{"id":192931,"date":"1954-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1954-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954"},"modified":"2015-08-01T11:18:07","modified_gmt":"2015-08-01T05:48:07","slug":"maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954","title":{"rendered":"Maddi Sudarsanam And Ors. vs Borogu Viswanadham Brothers And … on 17 September, 1954"},"content":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court<\/div>\n
Maddi Sudarsanam And Ors. vs Borogu Viswanadham Brothers And … on 17 September, 1954<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1955 AP 12<\/div>\n
Bench: S Rao<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  (1) The question in this Second Appeal is whether  S. 69 (2), Partnership Act, 1932 is a bar to the maintainability of the suit.<\/p>\n
 (2) The facts giving rise to the said question of law may be stated: A firm known as “Burugu Viswanadhan Bros.” consisting of five persons viz., Burugu Mahadevudu, his brother Burugu veerayya, Parripati Venkatarathnam, and his two brother Subrahmanyam and Venkata Subba Rao as partners was formed in 1925. They executed a registered agreement on 8-6-1925 setting out  the terms and conditions of the partnership. The  Partnership Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force in 1932. The firm of Burugu Viswanadham Bros. consisting of those partnerss  was registered under the Act in 1933. The names of the said five partners are shown in the  Register of Firms as partners of the firm. Burugu Veerayya died on 17-7-39.Parripati Venkatarathnam and his two brothers became divided on 11-11-1939. Under the partition the interests of the three brothers in the assets and liabilities of the firm was taken over by Venkatarathnam and his brother Subramanyam. The third brother Venkata Subba Rao retired from the partnership.\n<\/p>\n
  On 24-6-1940 Mahadevudu, Venkatarathnam and Subrahmanyam executed a fresh agreement of partnership Ex. B.1. No notice either of the  death of Veerayya or of the retirement  of Venkatasubba ao had been given to the Registrar. The suit dealings with the defendant firm, the Bala Tripura Sundari Groundnut Mill & Company, Inkole, Bapatia, were commenced after  1940. The suit was filed by the plaintiff firm for recovery of a sum of Rs.3951-4-0 from the defendants in respect of the dealings they had with them.\n<\/p>\n
 (3) The  defendants, inter alia, contended taht time plaintff firm was different from that constituted in the  in the year 1925, that it was not registered under the Parnership Act, and that S. 69 (2) of the Act was a bar to the maintainability of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
 (4) The first Court accepted the contention of the  defendant and dismissed the suit. The appellate Court held that the plaintiff firm was the same firm as that formed in 1925, and registered under the Act, and that the suit was, thereforce, maintainable. The defendants  have preferred the above Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
 (5) The learned Counsel for the appellants raised before me two points (i) by the death of Burugu Veerayya, one of the partners. on 17-7-1939, and by the retirmenet of Venkatasubba Rao, another partners from the partnership on 11-11-1939, the  partnership formed in the year 1925 was automatically and legally dissolved and the plaintiff firm was a new firm constituted  under Ex. B-1, and (ii) B-1 expressly disolved the old firm and constituted a new firm in its stead.\n<\/p>\n
 (6) The relevant provision of the Act is S. 69 (2). It reads:\n<\/p>\n
  “No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shallbe instituted in any Court by or   on behalf  of a firm against any third party unless  the firs is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Registrar of firms as partners of the firm.”\n<\/p>\n
Under this Section, a firm is disabled to file a suit against a third  party unless two conditions are complied with (i) the firm is registered and (ii) the persons suing are shown in the Register of firms as partners of the firm. The first question, therefore, is whether the suit frim “Burugu Viswanadham Brothers” was registered under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 (7) The  firm was orignally constituted under the partnership agreement Ex. A-15 dated 8-6-1925. Admittedly, that was registered under the Partnership Act and the names of the five partners were shown in the Register. But, it is contended that the death of one of the partners and  the retirement of another had the effect of dissolving that firm. This  leads on to the consideration of the two subsidiary questions, viz., (1) what is the  effect of the retirement of a partner on the constitution of the firm, and (ii) what is the effect of the death of a parnter on its constitution?\n<\/p>\n
 (8) Before the  enactment of the Partnership Act in the year 1932, the rights of the lpartners were governed by the  Contract Act. Section 253 prescribed the rules determining the partner’ mutual relations where there is no contract to the contrary. Section 253, C. (7) says:\n<\/p>\n
  “If from any cause whatsoever, any member of a partnership ceases to be so, the partnership is dissolved as  between all the  other members.”\n<\/p>\n
