{"id":132931,"date":"1994-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994"},"modified":"2017-07-13T12:06:34","modified_gmt":"2017-07-13T06:36:34","slug":"shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994","title":{"rendered":"Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara … vs Syeda Vajhiunnisa on 3 March, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara … vs Syeda Vajhiunnisa on 3 March, 1994<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (2) 671, \t JT 1994 (2)\t175<\/div>\n
Author: S Mohan<\/div>\n
Bench: Mohan, S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA ENTERPRISES\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSYEDA VAJHIUNNISA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/03\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nMOHAN, S. (J)\nBENCH:\nMOHAN, S. (J)\nMUKHERJEE M.K. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  (2) 671\t  JT 1994 (2)\t175\n 1994 SCALE  (1)789\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nMOHAN,\tJ.- The short facts leading to civil appeal  are  as
\nunder.\t The  respondents  executed  a\tlease  agreement  on
\nDecember  6,  1971 for a period of 32 years.   The  subject-
\nmatter\tof  demise  was a vacant site  for  the\t purpose  of
\nerection of cinema theatre by the tenant, appellant.  He was
\nput in possession.  Thereupon, he applied for a licence\t for
\nconstruction.\tThe construction was not completed within  a
\nperiod of two years.  The appellant made an application\t for
\nrenewal\t of licence.  On objection by the  respondents,\t the
\nrenewal\t was not granted.  As a result, the construction  of
\ncinema\ttheatre was not completed.  The appellant  defaulted
\nin  payment of arrears of rent.\t Therefore, the\t respondents
\nfiled an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka
\nRent  Control  Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred\tto  as\t‘the
\nAct’)  and for bona fide requirement under Section  21(1)(h)
\nof  the Act.  Pending the eviction proceedings,\t respondents
\nfiled an application under Section 29(1) and (4) of the\t Act
\nbecause\t the  appellant had not paid the rent  in  spite  of
\nnotice.\n<\/p>\n
+    From  the Judgment and Order dated January 1,  1991  of
\nthe Karnataka High Court in C.R.P. No. 10618 of 1990
\n 673<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
2.   On August 18, 1990, the trial court passed an order  on
\nI.A.  VI  directing the appellant to pay the an-ears  of  Rs
\n3,69,000.   For\t compliance of this, thirty days’  time\t was
\ngranted.   Inasmuch  as\t the said amount  was  not  paid  on
\nOctober 25, 1990, an order of eviction was passed.   Against
\nthis  order,  Civil Revision Petition No. 725  of  1991\t was
\npreferred to the High Court of Karnataka.  The said revision
\ncame to be dismissed on January 29, 1991.  Hence, this civil
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The  only point that is argued by Mr N. Santosh  Hegde,
\nlearned\t counsel  for  the  appellant  is  that\t during\t the
\nsubsistence of the contractual tenancy for the period of  32
\nyears  under  the  registered deed, it is not  open  to\t the
\nrespondents\/landlords  to seek eviction under the  Karnataka
\nRent  Control  Act, 1961.  No doubt, Section 21 of  the\t Act
\nsays  ‘notwithstanding’.   But\tthis  does  not\t mean\tthat
\nprovision can be availed of by the respondents since this is
\nthe  beneficial\t legislation in favour of  the\ttenant.\t  In
\nsupport\t of this submission, reliance is placed on the\tFull
\nBench  judgment\t of  Karnataka High Court  reported  as\t Sri
\nRamakrishna   Theatres\t Ltd.  v.  General   Investments   &
\nCommercial Corpn.  Ltd.1\n<\/p>\n
4.   This  stand is opposed by the learned counsel  for\t the
\nrespondents, Shri M.\t Qamaruddin.   He would submit\tthat
\ninsofar as Section 21 of the Act clearly postulates even the
\nabrogation  of\tthe  ‘contract’\t and  the  statute,  namely,
\nKarnataka  Rent\t Control  Act, 1961 takes  over\t in  such  a
\nsituation,  the parties are governed only by the  provisions
\nof  the\t Act.  The civil court cannot have  jurisdiction  in
\nview of the non-obstante clause contained under Section 21.\n<\/p>\n
5.   This  Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v.  Yesodai  Ammal2<\/a>
