{"id":166361,"date":"2004-07-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-07-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004"},"modified":"2018-03-01T08:42:27","modified_gmt":"2018-03-01T03:12:27","slug":"deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004","title":{"rendered":"Deddula Padmavathi, W\/O. &#8230; vs Maddala Srinivasa Rao, S\/O. &#8230; on 13 July, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Andhra High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Deddula Padmavathi, W\/O. &#8230; vs Maddala Srinivasa Rao, S\/O. &#8230; on 13 July, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: III (2005) ACC 9, 2005 ACJ 768, 2004 (5) ALD 228, 2004 (6) ALT 496<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: C Somayajulu<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: C Somayajulu<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> C.Y. Somayajulu, J. <\/p>\n<p>1. Appellants who are the legal representatives of D. Rosaiah (Deceased), who died in an accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000\/- from the respondents, and examined two witnesses on their behalf as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. First respondent who filed a counter inter alia contending that since his lorry was insured with the 2nd respondent, it is the second respondent that is liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants, examined one witness as RW1 and marked Ex.X1 on his behalf. Second respondent, who filed a counter, inter alia, contending that since the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle, it is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants, examined one witness as RW2 and marked Ex.B2 on its behalf. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, awarded Rs.1,00,000\/- as compensation against the 1st respondent only, and exonerated the 2nd respondent from its liability on the ground that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle. Aggrieved by the Tribunal exonerating the 2nd respondent from liability, the claimants preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Appeal against the 1st respondent was dismissed for non-payment of process. But that dismissal may not be of consequence, because the Apex Court in A. ROBERT v UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., (1999) 8 Supreme Court 226 held that the non impleading or dismissal of the appeal against the owner of the offending vehicle is of no consequence, when the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle becomes final and, the insurer can be made liable for the enhanced compensation by the appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The point for consideration is whether 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the appellants?\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that since the deceased was travelling with vegetable bags in the lorry and since the evidence of RW2 and the policy, Ex.B2, also show that the owner of the goods travelling in the lorry is covered by the policy, the Tribunal was in error in exonerating the 2nd respondent from liability. The contention of the learned counsel for 2nd respondent is that since the Tribunal gave cogent reasons for exonerating the 2nd respondent from its liability, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was travelling as passenger in a goods vehicle, 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. The allegation in the claim petition is that the deceased boarded the offending lorry at Macherla to go to Sattupalli with his vegetable bags. PW1, admittedly was not present when the deceased boarded the lorry. The evidence of PW2 that he was a witness to the accident was disbelieved by the Tribunal, since the recitals in Ex.A2 do not support his contention that he was in the offending vehicle at the time of accident. In view thereof, I do not wish to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal that PW2 was not a witness to the accident.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. The allegation in Ex.A2, FIR registered on a complaint given by K. Narasimham S\/o Kotaiah, show that he boarded the offending lorry at Macherla and that subsequently K. Venkateswarlu, Y. Yellamanda Reddy and his two children, A. Venkateswarlu, Adinarayana Reddy and another person, whose name he does not know, boarded the lorry at Gurazala and that after the lorry reached Nadikudi Railway Bridge, it met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. Ex.A1 certificate issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dachepalli shows that the unnamed person in Ex.A2 is the deceased. So, from the documents produced by the appellants, it is clear that the deceased boarded the lorry at Gurazala, but not at Macherla, as alleged in the claim petition. Ex.A3, panchanama of inquest held on the body of the deceased shows that the offending lorry started at Macherla at about 9 p.m. with a load of Kadapa slabs, and on the way some persons boarded the lorry as passengers and the lorry met with an accident and the deceased died as a result of the injuries received in the accident. So, from Ex.A3, produced and relied on by the appellants themselves, it is clear that the deceased boarded the lorry carrying a load of cuddapah slabs, as a passenger in the mid way. For reasons best known to them, appellants did not produce the panchanama of the scene of accident, which would have disclosed if there were any vegetable bags in the offending lorry. Thus there is no reliable evidence on record to show that the deceased boarded the lorry with vegetable bags.