{"id":205321,"date":"1988-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988"},"modified":"2016-07-09T01:35:25","modified_gmt":"2016-07-08T20:05:25","slug":"madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988","title":{"rendered":"Madhu Gopal vs Vi Additional District Judge &amp; Ors on 26 September, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Madhu Gopal vs Vi Additional District Judge &amp; Ors on 26 September, 1988<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR  155, \t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (3) 276<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Mukharji<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMADHU GOPAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT26\/09\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nRANGNATHAN, S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR  155\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (3) 276\n 1988 SCC  (4) 644\t  JT 1988 (4)\t106\n 1988 SCALE  (2)1273\n\n\nACT:\n    U.P.  Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,  Rent\t and\nEviction)  Act\t1972\/U.P.  Urban  Buildings  (Regulation  of\nLetting,   Rent\t  and\tEviction)   Rules,   1972.   Section\n16(5)(a)\/Rule 10(9)--Review of order of release\/Allotment--A\nlandlord  even though not in actual possession can  ask\t for\nreview of the order.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t petitioner  in the Special Leave  Petition  is\t the\ntenant,\t Respondent No. 3 was one of the five  co-owners  of\nthe petition premises.\n    On\tJanuary 28, 1978, one of the co-owners who had\tsole\npossession of the shop vacated the shop and sent  intimation\nof  the vacancy to the Rent Controller under the U.P.  Urban\nBuildings  (Regulation of Letting and Eviction)\t Act,  1972.\nThe petitioner filed allotment application for the said shop\nand he was the sole applicant.\n    The\t Rent  Control Officer directed\t the  petitioner  to\nappear\tin  the allotment proceedings, called for  a  report\nfrom  the  Inspector, found one of the co-owners  to  he  in\npossession  of\tthe shop and that he  had  discontinued\t the\nbusiness and was going to let out the shop. The 3 other\t co-\nowners\tnever  objected to the petitioner's tenancy  on\t the\nallotment order. The allotment letter was accordingly passed\non  12th February.1978, and possession was taken up  by\t the\npetitioner thereafter.\n    On\tor about 25th February, 1978 the 3rd respondent\t who\nwas a non-occupant owner filed an application under  section\n16(5) of the Act\ti.e. after 25 days of the allotment,\nfor  review  of the order. The Rent Controller\tallowed\t the\nreview application and cancelled the allotment order.\n    The\t Additional  District  Judge  having  dismissed\t the\nrevision  petition, the petitioner filed a writ petition  in\nthe High Court.\n   The\tquestion  about the maintainability  of\t the  review\napplication  under section 16(5) of the Act at the  instance\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 276\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 277\nof  a  non-occupant  owner  having  arisen  the\t matter\t was\nreferred  to a Full Bench and by a majority, the Bench\tcame\nto the conclusion that such an application was maintainable.\n    Dismissing the Special Leave Petition,\n    HELD:   1.\tA  landlord,  even  though  not\t in   actual\npossession  at the time of the possession of  the  property,\ncan  ask  for review of the order of release  or  allotment.\n[280G]\n    2.\tA landlord has a right to the property. The  section\nshould\tnot  be\t so  construed as to  defeat  the  right  to\npossession  of\tproperty  in appropriate  cases\t unless\t the\nintention of the Legislature is manifest. [280F]\n    3. Section 16(5)(a) speaks of 'where the landlord or any\nother\tperson'.  Hence,  two  categories  of  persons\t are\ncontemplated i.e. a land-lord, or any other person. [280C]\n    4.\tThe requirement of the sub-section, to be in  lawful\noccupation of the building or any part thereof, applies only\nin  case  of  any  other person claiming  to  be  in  lawful\noccupation and not in case of landlord. The Section has used\nthe   expression  \"or\"\tand  so\t the  expression   \"or\"\t  is\ndisjunctive   of   these  two  categories  to\tbe   treated\nseparately.   Hence,  the  requirement\tto  be\t in   lawful\noccupation,  is not there is case of an application  by\t the\nlandlord. [280C-D]\n    5.