{"id":138426,"date":"2010-12-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010"},"modified":"2018-08-06T04:29:30","modified_gmt":"2018-08-05T22:59:30","slug":"m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"M Padmanabha Rao S\/O M Venkat Rao vs Sumithra Kumar on 2 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M Padmanabha Rao S\/O M Venkat Rao vs Sumithra Kumar on 2 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ajit J B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
'  .._:'V'T'1(a}'% SR1 RITESH\n\n-1-\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT \nDATED THIS 02w DAY OF DECEMBER, 12:;i'iO'Vj-A if r.- A \nPRESENTh_m_ _ A\" VT\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUsT1cE,AJ;-T   f; A  \u00bb A 1}\nAND A .  , ,\nTHE HONBLE MRS. \n\nR.F.A.No.'j,r.15o\/:g:902_  \nBETWEEN:    \nM.PADMANABHA_Re--\\O-._   _  \ns\/0    \" \nAGED 61  \"     \nBHARATH FANCYCEZNTR'-E  T_  *\nMARKET ROADX,   V\n\nMANGALORE \n\nD.K.  =\n\n * %      APPELLANT\n[By Sri: M.VIS'1317WAJIT'H f?AL A .)\n\n V *sDM1THRA~--KUMAR\n'  \" _s\/0__LA'1=E H MUTI--IAPPA\n. 'AGED \n' MCF QUARTERS\nK{IN;;LATHBAIL\n MAAIGALDRE\n A IDAKSHINA KANNADA\n. _ (DEAD BY ms.)\n\nS \/ O LATE SUMITHRA KUMAR\n\nAGED ABOUT MAJOR\n\nC\/O FIRE AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT\nNEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST\nPANAMBOOR, BY KAMPADY\nMANGALORE--7\n\n3 (13) SMT AN USUYA\n\nW\/O LATE SUMITHRA KUMAR\n\n \n\n\n\n  V-fiflihcap'-eappeiiantlis'\"'the plaintiff who is aggrieved by the\n\n..;de;ree passed by the learned trial judge\n\n'We notice\"; that during the pendency of the appeal, the\n   defendant died and an application was filed to bring\n  Legal Representatives on record and the application was\n\nhallowed and the Legal Representatives are widow and Sons of\n\n_')_\n\nH\n\nMAJOR. C\/O RITESH\n\nFIRE AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT\n\nNEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST\n\nPANAMBOOR, BY KAMPADY\n\nMANGALORE7  -- V  I _ :\n RE.SI%e\u00abND.EN_Ts ' \"\n\n{By Sri: U.P.l\\\/IULIYA 3: SR1 SAN'fllQSH}\\'-KGTARIQADXZ, Eda VA\nR1 {a & 'DD      \n\nTHIS RFA IS FILEE._._\"U\/S;l_lA Qea\/I7ve,lAo.I41 R 1 OF (:90\nAGAINST THE JUDGMENT-':_A'ND;  DT. 29.6.02\nPASSED IN o.S.Iqo;.234;;\/'\u00e9S:\"_c~\u00a7N EII;3E\" OF THE PRL.\nCIVIL JUDGE. i{SE\u00a7jD_N);T 'jMA\u00a7IGALoRE';:\"'ijISMISSII\\:G THE\nSUIT FOR  \n\nThis  _for Hearing this day,\nAJIT J. GIJNJAL J, 'deliveI<e:d~th'e following:\n\n'%QJUDoMENT\n\ndisrnislsing  Suit for enforcement of an agreement to sell.\n\nthe original defendant.\n\n\ufb02\/\n\n \n\n\n\n-9-\n\n10." Insofar as the first point is concerned, we are 3 ofdpthe\n\nVi\u20acW that the evidence on record would clearly disclose _\n\nthe plaintiff was ready and willing to perforrn.~h--is.:l'  \n\ncontract. It is to be noted that alzbspecific} \n\nplaint is to the following effect,' \n"Though the plaintyf ii.asll"been_ ictlwctys\nready and willing" to perforrn; ._ partof the\ncontract by paying 'thee  co'nsi'de\u00bbration, the\ndefendant has failed. to Convey: little to the\n\nschedule ; in f ctuofttrlojf rth\u00e9 iplatnttf f. "\n\n11. lndleedftirne  again it isllstated that the plaintiff is\nrequiredltol prove:  to determine whether the\n\nplaintiff Was""~ready_'VanAd_fwilling to perform his part of the\n\n It.._is tolbeiiiiiioticed that the agreement to sell is\n\n   on the even date, the plaintiff has paid a\n\nsliiniof -- and thereafter on Various dates he has\n\nlgpaid an additional sum of Rs.40,000\/--. Thus, we are of the\n\nA "that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his\n\n'  part of the contract. We also notice that during the course of\n\n evidence, the plaintiff has stated that he is a businessman\n\nand he is an income tax assessee. The plaintiff has deposed\nin his evidence to the following effect:\n\n"I am having a departmental store and a\n\nhotel at Hampankatta. The business that I have \/\n\n \n\n\n\n l-'\u00a3V.l"..TI'l1u's~,t'having re--assessed the evidence on record, we\n\n'V judged'on""thext1u.estion of readiness and willingness is liable\n\n 'to be\u00bb interfered.