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that even assuming that the deceased boarded the offending lorry, since he was travelling with vegetable bags, he should be treated a passenger travelling with his goods in the lorry, and so is covered by the policy issued by the 2nd respondent, cannot be accepted firstly because, there is nothing on record to show that vegetable bags were found in the offending lorry. The number of the vegetable and the other bags that were allegedly being carried and their volume and weight are not mentioned by the appellants. One or two bags of vegetables being carried by a passenger who boarded the lorry in the midway would not become &#8216;goods&#8217; within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) because luggage being carried by passengers is not covered by the said definition. The volume and the weight of the bags being carried would have relevance to find out if they are &#8216;luggage&#8217; or &#8216;goods&#8217; within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. Words employed in Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Act, reading &#8216;including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle&#8217; show that the intendment of the parliament was to cover the risk of the owner of the goods or his authorized representative, who actually engaged the goods vehicle for transport of his &#8216;goods&#8217; from one destination to another destination, and are not intended to cover persons who board the goods vehicle, carrying &#8216;goods&#8217; of some others, in the mid way with some luggage being carried with them. In view thereof, I am not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the vegetable and rice bags being carried by the deceased would not fall within the meaning of &#8216;personal luggage&#8217; of a passenger, and would be &#8216;goods&#8217; within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. The luggage being carried by the deceased i.e., vegetable bags, are not of such a volume that they cannot be carried with him in a bus or train or a taxi. They, obviously did not require a goods vehicle being engaged for being transported to their destination from the house of the deceased. So the bags that were being carried by the deceased would only be &#8220;luggage&#8221; but not &#8216;goods&#8217; within the meaning of the Act. Since the deceased was travelling as a passenger, by boarding a goods vehicle in the mid way with his luggage, and not as the owner of the &#8216;goods&#8217; being carried therein, he would not be covered by the policy. That should be so is obvious because as per Rule 252 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, a goods vehicle can carry not more than seven persons in all, and as per sub-rule 3 of the said Rule 252 no person other than a person connected to the &#8216;conveyance of the goods&#8217;, shall travel in the goods vehicle. So it is clear that the emphasis is on the &#8216;Conveyance of the goods&#8217;, because goods vehicle is intended to transport goods, and cannot be used as a stage carriage. A person, who boards a goods vehicle in the midway with some luggage like a bag or two, cannot be said to have engaged the goods vehicle for &#8216;Conveyance of his goods&#8217;. As stated earlier since Ex.A3 shows that the offending vehicle started at Macherla with a load of Kadapa slabs, it is clear that the &#8216;goods&#8217; that were being transported therein were Kadapa slabs. The owner of the kadapa slabs or his authorized representative, if injured, would be covered by Ex.B2 policy but not the deceased who boarded it in the midway with some luggage. The allegations in Ex.A2 clearly show that the deceased boarded the offending vehicle as a passenger with several others. It is clear from Ex.A2 that more than seven persons were in the lorry at the time of accident, which is also contrary to Rule 252 referred to above.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. In view of the above, the Tribunal exonerating the 2nd respondent from its liability cannot be said to be erroneous and so, I hold that the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the appellants. The point is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.In view of my finding on the point for consideration, the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Andhra High Court Deddula Padmavathi, W\/O. &#8230; vs Maddala Srinivasa Rao, S\/O. &#8230; on 13 July, 2004 Equivalent citations: III (2005) ACC 9, 2005 ACJ 768, 2004 (5) ALD 228, 2004 (6) ALT 496 Author: C Somayajulu Bench: C Somayajulu JUDGMENT C.Y. Somayajulu, J. 1. Appellants who are the legal representatives of D. Rosaiah (Deceased), [&hellip;]<\/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-166361","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-andhra-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Deddula Padmavathi, W\/O. ... vs Maddala Srinivasa Rao, S\/O. ... on 13 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Deddula Padmavathi, W\/O. ... vs Maddala Srinivasa Rao, S\/O. ... on 13 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-01T03:12:27+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Deddula Padmavathi, W\\\/O. &#8230; vs Maddala Srinivasa Rao, S\\\/O. &#8230; on 13 July, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-01T03:12:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1615,\"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\\\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004\",\"name\":\"Deddula Padmavathi, W\\\/O. ... vs Maddala Srinivasa Rao, S\\\/O. ... on 13 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-01T03:12:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Deddula Padmavathi, W\\\/O. &#8230; vs Maddala Srinivasa Rao, S\\\/O. &#8230; on 13 July, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Deddula Padmavathi, W\/O. ... vs Maddala Srinivasa Rao, S\/O. ... on 13 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Deddula Padmavathi, W\/O. ... vs Maddala Srinivasa Rao, S\/O. ... on 13 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-01T03:12:27+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Deddula Padmavathi, W\/O. &#8230; vs Maddala Srinivasa Rao, S\/O. &#8230; on 13 July, 2004","datePublished":"2004-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-01T03:12:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004"},"wordCount":1615,"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\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004","name":"Deddula Padmavathi, W\/O. ... vs Maddala Srinivasa Rao, S\/O. ... on 13 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-01T03:12:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deddula-padmavathi-wo-vs-maddala-srinivasa-rao-so-on-13-july-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Deddula Padmavathi, W\/O. &#8230; vs Maddala Srinivasa Rao, S\/O. &#8230; on 13 July, 2004"}]},{"@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\/166361","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=166361"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166361\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166361"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166361"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166361"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}