{"id":114490,"date":"2007-12-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007"},"modified":"2018-09-13T07:03:04","modified_gmt":"2018-09-13T01:33:04","slug":"rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"Rugmini Ammal (Dead) By Lrs vs V. Narayana Reddiar & Ors on 13 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rugmini Ammal (Dead) By Lrs vs V. Narayana Reddiar & Ors on 13 December, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  564 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nRugmini Ammal (dead) by Lrs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nV. Narayana Reddiar & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/12\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tChallenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
\nBench of the Kerala High Court by which the judgment of the
\nlearned Single judge was set aside and the writ appeal was
\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tBackground facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     Respondent No.4 in CMP No.35930 of 1998 in O.P.
\nNo.12701 of 1998 was the 4th respondent in writ petition also.
\nAccording to the respondent No.1 he was the tenant of a
\nbuilding called Jaya building Main Road, Kollam. The tenancy
\nwas given by one Durairaja Reddiar by executing an
\nagreement of lease dated 6.1.1994.  This lease deed enabled
\nhim to make alterations in the building. Accordingly he
\neffected some alterations in the building.  When it was found
\nthat the alterations were effected he received from the Kollam
\nMunicipality an order directing him to demolish the structure
\nwhich according to the Municipality was unauthorized.
\nAgainst the order of the Municipality respondent No.1
\napproached the Government. The Government issued an order
\ndated 22.6.1998 which was annexed as Ext.P5 to the writ
\npetition, directing the respondent No.1 to submit an
\napplication to the local authority seeking regularization of the
\nadditional structure made by him. Rugmini Ammal, the first
\nrespondent in the Writ Appeal filed a writ petition. The
\ncontention raised by her was that there was no lease
\nagreement and that the construction was unauthorized. It was
\nstated that the construction cannot be legalized on other
\ngrounds.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tRespondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit. Along with
\ncounter-affidavit photocopy of the agreement of lease dated
\n6.1.1994 was annexed.  Thereafter Rugmini Ammal filed CMP
\nNo.35930 of 1998. The contentions taken in the CMP was that
\nthe purported agreement of lease is a forged document.  It was
\nfurther stated that she sought the opinion of Professor B.B.
\nKashyap, a renowned handwriting and finger print expert.
\nThe signatures in the purported lease agreement, Exh. R4(a)
\nwas compared with the admitted signatures of Durairaj
\nReddiar in Ext. P7.  The expert gave his opinion, the copy of
\nwhich was produced as Exh.P18. According to it the
\nsignatures in Exh.R4(a) did not tally with the admitted
\nsignatures. Hence the handwriting expert was of the opinion
\nthat the five disputed signatures were not written by the writer
\nof the admitted signatures.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tA counter-affidavit was filed in CMP No.35930 of 1998.
\nIn the counter-affidavit, it was stated that Exh. R4(a) was
\nproduced before the Government and Exh. P5 order itself goes
\nto show that this was produced before the Government.  The
\nfabrication of Exh.R4(a) was denied.  A reply affidavit was filed
\nin which Rugmini Ammal denied the execution of certain
\ndocuments signed by Reddiar and produced by the appellant
\nin the writ appeal. The prayer in CMP No.35930 of 1998 was
\nto conduct enquiry into the production of Exh.R4(a) forged
\ndocument and made a complaint thereof and forward it to the
\nMagistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tLearned Single Judge relied on the opinion given by the
\nhandwriting expert and prima facie came to the conclusion
\nthat Exts.R4(a), R4(e), R4(i) and R4(j) were fabricated and
\nhence there is a reasonable likelihood to establish the offences
\npunishable under Sections 463, 471, 475 and 476 of the
\nIndian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). The learned Single
\nJudge directed the Registrar of the Court to make a complaint
\nfor the purpose in writing and send it to the Magistrate of the
\nFirst Class having jurisdiction.  Against that order the writ
\nappeal was filed.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tStand of the appellant before the High Court was that
\nproceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, 1973 (in short the Cr.P.C.) cannot be initiated
\nbecause there was no allegation that the fabrication was made
\nafter the document was produced. Certain other stands were
\nalso taken with which we are not very much concerned.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tStand of the respondents in the writ appeal was that the
\nwrit appeal was not maintainable and Section 341 of Cr.P.C.
\ndoes not provide for an order passed by the High Court.  It was
\nsubmitted that Section 340 Cr.P.C. has been rightly initiated.
