{"id":113445,"date":"2001-08-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-08-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001"},"modified":"2015-08-23T03:44:46","modified_gmt":"2015-08-22T22:14:46","slug":"rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001","title":{"rendered":"Rachakonda Narayana vs Ponthala Parvathamma And Anr on 23 August, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rachakonda Narayana vs Ponthala Parvathamma And Anr on 23 August, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Khare<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: V.N. Khare, Shivaraj V. Patil<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 9166  of  1996\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nRACHAKONDA NARAYANA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPONTHALA PARVATHAMMA AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t23\/08\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nV.N. Khare &amp; Shivaraj V. Patil\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>V.N. KHARE, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>This is a plaintiffs appeal.   On 12th of December, 1975 defendant<br \/>\nNo.1 executed an agreement to sell  two plots of land  plot A  comprising 2<br \/>\nacres patta land and plot B comprising Ac.1.30 Cents Sivaijama land for a<br \/>\nsum of Rs. 17,900\/- in favour of the plaintiff.\t Under the agreement to sell, a<br \/>\nsum of Rs. 2,900\/- was paid to defendant No.1  as earnest money.<br \/>\nSubsequently, one Bhima Naik issued a registered notice to the appellant<br \/>\nstating therein that he is the owner of the land comprising in plot B<br \/>\nmeasuring Ac.1.30  Cents and that the defendant No. 1 has no right to sell<br \/>\nthe same to the appellant herein.  The appellant sent notice to defendant No.<br \/>\n1 for executing the sale deed.\tHowever, the defendant evaded to perform his<br \/>\npart of the contract.  It is under such circumstances, on 15.3.76, the appellant<br \/>\nherein brought a suit for specific performance being OS 19\/76 in the court of<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge, Madanapalle.\t The plaintiffs case was that the appellant<br \/>\nalways was and is ready and willing  to perform his part of the contract.<br \/>\nSince the title of defendant No. 1 was found to be defective as one Bhima<br \/>\nNaik set up title on Sivaijama land, hence the plaintiff prayed for specific<br \/>\nperformance of agreement to sell of two acres of patta land only after<br \/>\nproportionate deduction of the price for the land or in the alternative,<br \/>\nsubstitute the patta land for the price agreed upon between the parties.<br \/>\nDefendant No.1 contested the suit  by filing a written statement.  The<br \/>\ndefendant took the plea that the plaintiff cannot seek to enforce a new<br \/>\ncontract and that the plaintiff under the pretext of notice having received by<br \/>\nhim from Bhima Naik, did not come forward to perform his part of the<br \/>\ncontract and his plea for proportionate deduction of the price or in the<br \/>\nalternative, substitute the property is untenable and the  suit is liable to be<br \/>\ndismissed.  The trial court held that the plaintiff is not entitled  to seek<br \/>\nenforcement of new contract either by way of substitution of the patta land<br \/>\nor for proportionate deduction of the agreed price of the land.\t The trial court<br \/>\nfurther found that the title set up  by Bhima Naik in respect of one item of<br \/>\nthe land did not entitle the plaintiff to vary the contract.  With the aforesaid<br \/>\nfinding, the plaintiffs suit was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff  thereafter filed an appeal  before the first appellate<br \/>\ncourt.\tBefore the first appellate court for the first time it was stated by<br \/>\ndefendant No. 1\t that he has no title in respect of plot B land and the same<br \/>\nbelonged to his wife and she has refused to assign the said land in his favour.<br \/>\nUnder such circumstances, the plaintiff moved an application for<br \/>\namendment of the plaint to the effect that the plaintiff is ready and willing to<br \/>\npurchase Ac. 2 acres of land in plot A by paying the entire sale consideration<br \/>\nof Rs. 17,900\/- and further he is relinquishing his claim in respect of the land<br \/>\ncontained in plot B and that he would not claim any compensation.  The said<br \/>\namendment was allowed by the appellate court.  The first appellate court<br \/>\nhaving found that defendant No. 1 has no title in respect of land comprising<br \/>\nin plot B, and the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay up the whole of the<br \/>\nagreed consideration amount, after relinquishing his claim in respect of plot<br \/>\nB land and the compensation, the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific<br \/>\nperformance.  