{"id":174083,"date":"2007-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007"},"modified":"2016-03-01T09:58:39","modified_gmt":"2016-03-01T04:28:39","slug":"rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"Rama Rao &amp; Ors vs M.G. Maheshwara Rao &amp; Ors on 27 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rama Rao &amp; Ors vs M.G. Maheshwara Rao &amp; Ors on 27 August, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: H.K. Sema, P.K. Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7474-7477 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nRAMA RAO &amp; ORS\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM.G. MAHESHWARA RAO &amp; ORS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/08\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nH.K. SEMA &amp; P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n[with C.A. No. 7478-7481 of 2003]<\/p>\n<p>P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tBy the judgment under appeals the High Court partly<br \/>\nallowed the writ petition filed before it by the employees in<br \/>\nthe ministerial cadre of the Karnataka Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal.  Writ Petition Nos.16143-1646 of 1997 challenged<br \/>\nthe decision of the Administrative Tribunal dismissing an<br \/>\napplication filed by them before the Tribunal.  Feeling<br \/>\naggrieved by the decision rendered by the High Court in the<br \/>\nwrit petitions both sides are before us with these appeals.<br \/>\nCivil Appeal Nos.7474-7477 of 2003 is filed by those<br \/>\nbelonging to the Stenographer Cadre and Civil Appeal<br \/>\nNos.7478-7481 of 2003 filed by the ministerial cadre.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tFor convenience, hereafter, the parties are referred<br \/>\nto as Stenographers and Assistants.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tThe Karnataka Administrative Tribunal was<br \/>\nconstituted on 6.10.1986.  The Government of Karnataka<br \/>\nsanctioned the cadre strength and framed the Cadre and<br \/>\nRecruitment Rules, 1986.  The appointments of<br \/>\nstenographers were made in the year 1988.  The Government<br \/>\npublished on 23.9.1992 a new set of draft rules.  The<br \/>\nstenographers filed objections to the draft rules.  On<br \/>\n31.5.1993 the Government published the Recruitment Rules.<br \/>\nThough the stenographers made representations to the<br \/>\nGovernment, their representations were rejected.  Thereupon<br \/>\nthey filed application Nos.2250-2252 of 1993 and 2253-2258<br \/>\nof 1998 before the Administrative Tribunal challenging the<br \/>\nprescription of degree and test as qualifications for<br \/>\npromotion to the post of Junior Judgment Writer in the<br \/>\nRules.  It is seen that the assistants or any one that would<br \/>\nbe affected from that branch by an adjudication, were not<br \/>\nimpleaded in the proceeding.  The Administrative Tribunal<br \/>\nallowed the applications and quashed the Rules in part.<br \/>\nEssentially, what the Administrative Tribunal did was to<br \/>\nalter the qualifications provided for promotions in the cadre<br \/>\nof stenographers by doing away with the higher<br \/>\nqualifications prescribed.  The striking down of the Rules<br \/>\nwas done by a Bench presided over by the Vice-Chairman of<br \/>\nthe Administrative Tribunal.   Thereafter the vice-chairman<br \/>\nproceeded to promote the stenographers on the basis of the<br \/>\nqualification prescribed by him on the judicial side.  The<br \/>\nassistants felt aggrieved by the promotions thus given.  They,<br \/>\ntherefore, moved application Nos.3585-3592 of 1995 and<br \/>\nother connected applications before the Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal challenging the decision of the Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal dated 6.7.1994 as also the promotions given to the<br \/>\nrespondents in those applications, the promoted<br \/>\nstenographers.  The applications were opposed on various<br \/>\ngrounds.  By order dated 21.4.1997, the Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal dismissed the applications.  It was challenged by<br \/>\nthe Assistants before the High Court in the writ petitions<br \/>\nalready referred to.  The High Court, by the judgment under<br \/>\nappeal, allowed the writ petitions in part holding that the<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to alter the<br \/>\nqualifications for promotions as it had done and since<br \/>\npromotions were made on the basis of this unauthorized<br \/>\ninterference with the Rules prescribing qualifications for<br \/>\npromotions, the promotions were bad.    As a logical follow<br \/>\nup, instead of setting aside all the promotions, the High<br \/>\nCourt set aside only the promotions of non-graduate<br \/>\nstenographers and declined to interfere with the promotions<br \/>\nof the graduate stenographers.  The non-graduate<br \/>\nstenographers are aggrieved by the setting aside of the<br \/>\njudgment of the Administrative Tribunal and the quashing of<br \/>\nthe promotions of non-graduates.  The Assistants are<br \/>\naggrieved by what they call the failure of the High Court to<br \/>\ngive effect to its own judgment and in not setting aside the<br \/>\nillegal promotions given to all stenographers including the<br \/>\ngraduate stenographers.  That is how these sets of appeals<br \/>\nare before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tLogically it would be proper to deal first with the<br \/>\nappeal filed by the stenographers against the judgment of the<br \/>\nHigh Court.  