{"id":149407,"date":"1982-11-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-11-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982"},"modified":"2016-07-29T13:54:37","modified_gmt":"2016-07-29T08:24:37","slug":"briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982","title":{"rendered":"Briji Raj Pershad vs Rama Seethamma And Ors. on 5 November, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court<\/div>\n
Briji Raj Pershad vs Rama Seethamma And Ors. on 5 November, 1982<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1983 AP 118<\/div>\n
Author: P R Raju<\/div>\n
Bench: C Reddi, R Raju<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 P. Ramachandra Raju, J. <\/p>\n
 1. This writ  appeal  is directed  against the Judgment of our  learned brother P.A. Choudary, J. Allowing W.P. No. 3968  of 1982.\n<\/p>\n
2.  There  is an extent of  583.76  sq. Yards of land near cement nala, Chappal Bazaar, Belonging to  the  Municipal corporation of Hyderabad, the 1st respondent in the writ petition. About  4 to 5 hundred sq.  Yards out of that site was earmarked by the corporation for a play ground.  On a portion of the balance area of  the site, the  corporation constructed public latrines  some time during 1930  to serve the needs of such of the local inhabitants who were not then having the facility of latrines in their   huts or houses.  Another portion of the balance area was recently  encroached upon by  one buchaiah a retired corporation employee.  Buchaiah  had erected some  unauthorised structures in a portion of the land in his occupation  even without obtaining the necessary permission from the corporation.  The 2nd respondent in the writ petition is a recognised private Kinder Garten and  Upper Primary school established in kachiguda area in the year 1966 with  in initial strength of 40 students.  The school was being  conducted in three different  rented buildings. By 1974  the  strength of the school rose up to 400 students.  The  school authorities made several efforts  to secure a proper single building for its purposes.  As the site  originally earmarked for a playground was lying vacant the neighbouring residents began to use the  vacant site as  a dumping ground  and were  thereby polluting the atmosphere the parents association of the school  applied to the corporation by their letter dated 28-11-1974  to allot the vacant piece of land free of cost to the  management of the school  authority.  The application was duly recommended by the  District Educational officer.  The site  was jointly inspected in early 1975  by the  then Minister for  Health and by Mr. Luther, the then special officer of the corporation and both of them felt that some area out of the  site  could be considered for  allotment to the school.   Thereafter  matters drifted till about june, 1978  when again the request for allotment was reiterated by the  district Educational officer and by Mr. Venkatramaiah, an M.L.A. residing  in that area.  As  there was still no respondse, the residents of the locality made a  public representation in april, 1979 to the  special officer, bringing to his notice that in 1930  there were very few houses and such houses were not provided with latrines of moderen type and that  with passage of time, all the houses adjoining the area are equipped with proper latrines and that continuance of the public latrines had become a health hazard and that they are  obliged to keep the doors and winodws of  their  houses always closed as the site  was emitting bad smell and  became a breeding place for mosquitoes.  The then  special officer took a decision to alienate the land in  favour of the  school  on payment of Rs. 3\/-  per sq. Yard and informed the Government of his decision  by his letter dated 2nd may, 1979. The 2nd respondent school remitted the sum  of Rs. 1, 752\/-  towards the cost of the land and requested the corporation to execute the necessary registered  document and hand over physical possession of the  land to the school.  Buchaiah then intervened with a representation dated 26-6-1979  stating  that  he  initially raised a house with thatched roof after obtaining some oral permission from one krishna Reddy, the then city planner and  that  after the thatched house had collapsed  he raised another house  with bricks and mud walls and he was prepared to pay rent for  the  site and requested the 1st respondent to desist from the  proposed action of demolition of his house.  At about the same time,  some  other residents requested the corporation not to  proceed further with the  alienation in favour of the 2nd respondent but keep intact the public latrines and the playground.  It was also indicated that the  residents are not having the benefit of a community hall or a reading room.  The  subordinate corporation officials were then alerted to remove the public latrines as well  as the  encroachment.  