{"id":159589,"date":"1968-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968"},"modified":"2018-11-10T09:53:08","modified_gmt":"2018-11-10T04:23:08","slug":"thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968","title":{"rendered":"Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma vs Mulkluri Murlidahar Rao And Ors. on 2 September, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court<\/div>\n
Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma vs Mulkluri Murlidahar Rao And Ors. on 2 September, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1970 AP 194<\/div>\n
Bench: C Reddy<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
 1. The  4th  defendant in O.  S.  No. 305\/1967   on the file of the Court of District  Munsif of Narasaraopet in Guntur  District seeks a transfer of the suit to the  Court of  District Munsif of Bodhan  in Nizamabad District.  The suit is laid by  the plaintiff for a permanent injunction restraining the several defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s enjoyment of the properties mentioned in the A,  B,  and C  schedulers annexed to the plaint.   A schedule properties are lands situated in Jakora  village in Nizamabad District while  B  and  C  schedule properties are a house and house site situated in Mulakalur and Chimalamani  in Guntur  District.   The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to all the properties as the  heir of his adoptive father Kutumba  Rao,  as also under a will executed by the said  Kutumba Rao.  Defendants 1 to  4 are stated  to be residents of Sri  Nagar in Nizamabad District while defendants 5  and  6  are residents of Mulakalur in Guntur  District.   A  single  suit is laid in respect of all the properties and against  all  the defendants by making the  vague allegation “All  the defendants conspired together and with a common unlawful  intention are trying  to cause  obstruction to the enjoyment of the plaintiff of his properties.”\n<\/p>\n
      2.  The fourth  defendant has filed a written statement  claiming that 'A'  scheduler  properties belong to her and are in her   possession and enjoyment.  She alleges that the  5th and 6th defendants have no interest in any of the suit properties, that they are friends of the plaintiff and that they are  impleaded in the suit merely to invest the Varasaraopet Court with jurisdiction.     It is stated in Para 4 of the  written statement:\n\n  \"4.  He filed this suit with  false and frivolous allegations by adding b  and C schedule undisputed properties and adding defendant 5  and 6,  his own friends with a view  to create jurisdiction to this Court, and with  ulterior object of putting defendants  1  to  4  to great    inconvenience.   The  real dispute relates to A  schedule properties which are situated in Banswada Taluk of Nizamabad  district.  So this Court cannot have territorial jurisdictin to try this suit.\"\n\n \n\nIn Para.  8  it is stated :\n\n  \"This Court will not  have pecuniary and territorial  jurisdiction also.\"\n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
   3.   The fourth defendant has filed the present application for transfer contending the since the A  schedurle proeperties are situated in Nizambaddistrict and the suit is one for a permanent injunction,  cnvenience of parties and witnessess requires that it should  be tried in  the Court of District Munsif, Bodhan.  It is averred that thesuit is laid in the Court at Narasaraopet only for the purpose of harassing the petitioner.   It is also stated that defendants  5  and  6  are not really interested in the plaint  ‘B’  and ‘C’  schedule  properties  and that they have been impleaded in the suit and  ‘B’   and ‘C’  schedule properties have been included not because of any dispute but merely to invest the Narasarappet  Court with jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   The application is  opposed by the plaintiff and defendants 5  and  6,    Curiously  enough,  the plaintiff in his  affidavit  states  that defendants 5  and  6  are interested  in ‘B’   and ‘C’  schedule properties.  Plaintiff also  claims tht since he is relying on a wil  executed in his favour at Mulakalur it is  necessary to examine several  witnesess from Mulakalure and therfore convenience requires that thesut shoudl be  tried in  Guntur  District.  he also claims that  as arbiter litis  the choice of forum is his.\n<\/p>\n
      5.  Sri.  A. V. Krishna Rao, learned Counsel for the plaintiff also raises a preliminary  objection that the    application under Sec.  24   is not  maintainable at the instance of the  petitioner who has raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction  of the  District Munisifs  Cort,  Narasaraopet.  he  contends that Section  24  empowers the High  court or the  District  Court to transfer a case from one  competent Court to another competent  Court,  but  does not  empower the High  Court  or the district Court to transfer a suit instituted in a Court which has  no jurisdiction to entertain it.  He  submits that the defendant having raised an objection to the competency of the District Munsifs  Court,  Narasaaopet to entertain the suit,  he cannot now seek a transfer of thesut from  that Court to a cometent Court.   He relies  upon  the  well known case of Ledgard  v.  Bull,  (1885)  13 Ind App  134  (PC),  Peary  Lall Mazoomdar  v.  Komal Kishore  Dassia,   (1881)  ILR  6  Cal  30,  Gangumal v.  Nanikaram,  AIR  1932  Sind  215;  Kanhaiya  Lal  v.  Hamid  Ali,  AIR 1940  Ough  164  and  Krishnaji  Rao  v.  Gokulda,  AIR  1955  Mys  115.\n<\/p>\n
