{"id":152818,"date":"1998-04-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-04-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998"},"modified":"2017-09-26T08:48:53","modified_gmt":"2017-09-26T03:18:53","slug":"nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998","title":{"rendered":"Nagulapati Lakshmamma vs Mupparaju Subbaiah on 15 April, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Nagulapati Lakshmamma vs Mupparaju Subbaiah on 15 April, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: Srinivasan<\/div>\n
Bench: G.N. Ray, M. Srinivasan<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNAGULAPATI LAKSHMAMMA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMUPPARAJU SUBBAIAH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t15\/04\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nG.N. RAY, M. SRINIVASAN\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nSRINIVASAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  herein is  one of  the four daughters of
\nMadamanchi Velugondaiah\t who had  no son.  He died  in\t1946
\nleaving his widow Punnamma and three daughters as his eldest
\ndaughter  had\tpredeceased  him   leaving   one   daughter.
\nVelugondaiah had  left several properties some of which were
\ndealt with  by Punnamma\t by execution  of settlement  deeds.
\nDispute arose  between the  parties resulting in three suits
\nO.S. Nos.  186\/71 and  52.75 on\t the file of the subordinate
\nJudge, Ongole. The appellant was the first defendant in O.S.
\n186  and  187\/71  and  plaintiff  in  O.S.  No.\t 52\/75.\t The
\nrespondent who\twas  the  son  of  the\tsecond\tdaughter  of
\nVelugondaiah was  the second  plaintiff in  the two suits of
\n1971 and  the only  defendant in  the suit of 1975. Punnamma
\nwho was\t the first  plaintiff in  the two suits of 1971 died
\nduring the  pendency thereof and the respondent was recorded
\nas  her legal representative.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Though several  issues were raised in the suits, we are
\nconcerned only with one of them which was the pivotal issue.
\nAccording to  the appellant  Velugondaiah executed a will on
\n2.7.45 bequeathing  his properties  in a  particular manner.
\nThe genuineness of the will was challenged by the respondent
\nand Punnamma.  The Subordinate\tJudge held that the will was
\nproved by  the appellant  to be\t true  and  valid.  On\tthat
\nfooting the  suits were\t disposed of by grant of appropriate
\nreliefs. On  appeals, the  District Judge,  Ongole concurred
\nwith the  Subordinate Judge  and  dismissed  the  same.\t The
\nmatter was  taken in  second appeals  to the  High Court  of
\nAndhra Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
3.   At this  stage, it is better to advert to the following
\nundisputed facts. The will purports to have been attested by
\nfive persons.  Two of  them had\t signed. The other three had
\nnot affixed  their thump  impressions or made any mark. They
\nhave been described as `Nishanis’. It is also written in the
\nwill as\t against their names “LTI mark of ….” though there
\nis no  thumb impression\t or mark  actually. Out\t of the\t two
\nattestors who had signed, one was dead and the other was not
\nexamined though\t admittedly alive.  One of the three persons
\ndescribed as “Nishanis”, namely, Kondaiah son of Madhumanchi
\nNarayya was  examined as DW 2. Admittedly he had not affixed
\nhis thumb impression or made any mark on the will. While the
\nSubordinate Judge  and the  District Judge treated him as an
\nattesting witness  and believing  him held  the will  to  be
\nproved, the  High Court\t held that he was not an attestor in
\nthe eye of law and his evidence could not prove the will. It
\nis also\t worthwhile extracting\tthe following passage in the
\njudgment of the High Court:\n<\/p>\n
     “…It is\tno dout\t true that  both
\n     the  Courts   have\t  accepted   the
\n     evidence of  DW 2\twho said that he
\n     attested the will. Beyond that DW 2
\n     does not  say anything. He does not
\n     mention the person, who has written
\n     his name.\tHe stated  in the cross-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     examination that  nobody asked  him
\n     to put  his thumb impression and he
\n     was   asked    by\t  one\t Karanam
\n     Venkatappaiah to  touch the pen. He
\n     does not  even say\t who  wrote  his
\n     name. Karanam  Venkatappaiah is not