As matters were still being delayed, a sizeable number of local residents made a representation during  September  1979  to the then chief Minister and the then special officer for ensuring  the allotment of site to the  school after removing  the unwanted latrines and the encroachments.  At about this point of time  the site was inspected by the then minister for Labour before whom a local representation was made for retaining  the public latrines and the  Municipal playground and the  Minister wanted  the special officer to re-examine the matter.  The special officer informed the Government that the  decision earlier taken for selling the site  to the school cannot possibly be revised.  The spcial  officer then placed the matter before the General body through the standing committee of the corporation and both the standing committee and council  approved the proposal of the  special officer to sell the land in favour of the school at Rs. 3\/- per Sq   yard.  The Government by its memo No. 3024\/K1\/78-5 M.A. dated 9-5-1980 rejected the request of the school authorities immediately, thereafter the 2nd respondent filed W.P.  No. 2768\/80  to quash that memo by his Judgment dated 23-6-1981 held  that the decision regarding the sale was validly taken by the  corporation and the impugned memo was violative of the principles of natural justice and does not  purport to have been made by the  Government in exercise of its revisional powers under S. 679.  The  learned Judge further observed that the Municipal corporation shall be free to take  such further action as it thinks fit in purcuance of the aforesaid decision of the commissioner and  corporation within the meaning of S. 148  (3)  of hte Act,  and that the  order in the writ petition does not preclude the Government from exercising  its  revisional   powers according  to law, if it  is  so advised in  the  circumstances  of the  case.  The 2nd respondent was requesting  the 1st respondent to execute the necessary sale deed and deliver vacant possession.  As there was some delay on the part of the corporation contempt proceedings were initiated against the corporation and its officials On 4-6-1982, the  public latrines were demolished and  the  construction made by Buchaiah was partly removed.  It is in this background that the writ  petition was filed by  the  several petitioners, questioning the authority of the  corporation to demolish the pre-existing public latrines or to sell the  municipal property at a low  price.  They made various allegations against the correspondent  of the  2nd respondent school and stated  that the transaction  in favour of the school is a fictitious and fishy transaction and smacks of  malice and corruption.  The respondents in their  counters questioned the standing of the  petitioners to file the petition.  The malice or corruption  attributed to the 1st respondent was denied. The demolition of the public latrines was justified on the ground that ll the  houses in and aroung the locality were equipped with separate  private latrines  and   the  continuance of the public latrine was  no longer necessary.  The open  site was being used as a dumping ground and such use was hazardous to the health of the neighbouring  residents.  In situations where property is alienated for purposes of a school or other social public purposes,  the municipal  property was sold at a  nominal price.   There was even a case of  gift of an extensive extent of acs. 5.05 made of the municipal property in favour of Ramakrishna math.  Buchaiah is behind the writ petition, which is filed on 15-6-1982.  Buchaiah’s involvement is apparent from the  fact that he filed O.S. No.  2145\/82  on  file of the  6th  Asst. Judge city civil Court, Hyderabad, for  an injunction restraining the corporation from demolishing the house he had earlier erected.\n<\/p>\n
3.  Our learned brother held that the petitioners have the  locus standi to file the writ petition and that  no bad faith can be attributed to the 2nd respondent. The learned  Judge proceeded to decide the case  on the real question whether the action of the Municipal corporation of Hyderabad in proposing to sell its land at Rs. 3\/- per sq.  Yard can be justified in terms of the Hyderabad Municipal corporation Act, 1955.  The learned Judge felt that  as there is no decision that the public latrines were no longer required, it is not open to the corporation  to remove the public latrines.  The learned judge took Judicial notice of the fact that the land in the  area would cost a minimum of Rs. 500\/-  per sq. Yard is an outright  gift though comouflaged as sale and the corporation should  deal  with the  property as a trustee for the  rate-payers and cannot alienate the same for a grossly inadequate consideration.  The  learned Judge accordingly declared the proceedings of the  special officer dated 2-5-1979  as ultra vires of his powers under the Hyderabad Municipal corporation Act, 1955.\n<\/p>\n
