{"id":141013,"date":"1988-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2"},"modified":"2015-07-21T14:21:06","modified_gmt":"2015-07-21T08:51:06","slug":"gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2","title":{"rendered":"Gangaram vs N. Shankar Reddy on 6 October, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gangaram vs N. Shankar Reddy on 6 October, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 302, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 433<\/div>\n
Author: S Natrajan<\/div>\n
Bench: Natrajan, S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGANGARAM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nN. SHANKAR REDDY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT06\/10\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nNATRAJAN, S. (J)\nBENCH:\nNATRAJAN, S. (J)\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR  302\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (3) 433\n 1988 SCC  (4) 648\t  JT 1988 (4)\t100\n 1988 SCALE  (2)1017\n\n\nACT:\n     Andhra  Pradesh  Buildings (Lease\tRent  and  Eviction)\nControl Act, 196(5ection 10(3)(c)--Landlord entitled to seek\neviction  of tenant occupying another portion  or  remaining\nportion\t of  same  building and\t not  occupying\t portion  in\nanother\t building-What is envisaged is oneness\tof  building\nand not oneness of ownership of two different buildings\t one\noccupied by landlord and another by tenant.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The respondent had acquired the building being premises\nNo.   1.1.249  Chikkadpalli,  Hyderabad,  constructed\ttwo\nstoreys over this building and utilised the upper floors for\nhis  residence\tand  the  ground  floor\t for  his  business.\nSubsequently,  he had purchased the adjacent building  being\npremises No. 1-1-250. The appellant was a tenant in the suit\npremises  No. 1.1.250 even before the  respondent  purchased\nit, and was running his shop in the front room and  residing\nin the rear portion.\n     The  respondent sought eviction of the appellant  inter\nalia on the ground of requirement of additional space  under\nsection\t 10(3)(r) of the Andhra Pradesh\t Buildings  (I,ease,\nRent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, under which . landlord\noccupying only a part of a building was entitled to seek the\neviction  of  a\t tenant occupying  another  portion  or\t the\nremaining  portion of the building if the landlord  required\nadditional  accommodation  for residential  purpose  or\t for\ncarrying on his business.\n     The  Rent Controller held that the respondent  was\t not\nentitled  to an order of eviction under s. 10(3)(c)  because\nthe  leased   premises was a separate building and  did\t not\nform  part  of\tthe building in\t which\tthe  respondent\t was\ncarrying on his business.\n     The  Appellate Authority however held that even  though\nthe leased premises had a separate municipal door number  it\ncould  be  treated  as forming part of the building  in\t the\nrespondent's  occupation  because both' the  buildings\twere\nowned by the respondent and were separated only by a  single\nwall.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 433\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 434\n     The High Court in revision held that if the  respondent\nwanted\t the\tpremises  bona\tfide  as  an   additional\naccommodation  it did not matter whether it was\t a  separate\nbuilding or a portion of the same building.\n     Before this Court, the appellant contended that section\n10(3)(c)  would not apply to a case where the  landlord\t and\nthe  tenant were occupying different buildings\teven  though\nthe  two   buildings were owned by the\tsame  landlord.\t The\nrespondent,  on\t the  other hand,  contended  that  the\t two\nbuildings  could not be treated as independent and  separate\nbuildings  because  both  the buildings were  owned  by\t the\nrespondent and were separated only by a single wall.