For, if we were to agree with the contentions of<br \/>\nthe appellants therein, the judgment of the High Court<br \/>\nsetting aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal will<br \/>\nhave to be set aside and in that case no further orders would<br \/>\nbe required except to restore the order of the Tribunal.  Only<br \/>\nif we were to dismiss the appeals filed by the Assistants and<br \/>\nwere to uphold the decision of the High Court on the main<br \/>\naspect, we need consider the grievance of the assistants that<br \/>\nthe High Court should have, as a consequence of its own<br \/>\ndecision, set aside the promotions of graduate stenographers<br \/>\nas well, since those were illegal promotions.<br \/>\nWe will, therefore, first deal with the appeals by the<br \/>\nstenographers.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tIt is argued on behalf of the stenographers that<br \/>\nthe High Court was in error in setting aside the order of the<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal dated 6.7.1994 when the assistants<br \/>\nhad not taken any step to get that order reviewed or<br \/>\nmodified.  It is submitted that only after the decision in the<br \/>\ncase of  <a href=\"\/doc\/1524908\/\">L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and others<\/a><br \/>\n1997 (3)  SCC 261) that the High Court got jurisdiction to<br \/>\nentertain a proceeding against the decision of the<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal and when the order was passed on<br \/>\n6.7.1994 by the Administrative Tribunal, only an appeal<br \/>\ncould have been filed to the Supreme Court and in that<br \/>\nsituation, in the subsequent writ petition, the High Court<br \/>\nwas not competent to quash the order of the Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal dated 6.7.1994.  It is also contended that in any<br \/>\nsubsequent application filed by the assistants under Section<br \/>\n19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (for short the Act),<br \/>\nthe Administrative Tribunal could not have considered the<br \/>\ncorrectness or otherwise of the decision it had rendered<br \/>\nearlier and which had become final and consequently the<br \/>\nHigh Court while entertaining the writ petition challenging<br \/>\nthe dismissal of the subsequent application by the<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal, could not have set aside the order<br \/>\nearlier made on 6.7.1994 on the application filed by the<br \/>\nstenographers.  This contention raised, was met by the High<br \/>\nCourt by pointing out that even though the assistants belong<br \/>\nto a different cadre, since there was a confluence of the two<br \/>\nstreams leading to the promotional posts, the assistants had<br \/>\nlocus standi to file an application under Section 19 of the Act<br \/>\nin which, to ventilate their grievances they could canvass the<br \/>\ncorrectness of the decision earlier rendered on 6.7.1994 by<br \/>\nthe Administrative Tribunal.  The High Court referred to the<br \/>\ndecision in  <a href=\"\/doc\/354201\/\">K. Ajit Babu and others vs. Union of India and<br \/>\nothers<\/a> [(1997) Supp 3 S.C.R. 56] to find that the proper<br \/>\nprocedure to adopt by persons situated like the Assistants in<br \/>\nthis case and who were not made parties to a prior decision<br \/>\nwhich had effect on their career, was to move an application<br \/>\nunder Section 19 of the Act.  In that decision, this Court<br \/>\nnoticed that even though the judgment of an Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal may only be a judgment in personam, occasionally,<br \/>\nit could also operate as a judgment in rem and those affected<br \/>\nby it had the right to approach the Tribunal again with an<br \/>\napplication under Section 19 of the Act when they are<br \/>\naffected as a consequence of the earlier decision and are<br \/>\nentitled to seek reconsideration of the view taken in the<br \/>\nearlier decision.  The High Court, following it, held that the<br \/>\nassistants had the locus standi to move the application<br \/>\nunder Section 19 of the Act before the Tribunal and seek<br \/>\nreconsideration of the earlier decision passed by it without<br \/>\nnotice to them and to show that the said order required<br \/>\nreconsidered or that it was not a legal or a proper one.  We<br \/>\nsee no reason not to accept the reasoning adopted by the<br \/>\nHigh Court.  After all, the assistants who were not impleaded<br \/>\nin the earlier proceeding, must have an avenue to ventilate<br \/>\ntheir grievances.  This Court has indicated that that avenue<br \/>\nis an approach to the Tribunal and that was in a case in<br \/>\nwhich the very same Act was involved.  This Court had also<br \/>\npointed out, what the Administrative Tribunal could do in<br \/>\nsuch a situation.  If this were not the position, the assistants<br \/>\nwould be able to say that since they were not parties to the<br \/>\nearlier proceedings, they were not bound by it and they are<br \/>\nentitled to ignore the decision therein and that the said<br \/>\ndecision cannot affect them since it would be a decision that<br \/>\nis void in law for non-compliance with the rules of natural<br \/>\njustice.  There is, therefore, no grace in the submissions that<br \/>\nthe assistants could not have approached the Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal with their grievance and the Tribunal could not<br \/>\nhave consider their grievance or gone back on its earlier<br \/>\ndecision.   