\n\n"IST. lnsofar as the question of limitation is concerned,\n\n-19-\n\n11.. Insofar as the non-consideration of Section  _V\nof the Specific Relief Act. where the gran.ting_ \ndecree for speciJ'ic performance is a d1;screi'io'naru: " \nrelief, is concerned, undoubtedly\u00bb, even. \nthat the agreement is provedjit   \nthat the Court is boundto  _-v_re'iief. it it\nmerely because it is tail;-mi to" do V   \nhowever, that such grantinaor decliningitoll grant\n\nsuch relief cannotlaeuarbitrarigi'-hutliw=\u00a7ll haulelltol be\nsound and reasonable'   judicial\nprinciples. '*The   {2} of\n\nSection :20  elnu.me:_ra.te" la'.-3~*'to in what\n\n     performance\n houieuer, explanation {I}\nta*~Section give an insight into the\nfact as to, L'vhatlA'circtarrLstances will not come in\nAthe way  wthe  in granting a decree for\n\n._ pecific peiforrnance. "\n\nafebrrih\u00e9  the finding recorded by the learned trial\n\nobviously, the learned trial judge was clear in error i_n\n\nimporting Section 18 of the Limitation Act. A perusal of\n\nprovision would show that it is referable only to the revival o \n\nav'\n\n \n\n\n\n-13-\n\ndate within a period of iimitation. Section 18 of\n\nwould speak about effect of acknowledgement  it _\n\nwould speak about where, before the \u00abother \n\nrescribed eriod for a suit or a licat.ion j?in3res.'ect'of,anf*Ja if\nP PP  ._ .. p P _ __ .._\n\nproperty or right, an acknowle\u00bbdgement,of'liabilitir'ppinvrespect. \n\nof such property or right has    signed by\nthe party against whom'   islclairned, or\nby any person through   or liability,\na fresh period    from the time\nwhen the iivas  signed. Obviously\nSectiona:l'8"Vivs_'  relevant is Article 54 of\nthe Limitatio'n'Act,'A:--lr'ide'ed:"t.he suit is required to be filed\n\nwithin. three fromfthehdate fixed for performance of the\n\n't  if no date is fixed and the plaintiff has\n\nnoticed 'ipejrformance is refused. In the case on hand,\n\nwelnotice. the plaintiff had issued a legal notice on\n\n and thereafter the suit is filed immediately.\n\n"lr1d.eed_\u00ab the cause of action or the period commenced from\n\n  138.1994. Hence, we are of the View that the suit is well\n\nuifwithin time. The Apex Court in the case of Panchanan\n\nDhara and others V\/s. Monmatha Nath Maity (Dead)\n\nthrough L.Rs. and another (2006) 5 SCC 340] with\n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n'A  {sic :iir_ne.__for performance of a} contract is not\n\n st  of 'fact has been arrived at, that the time for\n\n-14-\nreference to Article 54 of the Limitation Act has obsrerved\nthus:\n\n".22. A bare perusal of Article 54 of the t.im,\u00a3ie.:;'ee[ . A\nAct would show that the  of\nbegins to run from the date ontihell'COfliTac.t "\nwas to be specifically petforrned... In of \nArticle 54 of the Limitation' Act,"  'period\nprescribed therein shall the datefixed\nfor the performance"  A.y\u00ab'.fi'ze contract\n\nis to be pe.rfornied...by:*wboth pvarties to the\nagreement.'  respondent was<\/pre>\n
to offer t’i_ie1″‘batan’Q\u20ac…, emo-:m–r._’ to’ the company,<\/p>\n
which   itswshowing that it had
\na:’perfectlVlti’t\u00a3e~oi)erthe’ property. We have noticed
\nhereinbefore.V_.th%it– btheicourts below arrived at a
\nfinding)?’Qffact’v–_tha_t the period of performance of<\/p>\n
\u00bb?the “agreem’e*nt__has been extended. Extension of
\n be inferred from written document.\n<\/p>\n
  couid be implied also. The conduct of the<\/p>\n