\ncategorically  laid down that contractual tenancy will\tlose
\nits  significance in view of the Rent Control Act.  In\tthat
\ncase,  even the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer  of
\nProperty Act was held to be a surplusage.  It is, therefore,
\nurged that if a landlord could found an action on any one of
\nthe  enumerated\t grounds under Section 21 of  the  Act,\t the
\naction\twould be maintainable notwithstanding the  existence
\nof a contractual lease.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Having regard to the above arguments, the only question
\nthat  arises  for our consideration is, whether\t during\t the
\nsubsistence  of\t a contractual tenancy, it is  open  to\t the
\nlandlord to resort to proceedings under Rent Control Act?\n<\/p>\n
7.   We must first refer to Section 21 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “21.  (1)\t Notwithstanding  anything  to\t the
\n\t      contrary\t contained  in\tany  other  law\t  or
\n\t      contract, no order or decree for the  recovery
\n\t      of possession of any premises shall be made by
\n\t      any court or other authority in favour of\t the
\n\t      landlord against the tenant:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      1\t ILR 1992 Kant 1296
\n\t      2 (1979) 4 SCC 214
\n\t      674<\/span>
\n\t      Provided that the court may on an\t application
\n\t      made to it, make an order for the recovery  of
\n\t      possession of a premises on one or more of the
\n\t      following grounds only, namely:
\n\t      [Clauses\t(a)  to\t (p)  are  omitted  as\t not
\n\t      necessary.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Clauses  (a)  to\t(p)  enumerate\tthe  grounds
\n\t      enabling the landlord to recover possession of
\n\t      the premises from the tenant.]”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t       (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.   A\tcareful\t reading of the said section shows  that  if
\nanything  contrary is contained in any contract that  cannot
\nprevail.  The effect of non-obstante clause can be  gathered
\nfrom  the Dominion of India v. Shrinbai A. Irani3.  In<\/a>\tthis
\ncase, Bhagwati, J. speaking for the Court held as under
\n\t      “While recognising the force of this  argument
\n\t      it  is  however  necessary  to  observe\tthat
\n\t      although\tordinarily there should be  a  close
\n\t      approximation between the non-obstante  clause
\n\t      and  the\toperative part of the  section,\t the
\n\t      non-obstante  clause need not necessarily\t and
\n\t      always  be  co-extensive\twith  the  operative
\n\t      part, so as to have the effect of cutting down
\n\t      the clear terms of an enactment.\tIf the words
\n\t      of the enactment are clear and are capable  of
\n\t      only   one  interpretation  on  a\t plain\t and
\n\t      grammatical construction of the words  thereof
\n\t      a\t non-obstante  clause cannot  cut  down\t the
\n\t      construction  and\t restrict the scope  of\t its
\n\t      operation.   In  such cases  the\tnon-obstante
\n\t      clause has to be read as clarifying the  whole
\n\t      position\tand must be understood to have\tbeen
\n\t      incorporated   in\t  the\tenactment   by\t the
\n\t      Legislature by way of abundant caution and not
\n\t      by way of limiting the ambit and scope of\t the
\n\t      operative part of the enactment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.   In\t Municipal Corpn., Indore v. Ratnaprabha4  scope  of
\nSection\t 138(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal\t Corporation
\nAct was dealt with.  That section reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “The  annual  value  of\tany  building  shall
\n\t      notwithstanding  anything\t contained  in\t any
\n\t      other  law  for  the time being  in  force  be
\n\t      deemed  to be the gross annual rent  at  which
\n\t      such building, together with its appurtenances
\n\t      and  any furniture that may be let for use  or
\n\t      enjoyment\t therewith might reasonably  at\t the
\n\t      time of assessment be expected to be let\tfrom
\n\t      year  to\tyear, less an allowance of  ten\t per
\n\t      cent for the cost of repairs and for all other
\n\t      expenses necessary to maintain the building in
\n\t      a\t state to command such gross  annual  rent.”