We are in agreement with the approach made by<br \/>\nthe High Court and the conclusion arrived at by it and hence<br \/>\nhave no hesitation in overruling this contention.  The<br \/>\nargument that the jurisdiction of the High Court came to be<br \/>\nrecognized only later, cannot change the situation, since<br \/>\nwhen the High Court entertained the writ petition it had the<br \/>\njurisdiction to do so and it had jurisdiction also to consider<br \/>\nwhat was the effect of the earlier order or the proceeding<br \/>\nbefore it and whether the earlier order was legal and justified<br \/>\nin the context of the decision of this Court in Ajit Babus<br \/>\ncase (supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tIt is then contended that the Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal was justified in passing the order dated 6.7.1994<br \/>\nsince the qualifications prescribed for promotion were<br \/>\nunreasonable.  According to the stenographers, the Rules<br \/>\nclearly provided for double promotion and since the<br \/>\nassistants had not challenged the validity of the rules either<br \/>\nbefore the Administrative Tribunal or the High Court or in<br \/>\nthis Court, the actions taken as a consequence, were also<br \/>\nnot open to challenge in the light of the decisions of this<br \/>\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/587008\/\">Karam Pal and others vs. Union of India and<br \/>\nothers<\/a> (1985 (2) SCC 457) and Mohan Sing and others vs.<br \/>\nState of Punjab and others (1995 (4) SCC 151).\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tWe agree with the High Court that when it passed<br \/>\nthe order on 6.7.1994, the Administrative Tribunal had acted<br \/>\nbeyond jurisdiction in prescribing qualifications of its own<br \/>\nwhile striking down what according to it was unreasonable<br \/>\nprovisions.  First of all, there is nothing unreasonable<br \/>\nprescribing qualifications of promotion as was done in this<br \/>\ncase and as rightly found by the High Court.  Secondly, even<br \/>\nif the relevant rules were liable to be struck down, it was not<br \/>\nfor the Administrative Tribunal to re-enact that Rule as it<br \/>\nthought considered proper.  Once that conclusion is reached<br \/>\nand as has been found by the High Court no invalidity could<br \/>\nbe found in the relevant rules for promotion, the obvious<br \/>\nconsequence would be that all the promotions of the<br \/>\nstenographers became illegal.  In fact, the High Court in its<br \/>\njudgment has considered the relevant aspects and has come<br \/>\nto the conclusion that the decision dated 6.7.1994 was<br \/>\nunsustainable.  We do not think it necessary to reiterate the<br \/>\nreasons given by the High Court which has also noticed the<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1431651\/\">J. Ranga Swami vs. Government<br \/>\nof Andhra Pradesh and others (AIR<\/a> 1990 SC 535).  We<br \/>\napprove of the findings of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tWe also find it somewhat unpalatable that the<br \/>\nsame vice-chairman, in the absence of the Chairman, sat on<br \/>\nthe judicial side, quashed the rule and prescribed his own<br \/>\nqualifications for promotion of stenographers and on the<br \/>\nadministrative side implemented that decision and promoted<br \/>\nthe stenographers.  It would have been better if he had<br \/>\nawaited the appointment of a Chairman and left it to the<br \/>\nChairman to implement the direction issued by the<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal earlier.  A thing that is to be done<br \/>\nhas not only to be done properly but also appear to be done<br \/>\nproperly.  But this is only incidental and has no relevance to<br \/>\nthe question falling for decision except for the contention<br \/>\nthat the Vice-Chairman has no power to appoint, with which<br \/>\nwe will deal later, if it becomes necessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\t\tSuffice it to say that we agree with the conclusion<br \/>\nof the High Court that the decision dated 6.4.1997 rendered<br \/>\nby the Administrative Tribunal was totally unsustainable and<br \/>\nthe question of promotion has to be on the basis of the Rules<br \/>\nas they stood prior to the interference with it by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\t\tThus, we find no merit in the appeals filed by the<br \/>\nstenographers and the cancellation of their promotions on<br \/>\nthe basis they did not possess the requisite qualifications for<br \/>\npromotion as per the Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\t\tWe then come to the appeals filed by the<br \/>\nassistants.  Their grievance is that the High Court having<br \/>\nfound that the order of the Administrative Tribunal dated<br \/>\n6.4.1997 was unsustainable and having found that the<br \/>\namendments brought to the rules by it were also illegal and<br \/>\nunsustainable, should have followed up that finding by<br \/>\nsetting aside the promotions of all the stenographers and<br \/>\nought to have ordered a fresh consideration of the question<br \/>\nof promotions taking into account both the feeder channels.<br \/>\nWe see considerable force in this submission.   What the<br \/>\nHigh Court has done is to try and avert the cancellation of<br \/>\ncertain stenographers who had graduate qualification, a<br \/>\nqualification prescribed by the Rules.  