    The  facts in (1885)  13  Ind  APP  134  (PC),  were tht the plaintiff instituted a suit in the Corut of a Subordinate Judge for   damages for an alleged infringment of certain exclusive rights secured to him by three  Indian  kpatents.  S.  22  of the Patents Act expressly provided that such  a sut could be  laid only in the Court of the District   Judge.   The defendant filed a written statement  objecting to the jurisdiction of the Subordinate  Judge to entertain the suit.  Realising  that the Court of Subordinate  Judge had  no jurisdiction to  entertain or try the suit  the plaintiff made an application to the  District Court,  in which the defendnt  also  jointed to transfer the  suit to the file ofthe District Court.   The District Court accordingly transferred the suit to its own   file  and tried it.   Their Lordships  of the privy Council  held that the first  essentiall  step  for the maintenance of a sut was its  due instituion and as the sut couldnot be  duly instituted in the Court of Subordinate  Judge,  the transference   of the sut to the  District  Court was equally incompetent.   Their Lordships  also pointed out that the  parties could not by their mutual  consent convert an incomepetent suit into a proper  judicial  process.  Ths  case  is really of no assistance because it was a case where  the lack of jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge  to entertain the suit was  patent and admitted and the order of transfer was  itself made  to get ever  the plea  of jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    In  (1881)  ILR  6 Cal  30,  an appeal was filed inadvertently in the Court which had no jurisdiction to entertain it, but where it could more conveniently be hear.  When  it was realised that the Court had no jurisdiction to her the appeal the appellant  filed an application in the High Court  to issue a rule authorising the Court to hear  the  appeal.   The learned Judges of the Calcutta  High  Court held   that  they had no power to authorise any Court to assume  jurisdiction to receive and hear an appeal  contrary to the usual course prescribed by  the Code.   They  observed that they had  power under Section  25 of the Code of Civil  Procedure to direct the transfer  of an appeal   only from  a  Corut having jurisdiction  to receive  and try it.   The learned Judge   did not lay down the propositions that as  soon as an objection is raised regarding the  jurisdiction of  a Court to try a suit no application for transfer of the suit from that  Court  is competent.   This case  also is of no assistance to the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
    In AIR   1940  Oudh  164, there is nothing  in the judgment to support the contention of the plaintiff in the present case.  In  fact the present question never arose there as  the suit had gone to trial  without objection.   The  observations “we  are therefore of opinion  that so far as Section  24  Civil  P. C.   is concern there is no reason to make  a distinction  between lack of inherent jurisdiction and lack of any other kind of jurisdiction in a Court trying the suit”  do not assist the  plaintiff in any manner.  however,  the case of Air  1932  Sind  215  and  AIR  1955  Mys    115,  are directly  in point and they do lay   down that it is not open to a defendant to  contend that a particular Court  has not  jurisdiction to entertain a suit and at the  same time ask for a transfer of the case of  some  othe Court.   The learned Judges lay down sucha rule,  but the principle   on which  they base such a rule is not clear from  the  reports of the cases.  It could not be o the  principle   that there can be transfer of a entertain  the suit because there was neither   decision that the suit was incompetent   nor was  it common  ground tht the suit  was  incompetent.  It could not also be on any principle  of estoppel because it could not possible be said that the plaintiff has been misled  into doing something which he would not have otherwise   done.  I am  therefore  reluctant to follow these two  authorities.\n<\/p>\n
       7.    The  lanugage of  Section 24  Civil  P.  C. is very wide   and there are no restictions or  impediments in the way ofthe High  Court  exericising the power of transfer merely because     ther is a  dispute regarding jurisdiction.  In Narain  Das  v.  Khunni  Lal, (AIR    1934   All 569),   Iqbal  Ahmad, J.,  held tht  Court toentertain a suit is not patent or  is ot admitted,  the power of the High  Court to trnsfer a sut is untrammelled by  any conditins  and it si not necessary for  the Court before making an order of  transfer,  to enter into  the vexed  and troublesome  question of jurisdiction of the  Court in whch  the suit was instituted.  In K. L.  Daftary  v.  K. L.  Dube, (Air 1955  Nag  44),  Sen, J., held tht the power of transfer vested in  the High Court   is not fettered by any conditions and that there is no bar to the exericise of power undr Sectin  24  of the Code   merely because  there is a dispute on the   question   ofjurisdiction.  Sen, J.  also  referred  to the observations of Bose,  J.  in an unreported case where   transferring a sut pending in the Akola  court to a Court   at Wardha  even though there was a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Akola  Court ,  the lerned Judge had observed:\n<\/p>\n
