{"id":123305,"date":"2008-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-02-19T21:40:03","modified_gmt":"2018-02-19T16:10:03","slug":"b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"B.Y.Narasimha Prasad vs M.Veerappa & Anr on 21 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
B.Y.Narasimha Prasad vs M.Veerappa & Anr on 21 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A Alam<\/div>\n
Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, Aftab Alam<\/div>\n
                                         1\n\n\n                                           `NON-REPORTABLE'\n\n              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n       SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.16453 OF 2006\n\nB.Y.Narasimha Prasad                               ... Petitioner\n\n                                  Versus\n\nM.Veerappa & Anr.                                  ... Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
AFTAB ALAM,J.\n<\/p>\n
      This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an eviction<\/p>\n
proceeding. The 2nd Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, held<\/p>\n
that the eviction petition (HRC No.422\/99) filed against respondent<\/p>\n
no. 1 was not maintainable under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999<\/p>\n
because the proceeding was instituted within the period of 15 years
\n                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
since the suit house was subjected to substantial renovation and<\/p>\n
additional construction as provided under Section 2(3) (f) of the Act.<\/p>\n
In revision, the High Court affirmed the view taken by the trial court<\/p>\n
vide order dated 22 June, 2006 in House Rent Revision Petition<\/p>\n
No.554 of 2005. The petitioner seeks leave to file appeal against the<\/p>\n
High Court order.\n<\/p>\n
      The facts of the case are brief and may be stated thus. The suit<\/p>\n
premises belonged to one Shankar Narayan Rao (now deceased). He<\/p>\n
inducted respondent No.1 as a tenant in the house in the year 1976. At<\/p>\n
that time it was a single storey house without any garage as an<\/p>\n
appurtenance. In the year 1988, on the request of the tenant, another<\/p>\n
storey was added and a garage was also constructed on the ground<\/p>\n
floor. Respondent No.1 then came to occupy as tenant, the entire<\/p>\n
premises, that is to say, the ground floor and the newly added first<\/p>\n
floor and the garage on a monthly rental of Rs.2500\/-.<\/p>\n
      In 1999, Shankar Narayan Rao filed a petition under the<\/p>\n
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 seeking the eviction of respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 on a number of grounds. Respondent no.1 resisted the eviction<\/p>\n
proceeding and filed his written statement, inter alia, stating that<\/p>\n
additional construction\/renovation of the house in the year 1988 was
\n                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
done at his expense and in that connection he had incurred the cost of<\/p>\n
Rs.6,50,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
       The Karnataka Rent Control Act was repealed and it was<\/p>\n
replaced by the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999 with effect from<\/p>\n
December 2001. At that time the proceeding was pending before the<\/p>\n
trial court.\n<\/p>\n
       In the same year Shankar Narayan Rao died and the present<\/p>\n
petitioner and respondent No.2 got themselves substituted in his place<\/p>\n
to prosecute the eviction proceeding. Respondent No.2 is the widow<\/p>\n
of Shankar Narayan Rao and the petitioner claims to be his adopted<\/p>\n
son.\n<\/p>\n
       In course of the proceeding before it the trial court seems to<\/p>\n
have noticed the plea taken by respondent No.1 that the additional<\/p>\n
construction\/renovation of the house was done in the year 1988 at a<\/p>\n
cost of Rs.6,50,000\/-. On the basis of the evidences already on record<\/p>\n
he further found that the aforesaid amount was in excess of 75% of<\/p>\n
the valuation of the house and hence, the suit premises had undergone<\/p>\n
substantial renovation\/construction within the meaning of Section 2<\/p>\n
(3) (f) of the Act that stipulated that to such a premises no provision<\/p>\n
of the Rent Control Act, 1999 would apply for a period of 15 years
\n                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
from the date of completion of construction or substantial renovation.<\/p>\n
The eviction petition in question, was filed in 1999, i.e., clearly<\/p>\n
within the period of 15 years from the date of completion of<\/p>\n
additional construction\/substantial renovation of the suit premises and<\/p>\n
was, therefore, not maintainable under the Act.<\/p>\n
      The petitioner challenged the order of the trial court in revision<\/p>\n
before the High Court. At this stage, the dispute which was till then<\/p>\n
only bipartite, being between the tenant on the one side and the<\/p>\n
petitioner and the second respondent on the other assumed a tripartite<\/p>\n
dimension. The widow of Shankar Narayan Rao who after the death<\/p>\n
of her husband had initially joined the petitioner in prosecuting the<\/p>\n
eviction proceeding changed her stand. A petition was filed on her<\/p>\n
behalf in the trial court stating that she came to know about a will<\/p>\n
allegedly created in favour of the petitioner, which according to her<\/p>\n
was a fake. She also disputed the petitioner’s claim of adoption by<\/p>\n
Shankar Narayan Rao and prayed for dismissing the eviction<\/p>\n
proceeding. It was in those circumstances that in the revision filed by<\/p>\n
the petitioner before the High Court she was impleaded as the second<\/p>\n
respondent along with the tenant being the first respondent. The High
\n                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
Court, as noticed above, dismissed the revision and affirmed the order<\/p>\n
passed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
       Learned counsel appearing in support of the Leave Petition<\/p>\n
submitted that the question of maintainability of the proceeding was<\/p>\n
not even raised by respondent No.1, the tenant, and there bring no<\/p>\n
such plea the trial court was in error in dismissing the petition as not<\/p>\n
maintainable. He further submitted that the suit house could not be<\/p>\n
said to have undergone construction\/substantial renovation within the<\/p>\n
meaning of the explanation to Section 2(3)(f) of the Act. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel also submitted that at any rate on 21 November, 2005, the<\/p>\n
date on which the trial court dismissed the eviction petition, the 15<\/p>\n
years period was already over. The bar of Section 2(3)(f) was thus<\/p>\n
lifted in connection with the suit house and there was no legal<\/p>\n
impediment before the court to proceed in the matter. In support of<\/p>\n