But having found that<br \/>\nthe very order granting promotion, based as it was on a<br \/>\nwrong footing and that required interference in the light of its<br \/>\ndecision, the High Court ought not to have shied away from<br \/>\ngiving effect to its own conclusion.  After all, graduate<br \/>\nstenographers, if they are entitled to promotions as per the<br \/>\nRules, would secure the promotion by the fresh exercise<br \/>\nundertaken. We have also indicated that the whole method<br \/>\nadopted by the vice-chairman was not proper and the<br \/>\npromotions were made improperly, was an irresistible<br \/>\nconclusion.  In the light of all this, we think that the<br \/>\ninterests of justice would be sub-served only if the entire<br \/>\npromotions of stenographers made on the basis of the Rules<br \/>\nframed by itself by the Administrative Tribunal on its judicial<br \/>\nside are set aside.  To that extent we find substance in the<br \/>\nappeal filed by the assistants.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\t\tWe think that the proper course to adopt is to<br \/>\nundertake a fresh exercise of promoting the officers from<br \/>\nboth streams in accordance with the Rules framed in that<br \/>\nregard.  But as the High Court held, the stenographers who<br \/>\nhad been promoted and whose promotions have now been<br \/>\ncancelled, need not be visited with the penalty of having to<br \/>\nrefund the higher salaries and allowances they have received<br \/>\nin the promotional posts.  Therefore, even while cancelling all<br \/>\nthe promotions and directing a fresh exercise to be<br \/>\nundertaken, we direct that no recovery shall be made from<br \/>\nthe salaries paid to the stenographers in regard to the period<br \/>\nthey have worked in their promoted posts on the ground that<br \/>\ntheir promotions have now been quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\t\tIn the result, we dismiss Civil Appeal Nos.7474-<br \/>\n7477 of 2003 and allow the Civil Appeal Nos.7478-7481 of<br \/>\n2003.  We substantially affirm the decision of the High Court<br \/>\nbut set aside in that part of it by which it declined to set<br \/>\naside the promotions of graduate stenographers.  We direct<br \/>\nthe undertaking of a fresh exercise regarding promotions of<br \/>\nthose who are qualified in accordance with the Rules by the<br \/>\nconcerned as expeditiously as possible.  We direct that there<br \/>\nshall be no recovery from the salaries and allowances paid to<br \/>\nthe stenographers whose promotions are cancelled by the<br \/>\nHigh Court and by us while they worked in their promoted<br \/>\nposts.  The parties are directed to suffer their respective<br \/>\ncosts in this Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Rama Rao &amp; Ors vs M.G. Maheshwara Rao &amp; Ors on 27 August, 2007 Author: P Balasubramanyan Bench: H.K. Sema, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7474-7477 of 2003 PETITIONER: RAMA RAO &amp; ORS RESPONDENT: M.G. MAHESHWARA RAO &amp; ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/08\/2007 BENCH: H.K. SEMA &amp; P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN JUDGMENT: [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174083","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rama Rao &amp; Ors vs M.G. Maheshwara Rao &amp; Ors on 27 August, 2007 - 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\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rama Rao &amp; Ors vs M.G. Maheshwara Rao &amp; Ors on 27 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-01T04:28:39+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rama Rao &amp; Ors vs M.G. Maheshwara Rao &amp; Ors on 27 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-01T04:28:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2556,\"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\\\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007\",\"name\":\"Rama Rao &amp; Ors vs M.G. Maheshwara Rao &amp; Ors on 27 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-01T04:28:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rama Rao &amp; Ors vs M.G. Maheshwara Rao &amp; Ors on 27 August, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Rama Rao &amp; Ors vs M.G. Maheshwara Rao &amp; Ors on 27 August, 2007 - 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\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rama Rao &amp; Ors vs M.G. Maheshwara Rao &amp; Ors on 27 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-01T04:28:39+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rama Rao &amp; Ors vs M.G. Maheshwara Rao &amp; Ors on 27 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-01T04:28:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007"},"wordCount":2556,"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\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007","name":"Rama Rao &amp; Ors vs M.G. Maheshwara Rao &amp; Ors on 27 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-01T04:28:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-rao-ors-vs-m-g-maheshwara-rao-ors-on-27-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rama Rao &amp; Ors vs M.G. Maheshwara Rao &amp; Ors on 27 August, 2007"}]},{"@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\/174083","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=174083"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174083\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}