4.  Mr. Balakrishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing  for the school and Mr. Janardhana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the  corporation submitted that the decision of the  corporation submitted that the decision of hte corporation to alienate the  property in favour of the school was within the powers of the corporation and was bona fide having  regard to all the  circumstances  of the case.  They have taken us through the relevant  provisions of the  Hyderabad  Municipal corporation Act,  1955. Section 148  of the Act provides for the   disopsal  of propeprty belonging to the corporation.  Sub-sections (3) and (4)  of S. 148  are relevant in terms of sub-sec.  (3),  the commissioner with the sanction of the corporation may  lease, sell or otherwise dispose  of any movable  or immoveable  property belonging to the corporation. Under  subsec. (4) the sanction of the  corporation may be given either  generally or for any class of cases or specially for any particular case.  The  records disclose that the  proposal to alienate the property was aapproved in the case both  by the  standing committee and by hte  corporation Mr. Bakshi, learned counsel appearing  for the writ petitioners submitted that ever since 1970, it is  only the commissioner  appointed as special  officer that  has been discharging the functions of the standing committee and that  of the  corporation and the inbuilt checks over the action of the commissioner provided  in  S. 148 are not available in a case where  the commissioner himself is appointed  as special officer and that we should  critically examine  the alienation that is involved in the case.  The Act provides for the discharge by the  special officer of the functions of the  standing committee and that  of the  corporation.  The commissioner as special officer was acting only  in terms of the  Act.  The decision of the special officer who was constituted either the  standing committee or the corporation cannot be any the less than the  decision of  the standing committee or the  corporation under s. 148 of  the Act.  We accordingly reject this submission.\n<\/p>\n
5.  Mr. Bakshi relied on r. 8 of the municipal corporation of hyderabad (Acquisition and disposal  of Immoveable property)   Rules 1970  to persuade us to  hold that the said rule  has been violated in this case.  That Rule required the  corporation to public in the  A.P. Gazette a notice  of the proposed  transfer, giving  full particulars of the property to be  transferred, the  name  of the proposed transferred, the  consideration for the  transfer, if the consideration for the  transfer if the consideration  for the transfer if the consideration for the  transfer exceeded Rs. 5,000\/-  and by affixture of the notice in the conspicuous  place specified therein.  The consideration  for the  transfer  in this case is less than Rs. 5,000\/-  There was  therefore no need for the corporation to have  made any publication of the proposed transfer as required under the said  rule.  The proposed transfer cannot  therefore be questioned as violating rule  No. 8<\/p>\n
6.  Our learned brother felt that the  corporation holds the  property in trust  for the  tax-payers; the  commissioner could sell the  property   only for an adequate consideration and  the  impugned  transaction is in substance a gift which  the commissioner is not  empowered to make in favour of the school.  It is not disputed that  the   corporation is the  owner  of the  property.  When once the  corporation is the owner.  The commissioner had the power to dispose of the property either  by lease, sale  or otherwise.  Even assuming that the transaction is in the nature of a gift, such gift is still within the competence of the commissioner.  The  purpose for which  the  transfer is  made becomes material.  The transfer is made to enable  the school to function at a  single place and to take in a larger number of students.  The site which is proposed to be transferred was being misused by the  residents of the  locality as a dumping ground.  The  major extent of the site was no doubt set apart initially as a play ground.  When it was being  misused as a dumping ground, the  rubbish has turned out to be a health hazard to the  neighbouring  residents.  It  was giving  a bad odour necessitating  the neighbouring  residents even to close their  windows and  doors to avoid  the  foul smell.  So far as the  public latrines are concerned.  Such latrines were serving  the  purpose at a time when the  houses in the locality were not having  any latrines of their  own with the passage of time,each  houses owner   has constructed his own latrine.  There was therefore, no further need for the corporation to have maintaind the public  latrines existing in a part of the site.  As some  vacant place belonging tothe corporation was availabe  bunchaiah a retired corporation employee, could encroach in a portion of the site and conresident  an unauthorised structure.  The residents of the locality made a representation to alienate the site in favour of the  scholl   which was serving the  educational needs of  the local  residents .  