\n     even  the\t scribe.  There\t  is  no
\n     evidence that  his name was written
\n     at\t his   instance\t or   under  his
\n     direction or  in his  presence. The
\n     observation of  t he  Courts  below
\n     that his  name was\t written by  the
\n     scribe at\this instance is an error
\n     apparent  on   the\t face\tof   the
\n     record..”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On the\taforesaid reasoning,  the High\tCourt held  that the
\nwill was  not proved  as required  by law  and\tallowed\t the
\nsecond appeals,\t setting aside\tthe  judgments\tand  decrees
\npassed by the Courts below.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Aggrieved thereby,\t the appellant\thas approached\tthis
\nCourt. The  only contention urged by the appellant’s learned
\ncounsel is  that DW  2 is an attesting witness in as much as
\nthe scribe had on his directions written “L.T.I. of Kondaiah
\nson of\tMadhumanchi Narayya”.  According to  her, DW  2\t had
\nthereby `signed’  in the will as an attestor. She has placed
\nreliance on  the definition of the word `signed’ in Stroud’s
\nJudicial Dictionary and drawn our attention to the decisions
\nof some High Courts.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Thus the question of law which arises for consideration
\nis whether  a person  who has not himself signed or made any
\nmark on\t a will\t can be\t said to  be an attesting witness if
\nanother person\ton his authority or direction signs or makes
\na mark\tor writes  his name  on his behalf. Before examining
\nthe relevant provisions of law and the decisions of the High
\nCourts, we  would like\tto place  on  record  that  we\thave
\nperused the  deposition of  DW 2  and  we  are\tentirely  in
\nagreement with\tthe observations of the High Court contained
\nin the passage extracted earlier. The High Court has stopped
\nshort of  giving a factual finding that DW 2 was not present
\nat the\ttime of the execution of the will. Probably the High
\nCourt hesitated\t to do\tso as it was dealing with the matter
\nin its\tsecond appellate stage. Hence the High Court was and
\nwe are\tnow obliged  to consider  and decide the question of
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Section 68\t of the\t Indian\t Evidence  Act\tenjoins\t the
\ncalling of at least one attesting witness for the purpose of
\nproving execution  of a\t will.\tSection\t 63  of\t the  Indian
\nSuccession Act\twhich prescribes how an unprivileged will is
\nto be executed reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     63.   Execution   of   unprivileged
\n     wills. –  Every testator, not being
\n     a soldier employed in an expedition
\n     or engaged\t in actual  warfare, (or
\n     an airman\tso employed or engaged,)
\n     or a  mariner at sea, shall execute
\n     his will according to the following
\n     rules:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) The testator shall sign or
\n     shall affix  his mark  to the will,
\n     or it shall be signed by some other
\n     person in\this presence  and by his
\n     direction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) The  signature or\t mark of
\n     the testator,  or the  signature of
\n     the person\t signing for  him, shall
\n     be so  placed that\t it shall appear
\n     that  intended   thereby  to   give
\n     effect to the writing as a will.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c) The will shall be attested
\n     by two  or more  witnesses, each of
\n     whom has  seen the testator sign or
\n     affix his\tmark to\t to the\t will or
\n     has seen some other person sign the
\n     will, in  the presence  and by  the
\n     direction of  the presence\t and  by
\n     the direction  of the  testator, or
\n     has  received   from   testator   a
\n     personal  acknowledgment\tof   his
\n     signature\tor   mark,  or\t of  the
\n     signature of such other person; and
\n     each of  the witnesses  shall  sign
\n     the  will\t in  the   presence   of
\n     testator,\tbut   it  shall\t not  be
\n     necessary\tthat   more   than   one
\n     witness  be  present  at  the  same
\n     time, and\tno  particular\tform  of
\n     attestation shall be necessary.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.   The  Section  makes  a  vital  distinction\t between  the
\ntestator and the attestors in the matter of signing the will.