\nThe High Court was of the view that though Section 341
\nCr.P.C. does not provide for an appeal from an order passed
\nunder Section 340 Cr.P.C. it does not mean that there was no
\nother provision by which appeal cannot be filed.  In fact it was
\nheld that Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act provides for
\nsuch an appeal. Reference in this context was made to a Five
\nJudge Bench decision of  the High Court in K.S. Dass v. State
\nof Kerala [1992 (2) KLT 358]. Reference was also made to some
\nother full Bench judgments.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tComing to the question about the applicability of Section
\n340 to the facts of the case it was held that stage for initiation
\nof the proceeding, if any, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. had not
\ncome.  Reference was made to a decision of this Court in
\nSchida Nand Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr.  [AIR
\n1998 SC 1121].  Therefore, it was held that initiation of the
\nproceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was without
\njurisdiction.  The writ appeal was accordingly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tLearned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is
\na conflict in view between the decision in Sachida Nands case
\n(supra) and Surjit Singh and Ors. v. Balbir Singh<\/a> (1996 (3)
\nSCC 533).\n<\/p>\n
10.\tLearned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
\nsupported the order of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tAt this juncture it is to be noted that in view of the
\nconflict of language between two decisions of this Court each
\nrendered by a Bench of three learned Judges in Sachida
\nNands case (supra) and Surjit Singhs case (supra) regarding
\ninterpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. the matter was
\nplaced before a five-judge Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah v.
\nMeenakshi Marwah<\/a> [2005 4) SCC 370].  After referring to the
\nprovisions contained in Sections 190, 195(1)(b)(ii) and 340
\nCr.P.C. it was held that the decision in Sachida Nands case
\n(supra) correctly decided and the view taken is the correct
\nview.  It was, inter alia, observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 19.\t As mentioned earlier, the words by a
\nparty to any proceeding in any court
\noccurring in Section 195(1)( c ) of the old Code
\nhave been omitted in Section 195(1)( b )( ii )
\nCrPC. Why these words were deleted in the
\ncorresponding provision of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure, 1973 will be apparent
\nfrom the 41st Report of the Law Commission
\nwhich said as under in para 15.39:\n<\/p>\n
15.39. The purpose of the section is to
\nbar private prosecutions where the
\ncourse of justice is sought to be perverted
\nleaving to the court itself to uphold its
\ndignity and prestige. On principle there is
\nno reason why the safeguard in clause (c)
\nshould not apply to offences committed
\nby witnesses also. Witnesses need as
\nmuch protection against vexatious
\nprosecutions as parties and the court
\nshould have as much control over the
\nacts of witnesses that enter as a
\ncomponent of a judicial proceeding, as
\nover the acts of parties. If, therefore, the
\nprovisions of clause (c) are extended to
\nwitnesses, the extension would be in
\nconformity with the broad principle which
\nforms the basis of Section 195.\n<\/p>\n
20. Since the object of deletion of the words
\nby a party to any proceeding in any court
\noccurring in Section 195(1)(c) of the old Code is
\nto afford protection to witnesses also, the
\ninterpretation placed on the said provision in
\nthe earlier decisions would still hold good.\n<\/p>\n
21. Section 190 CrPC provides that a
\nMagistrate may take cognizance of any offence\n<\/p>\n
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which
\nconstitute such offence, (b) upon a police
\nreport of such facts, and (c) upon information
\nreceived from any person other than a police
\nofficer, or upon his own knowledge, that such
\noffence has been committed. Section 195 CrPC
\nis a sort of exception to this general provision
\nand creates an embargo upon the power of the
\ncourt to take cognizance of certain types of
\noffences enumerated therein. The procedure
\nfor filing a complaint by the court as
\ncontemplated by Section 195(1) CrPC is given
\nin Section 340 CrPC and sub-sections (1) and
\n(2) thereof are being reproduced below:
\n340. Procedure in cases mentioned in
\nSection 195 .(1) When, upon an
\napplication made to it in this behalf or
\notherwise, any court is of opinion that it
\nis expedient in the interests of justice
\nthat an inquiry should be made into any
\noffence referred to in clause (b) of sub-
\nsection (1) of Section 195, which appears
\nto have been committed in or in relation
\nto a proceeding in that court or, as the
\ncase may be, in respect of a document
\nproduced or given in evidence in a
\nproceeding in that court, such court may,
\nafter such preliminary inquiry, if any, as
\nit thinks necessary,\n<\/p>\n
(a) record a finding to that effect;\n<\/p>\n
(b) make a complaint thereof in
\nwriting;\n<\/p>\n
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the
\nFirst Class having jurisdiction;\n<\/p>\n
(d) take sufficient security for the
\nappearance of the accused before
\nsuch Magistrate, or if the alleged
\noffence is non-bailable and the court
\nthinks it necessary so to do, send
\nthe accused in custody to such
\nMagistrate; and\n<\/p>\n
(e) bind over any person to appear
\nand give evidence before such
\nMagistrate.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The power conferred on a court by sub-
\nsection (1) in respect of an offence may, in
\nany case where that court has neither
\nmade a complaint under sub-section (1) in
\nrespect of that offence nor rejected an
\napplication for the making of such
\ncomplaint, be exercised by the court to
\nwhich such former court is subordinate
\nwithin the meaning of sub-section (4) of
\nSection.\n<\/p>\n
Section 341 CrPC provides for an appeal to
\nthe court to which such former court is
\nsubordinate within the meaning of sub-
\nsection (4) of Section 195, against the
\norder refusing to make a complaint or
\nagainst an order directing filing of a
\ncomplaint and in such appeal the superior
\ncourt may direct withdrawal of the
\ncomplaint or making of the complaint.