\tThe proviso puts an embargo of 7 days in making\t the\napplication for review. It can only apply to those who\twere\nin  lawful  occupation\tat the time of\tthe  making  of\t the\noriginal  Order.  It  cannot  curtail  the  rights  of\t the\nlandlord. as such, it only affects any other person who\t was\nin lawful occupation. [280E-G]\n    Niren  Kumar Das v. 7he District Judge, Pilibhit &amp;\tOrs.\nAIR 1977 Allahabad 47, approved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition<br \/>\n(Civil) No. 6577 of 1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>    From the Judgment and order dated 27.4.1988 of the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt of Allahabad in C.M.W. No. 3777 of 1987.<br \/>\n    G.L. Sanghi and Manoj Prasad for the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 278<br \/>\n    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    SABYASACHI\tMUKHARJI, J. This application for  leave  to<br \/>\nappeal under Article 136 of the Constitution arises from the<br \/>\njudgment  and  order of the High Court of  Allahabad,  dated<br \/>\n27th  April,  1988  by\tthe  judgment  under  challenge\t the<br \/>\nDivision   Bench  by  majority\tdirected  the\tAddl.\tCity<br \/>\nMagistrate or the Officer at present exercising the power of<br \/>\nDistt.\tMagistrate  under  Rule\t 10(9)\tof  the\t U.P.  Urban<br \/>\nBuildings  (Regulation\tof Letting, Rent &amp;  Eviction)  Rules<br \/>\n1972 to issue notice on all the five landlords mentioned  in<br \/>\nthe petition within one week of the filing of the  certified<br \/>\ncopy  of  the  Order, and thereafter to\t make  an  Order  in<br \/>\naccordance  with  law and in the light of  the\tobservations<br \/>\nmade  in the said Judgment. The petitioner before  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt,\twho is the petitioner herein also, was directed\t not<br \/>\nto be dispossessed until disposal of the matter by the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>    This  application  is  by  the  tenant-petitioner.\t The<br \/>\npremises  in  question had five co-owners,  namely,  Veeresh<br \/>\nSaxena,\t R.C.  Saxena. D.C. Saxena, Smt. Shanti\t Saxena\t and<br \/>\nB.S. Saxena, respondent No. 3. Until January, 1978,  Veeresh<br \/>\nSaxena was in sole and exclusive actual physical  possession<br \/>\nof the shop and carried on business in it. In January,\t1978<br \/>\nthe  present petitioner filed allotment application for\t the<br \/>\nshop  and he was the sole applicant. On\t 28.1.1978,  Veeresh<br \/>\nSaxena\tvacated the shop and sent intimation of\t vacancy  to<br \/>\nthe  Rent  Control Officer under the  U.P.  Urban  Buildings<br \/>\n(Regulation  of Letting &amp; Eviction) Act,  1972\t(hereinafter<br \/>\ncalled\tthe Act). The Rent Control Officer,  then,  directed<br \/>\nhim  to\t appear in the allotment proceedings  The  Inspector<br \/>\nreported  that Veeresh Saxena was found to be in  possession<br \/>\nof the shop, discontinuing the business and was going to let<br \/>\nout the shop. On the Inspector&#8217;s report being pasted on\t the<br \/>\nNotice\tBoard  of the Rent Controller Office,  neither\tB.S.<br \/>\nSaxena\tnor  the  other 3  co-owners  filed  any  objection.<br \/>\nVeeresh\t Saxena filed an affidavit before the  Rent  Control<br \/>\nOfficer\t that  he  wanted  to  let  out\t the  shop  to\t the<br \/>\npetitioner.  The  3 other co-owners never  objected  to\t the<br \/>\npetitioner`s  tenancy on the allotment order throughout\t the<br \/>\nlast  10 years. The allotment letter was accordingly  passed<br \/>\non  12th  February, 1978.  The possession  was,\t thereafter,<br \/>\ntaken  up, it was alleged by the petitioner in\tthe  special<br \/>\nleave  petition.  The  petitioner had alleged  that  he\t had<br \/>\ninvested more than Rs.2 lakhs in the shop, but B.S.  Saxena.<br \/>\nwho  was  a non-occupant owner, on or about  25th  February,<br \/>\n1978  filed an application under section 16(5) of  the\tAct,<br \/>\nafter 25 days of allotment, for review of the Order. It\t was<br \/>\nalleged\t  by   the   petitioner\t that\tthe   evidence\t was<br \/>\noverwhelmingly\tin  support of the fact that  he  had  taken<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 279<br \/>\npossession of the premises on or about 4\/5th February, 1978.<br \/>\nThe  Rent  Controller, however, on the said  application  of<br \/>\nB.S. Saxena allowed the review application and cancelled the<br \/>\nallotment order.  