\n\t      (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       10.  In\tChettiar case2 it was held  at\tpage
\n\t      222 as under : (para 11)
\n\t      “It  is true that the Rent Act is intended  to
\n\t      restrict\t the  rights  which   the   landlord
\n\t      possessed either for charging excessive  rents
\n\t      or  for evicting tenants.\t But if\t within\t the
\n\t      ambit of those restricted rights he makes\t out
\n\t      his  case it is a mere empty formality to\t ask
\n\t      him  to  determine  the  contractual   tenancy
\n\t      before institution of a suit for eviction.  As
\n\t      we have
\n\t      3 AIR 1954 SC 596: (1955) 1 SCR 206
\n\t      4 (1976) 4 SCC 622: AIR 1977 SC 308
\n\t       675<\/span>
\n\t      pointed  out above, this was  necessary  under
\n\t      the   Transfer   of  Property  Act   as\tmere
\n\t      termination of the lease entitled the landlord
\n\t      to  recover  possession.\tBut under  the\tRent
\n\t      Control\tActs  it  becomes   an\t unnecessary
\n\t      technicality to insist that the landlord\tmust
\n\t      determine\t the contractual tenancy.  It is  of
\n\t      no practical use after so many restrictions of
\n\t      his  right to evict the tenant have been\tput.
\n\t      The  restricted area under the  various  State
\n\t      Rent Acts has done away to a large extent with
\n\t      the requirement of the law of contract and the
\n\t      Transfer\tof Property Act.  If this be so\t why
\n\t      unnecessarily, illogically and unjustifiably a
\n\t      formality of terminating the contractual lease
\n\t      should be insisted upon?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Again at page 227, it is held : (para 16)
\n\t       “Quoting from Manujendra case5 it was said at
\n\t      page 911 : (SCC p.   109, para 8)
\n\t      `We are inclined to hold that the landlord  in
\n\t      the  present case cannot secure an  order\t for
\n\t      eviction\twithout first establishing  that  he
\n\t      has  validly  determined the lease  under\t the
\n\t      T.P. Act.’
\n\t      Why this dual requirement?  Even if the  lease
\n\t      is  determined  by  a  forfeiture\t under\t the
\n\t      Transfer of Property Act the tenant  continues
\n\t      to  be a tenant, that is to say, there  is  no
\n\t      forfeiture  in  the eye of  law.\t The  tenant
\n\t      becomes  liable to be evicted  and  forfeiture
\n\t      comes  into play only if he has  incurred\t the
\n\t      liability\t to be evicted under the State\tRent
\n\t      Act,  not otherwise.  In many  State  statutes
\n\t      different provisions have been made as to\t the
\n\t      grounds  on which a tenant can be evicted\t and
\n\t      in relation to his incurring the liability  to
\n\t      be so evicted.  Some provisions overlap  those
\n\t      of the Transfer of Property Act.\tSome are new
\n\t      which are mostly in favour of the tenants\t but
\n\t\t\t    some are in favour of the landlord also.  That
\n\t      being so the dictum of this Court in Rai\tBrij
\n\t      Raj case+ comes into play and one has to\tlook
\n\t      to the provisions of law contained in the four
\n\t      comers  of  any  State Rent Act  to  find\t out
\n\t      whether  a tenant can be evicted or not.\t The
\n\t      theory  of  double  protection  or  additional
\n\t      protection, it seems to us, has been stretched
\n\t      too   far\t and  without  a  proper   and\t due
\n\t      consideration of all its\tramifications.”\n<\/p>\n
 11. Therefore,\t this  authority  clearly  holds  that\t the
\nprovisions of Rent Control    Act\t would\t       apply
\nnotwithstanding the contract.  However, what is sought to be
\nrelied\ton by the learned counsel for the appellant  is\t the
\nFull   Bench  judgment\tof  Karnataka  High  Court  in\t Sri
\nRamakrishna  case’.   In that ruling the  decision  of\tthis
\nCourt\tin   Dhanapal  Chettiar\t case2\tis  sought   to\t  be
\ndistinguished as one relating to the necessity for  issuance
\nof notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
\nOn  that basis, the other ruling of this Court\tnamely\tFirm
\nSardarilal Vishwanath v. Pritam Singh6<\/a> is also
\n    5\t Manujendra   Dutt   v.\t   Purnendu    Prosad\t Roy
\nChowdhury,<\/a>(1967)ISCR475:AIR 1967SC1419
\n +  Rai\t Brij  Raj  Krishna  v.S.K.Shawand  Brothers,1951SCR
\n145:AIR 1951SC 115
\n 6 (1978) 4 SCC 1: AIR 1978 SC 1518
\n676<\/span>
\ndistinguished.\t However,  the Full Bench chose to  rely  on
\nModem Hotel v. K. Radhakrishnaiah7 wherein the term  ‘lease’
\nwas excluded from the ambit of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
12.  We\t are  of the view that the statement of\t Full  Bench
\nwill have no application to this case.\tThe appellant  filed
\nOS  No.\t 1690  of  1990 on the file  of\t City  Civil  Court,
\nBangalore in which he challenged the decree for eviction and
\nfor  declaration.  He also prayed for injunction.  The\tsuit
\nwas contested by the respondents.  In that case, the plea of
\njurisdiction was also raised.  The trial court dismissed the
\nsuit  observing\t that it had no jurisdiction.\tFor  reasons
\nbest  known,  the  appellant did not prefer  any  appeal  or
\nrevision  against the dismissal.  Therefore,  that  judgment
\nhas  become  conclusive\t and binding  between  the  parties.