\n\t   Allowing the appeal, it was,\n     HELD: (I) From a reading of clause (c) of section 10(3)\nit is obvious that provision has been made under that clause\nonly  to  seek the eviction of a  tenant  occupying  another\nportion\t or the remaining portion of the building  in  which\nthe landlord is also residing or carrying on his business in\none portion. [437F]\n     (2)  What s. 11)(3)(c envisages is the oneness  of\t the\nbuilding  and not the oneness of ownership of two  different\nbuildings, one occupied by the landlord and the other by the\ntenant. [438G-H]\n\t   (3) The significant words used in s. 10(3)(c) are\n\"the  landlord who is occupying only a part of\ta  building\"\nand  \"any  tenant occupying the whole or an portion  of\t the\nremaining part of the building.\" [438H; 439A]\n     (4) A practical test which can be applied o find out if\ntwo  adjoining buildings form part of the same\tbuilding  or\ntwo  different buildings would be to see whether one of\t the\ntwo buildings can be sold by the landlord and the  purchaser\ninducted  into possession of the premises sold\twithout\t the\nlandlord's  possession and enjoyment of the premises in\t his\noccupation being affected. [439B-C]\n     (5) The identity of two separate building is not to  be\njudged\ton the basis of the buildings being separated  by  a\nsingle wall or by two separate walls with intervening  space\nin between them. [439E]\n     (6)  There\t is no room or scope for the  respondent  to\ninvoke\tsection\t 2(iii), defining the  word  \"building\",  to\ncontend\t that two different premises should be treated as  a\nsingle\tand integrated building for the purposes of the\t Act\nif the two buildings adjoin each other and are owned by\t the\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 435\nsame  person but under different occupation i.e. one by\t the\nlandlord and the other by the tenant. [440C-D]\n     (7) If the hardship experienced by landlords similar to\nthe  respondent\t is  to be alleviated, then it\tis  for\t the\nlegislature  to\t remedy\t the situation\tby  making  suitable\namendments  to the Act and it is not  for the Court to\tread\ns.  10(3)(c) beyond its terms, oblivious to the\t limitations\ncontained therein and hold that a separate tenanted building\nadjoining the building in the owner's occupation would\talso\nform part of the latter building. [44lA-B]\n     Balaiah  v.  Lachaiah, AIR 1965 A.P.  435;\t Balaganesan\nMetals v. M.N. Shanmugham Chetty, JT<\/a> 1987 2 S.C. 247 and  N.\nRamaswamy Naidu v. P. Venkateshwarlu, Vol. Il 1961 1  A.W.R.\npage 400, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 537  of
\n1978.\n<\/p>\n
     From  the\tJudgment and Order dated 13.10.1977  of\t the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court in C . R . P . 250 of 1977 .\n<\/p>\n
     P.P. Rao, K. Ram Kumar and Mrs. Janki Ramachandran\t for
\nthe Appellant .\n<\/p>\n
     A.S. Nambiar and B. Parthasarthi for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment ot’ the Court was delivered by
\n     NATARAJAN,\t J.  This appeal by special  leave  directed
\nagainst\t a  judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High\t Court\tlies
\nwithin a narrow compass.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent\/landlord filed a petition under  Section
\n10(3)  of  the\tAndhra Pradesh Buildings  (Lease,  Rent\t and
\nEviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act’) to seek the
\neviction  of the tenant\/appellant from premises bearing\t No.
\n1-1-250 Chikkadpalli, Hyderabad. The appellant is running  a
\npan  shop  and a hire cycle shop in the\t front room  of\t the
\npremises  and  residing\t in the rear  portion.\tBesides\t the
\nleased premises, the respondent owns the adjoining  building
\nbearing No. 1\/1\/249. In the said building the respondent was
\nrunning\t a grocery shop in the ground floor and residing  in
\nthe  second  and third\tfloors subsequently  constructed  by
\nhim. It would appear that the respondent  has since  changed
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 436
\nover  his business to retail sale of liquor.  On the  ground
\nof  requirement of- additional space for the  grocery  shop,
\nthe  respondent\t sought the eviction of the  appellant.\t The
\nRent Controller held that the respondent was not entitled to
\nan  order of eviction either under Section 19(3)(a)(iii)  or
\nSection 10(3)(c) because the leased premises was a  separate
\nbuilding and did not form part of the building in which\t the
\nrespondent  was\t carrying  on his business.  In\t the  appeal
\npreferred  by  the respondent, the Chief Judge,\t City  Small
