{"id":1371,"date":"1995-04-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-04-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995"},"modified":"2016-06-05T21:57:12","modified_gmt":"2016-06-05T16:27:12","slug":"parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995","title":{"rendered":"Parripati Chandrasekharrao And … vs Alapati Jalaiah on 26 April, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Parripati Chandrasekharrao And … vs Alapati Jalaiah on 26 April, 1995<\/div>\n
Bench: P.B. Sawant, S.B. Majmudar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5479-81 of 1993\n\nPETITIONER:\nPARRIPATI CHANDRASEKHARRAO AND SONS\n\nRESPONDENT:\nALAPATI JALAIAH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/04\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nP.B. SAWANT & S.B. MAJMUDAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
1995 (3) SCR 817<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
SAWANT, J. The short question which falls for consideration in the present
\nappeal is whether on the coming into operation of the notification on 26th
\nOctober, 1983 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers
\nconferred upon it under Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease,
\nRent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the
\n“Act”), the three applications made by the tenant for relief under the Act
\nsurvive or not.\n<\/p>\n
The relevant facts are that the suit premises were governed by the Act till
\n29th December, 1983. On 4th February, 1983 and 13th February, 1983, the
\nrespondent-tenant filed variously three applications, viz., (i) R.C.15\/83
\nfor direction to permit him to deposit rent in the court (ii) R.C. 16\/83
\nfor fixation of fair rent and (iii) R.C. 17\/83 to prevent inconvenience.
\nThe State Government issued notification dated 29th December, 1983
\nexempting w.e.f. 26th October, 1983 from all the provisions of the Act,
\namong others, buildings whose monthly rent exceeded Rs. 1,000. The
\ndefinition of the ‘building’ under the Act includes any tenanted premises
\nand hence the suit premises stood exempted from the operation of the Act
\nw.e.f. 26th October, 1983 since on the said date the monthly rent payable
\nin respect of the premises was Rs. 1,300.\n<\/p>\n
The Rent Controller dismissed the tenant’s applications by his order of 6th
\nApril, 1985 on the ground that the rent of the premises being in excess of
\nRs. 1,000 he had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the applications
\nafter 26th October, 1983. Against the said decision, the tenant preferred
\nthree appeals in the three applications to the Subordinate Judge. The
\nappeals were dismissed upholding the decision of the Rent Controller.
\nAgainst the decision in appeal, the tenant preferred three revision
\npetitions, viz., C.R.P. Nos. 624, 831 and 1043\/91 in the High Court and the
\nHigh Court by the impugned decision allowed the said petitions holding that
\nthe Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the
\napplications since the notification in question did not apply to the
\npending proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
2. It appears that while the tenant’s appeals were pending before the
\nSubordinate Judge, he had preferred a writ petition being W.P. No, 8081\/86
\nin the High Court challenging the validity of clause (b) of the said
\nnotification which states that the buildings fetching monthly rent
\nexceeding Rs 1,000 stood exempted from the provisions of the Act. The
\nlearned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition
\nupholding the validity of the said provisions. The tenant preferred a writ
\nappeal which also met the same fate. Against the decision in the writ
\nappeal, the tenant preferred special leave petition in this Court which was
\ndismissed summarily at the admission stage without a speaking order.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Sitaramiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-landlord
\ncontended that on the coming into operation of the said notification from
\nthe 26th October, 1983, the protection given to the tenant stood withdrawn
\nand, therefore, whatever rights he had under the provisions of the Act,
\nstood extinguished on and from the said date. As against this, it was
\ncontended by Shri Subba Rao for the tenant that the tenant had acquired
\nvested rights under the Act and they were alive when the applications were
\nmade and he could not be divested of the same by the Notification which
\ncame into operation from a subsequent date, as held by the Division Bench
\nof the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the landlord relied
\nupon, among others, the following decisions of this Court. The first of the