  \"Taking  this into consideration plus the fact that the Wardha  Court undoubeldly    has  jurisdiction while tht of the Akola   Court   is problematical,  I  direct of   my  own  motion that the case be transferred  to the  Wardha  Court under  Sec.  24, Civil  P. C.\"\n\n \n\n       8.   I  Prefer to follow  the view  taken by Iqbal  Ahmad,  J.,  Sen,  J.  and Bose,  J.,  to  the view taken by the Sind and the Mysore  Courts.   Accordingly  I overrule the preliminary objection raised by Sri A. V. Krishna  Rao.\n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
      9.     On the merits I have  no doubt that thesut ahs been  instituted in the Court  at Narasaraopet merely with a view to harass  the 4th  defendant and to gain an unfair advantage.   The  A schedule   prperties are situated in Nizamabad  District,  the suit is  one for a permanent injunction and the main  question will necessarily be regarding possession of the properties.   The appears to be considerable substance inthe allegation of the 4th  defendant that the ‘B’  and ‘C’  schedule properties  have been included inthe suit and the 5th and 6th defendants have been impleaded as aprties  to the suit merely with a view to give  jurisdiction  to the Court  at narasaopet.\n<\/p>\n
   There is also no  substance in the contention tht theplaintiff has to prove the will whiich is sated to have been executed at   Mulakalur within the jurisdiction  of the Court at  Narasaraopet becasue,  will or no will, the plaintiff is still the heri of late  Kutumaa  Rao, hs adoptive father. O.  S.  No. 305\/1967  on the file   of the District  Munsiffs Court  Narasaraopet is,  therfore  directed tobe trasnferred to the Court of the District  Munsif, Bodhan  for trial  and disposal  according to law.  The petitioner is entitled to his costs.  Advocate’s  fee Rs.  100.\n<\/p>\n
10. Petition allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma vs Mulkluri Murlidahar Rao And Ors. on 2 September, 1968 Equivalent citations: AIR 1970 AP 194 Bench: C Reddy ORDER 1. The 4th defendant in O. S. No. 305\/1967 on the file of the Court of District Munsif of Narasaraopet in Guntur District seeks a transfer of the suit […]<\/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-159589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-andhra-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma vs Mulkluri Murlidahar Rao And Ors. on 2 September, 1968 - 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\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma vs Mulkluri Murlidahar Rao And Ors. on 2 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968\" \/>\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=\"1968-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-10T04:23:08+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma vs Mulkluri Murlidahar Rao And Ors. on 2 September, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-10T04:23:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968\"},\"wordCount\":1699,\"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\\\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968\",\"name\":\"Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma vs Mulkluri Murlidahar Rao And Ors. on 2 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-10T04:23:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma vs Mulkluri Murlidahar Rao And Ors. on 2 September, 1968\"}]},{\"@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":"Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma vs Mulkluri Murlidahar Rao And Ors. on 2 September, 1968 - 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\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma vs Mulkluri Murlidahar Rao And Ors. on 2 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-10T04:23:08+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma vs Mulkluri Murlidahar Rao And Ors. on 2 September, 1968","datePublished":"1968-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-10T04:23:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968"},"wordCount":1699,"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\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968","name":"Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma vs Mulkluri Murlidahar Rao And Ors. on 2 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-10T04:23:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirmala-reddy-mahalakshmamma-vs-mulkluri-murlidahar-rao-and-ors-on-2-september-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma vs Mulkluri Murlidahar Rao And Ors. on 2 September, 1968"}]},{"@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\/159589","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=159589"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159589\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}