l.4″‘parties’  this behalf is relevant. Once a finding<\/p>\n
 . _ ‘performance of the said contract had been<\/p>\n
extended by the parties, the time to file a suit
\nshall be deemed to start running only when the
\nplaintiff had notice that performance had been
\nrefused performance of the said contract was
\nrefused by the company only on 21.8.1985. The<\/p>\n
suit wasfiled soon thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
decree”for’specific_ petfonnance is a discretionary
\n..4.%f,;-\u00e9iief. is co’ncer_ned, undoubtedly, even assuming
\n  theggreement is proved, it is not necessary<\/p>\n
 is bound to grant such a relief,
\n‘j__b’ecause it is lawful to do so. But
\n howyevetr, that such granting or declining to grant<\/p>\n
 r  such relief cannot be arbitrary but will have to be<\/p>\n
‘sound and reasonable and guided by judicial<\/p>\n
fact as to, what circumstances will not come in
\n\/
\n. ‘(<\/p>\n
-36-<\/span><\/p>\n
the plaintiff was not ready and not willing ;v:QTb_
\nperform his part of the contract. What is requ.irecl  ~
\nto be looked into is the totality
\ncircumstances, where the plaintiff was   _
\nwilling to perform his part of the
\nthe specific pleadings are there,’.i_t cannot be\ufb02said it<\/p>\n
that the plaintrjf was no.tTi=eadyA.’an’dv
\nperform his part of the contract. Itis to<\/p>\n
that pursuant to theplaintiff <\/p>\n
put in possession. That’ is i-thefindingrecorded by
\nboth the Cc\u00aburts_ below.\u00bb  ihe’~circumstances, I am
\nof the .–;r’iew5jthatv the plairitiff  ready and
\nwilling to  his”par_t’of  contract.\n<\/p>\n
 insofar*”‘q~;:=. ‘non’–vc_or*rs’ideration of Section 20<\/p>\n
of th,e”Specf.ic where the granting of<\/p>\n
principles. The provision of sub–section {2} of
\nSection 20 would enumerate as to in what
\ncircumstances a decree for specific performance
\nwould be refused. But however, explanation (I)<\/p>\n
to Section 20 would also give an insight into the<\/p>\n
~17-\n<\/p>\n
the way of the court in granting a decree<\/p>\n
specific performance.”\n<\/p>\n
17. In the case of Mademsetty; mSatyanarayana.VV]\u00a7f
\nG.Yelloji Rao 82, others (AIR 1965  4_i)5} m:hgrre1*efe=\ufb01\u00a2e 9′
\nto Section 22, the Apex Court has:o’bserved*~ it  9<\/p>\n
“Under S.22 of the~._’SpeCific  brevliefxvof<\/p>\n
speci\ufb01c perjorntanbce  * _but not<\/p>\n
arbitrary; discretione-.musi.A he  e\ufb01teircised in
\naccordance “with s’our;.d= \u00ab\ufb01ne: A reasonable judicial<\/p>\n
 ‘pr_ot’j_idingV.for a guide to
\nCourts to  way or other are<\/p>\n
only   are not intended to be
\nexhaus.iioe.. _’  of the Limitation Act
\nprescribes .a  years from the date fixed
\n_thereunderforvspecific performance of a contract,
\nfo”iloL”os thar\ufb01i\u00e9i\u00e9 delay without more extending<\/p>\n
V  =iip’io:_bthe~ sa:’dperiod cannot possibly be a reason
\n“‘..___forhCIVto exercise its discretion against giving<\/p>\n
Ea relief  specific performance.\n<\/p>\n
in . _ “I33 the case on hand, We notice that the sale agreement<\/p>\n
  dated 19.1989 and payments are made over a period of<\/p>\n
uijtime till 1993 and the suit was filed in the year 1995. We<\/p>\n
are of the View that, notwithstanding the fact that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the<\/p>\n
-1<\/p>\n
contract and the suit is well within time, we are not inc1in <\/p>\n
-13-<\/span>
\nto grant a decree for specific performance having regardgto<\/p>\n
the decisions referred to above.\n<\/p>\n
1.8. Insofar as the alternate request  .9<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the pllaintiff’ffor”*refundH <\/p>\n
indeed, the plaintiff is entitled for saidllielief\ufb01 Once there
\nis a finding that the agreeme.nt  and  plaintiff
\nwas ready and willing to ‘p.erfo’rm-.h1:s partvoflpthse contract and