In that view of the matter, the appeal was allowed and the suit<br \/>\nwas decreed in respect of land comprised in plot A measuring two acres of<br \/>\npatta land.\n<\/p>\n<p>Aggrieved, the defendant preferred a second appeal before the High<br \/>\nCourt.\t The High Court\t was of the view that since the plaintiff did not<br \/>\ncome with the suit claiming the benefit of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of<br \/>\nthe Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and<br \/>\nclaimed performance of only part of the whole agreement, and therefore he<br \/>\nwas not ready and willing to perform his part of the whole contract and thus<br \/>\nnot entitled for decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell.<br \/>\nConsequently,  the second appeal was allowed and the suit stood dismissed.<br \/>\nIt is against the said judgment of the High Court, the plaintiff has preferred<br \/>\nthis appeal by way of special leave petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the relief under sub-<br \/>\nsection (3) of Section 12 of the Act can be claimed even at the appellate<br \/>\nstage and the High Court committed serious mistake of law in holding that<br \/>\nsuch relief ought to have been claimed when the suit was filed.\t Learned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the respondents contended that in view of Section 16\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)  of the Act, the plaintiff is to aver and establish that he has performed or<br \/>\nhas been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract.<br \/>\nThe averment has to come in the plaint itself.\tAn amendment to the<br \/>\npleading at a later point of time to bring in the statement is to be refused<br \/>\nafter the parties have gone into evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>On the arguments of the parties, the question that arises for<br \/>\nconsideration is whether the relief under sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the<br \/>\nAct  can be claimed at the appellate stage by amendment in the plaint.\tWe<br \/>\nwould first examine whether the plaintiff was entitled to relinquish a portion<br \/>\nof his claim under the agreement at the appellate stage and seek performance<br \/>\nof remaining part of the contract in conformity with Section 12 (3) of the<br \/>\nAct when  the plaintiff for the first time came to know that defendant no.1<br \/>\nhas no title in respect of  Sivaijama land.\n<\/p>\n<p>Pomercy on Specific Performance stated thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>When the vendors title proves to be defective in<br \/>\nsome particulars, or his estate is different from that<br \/>\nwhich he agreed to convey, or is subject to<br \/>\nencumbrances or outstanding rights to third<br \/>\npersons, or the subject-matter generally the land is<br \/>\ndeficient in quantity, quality or value, it is plain<br \/>\nthat the contract cannot be specifically performed,<br \/>\naccording to its exact terms, at the suit of either<br \/>\nparty.\t In such a case there are only three possible<br \/>\nalternatives for a court of equity to pursue, either<br \/>\nto refuse this remedy entirely; or to enforce the<br \/>\ncontract without any regard to the partial failure,<br \/>\ncompelling the purchaser to take what there is to<br \/>\ngive and to pay the full price as agreed; or to<br \/>\ndecree the conveyance of the vendors actual<br \/>\ninterest and allow to the vendee pecuniary<br \/>\ncompensation or abatement from the price,<br \/>\nproportional to the amount and value of the defect<br \/>\nin title or deficiency in the subject matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 runs as<br \/>\nunder:\n<\/p>\n<p> 12(3)\tWhere a party to a contract is unable to<br \/>\nperform the whole of his part of it, and the part<br \/>\nwhich must be left unperformed either<\/p>\n<p>(a) forms a considerable part of the whole,<br \/>\nthough admitting of compensation in<br \/>\nmoney; or<\/p>\n<p>(b) does not admit of compensation in<br \/>\nmoney;\n<\/p>\n<p>he is not entitled to obtain a decree for specific performance; but the court<br \/>\nmay, at the suit of other party, direct the party in default to perform<br \/>\nspecifically so much of his part of the contract as he can perform, if the other<br \/>\nparty<\/p>\n<p>(i)   in a case falling under clause (a), pays or has<br \/>\npaid  the agreed consideration for the whole of the<br \/>\ncontract reduced by the consideration for the part<br \/>\nwhich must be left unperformed and a case falling<br \/>\nunder clause (b), [pays or had paid] the<br \/>\nconsideration for the whole of the contract without<br \/>\nany abatement; and<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tin either case, relinquishes all claims to<br \/>\nthe performance of the remaining part of the<br \/>\ncontract and all right to compensation, either for<br \/>\nthe deficiency or for the loss or damage sustained<br \/>\nby him through the default of the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tA perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 12 shows that the first part of<br \/>\nthe said provisions mandates refusal of specific performance of a  contract<br \/>\non certain conditions.