\nThe testator  may sign\tor affix  his mark  himself or direct
\nsome other  person to  sign in\this presence.  The reason for
\nsuch a\tprovision is  quite obvious.  Many a time, people who
\nare desirious  of making  testamentary\tdispositions  may  be
\nphysically incapacitated from signing their names or affixing
\ntheir marks  on account\t of illness  or\t other\tcauses.\t Such
\npersons\t should not be deprived of an opportunity of making a
\nwill. Such  persons can\t instead of signing or affixing their
\nmarks themselves  can direct  some other  person to  sign  in
\ntheir presence. But in the case of attestors such an enabling
\nprovision is  absent. The  section expressly states that each
\nof the\twitness shall  sign the\t will in  the presence of the
\ntestator. The privilege or power of delegation, if we may say
\nso, is\tnot available  to the  attesting witnesses  under the
\nsection. When  the same section makes a distinction expressly
\nbetween a  testator and\t an attestor  it is  not possible  to
\naccept the  contention that  an attestor can also direct some
\nother person  to sign  or make\ta mark\tof his\tbehalf. If  a
\nwitness to  the execution of the will chooses to do so, he is
\nnot an attesting witness as there is no attestation by him as
\ncontemplated by\t Section 63(c)\tof the Indian Succession Act.
\nConsequently, he  will not  be an  attesting witness  for the
\npurpose of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
8.   According to  learned counsel  for\t appellant  the\t word
\n`sign’ occurring in the last part of Section 63(c) would mean
\n“sign his  name or affix his mark himself or get it signed by
\nsome other  person in  his presence any by his direction.” In
\nsupport of  this argument,  reliance is\t placed\t on  Stroud’s
\nJudicial Dictionary.  At Pages\t2431 and 2432 Vol. 5 of Fifth
\nDen., the word “signed” is defined as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     Signed;  Signature.   (1)\tSpeaking
\n     generally,\t a   signature\tis   the
\n     writing, or  otherwise affixing,  a
\n     person’s  name,   or  a   mark   to
\n     represent his  name, by  himself or
\n     by\t  his\tauthority   (R.V.   Kent
\n     Justices L.R.  8 Q.B. 305) with the
\n     intention\t of   authenticating   a
\n     document as  being that  of, or  as
\n     binding on,  the person  whose name
\n     or mark  is so  written or affixed.
\n     In\t Morton\t V.  Copeland  (16  C.B.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     535), Maule  J.,  said,  “Signature
\n     does not, necessarily, mean writing
\n     a person’s\t Christian and\tsurname,
\n     but any mark which identifies it as
\n     the act  of  the  party.”\tbut  the
\n     reporter adds  in a note, “provided
\n     it be  proved  or\tadmitted  to  be
\n     genuine, and be the accustomed mode
\n     of signature of the party.” Without
\n     more, “to\tsing” is not the same as
\n     “to subscribe.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2) The  minute requisite of a
\n     signature will  very  according  to
\n     the  nature  of  the  documents  to
\n     which it is affixed, e.g.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) Deeds;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) Wills”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) Contracts;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)   Bills    of\t exchange    and
\n\t  promissory notes;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (e) Solicitors’ bills;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (f) Electioneering paper;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (g) Judge’s orders and legal
\n\t  proceedings;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (h) Office copies
\n     and “in  every case where a statute
\n     requires a\t particular document  to
\n     be signed\tby a  particular person,
\n     it must  be a  pure question on the
\n     construction of the statute whether
\n     the  signature   by  an   agent  is
\n     sufficient:  (per\tBowen  L.J.,  Re
\n     Whitley 32 Ch. D. 337).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.   We are  unable to accept the argument. When there is an
\nexpress statutory  provision in\t this regard, the definition
\ncontained in  the Judicial  Dictionary cannot  be invoked by