\ndecision is D.C. Bhatia & Ors., v. Union of India & Anr.,<\/a>[l995] 1 SCC 104
\nwhere a three-Judge Bench of this Court disposed of several appeals arising
\nout of an amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act whereby Section 3 (c) was
\nintroduced in the said Act withdrawing the protection of that Act to such
\npremises whose rent was Rs. 3,500 per month or Rs. 42,000 per annum or
\nabove. One of the contentions advanced there on behalf of the tenants was
\nthat the amendment in question came into force on 1st December, 1988 and,
\ntherefore, it would not apply to those tenancies which were created prior
\nto the said date. It was urged that the amendment was not specifically made
\nretrospective and hence it could not affect the rights of the tenants
\nalready acquired under the said Act. Repelling these contentions, this
\nCourt held as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“52. We are unable to uphold this contention for a number of reasons. Prior
\nto the enactment of the Rent Control Act by the various State Legislatures,
\nthe legal relationship between the landlord and tenant was governed by the
\nprovisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Delhi Rent Control Act provided
\nprotection to the tenant from drastic enhancement of rent by the landlord
\nas well as eviction, except on certain specific grounds. The legislature by
\nthe Amendment Act No. 57 of 1988 has partially repealed the Delhi Rent
\nControl Act. This is a case of express repeal. By Amending Act the
\nlegislature has withdrawn the protection hither-to enjoyed by the tenants
\nwho were paying Rs. 3,500 or above as monthly rent. If the tenants were
\nsought to be evicted prior to the amendment of the Act, they could have
\ntaken advantage of the provisions of the Act to resist such eviction by the
\nlandlord. But this was nothing more than a right to take advantage of the
\nenactment. The tenant enjoyed statutory protection as long as the statute
\nremained in force and was applicable to him. If the statute ceases to be
\noperative, the tenant cannot claim to continue to have the old statutory
\nprotection. It was observed by Tindal, C J. in the case of Kay v. Goodwin,
\n[1830] 6 Bing 576: 130 ER 1403 at 1405.\n<\/p>\n
“The effect of repealing a statute is to obliterate it as completely from
\nthe records of the Parliament as if it had never been passed; and, it must
\nbe considered as a law that never existed, except for the purpose of those
\nactions which were commenced, prosecuted, and concluded whilst it was an
\nexisting law.”\n<\/p>\n
“53. The provisions of a repealed statute cannot be relied upon after it
\nhas been repealed. But, what has been acquired under the Repealed Act
\ncannot be disturbed. But, if any new or further step is needed to be taken
\nunder the Act, that cannot be taken even after the Act is repealed.”\n<\/p>\n
“54. In the case of Kewal Singh v. Lajwanti,<\/a> vires of Section 25-B of the
\nDelhi Rent Control Act was challenged. Section 25-B was inserted to provide
\nthe landlord with a speedy remedy of eviction in case of bona fide
\nnecessity of the landlord. A contention was raised on behalf of the tenants
\nthat the provisions of Section 25-B violated Article 14 of the
\nConstitution. Fazal Ali, J., speaking on behalf of the Court, repelled this
\nargument by observing (SCC p.303, para 21)<\/p>\n
“Thus any right that the tenant possessed after the expiry of the lease was
\nconferred on him only by virtue of the Rent Control Act. It is, therefore,
\nmanifest that if the legislature considered in its wisdom to confer certain
\nrights or facilities on the tenants, it could due to changed circumstances
\ncurtail, modify, alter or even take away such rights or the procedure
\nenacted for the purpose of eviction and leave the tenants to seek their
\nremedy under the common law.”\n<\/p>\n
“55. In the instant case the legislature has decided to curtail or take
\naway the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act from a section of the
\ntenants. The tenants had not acquired any vested right under the Delhi Rent
\nControl Act, but had a right to take ad-vantage of the provisions of the
\nrepealed Act so long as that law remained in force.” (emphasis ours)<\/p>\n
“56. In the case of Mohinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, the<\/a> validity of the
\nAmending Act of 1978 by which Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction)
\nAct, 1973, was amended was challenged. The Amending Act by which a category
\nof newly constructed buildings were exempted from the provisions of the Act
\nfor a period of ten years, was challenged, inter alia, on the ground that
\nthe provisions operated retrospectively and sought to take away the vested
\nrights of the tenants under the Act. This contention was repelled by this