it is in  the background of  these circumstances that the  commissioner took the   discision to transfer the property in favour of the school but at the same   time  stipulating for the  payment of a nominal price of Rs. 3\/- per sq. Yard. The  proposed transfer was for  consideration Rs. 1,752\/-  It cannot  in the circumstances, be a gift.  The transfer being  for consideration amounts only to a sale.  That  was how the transaction was construed by Jeevan Reddy, J. In W.P.  No. 2768\/80.  The learned Judge has noticed the Judgment  dated 23-6-1981   in the said writ petition but did not  give effect to that  judgment by advancing  two reasons.  One of the  reasons given was that the present writ petition was filed during the pendency of W.P.  No. 2768\/80.  This is not  factually correct as W.P. NO. 1768\/80  was disposed of on 23-6-1981.  The  other reason given was that Jeevan reddy J. In  his  judgment in W.P. No. 2768\/80 expressly left it  open  for the  Government to exercise   its   revisional powers against the orders of the special officer.  The  Government it is common ground, has not yet revised the orders of the spcial  officer. One cannot therefore proceed on any hypothesis that the Government would at some future time,  interfere with the  orders of the special officer.  In coming to the conclusion that the  transaction is camouflaged as a sale, the  learned  Judge did not  properly appreciate the  Judgment of jeevan reddy, J. In  W.P. No. 2768\/80.\n<\/p>\n
7.  We are unable to agree with the  learned Judge that the property in question partakes the nature of trust property.  The property belongs to the corporation in its own right.  It is not a property alienated in its favour by constituting any trust.  The  proposed transfer cannot,  therefore, be examined on any hypothesis that the corporation was holding the property in trust  for the benefit of the tax-payers.  The sale in favour of the school was no doubt for an inadequate consideration.  We have set out  the  circumstances in which the  corporation took the decision to transfer the property and why the corporation stipulated for  the rate of Rs. 3\/-  per sq.  Yard.  There have been instances in the  past where the corporation had even gifted an extent of Acs. 5.05 of municipal  land in favour of Ramakrishna math G.O. Rt. No. 427 M.A. dated 7-9-1976  would  indicate that even the Government directed that assignment to be made by the  corporation in favour  of  Ramakrishna math free of cost.  The special officer has, therefore, acted within his powers in agreeing to make the transfer in favour of the  school  at Rs. 3\/-  per sq. Yard.\n<\/p>\n
8.  Mr. Bakshi  submitted that the construction maintenance and cleansing of  public latrines is an obligation on the  part of the corporation.  He pressed into service S. 112  of the corporation  Act.  Section 112 mandates the corporation to make adequate provision for that prupose. Section 115 of the Act enumerates matters which may be provided for by the  corporation at its discretion.  Those two sections read together would only indicate that  the corporation should  make a  budgetary provision for the  obligatory duties for works falling under S. 112 of the Act.  The public  latrines on the site were so  constructed about 30 years back.  After the houses surrounging the site were all equipped with private latrines, there was no longer any need for the  corporation to have allowed the continuance of the public latrine which was not serving  the purpose for which it was originally constructed the corporation had, therefore, every right to remove the public latrine and the petitioners have no right to have the  public latrine maintained by the corporation.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Judge observed:\n<\/p>\n
  “It may even be conceivable that in the course of time these public latrines would not serve the purpose of the residents for whose  convenience they have been once constructed.  In all these  conceivable cases the Municipal corporation might enjoy power to remove these public latrines and use the land for  any other alternative municipal purposes.  But in this case I do not find any finding  that these latrines are no longer required by the  residents  of  that  area. In the  absence of such a finding. I hold that the  Municipal corporation cannot  remove the latrines”.\n<\/p>\n