\nCause Court, Hyderabad, took a different view of the  matter
\nand held that even though the leased premises had a separate
\nmunicipal  door number it can be treated as forming part  of
\nthe building in the respondent’s occupation because both the
\nbuildings are owned by the second respondent and besides the
\ntwo  buildings\tare  separated only by a  single  wall.\t For
\nreaching such a conclusion, the Appellate Authority followed
\nthe  ratio laid down in Balaiah v. Lachaiah, AIR  1965\tA.P.\n<\/p>\n
435.  As  the  Appellate Authority further  found  that\t the
\nrequirement of additional space by the respondent was a bona
\nfide  one,  the Appellate Authority allowed the\t appeal\t and
\nordered\t the  eviction of the appellant.  A  civil  revision
\nfiled  by the appellant to the High Court did not meet\twith
\nsuccess and hence the appellant has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     Though  the proceedings before the Rent Controller\t and
\nthe  Appellate Authority were conducted on the footing\tthat
\nthe respondent was entitled to seek the appellant s eviction
\nunder  Section\t10(3)(a)(iii)  as  well\t as  under   Section
\n10(3)(c)  it was conceded before us by Mr. Nambiar,  learned
\ncounsel\t for the respondent that the tenant’s  eviction\t was
\nsought\tfor only under Section 10(3)(c) vi.. requirement  of
\nadditional  space  for the respondent’s business.  In\tsuch
\ncircumstances  the only factor for determination is  whether
\nthe  respondent can seek the appellant’s eviction  from\t the
\ntenanted   building  the  ground  he   requires\t  additional
\naccommodation for his business.\n<\/p>\n
     Before  we\t proceed to deal with the  question,  it  is
\nnecessary  to  state  a\t few facts.  Originally,  a  row  of
\nbuildings comprised in door-numbers 1-1-248 to 1-1-251\twere
\nowned  by one R. Kistiyah and after him by one\tRambai.\t The
\nsaid  Rambai  sold  the buildings in the  row  to  different
\npersons.  The  respondent and his brother were two  of\tsuch
\npurchasers and they purchased premises no. 1-1-248 and l- 1-\n<\/p>\n
249. Subsequently, in a partition between them, premises No.
\n1-l-249\t was allotted to the respondent and premises No.  l-
\n1-248  was allotted to his brother. After the partition\t was
\neffected, the respondent constructed : two storeys over\t his
\nbuilding  by erecting concrete pillars on both sides of\t hiS
\nbuilding.  At that time, the suit premises bearing No.\t1-1-
\n250  was  owned by an advocate by name Sri S.  Sitaram\tRao.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 437
\nWhen   the  concrete  pillars  were  erected,  Sitaram\t Rao
\ncomplained of encroachment by the respondent and eventually,
\nthe   dispute  was  resolved  by  the\trespondent   himself
\npurchasing  Sitaram  Rao’s  house viz.\tNo.  1-1-250.  After
\nconstructing  the  two floors, the  respondent\tshifted\t his
\nresidence  to  those floors and utilised the  entire  ground
\nfloor for his business. he appellant who was a tenant of the
\nsuit  premises\teven  before  the  respondent  purchased  it
\nattorned his tenancy to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     Under  the Act, a landlord can seek the eviction  of  a
\ntenant\t from  a  non-residential  building  under   Section
\n10(3)(a)(iii)  if  he  is  not\talready\t occupying  a\tnon-
\nresidential  building  which  is either his own\t or  to\t the
\npossession of which he is entitled or under Section 10(3)(c)
\nby  way of additional accommodation if\tthe  non-residential
\nbuilding  occupied by him is not sufficient for the  purpose
\nof the business he is carrying on. Since we are concerned in
\nthis appeal only with Section 10(3)(c), we need extract only
\nthat clause which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “10(3)(c). A landlord who is occupying only a part of a
\nbuilding,  whether residential or non-residential, may\tnot-
\nwithstanding anything in clause (a), apply to the Controller
\nfor an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any
\nportion\t or  the  remaining part v he building\tto  put\t the
\nlandlord  in possession thereof, if he\trequires  additional
\naccommodation  for residential purpose or for purpose  of  a
\nbusiness which he is carrying on, as the case may be.’