\tHowever, latter part of\t the provisions permits a Court<br \/>\nto direct the party in default to perform specifically so much of his part of<br \/>\nthe contract as he can perform\tif the other party pays or has paid the agreed<br \/>\nconsideration for the whole of the contract and relinquishes all claims to the<br \/>\nperformance  of the remaining part of the contract and all the rights to<br \/>\ncompensation for the loss sustained by him.  If a suit is laid by  the other<br \/>\nparty, the court may direct the defaulting party to perform that part of the<br \/>\ncontract which is performable on satisfying two preconditions, i.e., (i) the<br \/>\nplaintiff pays or has already paid the whole of the consideration amount<br \/>\nunder the agreement and that (ii) plaintiff relinquishes all claims to the<br \/>\nperformance of other part of the contract which defaulting party is incapable<br \/>\nto perform and all rights to compensation for loss sustained by him.  Thus,<br \/>\nthe ingredients which would attract specific performance of the part of the<br \/>\ncontract, are :\t (i) if a party to an  agreement is unable to perform a part of<br \/>\nthe contract, he is to be treated as defaulting party to that extent and (ii) the<br \/>\nother party to an agreement must, in a suit for such specific performance,<br \/>\neither pays or has paid the whole of the agreed amount, for that part of the<br \/>\ncontract which is capable of being performed by the defaulting party and<br \/>\nalso relinquish his claim in respect of other part of contract which defaulting<br \/>\nparty is not capable to perform and relinquishes  the claim of compensation<br \/>\nin  respect of loss sustained by him.  If such ingredients are satisfied,  the<br \/>\ndiscretionary relief of specific performance is ordinarily granted unless there<br \/>\nis delay or latches or any other disability on the part of other party.\n<\/p>\n<p> Now, the question is whether relief under Section 12(3) of the Act is<br \/>\nrequired to be pleaded in the plaint when the suit is laid or it can also be<br \/>\ntaken at the appellate stage.\t The view taken by the High Court is the<br \/>\nreadiness and willingness to perform the terms of the contract by the<br \/>\nplaintiff  based on latter part of sub-section (3) of Section 12 must be<br \/>\npleaded in the plaint itself when the suit is laid and in its absence the relief<br \/>\nbeing discretionary cannot be granted by amendment of the plaint at the<br \/>\nappellate stage.  <a href=\"\/doc\/701211\/\">In Kalyanpur Lime Works Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and<\/a><br \/>\nanother\t 1954 SCR 958, identical question came up for consideration<br \/>\nbefore the Supreme Court.  In the said case, the apex court held that relief<br \/>\nbased on Sections 13, 14, 15 and 17 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 can be<br \/>\ngranted at any stage of the litigation.\t In A.L. Parthasarathi Mudaliar vs.<br \/>\nVenkata Kondiah Chettiar  AIR 1965 Madras 188, it is held  that it is open<br \/>\nto plaintiff to relinquish the part of the performance of the contract after<br \/>\npaying the entire consideration of the contracted amount at the appellate<br \/>\nstage of the proceedings if the defaulting party is not capable to perform the<br \/>\nwhole of the contract.\n<\/p>\n<p>We are in agreement with the statement of law expressed in the<br \/>\naforesaid decisions.  In the present case what we find is that it was for the<br \/>\nfirst time at the appellate stage, the defendant no.1 stated that he had no title<br \/>\nin respect of  Plot B Sivaijama land which belonged to his first wife and<br \/>\nhis wife has refused to assign the said plot of land in his favour.  It is on<br \/>\naccount of the said statement the plaintiff filed an application for amendment<br \/>\nof the plaint relinquishing his claim in respect of  B plot of land as well as<br \/>\ncompensation for the loss he sustained for non-performance of part of the<br \/>\ncontract  while agreeing to pay the entire contracted amount.  An appeal is a<br \/>\ncontinuation of the suit.  