\nCourt in the following words : (SCC p.231, para 17)<\/p>\n
“The argument that the tenants have acquired a vested right under the Act
\nprior to its amendment is without any substance. Prior to the amendment of
\nSection 1(3) by the Amending Act of 1978, the provision as it originally
\nstood cannot be said to have conferred any vested right on the tenants. The
\nprovision, as it originally stood prior to its amendment, might not have
\nbeen constitutionally valid as the exemption, sought to be granted was for
\nan indefinite period. That does not necessarily imply that any vested right
\nin any tenant was thereby created. The right claimed is the right to be
\ngoverned by the Act prior to its amendment. If the Legislature had thought
\nit fit to repeal the entire Act, could the tenant have claimed any such
\nright? Obviously, they could not have; the question of acquiring any vested
\nrights really does not arise.” (emphasis ours)<\/p>\n
“58. The last contention was as to whether the term ‘rent’ is to be
\nconstrued as “standard rent” and not as the rent which is actually being
\npaid. This argument is also not acceptable for a number of reasons.
\nFirstly, the legislature has not used the expression ‘stand-ard rent’ in
\nclause (c) of Section 3. Words normally should be understood in the
\nordinary dictionary meaning.”\n<\/p>\n
“60. It had been contended on behalf of the tenants that unless ‘standard
\nrent’ was determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the
\nAct, the provisions of Section 3(c) could not be made applicable. There is
\nnothing in the wording of Section 3(c) to support this contention. Section
\n3(c) speaks of premises ‘whose monthly rent exceeds three thousand and five
\nhundred rupees’.”\n<\/p>\n
It, however, appears that in the judgment under appeal in that case it had
\nbeen held that the provisions of the said section 3(c) could not be
\napplicable to the cases which were pending before the Court. Since no
\narguments were advanced on that point by any of the parties before this
\nCourt, the Court made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on
\nthe said controversy.\n<\/p>\n
The next decision is reported in [1964] 6 SCR 876 in Rafiquennessa v. Lal
\nBahadur Chetri<\/a> (dead) through His representatives & Ors. In that case the
\nappellant sued the lessee, the predecessor of the respondent for ejectment
\non the latter’s failure to deliver possession of a leased land at the
\nexpiration of the stipulated period. Under the covenant, the lessee was
\nentitled to build a house for residential purposes. The Trial Court decreed
\nthe appellant’s claim whereupon the lessee filed an appeal. While it was
\npending, the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act was passed, and
\nthereafter the lessee prayed for permission to take an additional ground
\nunder Section 5 of that Act. Before that date, the High Court had taken the
\nview that the said provision of the Act was applicable to pending
\nproceedings. The lower appellate court allowed the lessee’s plea and
\nultimately allowed the appeal and set aside the decree concluding that the
\ntwo houses had been constructed by the lessee within five years after
\ntaking of the lease and that entitled the lessee to claim the benefit of
\nSection 5 of the Act. The High Court on appeal, following its earlier
\ndecision summarily dismissed the appeal. In the appeal filed to this Court,
\nthe Court held that (i) the statutory provision is retroactive either when
\nit is so declared by the expressed terms or the intention to make
\nretroactive clearly follows from the relevant words and the context in
\nwhich they occur and (ii) the provisions of the Act clearly indicate that
\nthe legislature wanted the beneficent provisions enacted by it to take
\nwithin their protection not” only leases executed after the Act came into
\nforce, but also leases executed prior to the operation of the Act. The
\nplain object of Section 5 was to protect the tenants who had built a
\npermanent structure either for business or for residence, provided it had
\nbeen built within five years from the date of the contract of tenancy, even
\nthough the construction had been made before the date of the Act. (iii) A
\nsuit which was pending when the Act came into force would be governed by
\nSection 5(1) (a) of the Act. An appeal likewise would be governed by the
\nsaid Section provided it was pending after the date, when the act came into
\nforce the appeal pending being a continuation of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the landlord also sought to derive support to his
\ncontention from a decision of this Court in [1995] 1 SCR 410 Super Forgings
\n& Steels (Sales) Pvt. Ltd. v. Thyabalfy Rasuljee<\/a> (dead) through Lrs.