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
10.  In some  case decided  before the advent of the General
\nClauses Act, 1897 some High Courts took the view that it was
\nnecessary for  the  validity  of  a  will  that\t the  actual
\nsignature, as  distinguished from  a mere  mark, of at least
\ntwo attesting  witnesses should\t appear on  the face  of the
\nwill. See D. Fernandez versus R. Alves ILR 3 Bombay, 382 and
\nNitye Gopal  Sircar versus Nagendra Nath Mitter Mozumdar ILR
\n11 Calcutta,  429. The\tGeneral Clauses\t Act which came into
\nforce in  1898 contained  a definition of the word `sign’ in
\nSection\t 3   (56)  thereof  as\tfollows:  “sign”,  with\t its
\ngrammatical variations\tand cognate expressions, shall, with
\nreference to  a person\twho is\tunable to  write  his  name,
\ninclude “mark”\twith its  grammatical variations anc cognate
\nexpressions;”. But  even thereafter,  in a  case which arose
\nunder a\t Transfer of  Property Act,  a single  Judge of\t the
\nMadras High  Court held\t in Venkataramayya and others versus
\nNagamma, A.I.R.\t 1932 Madras 272 that a mark by an attesting
\nwitness although valid at the date of execution of a deed of
\ngift made  in 1912 should be held to b e inoperative in view
\nof the\tlaw as\tamended on the point by Act 27 of 1926 which
\nwas expressly  made retrospective  in  effect.\tThe  learned
\nJudge referred\tto the\tdefinition of the word `attested’ in
\nSection 3  of the  Transfer of Property Act and held that in
\nas  much   as  the  witnesses  were  required  to  sign\t the
\ninstrument it  was not sufficient if they made their mark or
\naffixed their  thumb impression.  It has  to be\t pointed out
\nthat the  definition of\t the word  `attested’  contained  in
\nSection 3  of the  Transfer of\tProperty  Act  is  almost  a
\nverbatim reproduction  of sub-section  (c) of  Section 63 of
\nthe Indian  Succession Act.  However  the  judgment  of\t the
\nlearned single\tJudge referred\tto  above  was\treversed  on
\nappeal by  a Division Bench in Nagamma versus Venkataramayya
\nand others  A.I.R. 1935\t Madras 178(2).\t The Bench held that
\nthe the\t definition of\t`sign’ in  General Clauses Act would
\napply and  therefore the  word `sign’  in Section  3 of\t the
\nTransfer of  Property  Act  included  also  a  mark  by\t the
\nattestor.\n<\/p>\n
11.  A single  Judge of\t the Calcutta  High  Court  held  in
\nRajani Mandal  versus  Digindra\t Mohan\tBiswas\tA.I.R.\t1932
\nCalcutta 440  that in  Bengal there was a customary practice
\namong illiterate  persons to  sign documents by touching the
\npen and\t authorising another person to sign by writing their
\nname  for   them  in   their  presence,\t  and  therefore  an
\nendorsement of\tpayment of  interest made  by the scribe and
\nalso  signed  by  him  on  behalf  of  the  debtor  who\t was
\nilliterate  and\t  made\tno  mark  beneath  the\tendorsement,
\namounted to  acknowledgement of\t payment of  interest by the
\ndebtor within  the meaning  of Section\t20 of the Limitation
\nAct (1908). It is not necessary in this case to consider the
\ncorrectness of that judgment.\n<\/p>\n
12.  A Full  Bench of  the Allahabad  High Court  upheld the
\nvalidity of  `attestation’ of  a will when it found that the
\nattesting witnesses  had affixed their marks. The Full Bench
\nagreed with  the view expressed by the Division Bench of the
\nMadras High Court in Nagamma versus Venkatramayya and others
\nAIR 1935 Madras 178 (2) referred to earlier.\n<\/p>\n
13.  The Bombay\t High Court  took a  similar  view  in\tAnnu
\nBhujanga Chigare  versus Rama  Bhujanga Chigare\t A.I.R. 1937
\nBombay 389  and held  that a will was validly attested if an
\nilliterate attesting witness made a thumb impression on it.\n<\/p>\n
14.  Our attention  has been drawn to two judgments of Patna
\nHigh Court  which arose\t under the Transfer of Property Act.
\nIn Dahu\t and another  versus Jamadar  Rai and  others A.I.R.
\n1951 Patna  368, the  court held  that when  one of  the two
\nattesting witnesses to a mortgage signs for himself and also
\non behalf  of the  other at his instance and in his presence
\nthe signature  would ba\t good signature,  though no  mark is
\naffixed by the other witness and the mortgage, therefore, is
\nvalid as  duly attested.  The Division Bench referred to the
\njudgment of  the Bombay High Court in D. Fernandez versus R.