 (9) A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in — ‘Commr. of Income-tax, Madras, v. Muthukaruppan Chettiar,’ AIR 1934 Mad 633 (A), on the basis of that section held that, upon the  retirement of a partner from the Partnership, the partnership was dissolved as  between all the other membrs. This  view certainly is unexceptionable as the provisions of S. 253 (7) are clear. But after the enactmentof the Partnership Act, the rules  governing the dissolution of the partnership are laid in ss. 39 to 44 tha Act. In  the Contract Act the circumstances under which the dissolution of a partnership takes place, and its consequences are not exhaustively and separately laid down. But in the Partnership Act, a separate chapter has been allotted and definite rules are prescribed for dissolution and its consequences. Pollock and Mulla in their  book on the Indian Partnership Act summarise the relevant sections at page  113 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
  “We have now rules, mainly following those laid down in the English Act, for dissolution by consent (Section 40 by operation of Law (Section 41) automatically (Section 42) optionally (Section 43) and judicially (Section 44) and the consequent winding up of the  firm affairs and settlement  of accounts.”\n<\/p>\n
There is no corresponding provision to S. 253 (7) Contract Act providing for the dissolution of the partnership on any member of the partnership ceasing to be a parner.\n<\/p>\n
 (10) The learned Counsel for the appellants  contended that the Legislature omitted the rule  as the principle embodied in s. 253(7), Contract Act was well-settled and self-evidence andits  separate  enactment was unnecessary. What is more settled than the impact  of the  death of a partner on the constitution  of a partnership? But yet the Partnership Act  provides  for it. When an express provision in the  Contract Actis omitted in compilling a separate Code for partnership, it is obvious that the omission is  designed but not acidental. It follows that the retirement of Venkatasubba Rao from the partnership on 11-11-1939 had not the legal effect of dissolving it.\n<\/p>\n
 (11) The next question is whether  the death of Burugu Veerayya on 17-7-1939 had such an effect. Section 42, Partnership Act governs the situatioin. It reads:\n<\/p>\n
  “Subject to contract between the partners a firm is dissolved……………………………(c) by the death of a partner.”\n<\/p>\n
Under this section, a firm is dissolved by the death of a partner, unless there is a contract to the contrary. Whether  there is a contract to the contrary falls to be considered on the construction of the Articles of the Partnership agreement Ex. A-15, dated 8-6-1925. The relevant Article  reads:\n<\/p>\n
  “Now these  presents witness that the said Burugu Mahadevudu and Burugu Veerayya of the first part hereinafter jointly called the principal partners, which expression, unless it is repugnant to the subject or contract shall mean and  include  not only the said Burugu Mahadevudu and Veeraya, but also their  survivors, heirs, executors and administrators, and the said  Parripati Venkatarathnam, Venkata Subba Rao andsubrahmanyam  of the second part hereinafter referred  to as working partners, have  agreed to continue the said business at Guntur, subject to the terms and stipulations hereunder set forth.”\n<\/p>\n
It will be seen from the aforesaid recitals  that, the partnership is composed of two categories of partners (i) principal  partners and (ii) working partners. A clear distinction is maintained between the two classes of partners. In the case of the former, the principal partners include not only the contracting partners, but also their heris, executors and administrators, whereas in the case  of the latter, the partners do not include their  heirs. It is obvious from the distinction that, under theterms of the partnership, it was not  intended that the death of any principal partners would dissolve the partnership. I would,  therefore, hold that there is a contract to the contrary in  Ex. A-15 Excluding the operation of S. 42(c), Partnership Act. It follows that the death of Burugu Veerayya on 17-7-1939 did not put an end to the partnership, and that the partnership constituted and carried on in the name and style of Burugu Viswanadham and Brothers was not dissolved. The suit now filed is by the same firm, which was duly registered under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 (12) The second condition laid down in S. 69 (2) is also satisfied. The persons now suing i.e., the present parents are shown in the Register  of firms as partners of the firm, thoiugh the same  Register shows two other partners, one of whom died and the  other retired. It may be that the fact of retirement of one of the  partners and the  deathof another should  have been notified to the  Registrar under S. 63(1) as the said events effects a change in the constitution of the firm. But the default made by the firm is not, in not  so  notifying, of any relevance in considering the  question of the maintainability of the suit under  S. 69(2). There is the essential distinction between the constituion of a firm and its dissolution. Non-compliance with the provisions of S. 63 (1) may have other consequences, but under S. 69 (2) only two conditions should be complied with by a firm to enforce a right arising from a contract and those  two conditions are complied with in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
 (13) It is then contended that, under Ex. B-1, the old firm was expressly dissolved and a new firm was formed thereunder. Exhibit  B-1 is the partnership agreement, dated 24-6-1940. The  agreement is between Burugu Mahadevudu of  the one part Parripati Venkatarathnam and  Subrahmanyam of the other part. The document in the preamble mentions, that change in the constituion of the partnership have taken place, that Barugu Veerayya died, that the joint Hindu family of Parripati brothers was divided, and  that venkatasubba Rao, one of the partners retired  and that the remaining partners wished to continue the business in partnership for their benenefit. In the  operative portion, it is expressly stated that the business of the firm still continues to be  carried on under the name and style  of Burugu Viswanadham Brothers. The same  banking business is agreed to be carried on, but  the scope of thebusiness is extended by including  the tobacco business. Thereis some variation in the shares.\n<\/p>\n