\nSub-section (2) of Section 343 lays down
\nthat when it is brought to the notice of a
\nMagistrate to whom a complaint has been
\nmade under Section 340 or 341 that an
\nappeal is pending against the decision
\narrived at in the judicial proceeding out of
\nwhich the matter has arisen, he may, if he
\nthinks fit, at any stage, adjourn the
\nhearing of the case until such appeal is
\ndecided.\n<\/p>\n
23. In view of the language used in Section
\n340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a
\ncomplaint regarding commission of an
\noffence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as
\nthe section is conditioned by the words
\ncourt is of opinion that it is expedient in
\nthe interests of justice. This shows that
\nsuch a course will be adopted only if the
\ninterest of justice requires and not in every
\ncase. Before filing of the complaint, the
\ncourt may hold a preliminary enquiry and
\nrecord a finding to the effect that it is
\nexpedient in the interests of justice that
\nenquiry should be made into any of the
\noffences referred to in Section 195(1)(b).
\nThis expediency will normally be judged by
\nthe court by weighing not the magnitude of
\ninjury suffered by the person affected by
\nsuch forgery or forged document, but
\nhaving regard to the effect or impact, such
\ncommission of offence has upon
\nadministration of justice. It is possible that
\nsuch forged document or forgery may
\ncause a very serious or substantial injury
\nto a person in the sense that it may
\ndeprive him of a very valuable property or
\nstatus or the like, but such document may
\nbe just a piece of evidence produced or
\ngiven in evidence in court, where
\nvoluminous evidence may have been
\nadduced and the effect of such piece of
\nevidence on the broad concept of
\nadministration of justice may be minimal.
\nIn such circumstances, the court may not
\nconsider it expedient in the interest of
\njustice to make a complaint. The broad
\nview of clause (b)(i), as canvassed by
\nlearned counsel for the appellants, would
\nrender the victim of such forgery or forged
\ndocument remediless. Any interpretation
\nwhich leads to a situation where a victim
\nof a crime is rendered remediless, has to
\nbe discarded.\n<\/p>\n
There is another consideration which has to be
\nkept in mind. Sub-section (1) of Section 340
\nCrPC contemplates holding of a preliminary
\nenquiry. Normally, a direction for filing of a
\ncomplaint is not made during the pendency of
\nthe proceeding before the court and this is
\ndone at the stage when the proceeding is
\nconcluded and the final judgment is rendered.
\nSection 341 provides for an appeal against an
\norder directing filing of the complaint. The
\nhearing and ultimate decision of the appeal is
\nbound to take time. Section 343(2) confers a
\ndiscretion upon a court trying the complaint to
\nadjourn the hearing of the case if it is brought
\nto its notice that an appeal is pending against
\nthe decision arrived at in the judicial
\nproceeding out of which the matter has arisen.
\nIn view of these provisions, the complaint case
\nmay not proceed at all for decades specially in
\nmatters arising out of civil suits where
\ndecisions are challenged in successive
\nappellate fora which are time-consuming. It is
\nalso to be noticed that there is no provision of
\nappeal against an order passed under Section
\n343(2), whereby hearing of the case is
\nadjourned until the decision of the appeal.