\n\t\t\t\t\t(\t    Emphasis
\nsupplied).\n<\/p>\n
From  a reading of clause (c), it is obvious that  provision
\nhas been made under that clause only to seek the eviction of
\na tenant occupying another portion or the remaining  portion
\nof  the building in which  the landlord is also residing  or
\ncarrying on his business in one portion. Section 10(3)(c) of
\nthe  Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control  Act\t1960
\nwhich  is  identically\tworded as Section  10(3)(c)  of\t the
\nAndhra\tPradesh Buildings (Rent, Eviction and  Control)\t Act
\ncame  to  be construed in a different context by this  Court
\nin  Balaganesan Metals v, M.N. Shanmugham Chetty,  (JT\t1987
\n(2)  S.C.  247). It was held in that case  that\t a  landlord
\noccupying only a part of a building for residential or\tnon-
\nresidential  purposes  may  seek the eviction  of  a  tenant
\nocCupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part  of
\nthe building if he requires additional accommodation for his
\nresidential  or\t non-residential needs and that\t it  is\t not
\nnecessary  that there must be identical user of\t the  leased
\nportion\t by  the tenant if the landlord wants  to  seek\t his
\neviction for his residential ar business needs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 438
\n    In\tthis  case,  the  controversy  centres\taround\t the
\nquestion  whether a landlord can invoke Section 10(3)(c)  of
\nthe  Act  to  seek  the eviction of  a\ttenant\twho  is\t not
\noccupying a portion of the building occupied by the landlord
\nhimself\t but is occupying another building belonging to\t the
\nlandlord.  While  the  Rent Controller\theld  that  the\t two
\npremises   viz.\t 1\/1\/249  and  1\/1\/250\tare   separate\t and
\nindependent, the Appellate Authority has taken the view that
\nby reason of the unity of ownership of the two buildings  in
\nthe  respondent\t  and by reason of the two  buildings  being
\nseparated  only\t by a single wall “it can be said  that\t the
\nmulgi constitutes additional accommodation to the appellant”
\nand  the fact that the two mulgies bear different  municipal
\nnumbers\t should not make any difference. The High Court\t has
\nnot  construed\tthe  scope  of\tSection\t 10(3)(c)  but\t has
\nsweepingly said that:\n<\/p>\n
     “Whether  both  can  be said to  be  same\tbuilding  or
\nseparate  buildings it does not matter, if’  the  respondent
\nwants the premises bona fide as an additional accommodation;
\nwhether\t it is a separate building or a portion of the\tsame
\nbuilding, he can require it on that ground.”
\ncounsel for
\n    Before  us\tit was canvassed by Mr.\t P.P.  Rao,  learned
\ncounsel\t for  the  appellant  that  Section  10(3)(c)  would
\nentitle\t a landlord to seek the eviction of his\t tenant\t for
\npurposes of additional accommodation for himself only if the
\nportion\t occupied  by  the tenant forms\t part  of  the\tsame
\nbuilding occupied by the landlord and that Section  10(3)(c)
\nwill  not apply to a case where the landlord and the  tenant
\nre  occupying  different  buildings  even  though  the\t two
\nbuildings  may be owned by the same landlord.  Controverting
\nthis   argument\t Mr.  Nambiyar,\t learned  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondent  contended  that  the premises  occupied  by\t the
\nappellant, though assigned a separate municipal door  number
\ncannot\tbe treated as an independent and  separate  building
\nbecause\t both the buildings are owned by the respondent\t and
\nsecondly the leased premises are separated from door  number
\nl\/ l\/249 only by a single wall.\n<\/p>\n
     On\t a  consideration of the matter, we  find  that\t the
\ncontention of Mr. Nambiyar, which has found acceptance\twith
\nthe  Appellate\tCourt  and the High Court is not  at  all  a
\ntenable one. What Section  10(3)(c) envisages is the oneness
\nof  the\t building and not the oneness of  ownership  of\t two
\ndifferent  buildings, one occupied by the landlord  and\t the
\nother  by the tenant. The significant words used in  Section
\n10(3)(c) are “the landlord who is occupying only a part of a
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 439
\nbuilding”   and\t “any  tenant occupying\t the  whole  or\t any
\nportion\t of the remaining part of the building”.  Surely  no
\none can say that two adjoining buildings  bearing  different
\ndoor numbers, one occupied by the landlord and the other  by
\nthe tenant would make them one and the same building if they
\nare  owned by one person and separate buildings if they\t are
\nowned  by two different persons. A practical test which\t can
\nbe applied to find out if two adjoining buildings form\tpart
\nof the same building or two different buildings would be  to
\nsee  whether  one of the two buildings can be  sold  by\t the
\nlandlord  and the purchaser inducted into possession of\t the
\npremises   sold\t without  the  landlord’s   possession\t and
\nenjoyment of the premises in his occupation being  affected.