\nHence,\tthe effect of Section 21 of the Act on the  contract
\nentered into between the parties need not be gone into.\n<\/p>\n
13.  In Sardari Lal case6 it was held at page 1523 as  under
\n: (SCC p. 9,para 15)
\n\t      ”\t Analysing the position it  clearly  emerges
\n\t      that the ratio in K.K.B. Capadia case8 is that
\n\t      where  the lease determines by efflux of\ttime
\n\t      and  the tenant continues in possession  under
\n\t      the protection of the Rent Restriction Act  he
\n\t      acquires\ta  status of  irremovability  unless
\n\t      there is something to show that he is a tenant
\n\t      holding  over, mere payment of  rent  ‘without
\n\t      necessary animus not being sufficient.  Such a
\n\t      tenant   for  the\t sake  of   convenience\t  is
\n\t      described as a statutory tenant.\tIt would not
\n\t      be  open\tto such a tenant to urge by  way  of
\n\t      defence,\tin  a  suit  for  ejectment  brought
\n\t      against  him under the provisions of the\tRent
\n\t      Restriction Act, that by acceptance of rent  a
\n\t      fresh  tenancy  was created which\t had  to  be
\n\t      determined  by a fresh notice to\tquit.\tThis
\n\t      ratio    is   neither   departed\t from\t nor
\n\t      controverted  in\tany subsequent\tjudgment  of
\n\t      this Court.”\n<\/p>\n
14.  Further,  it  is  not correct to  hold  that  the\tRent
\nControl Act is a beneficial enactment only to the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
15.  This  is  a  case\twhere the tenant  in  spite  of\t the
\nspecific  direction to deposit Rs 3.69 lakhs did not do\t so.
\nThe  High  Court had clearly pointed out that  even  at\t the
\nrevisional stage, he had not deposited the amount.\n<\/p>\n
16.  Accordingly,  we conclude that there are no  merits  in
\nthis appeal which stands dismissed with costs.
\n7 (1989)2SCC686:AIR1989SC1510
\n8  Kai\tKhushroo Bezonjee Capadia v.  Bai  Jerbai  Hirjibhoy
\nWarden, AIR 1949 FC 124: 1949 FCR 262: 51 BLR 874
\n678<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara … vs Syeda Vajhiunnisa on 3 March, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (2) 671, JT 1994 (2) 175 Author: S Mohan Bench: Mohan, S. (J) PETITIONER: SHRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA ENTERPRISES Vs. RESPONDENT: SYEDA VAJHIUNNISA DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/03\/1994 BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) […]<\/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-132931","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Lakshmi Venkateshwara ... vs Syeda Vajhiunnisa on 3 March, 1994 - 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\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara ... vs Syeda Vajhiunnisa on 3 March, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994\" \/>\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=\"1994-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-13T06:36:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara … vs Syeda Vajhiunnisa on 3 March, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-13T06:36:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994\"},\"wordCount\":2027,\"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\\\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994\",\"name\":\"Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara ... vs Syeda Vajhiunnisa on 3 March, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-13T06:36:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara … vs Syeda Vajhiunnisa on 3 March, 1994\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara ... vs Syeda Vajhiunnisa on 3 March, 1994 - 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\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara ... vs Syeda Vajhiunnisa on 3 March, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-13T06:36:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara … vs Syeda Vajhiunnisa on 3 March, 1994","datePublished":"1994-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-13T06:36:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994"},"wordCount":2027,"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\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994","name":"Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara ... vs Syeda Vajhiunnisa on 3 March, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-13T06:36:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-lakshmi-venkateshwara-vs-syeda-vajhiunnisa-on-3-march-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara … vs Syeda Vajhiunnisa on 3 March, 1994"}]},{"@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\/132931","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=132931"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132931\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}