{"id":1404,"date":"2002-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002"},"modified":"2017-07-02T10:17:55","modified_gmt":"2017-07-02T04:47:55","slug":"ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. M. Subbarao & Sons vs Yashodamma & Ors on 17 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. M. Subbarao & Sons vs Yashodamma & Ors on 17 September, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: R Lahoti<\/div>\n
Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Brijesh Kumar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5912 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s. M. Subbarao & Sons\n\nRESPONDENT:\nYashodamma & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/09\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nR.C. LAHOTI & BRIJESH KUMAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
R.C. Lahoti, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe landlord-respondents initiated proceedings for eviction of
\nthe tenant-appellants on the grounds available under Clauses (f), (h)
\nand (p) of sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of Karnataka Rent Control
\nAct, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Old Act’, for short).  The trial Court
\ndirected eviction of the tenants on all the three grounds. In a revision
\npreferred by the tenants, the learned Additional District Judge held the
\nground under Clause (h) not available to the landlords. However, the
\norder of eviction was sustained upholding availability of grounds
\nunder Clauses (f) and (p).  The tenants and the landlords both filed
\nrevision petitions before the High Court.  By order dated 11.10.2000,
\nthe High Court disposed of both the revisions holding that subletting
\nof tenancy premises by the tenants was made out and hence order for
\neviction was sustainable under Clause (f). The High Court did not
\ndeem it necessary to enter into the question of bona fide requirement.
\nOn a prayer made on behalf of the tenants, they were allowed a period
\nof one and a half years for vacating the premises which period was to
\nexpire on 11th April, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
With effect from 31.12.2001, the Karnataka Rent Control Act,
\n1999 (hereinafter ‘the New Act’, for short) came into force.  The suit
\npremises are non-residential premises measuring 352 sq. ft. i.e. more
\nthan 14 sq. mts..  Section 2 of the New Act speaks of application of
\nthe Act.  Sub-Section (3) thereof provides that nothing contained in
\nthis Act shall apply, amongst others, to any premises used for non-
\nresidential purpose but excluding premises having a plinth area of not
\nexceeding fourteen square meters used for commercial purpose. It is
\nnot disputed by learned counsel for the parties that the plinth area of
\nthe suit premises exceeds 14 sq. mts. and the same are used for
\ncommercial purpose, and therefore, the New Act is not applicable to
\nthe premises.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs the tenants did not vacate the tenancy premises on or before
\n11.4.2002, the landlords filed execution proceedings after 11.4.2002.
\nThe tenants objected to the maintainability of the execution
\nproceedings submitting that the decree passed under the Old Act in
\nrespect of the premises to which the provisions of the New Act are not
\napplicable, has ceased to be executable with the repeal of the Old Act.
\nThe objection was overruled by the executing Court as also by the
\nHigh Court.  The aggrieved tenant-judgment debtors have preferred
\nthis appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
\tTwo questions arise for consideration:-\n<\/p>\n
1.\tWhat is the effect of repeal of the Old Act by Section 70 of the
\nNew Act on such decrees as were passed under the Old Act and
\nare yet to be executed?;\n<\/p>\n
2.\tWhat would be the effect of Section 70 of the New Act on
\nspecial leave petitions filed under Article 136 of the
\nConstitution or on the appeals pursuant to the leave granted
\nthereunder?\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 70 of the New Act and Section 6 of the Karnataka
\nGeneral Clauses Act, 1899 provide as under:-
\n\t“70. Repeal and Savings.__(1) The<\/p>\n
\tKarnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act
\n32 of 1961) is hereby repealed.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tNotwithstanding such repeal and subject to
\nthe provisions of Section 69. __<\/p>\n
(a)\tall proceedings in execution of any decree or
\norder passed under the repealed Act, and
\npending at the commencement of this Act, in
\nany Court shall be continued and disposed
\noff by such Court as if the said enactment
\nhad not been repealed;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tall cases and proceedings other than those
\nreferred to in clause (a) pending at the
\ncommencement of this Act before the
\nController, Deputy Commissioner,
\nDivisional Commissioner, Court, District
\nJudge or the High Court or other authority,
\nas the case may be in respect of the premises
\nto which this Act applies shall be continued
\nand disposed off by such Controller, Deputy
\nCommissioner, Divisional Commissioner,
\nCourt, District Judge or the High Court or
\nother authority in accordance with the
\nprovisions of this Act.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tall other cases and proceedings pending in
\nrespect of premises to which this Act does
\nnot apply shall as from the date of
\ncommencement of the Act stand abated.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3)  Except as otherwise provided in Section 69
\nand in sub-section (2) of this section, provisions of
\nSection 6 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act,
\n1899 (Karnataka Act III of 1899), shall so far as
\nmay be applicable in respect of repeal of the said
\nenactment, and Sections 8 and 24 of the said Act
\nshall be applicable as if the said enactment had