 (14) The larned Counsel for the appellant relying upon the recital “Whereas it is therefore  expedient and necessary that the terms of this  new partnership and constitution should be specified” and also the  fact that tobacco business  was also started by the firm, argued  that Ex. B-1  constituted expressly as well as in fact a new  partnership. I cannot hold that the mere use  of the words in the document. “this new  partnership” makes  it a new firm, if it is not in fact  a new business. Those words are loosely  used to convey the idea of a change in the constitution of the  firm. Under Ex. B-1, the business  is agreed to be carried on by the remaining partners, notwithstanding the change in the  constituion of the  firm under the same name  viz., Burugu Viswanatham and Bros.\n<\/p>\n
 The document only records the changing in the constitution and provides for continuing the  existing  business. It does not either express of  by unnecessary implication dissolve the earlier  partnership and form a new firm. There is  nothing on record to show that the earlier  accounts were looked into and the rights and  liabilities of the partners were settled. The mere  fact that the scope of the business has been  enlarged is not decisive on the question whether  the firm was dissolved for an existing firm  can always extend the scope of the business by a  separate agreement. After going through the  aforesaid recitals in Ex. B-1, I have no hesitation in deciding that under the said document, a new  partnership was not formed, but the old partnership  was continued with certain changes, in the constitution. If so, it follows that S. 69(2) is not a bar to the maintaibility of the present suit.\n<\/p>\n
 (15)  In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. No leave.\n<\/p>\n
 (16) Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court Maddi Sudarsanam And Ors. vs Borogu Viswanadham Brothers And … on 17 September, 1954 Equivalent citations: AIR 1955 AP 12 Bench: S Rao JUDGMENT (1) The question in this Second Appeal is whether S. 69 (2), Partnership Act, 1932 is a bar to the maintainability of the suit. (2) The facts giving […]<\/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-192931","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-andhra-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMaddi Sudarsanam And Ors. vs Borogu Viswanadham Brothers And ... on 17 September, 1954 - 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\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maddi Sudarsanam And Ors. vs Borogu Viswanadham Brothers And ... on 17 September, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954\" \/>\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=\"1954-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-01T05:48:07+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\\\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maddi Sudarsanam And Ors. vs Borogu Viswanadham Brothers And … on 17 September, 1954\",\"datePublished\":\"1954-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-01T05:48:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954\"},\"wordCount\":2077,\"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\\\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954\",\"name\":\"Maddi Sudarsanam And Ors. vs Borogu Viswanadham Brothers And ... on 17 September, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1954-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-01T05:48:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maddi Sudarsanam And Ors. vs Borogu Viswanadham Brothers And … on 17 September, 1954\"}]},{\"@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":"Maddi Sudarsanam And Ors. vs Borogu Viswanadham Brothers And ... on 17 September, 1954 - 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\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maddi Sudarsanam And Ors. vs Borogu Viswanadham Brothers And ... on 17 September, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1954-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-01T05:48:07+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\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maddi Sudarsanam And Ors. vs Borogu Viswanadham Brothers And … on 17 September, 1954","datePublished":"1954-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-01T05:48:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954"},"wordCount":2077,"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\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954","name":"Maddi Sudarsanam And Ors. vs Borogu Viswanadham Brothers And ... on 17 September, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1954-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-01T05:48:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maddi-sudarsanam-and-ors-vs-borogu-viswanadham-brothers-and-on-17-september-1954#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maddi Sudarsanam And Ors. vs Borogu Viswanadham Brothers And … on 17 September, 1954"}]},{"@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\/192931","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=192931"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192931\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}