When an appellate Court hears an appeal, the whole<br \/>\nmatter is at large.  The appellate Court can go into any question relating to<br \/>\nrights of the parties which a  trial Court was entitled to dispose of provided<br \/>\nthe plaintiff possesses\t that right on the date of filing of the suit. Defendant<br \/>\nno.1 prior to filing of appeal by the plaintiff never informed the plaintiff that<br \/>\nhis wife has refused to assign B plot of land in his favour and he having no<br \/>\ntitle  over the said plot of land is incapable to perform the whole part of the<br \/>\ncontract.    Under such circumstances it was open to the plaintiff to move for<br \/>\namendment of the plaint pleading therein  the ingredients for part<br \/>\nperformance of the contract as provided under sub-section (3) of Section12<br \/>\nof the Act.  It is not disputed that the plaintiff had deposited the entire<br \/>\ncontracted amount in the trial Court.  He further relinquished his claim in<br \/>\nrespect of B plot of land as well as claim for compensation.  Under such<br \/>\ncircumstances the first appellate Court was justified in allowing the<br \/>\namendment of the plaint and thereafter decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.<br \/>\nWe, therefore, find that view taken by the High Court in holding that the<br \/>\nplea taken by the plaintiff  at the appellate stage having  been not taken at<br \/>\nthe time of filing of suit, the suit would fail, is erroneous. For the aforesaid<br \/>\nreasons appeal deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>We, accordingly, set aside the judgment under appeal.  The appeal  is<br \/>\nallowed.  There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t.J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t(V.N.Khare)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t.J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t(Shivaraj V. Patil)<\/p>\n<p>August 23, 2001<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Rachakonda Narayana vs Ponthala Parvathamma And Anr on 23 August, 2001 Author: V Khare Bench: V.N. Khare, Shivaraj V. Patil CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 9166 of 1996 PETITIONER: RACHAKONDA NARAYANA Vs. RESPONDENT: PONTHALA PARVATHAMMA AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/08\/2001 BENCH: V.N. Khare &amp; Shivaraj V. Patil JUDGMENT: V.N. KHARE, J. [&hellip;]<\/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-113445","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rachakonda Narayana vs Ponthala Parvathamma And Anr on 23 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rachakonda Narayana vs Ponthala Parvathamma And Anr on 23 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-22T22:14:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rachakonda Narayana vs Ponthala Parvathamma And Anr on 23 August, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-22T22:14:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2290,\"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\\\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001\",\"name\":\"Rachakonda Narayana vs Ponthala Parvathamma And Anr on 23 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-22T22:14:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rachakonda Narayana vs Ponthala Parvathamma And Anr on 23 August, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Rachakonda Narayana vs Ponthala Parvathamma And Anr on 23 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rachakonda Narayana vs Ponthala Parvathamma And Anr on 23 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-22T22:14:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rachakonda Narayana vs Ponthala Parvathamma And Anr on 23 August, 2001","datePublished":"2001-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-22T22:14:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001"},"wordCount":2290,"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\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001","name":"Rachakonda Narayana vs Ponthala Parvathamma And Anr on 23 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-22T22:14:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rachakonda-narayana-vs-ponthala-parvathamma-and-anr-on-23-august-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rachakonda Narayana vs Ponthala Parvathamma And Anr on 23 August, 2001"}]},{"@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\/113445","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=113445"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113445\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113445"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113445"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113445"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}