We have been taken  through the correspondence. Such  correspondence left no doubt whatsoever that the  public latrine was no longer serving the  purpose for which it was originally constructed.  There need not be any resolution of the corporation authorising  the removal  of  the  public  latrine.  We cannot also approve the  observation made by the  learned Judge that the corporation can use its land for only an alternative municipal purpose.  When  the statute gives express power tot he corporation to transfer the property courts cannot  interfere with the  exercise of such right by imposing any restrictions by way of requiring the  corporation to use such property only for  an alternative  municipal purpose. Mr Bakshi has submitted that  in the  begining  the special officer proceeded on the  basis that the  land  was being  used  only  at a later  point  of time  that the file was prepared to  make it  appear that the public  latrine fell into disuse.  These are disputed questions of fact which this Court cannot determine in  exercise of its writ  Jurisdiction Going by the records and the counters filed in the case we have to proceed on the basis  that  the  public latrines fell into disuse and  were not serving   the  needs of the  neighbouring  residents.  The major extent of the  site was being  misused by the  neighbouring residents as a dumping ground and such user of the property was proving a  health hazard for the  neighbouring  residents.  The corporation is, therefore within  its rights to have decided the  transfer in favour of the school.\n<\/p>\n
9.  Mr. Balakrishna Murthy has also questioned the standing of the  writ  petitioners to have invoked the writ  Jurisdiction of this   Court.  The learned Judge rejected this contention.  As  neighbouting residents  of the  locality, the  writ petitioners have the required standing for invoking the writ  jurisdiction of  this  Court.  It is  enough if reference is made to Warangal chamber of commerce v. Director of Marketing  and G.P.  Gupta v. Union of India, .  In the  former  of the  cases, a Division Bench of this  Court observed  (at p. 248):\n<\/p>\n
  “Restrictive rules about  locus standi are in general inimical to a fair and healthy system of administration.  That does not  mean that courts should  trespass on the  work and fast development of the Government to bring  large-scale  social and economic changes.  The  passivity in the general  run of men is wanning indeed a good trend.  Where  there  was resignation and  acquiescense before  fate now there  is a growing activity and aspiration for a full development of a better society.  Therefore, courts should view with liberality the question of stading to  maintain a writ  petition.  Even a member of the public  who has  sufficient interest  in the  fit  matter should be accorded locus standi to approach the Court for relief.  No more restriction should be placed on what constitutes sufficient interest to see that administrative authorities Act in accordance with law and natural justice.  It is not possible to (discover?)   and formulate any hard and fast rules for this  problem of locus standi.  It ultimately resolves itself  to one of  discretion to be exercised in each case on the facts and circumstances of  that case”.\n<\/p>\n
In the later case the Supreme Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
  “a rate-payer of a local authority is accorded standing to challenge an illegal  action of the local  authority……….But  we must hasten to make  it clear that the  individual who moves the Court for  judicial redress in cases of this kind  must be acting   bona fide with a view  to vindicating the cause of justice and if he is  acting for personal gain or  private profit or out of  political motivation or other oblique consideration, the  Court should not allow itself to be activised at the instance of such person and must  reject his application at the threshold……….We may also point out that  as a matter of prudence and  not as a rule  of law, the  Court  may confine this strategic exervise of Jurisdiction to cases  where legal wrong or legal  injury is caused  to a determinate class or group of persons or the  constitutional or legal right  of such determinate class or group  of  persons  is  violated and  as far as  possible not  entertain cases  as  far as possible, not entertain cases of individual wrong  or injury  at  the instance of a third  party, where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases”.\n<\/p>\n
The writ  petitioners were  making  some use of  the  vacant site.  May be such  use was unauthorised and the corporation could  effectively interfere  to avoid such unauthorised use.  Even so the writ  petitioners have the  needed standing to have moved this Court. We are not persuaded to hold that the writ petitioners were activised by Buchaiah was interested only in a part of the  land he  had encroached upon.  He was not asserting any rights over the property which he had not encroached upon.  The writ  petitioners  have their own sense of grievance over the action  of the Municipal  corporation proposing  to  transfer the property in favour of the school.  Such  sense of grievance which is bona  fide shared by the  writ  petitionrs gives them the standing to have invoked the writ jurisdiction of  this  Court.  We are  satisfied that the  writ petitioners have not  acted with any oblique motive to voice the grievance of Buchaiah.  They have acted to express their own felt grievance.  We accordingly reject this submission.\n<\/p>\n