\nAlves I.L.R.  3 Bombay\t382 and\t the Calcutta  High Court in
\nNitye Gopal  Sircar versus  Nagendra  Nath  Mitter  Mozumdar
\nI.L.R.\t11  Calcutta  429  and\tobserved,  “obviously  other
\nconsideration arise  with regard tot he Transfer of Property
\nAct.” Though  the language  in Section\t3 of the Transfer of
\nProperty Act  in the definition of `attested’ is the same as
\nlanguage in  Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, it
\nmight be possible to make a distinction between testamentary
\nand non-testamentary  instruments. It might also be possible
\nto contend  that Section  63 of\t the Indian  Succession\t Act
\ndeals with  both `execution’ and `attestation’ of a will and
\nit should  be interpreted  in a\t particular  manner  whereas
\nSection 3  of the  Transfer of Property Act defines only the
\nexpression `attested’ and it does not deal with execution as
\nsuch. In our opinion, it is not necessary for us to consider
\nwhether\t a  distinction\t can  be  maintained  between  cases
\narising under the Transfer of Property Act and cases arising
\nunder the Indian Succession Act. The ruling in the aforesaid
\ncase has  no application in the present matter in as much as
\nthe  Division\tBench  has   expressly\topined\t that  other
\nconsiderations arise  with regard  to Transfer\tof  Property
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
15.  The other\tdecision of  the  Patna\t High  Court  is  in
\nBishwanath Raut\t and others  versus Babu Ram Ratan Singh And
\nothers A.I.R. 1957 Patna 485. That case related to a deed of
\ngift. The  Division Bench  held that  a\t document  can\tb  e
\nattested by  illiterate person by a signature affixed by the
\nscribe. Though\tthe Division  Bench referred  to the earlier
\ncases, it  failed to take note of the principle thereof. The
\nBench referred\tto the\tFull Bench decision of the Allahabad
\nHigh Court in Maikoo Lal and another versus Santoo, Objector
\nand  others   A.I.R.  1936  Allahabad  576  and\t erroneously
\npurported to  follow it. The Division Bench over looked that
\nthe Allahabad Full Bench dealt with the case of a will under
\nthe provisions\tof the\tIndian Succession  Act and  had only
\nruled that the affixing of a mark by the `attestor’ would be
\nsufficient  for\t  the  purpose\tof  valid  attestation.\t The
\nDivision  Bench\t  did  not  also  correctly  understand\t the
\ndecisions in  D. Fernandez versus R. Alves I.L.R. III Bombay
\n382 and\t Nitye Gopal  Sircar  versus  Nagendra\tNath  Mitter
\nMozumdar I.L.R. 11 Calcutta 429.\n<\/p>\n
16.  A single  Judge of the Patna High Court had occasion to
\nconsider a  case under the Indian Succession Act in Kawaldeo
\nSingh and  another versus Hari Prasad Singh and another 1962
\nBLJR 939.  The learned\tJudge held  that it is not necessary
\nthat an\t attesting witness must either sign himself or put a
\nthumb mark  on the document and if a third person has signed
\non his\tbehalf, the  attestation is valid. The learned Judge
\nhas not\t referred to  any  prior  ruling  or  discussed\t the
\nquestion in  any manner.  He has  not even  adverted to\t the
\nlanguage of  Section 63(c)  of the Indian Succession Act. He
\nhas proceeded as if the proposition is axiomatic. We have no
\nhesitation to  hold that  the said judgment is erroneous and
\nnot good law.\n<\/p>\n
17.  Though there is no direct decision of this court on the
\nabove question,\t the ruling  of the  Constitution  Bench  in
\nCommissioner of\t Agriculture Income  Tax  Act,\tWest  Bengal
\nversus Keshab  Chandra Mandal  A.I.R.  1950  S.C.  265\twill
\ngovern the  situation. The  question   before the  court was
\nwhether the  declaration in  the form  of  return  submitted
\nunder Bengal  Agricultural  Income-tax\tAct  which  was\t not
\nsigned by  the assessee\t himself who  was an  illiterate but
\nsigned by his son should be treated as properly signed and a
\nvalid return.  The High\t Court answered\t the question in the
\naffirmative. That  was challenged  by  the  Commissioner  of
\nAgricultural Income-tax\t in this  Court. It  was found\tthat
\nthere was  no physical\tcontact between the assessee and the
\nsignature appearing  on the  return. This court answered the
\nquestion in  the negative  and reversed\t the judgment of the
\nHigh Court by holding that if on a construction of a statute
\nsignature by  an agent\tis not\tfound permissible  then\t the
\nwriting of  the name  of the  principal by the agent however
\nclearly he  may have been authorised by the principal cannot
\npossible be  regarded as  the signature of the principal for
\nthe purposes of that statute. The court rejected an argument
\nof hardship  or inconvenience  and observed that hardship or
\ninconvenience cannot  alter  the  meaning  of  the  language
\nemployed by  the legislature  when such\t meaning is clear on
\nthe face  of the statute or the rules. It is advantageous to