\nAccording to us, the said decision is not apt for supporting his
\nsubmissions since it relied upon the developments between the parties
\nduring the pendency of the proceedings in this court for its conclusion
\nthat the said developments could be taken into consideration for the
\ndecision in that matter.\n<\/p>\n
As against this, the learned counsel for the tenant relied upon the
\ndecision of this Court reported in [1988] Supp. 2 SCR 528 Atma Ram Mittal
\nv. Ishwar Singh Punia. In<\/a> that case, the appellant-landlord had filed a
\ncivil suit against the respondent-tenant for possession of a shop which had
\nbeen rented out by him in 1978. The suit was filed on the basis that the
\nrespondent was in arrears of rent from 1st December, 1981 to 31st May,<\/p>\n
1982, that the tenancy had been terminated by giving a suit notice, and
\nthat Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act,
\n1973 exempted the building from the purview of the Act. On 15th February,<\/p>\n
1983, the respondent-tenant filed his written statement, and in November,<\/p>\n
1984,  moved an application for dismissal of the suit stating that the shop
\nin question was constructed in June 1974 and as such, the period of 10
\nyears had expired by June 1984 in terms of Section 1(3) of the Act and as
\nsuch the immunity from the application of the Act had expired. Hence the
\nsuit was not maintainable and the jurisdiction of the civil court was
\nbarred. On these facts this Court held :\n<\/p>\n
“It is well-settled that no man should suffer because of the fault of the
\nCourt or delay in the procedure. Broom has stated the maxim “actus, curiam
\nneminem gravabit” – an act of Court shall prejudice no man. Therefore,
\nhaving regard to the time normally consumed for adjudication, the 10 years
\nexemption or holiday from the application of the Rent Act would become
\nillusory, if the suit has to be filed within that time and be disposed of
\nfinally. It is common knowledge that unless a suit is instituted soon after
\nthe date of letting it would never be disposed of within 10 years and even
\nwithin that time it may not be disposed of. That will make the 10 years
\nholidays from the Rent Act illusory and provide no incentive to the
\nlandlords to build new houses to solve problem of shortages of houses. The
\npurpose of legislation would thus be defeated. Purposive interpretation in
\na social amelioration legislation is an imperative irrespective of anything
\nelse.”\n<\/p>\n
On this finding this Court set aside the decision of the High Court which
\nhad taken the view that the proceedings filed by the landlord had come to
\nan end on the expiry of the period of 10 years from the date of the
\nconstruction of the premises in question.\n<\/p>\n
Relying on the aforesaid observations and the finding, the learned counsel
\nof the tenant urged that on the same analogy applications filed by the
\ntenant would also survive notwithstanding the coming into operation of the
\nNotification in question since the applications were pending in the court
\non that date.\n<\/p>\n
According to us there is a material difference between the rights which
\naccrue to a landlord under the common law and the protection which is
\nafforded to the tenant by such legislation as the Act. In the former case
\nthe rights and remedies of the landlord and tenant are governed by the law
\nof contract and the law governing the property relations. These rights and
\nremedies continue to govern their relationship unless they are regulated by
\nsuch protective legislation as the present Act in which case the said
\nrights and remedies remain suspended till the protective legislation
\ncontinues in operation. Hence while it can legitimately be said that the
\nlandlords’ normal rights vested in him by the general law continue to exist
\ntill and so long as they are not abridged by a special protective
\nlegislation in the case of the tenant, the protective shield extended to
\nhim survives only so long as and to the extent the special legislation
\noperates. In the case of the tenant therefore the protection does not
\ncreate any vested right  which can operate beyond the period of protection
\nor during the period the protection is not in existence. When the
\nprotection does not exist, the normal relations of the landlord and tenant
\ncome into operation. Hence the theory of the vested right which may validly
\nbe pleaded to support the landlords’ case is not available to the tenant.