10.  Certain allegations have been made in the writ   petition against Brij Raj prasad, the  Honorary correspondent of the school and certain  apprehensions  that the school would  alienate away the  site have been expressed. The  proposed alienation is in favour of the school and  not  in favour of Brij  Raj  pershad  in his  individual capacity.  Brij Raj pershad in his individual  capacity.  Brij Raj pershad was only acting  in his capacity as honorary correspondent of the school.  He is  not by   this  transaction trying to enrich himself section 53  of the  A.P. Education Act, 1981  provided for the  prohibition of transfer of lands and buildings by education institutions without the  permission from Government  in certain cases.  Such permission of the Government is required in cases where the  property of the school has been acquired, constructed, improved or altered with the aid of any grant  made from the  state funds or if any land  or building has been transferred by the  corporation it is possible for the school authorities to contend that  prior permission of the  Government for making  a transfer is  not required.  It is stated by Mr. Balakrishna Murthy that the  school  authorities are agreeable to have a condition incorporated in the sale  deed that the land would  be reconveyed in favour of the corporation  if at any time  the  school  authorities want to alienate the property  Under R. 5 of the Municipal corporation of  Hyderabad (Acquisition and disposal of  Immoveable property) Rules 1970  it is open  to the  corporation to execute the sale  deed in  the prescribed form with such  variations as the  circumstances may require.  It is therefor for the  corporation and the  school authorities to agree upon the  necessary reconveyance clause to be provided for in the deed of transfer to be executed by the corporation in favour  of the  school.\n<\/p>\n
11.  In view of our  conclusion that the  proposed transfer does not  suffer from any vice, the impugned proceedings of the special officer are upheld  as valid.  We accordingly set aside the order of our learned brother and allow  the appeal, dismissing W.P. No. 3968  of 1982.  The parties, in the circumstances, are  directed to bear thier  respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
12. Appeal  allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court Briji Raj Pershad vs Rama Seethamma And Ors. on 5 November, 1982 Equivalent citations: AIR 1983 AP 118 Author: P R Raju Bench: C Reddi, R Raju JUDGMENT P. Ramachandra Raju, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the Judgment of our learned brother P.A. Choudary, J. Allowing W.P. No. 3968 […]<\/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":[10,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-149407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-andhra-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBriji Raj Pershad vs Rama Seethamma And Ors. on 5 November, 1982 - 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\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Briji Raj Pershad vs Rama Seethamma And Ors. on 5 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982\" \/>\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=\"1982-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-29T08:24:37+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Briji Raj Pershad vs Rama Seethamma And Ors. on 5 November, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-29T08:24:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982\"},\"wordCount\":4328,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Andhra High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982\",\"name\":\"Briji Raj Pershad vs Rama Seethamma And Ors. on 5 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-29T08:24:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Briji Raj Pershad vs Rama Seethamma And Ors. on 5 November, 1982\"}]},{\"@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":"Briji Raj Pershad vs Rama Seethamma And Ors. on 5 November, 1982 - 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\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Briji Raj Pershad vs Rama Seethamma And Ors. on 5 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-29T08:24:37+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Briji Raj Pershad vs Rama Seethamma And Ors. on 5 November, 1982","datePublished":"1982-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-29T08:24:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982"},"wordCount":4328,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Andhra High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982","name":"Briji Raj Pershad vs Rama Seethamma And Ors. on 5 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-29T08:24:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/briji-raj-pershad-vs-rama-seethamma-and-ors-on-5-november-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Briji Raj Pershad vs Rama Seethamma And Ors. on 5 November, 1982"}]},{"@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\/149407","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=149407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}