\nquote the following passage which is instructive:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It is  quite true  that  when
\n     signature\t by    an    agent    is
\n     permissible,  the\twriting\t of  the
\n     name of  the principal by the agent
\n     is regarded as the signature of the
\n     principal himself.\t But this result
\n     only follows when it is permissible
\n     for the  agent to\tsign the name of
\n     the principal. It on a construction
\n     of a  statute signature by an agent
\n     is not  found permissible\tthen the
\n     writing  of   the\t name\tof   the
\n     principal\tby   the  agent\t however
\n     clearly he may have been authorised
\n     by the principal cannot possibly be
\n     regarded as  the signature\t of  the
\n     principal for  the purposes of that
\n     statute.  If   a  statute\trequires
\n     personal  signature  of  a\t person,
\n     which   includes\t a   mark,   the
\n     signature or  the mark must be that
\n     of the  man himself.  There must be
\n     physical\tcontact\t  between   that
\n     person and\t the  signature\t or  the
\n     mark put on the document.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
18.  With great\t respect, we  adopt the\t aforesaid reasoning
\nand hold  that for  the purpose\t of valid  attestation under
\nSection 63  of the  Indian Succession  Act it  is absolutely
\nnecessary that\tthe attesting  witness should either sign or
\naffix his  thumb impression  or mark  himself as the Section
\ndoes not  permit  an  attesting\t witness  to  delegate\tthat
\nfunction to  another. It follows that in the present case DW
\n2 is  not an  attesting witness\t and in\t the absence  of the
\nevidence of  any other attesting witness the decision of the
\nHigh Court that the will propounded by the appellant has not
\nbeen proved  is unassailable. Hence the appeals fail and are
\ndismissed. As  the parties  are closely\t related, we  direct
\nthem to bear their respective costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Nagulapati Lakshmamma vs Mupparaju Subbaiah on 15 April, 1998 Author: Srinivasan Bench: G.N. Ray, M. Srinivasan PETITIONER: NAGULAPATI LAKSHMAMMA Vs. RESPONDENT: MUPPARAJU SUBBAIAH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/04\/1998 BENCH: G.N. RAY, M. SRINIVASAN ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T SRINIVASAN, J. The appellant herein is one of […]<\/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-152818","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNagulapati Lakshmamma vs Mupparaju Subbaiah on 15 April, 1998 - 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\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nagulapati Lakshmamma vs Mupparaju Subbaiah on 15 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-26T03:18:53+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nagulapati Lakshmamma vs Mupparaju Subbaiah on 15 April, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-26T03:18:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998\"},\"wordCount\":3442,\"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\\\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998\",\"name\":\"Nagulapati Lakshmamma vs Mupparaju Subbaiah on 15 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-26T03:18:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nagulapati Lakshmamma vs Mupparaju Subbaiah on 15 April, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Nagulapati Lakshmamma vs Mupparaju Subbaiah on 15 April, 1998 - 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\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nagulapati Lakshmamma vs Mupparaju Subbaiah on 15 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-26T03:18:53+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nagulapati Lakshmamma vs Mupparaju Subbaiah on 15 April, 1998","datePublished":"1998-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-26T03:18:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998"},"wordCount":3442,"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\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998","name":"Nagulapati Lakshmamma vs Mupparaju Subbaiah on 15 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-26T03:18:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagulapati-lakshmamma-vs-mupparaju-subbaiah-on-15-april-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nagulapati Lakshmamma vs Mupparaju Subbaiah on 15 April, 1998"}]},{"@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\/152818","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=152818"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152818\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152818"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152818"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152818"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}