\nIt is for this reason that the analogy sought to be drawn by Shri Subbarao
\nbetween the landlord’s and the tenant’s rights relying upon the decision of
\nthis Court in (1988) Suppl. 2 SCR is misplaced. In that case the landlord’s
\nnormal right to evict the tenant from the premises was not interfered with
\nfor the first ten years of the construction of the premises by an exemption
\nspecifically incorporated in the protective Rent legislation in question.
\nThe normal right was obviously the tested right under the general law and
\nonce accrued it continued to operate. The protection given to the tenant by
\nthe Rent legislation came into operation after the expiry of the period of
\n10 years. Hence, notwithstanding the coming into operation of the
\nprotection and in the absence of the provisions to the contrary, the
\nproceedings already commenced on the basis of the vested right could not be
\ndefeated by mere passage of tune consumed by the said proceedings. It is
\nfor this reason that the Court there held that the right which had accrued
\nto the landlord being a vested right could not be denied to him by the
\nefflux of time.\n<\/p>\n
That is not the situation in the present case where the tenant who
\nundoubtedly had the rights and remedies under the Act to claim reliefs
\nagainst landlord, lost the same the moment the protection was taken away,
\nthe rights and remedies being not vested ones.\n<\/p>\n
In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the view taken both by
\nthe Rent Controller and the Appellate Court was right and the decision of
\nthe High Court is not correct. Hence, set aside the impugned decision of
\nthe High Court and allow the appeals. As a result, the applications filed
\nby the respondent- tenant before the Rent Controller will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Parripati Chandrasekharrao And … vs Alapati Jalaiah on 26 April, 1995 Bench: P.B. Sawant, S.B. Majmudar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5479-81 of 1993 PETITIONER: PARRIPATI CHANDRASEKHARRAO AND SONS RESPONDENT: ALAPATI JALAIAH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/04\/1995 BENCH: P.B. SAWANT & S.B. MAJMUDAR JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 1995 (3) SCR 817 The Judgment of the […]<\/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-1371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nParripati Chandrasekharrao And ... vs Alapati Jalaiah on 26 April, 1995 - 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\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parripati Chandrasekharrao And ... vs Alapati Jalaiah on 26 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995\" \/>\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=\"1995-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-05T16:27:12+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parripati Chandrasekharrao And … vs Alapati Jalaiah on 26 April, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-05T16:27:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995\"},\"wordCount\":3228,\"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\\\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995\",\"name\":\"Parripati Chandrasekharrao And ... vs Alapati Jalaiah on 26 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-05T16:27:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parripati Chandrasekharrao And … vs Alapati Jalaiah on 26 April, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"Parripati Chandrasekharrao And ... vs Alapati Jalaiah on 26 April, 1995 - 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\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parripati Chandrasekharrao And ... vs Alapati Jalaiah on 26 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-05T16:27:12+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parripati Chandrasekharrao And … vs Alapati Jalaiah on 26 April, 1995","datePublished":"1995-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-05T16:27:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995"},"wordCount":3228,"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\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995","name":"Parripati Chandrasekharrao And ... vs Alapati Jalaiah on 26 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-05T16:27:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parripati-chandrasekharrao-and-vs-alapati-jalaiah-on-26-april-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parripati Chandrasekharrao And … vs Alapati Jalaiah on 26 April, 1995"}]},{"@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\/1371","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=1371"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1371\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1371"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}