\nViewed\tin  that  manner, it can at once be  seen  that\t the
\nleased\tpremises  in  the  appellant’s\t occupation  can  be
\nindependently  sold and the purchaser  delivered  possession
\nwithout\t the  respondent’s possession of  door\tno.  1-1-249
\nbeing  affected\t in  any manner. As a matter  of  fact,\t the
\nprevious  history of the building shows that before  it\t was
\npurchased by the respondent, it was owned by Sri Sitaram Rao
\nand  the respondent was owning only door no.  1-1-249.\tSuch
\nbeing  the case, merely because the appellant  has  acquired
\ntitle  to door no. l- l-250 also, it can never be said\tthat
\nthe building under the tenancy of the appellant became\tpart
\nand  parcel  of\t the  respondent’s  building  no.  l-  1-29.
\nSimilarly,  the\t fact that the two buildings  are  separated
\nonly by a single wall with no intervening space between them
\nwould  not  alter the situation in any\tmanner\tbecause\t the
\nidentity  of two separate buildings is not to be  judged  on
\nthe basis of the buildings being separated by a single\twall
\nor  by two separate walls with intervening space in  between
\nthem.\n<\/p>\n
     Section  10(3)(c) which occurred as Section 7(3)(c)  in
\nthe  Madras Buildings (I ease and Rent Control) Act 1’4\t has
\nbeen  properly construed by Chandrasekhara Sastri, J. in  M.
\nRamaswamy  Naidu  v.  P. Venkateswarlu,\t (Vol.\t11)  1961(1)
\nA.W.R. page. 400.  The learned judge has stated that Section
\n7(3)(c)\t “applies  only\t n  a case  where  the\tlandlord  is
\noccupying  a  part  of a building  and\tstill  requires\t the
\nremaining  part\t for  the purpose ot’ his  own\tbusiness  as
\nadditional  accommodation.”  This  decision  has  not\tbeen
\nnoticed\t by the Appellate Authority and the High  Court\t and
\nthey  have  proceeded solely on the basis that\tas  per\t the
\nratio  in  Balaiah  v. Lachaiah, (supra) the  respondent  is
\nentitled  to  an  order\t of  eviction  even  under   Section
\n10(3)(a)(iii) for additional accommodation despite the\tfact
\nthat he is in occupation of a  building of his own.
\nMr.  Nambiyar  referred\t to  the  definition  of  the\tword
\n“building”  in Section 2(iii) of the Act and argued that  if
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 440
\nfor the purposes of the Act, where the context warrants\t it,
\ndifferent  portions of the same building can be\t treated  as
\nseparate  buildings,  it should conversely be held  that  if
\nadjoining  building are owned by the same person and one  of
\nthem is in the occupation of the landlord and the other by a
\ntenant,\t then  for  purposes of\t Section  10(3)(c)  the\t two
\nbuildings  should be treated as an integrated and  composite
\nbuilding.  We  are unable to accept  this  argument  because
\nfirstly the terms of Section 2(iii) do not afford scope\t for
\nsuch a construction and secondly the argument  fails to take
\nnote  of the purpose and object lying behind the  definition
\nof  “building” in the manner in which the clause is  worded.