\nThese provisions show that, in reality, the
\nprocedure prescribed for filing a complaint by
\nthe court is such that it may not fructify in the
\nactual trial of the offender for an unusually
\nlong period. Delay in prosecution of a guilty
\nperson comes to his advantage as witnesses
\nbecome reluctant to give evidence and the
\nevidence gets lost. This important
\nconsideration dissuades us from accepting the
\nbroad interpretation sought to be placed upon
\nclause(b)(ii).\n<\/p>\n
25. An enlarged interpretation to Section
\n195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar created by the
\nsaid provision would also operate where after
\ncommission of an act of forgery the document
\nis subsequently produced in court, is capable
\nof great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida
\nNand Singh 2 after preparing a forged
\ndocument or committing an act of forgery, a
\nperson may manage to get a proceeding
\ninstituted in any civil, criminal or revenue
\ncourt, either by himself or through someone
\nset up by him and simply file the document in
\nthe said proceeding. He would thus be
\nprotected from prosecution, either at the
\ninstance of a private party or the police until
\nthe court, where the document has been filed,
\nitself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation
\nmay be a prolonged one due to which the
\nactual trial of such a person may be delayed
\nindefinitely. Such an interpretation would be
\nhighly detrimental to the interest of the society
\nat large.\n<\/p>\n
26. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact
\nthat the courts are normally reluctant to direct
\nfiling of a criminal complaint and such a
\ncourse is rarely adopted. It will not be fair and
\nproper to give an interpretation which leads to
\na situation where a person alleged to have
\ncommitted an offence of the type enumerated
\nin clause (b)(ii) is either not placed for trial on
\naccount of non-filing of a complaint or if a
\ncomplaint is filed, the same does not come to
\nits logical end. Judging from such an angle will
\nbe in consonance with the principle that an
\nunworkable or impracticable result should be
\navoided. In Statutory Interpretation by Francis
\nBennion (3rd Edn.), para 313, the principle
\nhas been stated in the following manner:\n<\/p>\n
The court seeks to avoid a construction
\nof an enactment that produces an
\nunworkable or impracticable result,
\nsince this is unlikely to have been
\nintended by Parliament. Sometimes,
\nhowever, there are overriding reasons
\nfor applying such a construction, for
\nexample, where it appears that
\nParliament really intended it or the
\nliteral meaning is too strong. <\/p>\n
  \tIn view of the discussion made above, we
\nare of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh 2
\nhas been correctly decided and the view taken
\ntherein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii)
\nCrPC would be attracted only when the
\noffences enumerated in the said provision have
\nbeen committed with respect to a document
\nafter it has been produced or given in evidence
\nin a proceeding in any court i.e. during the
\ntime when the document was in custodia
\nlegis.<\/p>\n
12.\tThe above position was highlighted in Iqbal Singh
\nMarwah v. Meenakshi Marwah<\/a> (supra).\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe High Court was, therefore, right in placing reliance
\non Sachida Nands case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe appeal is, therefore, without merit and is, therefore,
\ndismissed. There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rugmini Ammal (Dead) By Lrs vs V. Narayana Reddiar & Ors on 13 December, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 564 of 2002 PETITIONER: Rugmini Ammal (dead) by Lrs. RESPONDENT: V. Narayana Reddiar & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/12\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT […]<\/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-114490","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRugmini Ammal (Dead) By Lrs vs V. Narayana Reddiar & Ors on 13 December, 2007 - 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\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rugmini Ammal (Dead) By Lrs vs V. Narayana Reddiar & Ors on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-13T01:33:04+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rugmini Ammal (Dead) By Lrs vs V. Narayana Reddiar & Ors on 13 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-13T01:33:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2810,\"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\\\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007\",\"name\":\"Rugmini Ammal (Dead) By Lrs vs V. Narayana Reddiar & Ors on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-13T01:33:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rugmini Ammal (Dead) By Lrs vs V. Narayana Reddiar & Ors on 13 December, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Rugmini Ammal (Dead) By Lrs vs V. Narayana Reddiar & Ors on 13 December, 2007 - 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\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rugmini Ammal (Dead) By Lrs vs V. Narayana Reddiar & Ors on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-13T01:33:04+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rugmini Ammal (Dead) By Lrs vs V. Narayana Reddiar & Ors on 13 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-13T01:33:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007"},"wordCount":2810,"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\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007","name":"Rugmini Ammal (Dead) By Lrs vs V. Narayana Reddiar & Ors on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-13T01:33:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-ammal-dead-by-lrs-vs-v-narayana-reddiar-ors-on-13-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rugmini Ammal (Dead) By Lrs vs V. Narayana Reddiar & Ors on 13 December, 2007"}]},{"@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\/114490","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=114490"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114490\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114490"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114490"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114490"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}