looking to the facts and\tcir-
\ncumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
G.N.\t\t\t\t\t\tAppeal\tdis-\nmissed.\n218<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 993, 1990 SCR Supl. (2) 213 Author: M Kania Bench: Kania, M.H. PETITIONER: SMT. ISABELLA JOHNSON Vs. RESPONDENT: M.A. SUSAI DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/10\/1990 BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: KANIA, M.H. OJHA, N.D. (J) CITATION: 1991 AIR 993 1990 […]<\/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-112796","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990 - 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\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990\" \/>\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=\"1990-10-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-06T16:57:42+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-10-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-06T16:57:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990\"},\"wordCount\":1654,\"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\\\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990\",\"name\":\"Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-10-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-06T16:57:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990 - 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\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-10-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-06T16:57:42+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990","datePublished":"1990-10-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-06T16:57:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990"},"wordCount":1654,"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\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990","name":"Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-10-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-06T16:57:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-isabella-johnson-vs-m-a-susai-on-9-october-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990"}]},{"@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\/112796","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=112796"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112796\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112796"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112796"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112796"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}