\nbeen repealed and re-enacted by this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\t“6.  Effect of repeal. __  Where this Act or any
\nMysore Act or Karnataka Act made after the
\ncommencement of this act, repeals any enactment
\nhitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless
\na different intention appears, the repeal shall not__<\/p>\n
(a)\trevive anything not in force or existing at
\nthe time at which the repeal takes effect; or<\/p>\n
(b)\taffect the previous operation of any
\nenactment so repealed or anything duly done
\nor suffered thereunder; or<\/p>\n
(c)\taffect any right, privilege, obligation or
\nliability acquired, accrued or incurred under
\nany enactment so repealed; or<\/p>\n
(d)\taffect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment
\nincurred in respect of any offence committed
\nagainst any enactment so repealed; or<\/p>\n
(e)\taffect any investigation, legal proceeding or
\nremedy in respect of any such right,
\nprivilege, obligation, liability, penalty,
\nforfeiture or punishment as aforesaid;\n<\/p>\n
\tand any such investigation, legal proceeding or
\nremedy may be instituted, continued or enforced,
\nand any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment
\nmay be imposed, as if the repealing Act had not
\nbeen passed.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel for the tenant-appellants submitted that the
\ntenants having been allowed 18 months’ time for vacating the suit
\npremises under an order of eviction which achieved finality on
\n11.10.2000, the execution was leviable only after 11.4.2002 and, thus,
\nthere were no proceedings pending on 31.12.2001, the date on which
\nthe New Act came into force.  As nothing was pending (not even the
\nexecution proceedings) on 31.12.2001, the date on which the New Act
\ncame into force, Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 70
\nof the New Act would not apply; the case would be covered by Clause\n<\/p>\n
(c) within the meaning of “all other cases .. in respect of
\npremises to which this Act does not apply” and, therefore, the decree
\nunder the Old Act shall, as from 31.12.2001, the date of
\ncommencement of the New Act, stand abated.   The proceedings, for
\nexecution of a decree which had stood abated, filed after the
\ncommencement of the New Act were incompetent and hence the
\nexecuting Court ought not to have proceeded ahead in an execution
\nfiled after the commencement of the New Act and, instead, should
\nhave simply declared the decree inexecutable as having abated.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe find the submission of the learned counsel for the
\nappellants devoid of any merit.\t A decree passed by a competent
\nCourt under the Old Act cannot be said to be a ‘case pending’ on
\n31.12.2001.  Inasmuch as the decree is not covered by any of the
\nclauses of sub-Section (2) of Section 70 of the New Act (as also by
\nSection 69 of the New Act which speaks of transfer of pending cases)
\nthe decree would be covered under sub-Section (3) and attract
\napplicability of Section 6 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act and
\nwould be protected thereunder.\tThe decree defines the right of
\nlandlord to eviction of tenant and the obligation or liability of the
\ntenant to vacate the premises under pain of execution.\tSuch a right,
\nobligation or liability is not affected by repeal of an enactment unless
\na different intention appears.\tNo such different intention appears
\nfrom the provisions of the New Act.  Under Section 70(2)(a) of the
\nNew Act pending executions in respect of decrees passed under the
\nOld Act are saved.  It will be preposterous to hold that though a
\npending execution application is saved, a decree, which is yet to be
\nexecuted, is not saved.\n<\/p>\n
\tA Division Bench of Karnataka High Court (R.V. Raveendran
\nand K.L. Manjunath, JJ) had an occasion to examine such an issue in
\nM\/s. Mercury Press & Ors. Vs. Ameen Shacoor & Ors., ILR 2002
\nKar 2304.  During the course of its judgment the Division Bench has
\nobserved :\n<\/p>\n
\t“. . . . . .  Though the Old Act did not confer
\nany rights on a landlord but only restricted
\nthe absolute right of the landlord under the
\nprovisions of the Transfer of Property Act, if
\nan order of eviction has already been passed
\nunder the Old Act, then the right to evict the
\ntenant has been acquired by the landlord and
\na corresponding obligation or liability had
\nbeen incurred by the tenant to vacate the
\npremises or be evicted from the premises,
\nunder the order of eviction.  Such right
\n(liability acquired or incurred under the
\norder of eviction passed under the Old Act
\non or before 30.12.2001 remains unaffected
\nby the repeal having regard to Section 6 of
\nthe General Clauses Act and as a
\nconsequence, the landlord becomes entitled
\nto enforce such order of eviction by
\nexecuting it, subject to any remedy to which
\nthe tenant will be entitled under law.” (Para\n<\/p>\n
20)<\/p>\n
\tThe Division Bench, having examined the issue from several
\nangles, summed up its conclusion as under:-
\n\t“a)\tMatters pending in execution:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tWhere an order of eviction has already been
\npassed under the Old Act and is pending in
\nexecution, irrespective of whether the order was in
\nregard to premises to which the New Act applies
\nor not, such execution proceedings can be
\ncontinued and disposed of by executing Court as if
\nthe Old Act had not been repealed;\n<\/p>\n
\t\tOrders of eviction passed under the Old Act
\nwhich have become final and conclusive on or
\nbefore 30.12.2001 in regard to which no execution
\nwas levied on or before 30.12.2001, can also be
\nexecuted thereafter as if the Old Act has not been
\nrepealed.”\n<\/p>\n
\tWe find ourselves in agreement with the view of law taken by
\nthe High Court of Karnataka and approve the same.