\nSection\t  2(iii)  has  been  provided  so  as  to  make\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe  Act  applicable to\t the  whole  of\t the
\nbuilding  as well as to parts of it depending  upon  whether
\nthe entirety of the building has been leased out to a tenant
\nor  different portions of it have been let out to  different
\ntenants.  There\t is,  therefore, no room or  scope  for\t the
\nrespondent  to\tinvoke Section 2(iii) to  contend  that\t two
\ndifferent  premises  should  be treated\t as  a\t single\t and
\nintegrated  building for the purposes of the Act if the\t two
\nbuildings adjoin each other and are owned by the same person
\nbut under different occupation i.e. one by the landlord\t and
\nthe other by the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Nambiyar then argued that if section 10(3)(c) is to
\nbe  construed  as  being  applicable  only  when   different
\nportions  of the same building are in the occupation of\t the
\nlandlord as well as one or more tenants, it would result  in
\na  landlord like the respondent who is genuinely in need  of
\nadditional accommodation being left with no remedy  whatever
\nfor  securing  additional  accommodation  for  his  business
\nneeds. We find it unnecessary to go into the merits of\tthis
\nsubmission because however genuine the respondent s need for
\nadditional accommodation may be and whatever be the hardship
\nresulting to him by non-eviction of the appellant, we cannot
\ngrant  any relief to the respondent under the Act as it\t now
\nstands.\t As per the Act the relief of eviction of  a  tenant
\ncan  be given to a landlord only under two  situations\tviz.
\n(1) where the landlord is not in occupation of a building of
\nhis  own or to the possession of which he is entitled to  by
\nan  order  of eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii)  and\t (2)
\nwhere the landlord is in occupation of only a portion of his
\nbuilding   and\t is  bona  fide\t in   need   of\t  additional
\naccommodation  and another or the remaining portion  of\t the
\nbuilding  is  in the occupation of a tenant  or\t tenants  by
\nordering  his or their eviction under Section  10(3)c).\t The
\nLegislature has not provided for Section 10(3)(c) being made
\napplicable  to a landlord where he owns adjoining  buildings
\nand is in occupation of only one of those two buildings\t and
\nthe tenant is in occupation of the other and the land-lord’s
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 441
\nbona  fide  in\tneed of\t additional  accommodation  for\t his
\nresidential  or business needs. If the hardship\t experienced
\nby landlords similar to the respondent is to be\t alleviated,
\nthen  it is for the Legislature to remedy the  situation  by
\nmaking suitable amendments to the Act and it is not for\t the
\nCourt to read Section 10(3)(c) beyond its terms oblivious to
\nthe  limitations contained therein and hold that a  separate
\ntenanted  building  adjoining the building  in\tthe  owner’s
\noccupation would also form part of the latter building.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t the light of our conclusions, it follows  that\t the
\njudgment  and order of the Appellate Authority and the\tHigh
\nCourt  cannot be sustained and have to be set aside. In\t the
\nresult,\t the  appeal  succeeds and the\torder  of  the\tRent
\nController dismissing the respondent’s petition for eviction
\nwill stand restored. There will, however, be no order as  to
\ncosts .\n<\/p>\n
R.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gangaram vs N. Shankar Reddy on 6 October, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 302, 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 433 Author: S Natrajan Bench: Natrajan, S. (J) PETITIONER: GANGARAM Vs. RESPONDENT: N. SHANKAR REDDY DATE OF JUDGMENT06\/10\/1988 BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) CITATION: 1989 AIR 302 […]<\/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-141013","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGangaram vs N. Shankar Reddy on 6 October, 1988 - 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\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gangaram vs N. Shankar Reddy on 6 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2\" \/>\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=\"1988-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-21T08:51:06+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gangaram vs N. Shankar Reddy on 6 October, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-21T08:51:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2\"},\"wordCount\":2696,\"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\\\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2\",\"name\":\"Gangaram vs N. Shankar Reddy on 6 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-21T08:51:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gangaram vs N. Shankar Reddy on 6 October, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Gangaram vs N. Shankar Reddy on 6 October, 1988 - 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\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gangaram vs N. Shankar Reddy on 6 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-21T08:51:06+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gangaram vs N. Shankar Reddy on 6 October, 1988","datePublished":"1988-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-21T08:51:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2"},"wordCount":2696,"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\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2","name":"Gangaram vs N. Shankar Reddy on 6 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-21T08:51:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangaram-vs-n-shankar-reddy-on-6-october-1988-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gangaram vs N. Shankar Reddy on 6 October, 1988"}]},{"@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\/141013","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=141013"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141013\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141013"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141013"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141013"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}