the last submission, he relied upon a decision of this Court in Sudhir<\/p>\n
G.Angur & Ors. V. M. Sanjeev & others<\/a>, 2005 (8) Scale 762.<\/p>\n
       We are not impressed by any of these submissions. What was<\/p>\n
the cost of construction or the value of the single storey house that<\/p>\n
was originally let out to respondent No.1 and what was the cost of<\/p>\n
construction of the first floor and the garage and whether or not the<\/p>\n
suit   house    had    undergone    substantial   renovation\/additional
\n                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
construction within the meaning of Section 2(3)(f) of the Act are pure<\/p>\n
questions of fact. On the basis of the evidences led before it, the trial<\/p>\n
court found and held that the cost incurred in the additional<\/p>\n
construction\/renovation was in excess of 75% of the value of the<\/p>\n
original single storey house. The finding of the trial court has been<\/p>\n
affirmed by the High Court.        The finding is based on evidence<\/p>\n
brought before the court and it, therefore, does not warrant any<\/p>\n
interference by us. Further, once it was established that the suit house<\/p>\n
had undergone additional construction\/substantial renovation within<\/p>\n
the meaning of Section 2(3)(f) of the Act the question of<\/p>\n
maintainability of the proceeding became a jurisdictional issue and<\/p>\n
the court was legally bound to address it regardless of whether or not<\/p>\n
any objection was raised by the other side. The trial court was,<\/p>\n
therefore, perfectly justified in considering whether or not it had the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction and the competence to proceed in the matter. The Trial<\/p>\n
Court did so and found that the proceeding was not maintainable<\/p>\n
before it.\n<\/p>\n
       We are also unable to accept the contention that the date on<\/p>\n
which the order was passed the 15 years period was over and the<\/p>\n
proceeding had thus became maintainable. We are of the view that the<\/p>\n
decision in Sudhir G.Angur has no application to the facts of the case.
\n                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
The maintainability of the proceeding was to be decided with<\/p>\n
reference to the date on which the Rent Control Act, 1999 came into<\/p>\n
force and not the date on which the order was passed by the trial<\/p>\n
court. A proceeding that was incompetent on the date the Act came<\/p>\n
into force would not revive merely because it remained pending<\/p>\n
before the court.\n<\/p>\n
      Counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the intent of<\/p>\n
section 3(2)(f) was to give some benefit to the landlord and further<\/p>\n
that the proceeding would not abate under Section 70(2)(c) of the<\/p>\n
Act. We find no force in the submission. It is indeed true that<\/p>\n
Section 2(3) (f) is beneficial to the landlord but then it was for the<\/p>\n
land lord, Narayan Shankar Rao to withdraw the proceeding on<\/p>\n
coming into force on the 1999 Act in terms of Section 2(3)(f) and to<\/p>\n
proceed against the tenant under the general law governing the<\/p>\n
landlord and tenant relationship. That course having not been adopted<\/p>\n
the proceeding under the Rent Control Act was clearly not<\/p>\n
maintainable and was rightly dismissed by the trial court.<\/p>\n
      We thus find no merit in this special leave petition and it is<\/p>\n
dismissed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
      We may note here that the High Court has left it open to the<\/p>\n
petitioner or the 2nd respondent (the widow of Narayan Shankar Rao)
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
to file a fresh eviction petition on the ground that by the end of<\/p>\n
December 2003 the 15 years period was over. The direction of the<\/p>\n
High Court in that regard would remain undisturbed by the dismissal<\/p>\n
of the Special Leave Petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        …………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                        [Harjit Singh Bedi]<\/p>\n
                                        …………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                        [Aftab Alam]<\/p>\n
New Delhi,<\/p>\n
July 21, 2008.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India B.Y.Narasimha Prasad vs M.Veerappa & Anr on 21 July, 2008 Author: A Alam Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, Aftab Alam 1 `NON-REPORTABLE’ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.16453 OF 2006 B.Y.Narasimha Prasad … Petitioner Versus M.Veerappa & Anr. … Respondent JUDGMENT AFTAB ALAM,J. This […]<\/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-123305","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nB.Y.Narasimha Prasad vs M.Veerappa & Anr on 21 July, 2008 - 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\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.Y.Narasimha Prasad vs M.Veerappa & Anr on 21 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-19T16:10:03+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.Y.Narasimha Prasad vs M.Veerappa & Anr on 21 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-19T16:10:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1438,\"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\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008\",\"name\":\"B.Y.Narasimha Prasad vs M.Veerappa & Anr on 21 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-19T16:10:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.Y.Narasimha Prasad vs M.Veerappa & Anr on 21 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"B.Y.Narasimha Prasad vs M.Veerappa & Anr on 21 July, 2008 - 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\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.Y.Narasimha Prasad vs M.Veerappa & Anr on 21 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-19T16:10:03+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.Y.Narasimha Prasad vs M.Veerappa & Anr on 21 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-19T16:10:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008"},"wordCount":1438,"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\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008","name":"B.Y.Narasimha Prasad vs M.Veerappa & Anr on 21 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-19T16:10:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-y-narasimha-prasad-vs-m-veerappa-anr-on-21-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.Y.Narasimha Prasad vs M.Veerappa & Anr on 21 July, 2008"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/123305","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=123305"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123305\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123305"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123305"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123305"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}