\n\tWe are, therefore, of the opinion that the executing Court and
\nthe High Court have not erred in any manner in holding the decree not
\nabated and available for execution as a valid decree in spite of the
\nrepeal of the Old Act by Section 70 of the New Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was submitted at the Bar that there appears to be some
\nconflict in two decisions of this Court namely, Raminder Singh Sethi
\nVs. D. Vijayarangam, (2002) 4 SCC 675 and Mahendra Saree
\nEmporium Vs. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy, (2002) 5 SCC 416.  We have
\ncarefully examined both the decisions and we find that there is no
\nconflict between the law laid down by this Court in the two decisions.
\nIn Raminder Singh Sethi’s case, eviction of the tenant was directed
\nunder Section 12(1)(a) of the Old Act.\tSection 12 is placed in Part II
\nof the Old Act.\t The eviction proceedings were commenced in the
\nyear 1982 when the period of five years from the date of construction
\nof the building had not expired and to such a premises provisions of
\nPart III of the Old Act were not applicable.  Part III contains Section
\n18 which prohibits recovery of unlawful charges by the landlord
\nincluding any premium or any rent in addition to fair rent. This Court
\nupheld the eviction of tenant under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act.
\nBefore this Court the tenant pleaded that the New Act having been
\nbrought into force during the pendency of the proceedings conferred
\ncertain additional protection on the tenant who’s eviction was sought
\nfor on the ground of default in payment of arrears.  Vide para 6, this
\nCourt refused to evaluate the legality of the decree passed under the
\nOld Act by testing it by reference to the provisions of the New Act on
\nthe twin grounds: that the rights of the parties to litigation ordinarily
\nstand crystallized on the date of the commencement of lis and have to
\nbe determined by reference to the law applicable on that day, and that
\nthe provisions of the New Act are not retrospective in their
\napplication.  This Court observed inter alia that Section 70 of the New
\nAct does not provide for the provisions of the Act being made
\napplicable to the appeal or proceedings pending before the Supreme
\nCourt.\tIn Mahendra Saree Emporium’s case, an appeal pursuant to
\nleave granted under Article 136 of the Constitution was pending in
\nthis Court when the New Act came into force.  The decree passed by
\nthe High Court directing eviction of tenant was in issue before this
\nCourt.\tIn view of the area of the premises being such as to which the
\nprovisions of the New Act did not apply, this Court proceeded on an
\nassumption that the appeal shall stand abated by virtue of the
\nprovisions contained in Clause (c) of sub-Section (2) of Section 70 of
\nthe New Act.  It appears that such position of law was almost not
\ndisputed and, therefore, there is no in-depth scrutiny of the provisions
\nnor any reasons assigned for the view taken.  In any case, the case
\nbefore us does not bear any similarity with the facts in the case of
\nMahendra Saree Emporium.\n<\/p>\n
\tNo fault can be found with the view taken by the High Court.
\nThe appeal is dismissed.  However, the tenant-appellants are  allowed
\nthree months’ time for vacating the suit premises subject to their
\nclearing all the arrears of rent and filing an usual undertaking within
\nthree weeks from today, and thereafter continuing to pay the arrears of
\nrent falling due month by month until delivery of possession.  No
\norder as to the costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. M. Subbarao & Sons vs Yashodamma & Ors on 17 September, 2002 Author: R Lahoti Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Brijesh Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5912 of 2002 PETITIONER: M\/s. M. Subbarao & Sons RESPONDENT: Yashodamma & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/09\/2002 BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI & BRIJESH KUMAR JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/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-1404","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. M. Subbarao & Sons vs Yashodamma & Ors on 17 September, 2002 - 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\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. M. Subbarao & Sons vs Yashodamma & Ors on 17 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-02T04:47:55+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. M. Subbarao & Sons vs Yashodamma & Ors on 17 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-02T04:47:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2263,\"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\\\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. M. Subbarao & Sons vs Yashodamma & Ors on 17 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-02T04:47:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. M. Subbarao & Sons vs Yashodamma & Ors on 17 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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\/S. M. Subbarao & Sons vs Yashodamma & Ors on 17 September, 2002 - 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\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. M. Subbarao & Sons vs Yashodamma & Ors on 17 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-02T04:47:55+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. M. Subbarao & Sons vs Yashodamma & Ors on 17 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-02T04:47:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002"},"wordCount":2263,"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\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002","name":"M\/S. M. Subbarao & Sons vs Yashodamma & Ors on 17 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-02T04:47:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-subbarao-sons-vs-yashodamma-ors-on-17-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. M. Subbarao & Sons vs Yashodamma & Ors on 17 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/1404","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=1404"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1404\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1404"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1404"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1404"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}