\nthe suit is  lto””grant the relief of
\nspecific perfoijrrialljice,  plaintiff is entitled for<\/p>\n
refund of the   _ _ ‘\n<\/p>\n
19. We notice tliattlie alnfr-.1ri’t was paid between 1.9.1989<\/p>\n
and 27.7.  defendant and thereafter his<\/p>\n
 legal had  henefit of this amount for over a period of<\/p>\n
 :l?iO’yearss. are of the View that the plaintiff is also entitled<\/p>\n
forVa–._lpegitirnate~interest on the said amount. Hence, having<\/p>\n
V _ saidluso,  pass the following order:<\/p>\n
 it  Thefappeal is allowed. The judgment and decree<\/p>\n
  ‘passed by the learned trial judge is set aside. The plaintiffs<\/p>\n
   is decreed in part. The defendant is liable to refund a<\/p>\n
” sum of Rs.90,000\/– with interest at the rate of 8% from the<\/p>\n
date of filing of the suit till realisation. The plaintiff is also<\/p>\n
:-\n<\/p>\n
-19-<\/span><\/p>\n
entitled for proportionate cost in this court as well <\/p>\n
trial court. The appeal stands disposed of aecording1_y.:.. <\/p>\n
  551\/ or   <\/p>\n
S*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M Padmanabha Rao S\/O M Venkat Rao vs Sumithra Kumar on 2 December, 2010 Author: Ajit J B.V.Nagarathna ‘ .._:’V’T’1(a}’% SR1 RITESH -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DATED THIS 02w DAY OF DECEMBER, 12:;i’iO’Vj-A if r.- A PRESENTh_m_ _ A” VT THE HON’BLE MR. JUsT1cE,AJ;-T f; A \u00bb A […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138426","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM Padmanabha Rao S\/O M Venkat Rao vs Sumithra Kumar on 2 December, 2010 - 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\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M Padmanabha Rao S\/O M Venkat Rao vs Sumithra Kumar on 2 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-05T22:59:30+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M Padmanabha Rao S\\\/O M Venkat Rao vs Sumithra Kumar on 2 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-05T22:59:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":807,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010\",\"name\":\"M Padmanabha Rao S\\\/O M Venkat Rao vs Sumithra Kumar on 2 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-05T22:59:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M Padmanabha Rao S\\\/O M Venkat Rao vs Sumithra Kumar on 2 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"M Padmanabha Rao S\/O M Venkat Rao vs Sumithra Kumar on 2 December, 2010 - 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\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M Padmanabha Rao S\/O M Venkat Rao vs Sumithra Kumar on 2 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-05T22:59:30+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M Padmanabha Rao S\/O M Venkat Rao vs Sumithra Kumar on 2 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-05T22:59:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010"},"wordCount":807,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010","name":"M Padmanabha Rao S\/O M Venkat Rao vs Sumithra Kumar on 2 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-05T22:59:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-padmanabha-rao-so-m-venkat-rao-vs-sumithra-kumar-on-2-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M Padmanabha Rao S\/O M Venkat Rao vs Sumithra Kumar on 2 December, 2010"}]},{"@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\/138426","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=138426"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138426\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138426"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138426"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138426"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}