revision against the said order was  filed<br \/>\nbefore\tthe learned Judge under section 18 of the  Act.\t The<br \/>\nlearned\t Addl.\tDistt.\tJudge dismissed\t the  revision.\t The<br \/>\npetitioner,  thereafter, filed a writ petition in  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt of Allahabad .\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t question  arose about the  maintainability  of\t the<br \/>\nreview\tapplication  under section 16(5) of the Act.  It  is<br \/>\nupon this point that the matter has been agitated before us.<br \/>\nThere was a difference of opinion about the  maintainability<br \/>\nof the review application at the instance of a\tnon-occupant<br \/>\nowner  and the matter was referred to a Bench of  3  learned<br \/>\nJudges\tand  by\t majority the Division\tBench  came  to\t the<br \/>\nconclusion  that such an application was  maintainable.\t The<br \/>\npetitioner herein contends that the High Court was wrong  in<br \/>\nthe view it took on the construction of Section 16(5)(b)  of<br \/>\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The relevant provisions of the said sub-section read  as<br \/>\nfollow:\n<\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;(5)(a) Where the landlord or any other person  claiming<br \/>\nto  be lawful occupant of the building or any  part  thereof<br \/>\ncomprised  in the allotment or release order  satisfies\t the<br \/>\nDistrict  Magistrate  that  such  order\t was  not  made\t  in<br \/>\naccordance with clause (a) or clause (b) as the case may  be<br \/>\nof  sub-section (I), the District Magistrate may review\t the<br \/>\norder:\n<\/p>\n<p>    Provided 1hat no application under this clause shall  be<br \/>\nentertained later than seven days after the eviction of such<br \/>\nperson .\n<\/p>\n<p>    (b)\t Where the District Magistrate on review under\tthis<br \/>\nsub-section sets aside or modifies his order of allotment or<br \/>\nrelease,  he shall put or cause to be put the applicant,  if<br \/>\nalready\t evicted, back into possession of the building,\t and<br \/>\nmay  for that purpose use or cause to be used such force  as<br \/>\nmay be necessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (6) x x x<br \/>\n    (7) Every order under this section shall subJect to\t any<br \/>\norder made under sec. 18 be final.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 280<br \/>\n    The contention is that a landlord who was not in  actual<br \/>\nphysical  possession until making of the allotment order  or<br \/>\nis evicted in pursuant thereof, is not competent to make  an<br \/>\napplication  for  review of the allotment order\t or  release<br \/>\norder  under section 16(5)(a) &amp; (b) of the Act.\t Admittedly,<br \/>\nas mentioned hereinbefore, the respondent applicant was\t not<br \/>\nin  occupation\twhen the Order was made.  He  was,  however,<br \/>\nindisputably a landlord. So, the question is whether on\t the<br \/>\nconstruction of the section, a landlord who Is not in actual<br \/>\nphysical  possession  at the time of the release  order,  is<br \/>\nentitled under the law to apply for review of the order. The<br \/>\nHigh Court held that he is entitled.\n<\/p>\n<p>    We\tare  of the opinion that the High Court\t was  right.<br \/>\nSection 16(5)(a) speaks of &#8216;where the landlord or any  other<br \/>\nperson&#8217;.   Hence,there\t are  two  categories\tof   persons<br \/>\ncontemplated  i.e.  a  landlord, or any\t other\tperson.\t The<br \/>\nrequirement  of sub-section, to be in lawful  occupation  of<br \/>\nthe  building or any part thereof, applies Only in  case  of<br \/>\nLany other person claiming to be in lawful occupation and not<br \/>\nin  case of landlord. The Section has used the expression  &#8216;<br \/>\nor&#8221;  and  so the expression or is disjunctive of  these\t two<br \/>\ncategories to be treated separately. Hence, the\t requirement<br \/>\nto  be\tin  lawful occupation. is not there in\tcase  of  an<br \/>\napplication by the landlord.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Mr.\t G.L.  Sanghi,\tlearned counsel\t appearing  for\t the<br \/>\ntenant, has sought to argue that by virtue of the proviso  a<br \/>\nlandlord  who  was not in occupation, was  not\tentitled  to<br \/>\napply.\tWe  are unable to accept this. The proviso  puts  an<br \/>\nembargo\t of 7 days in making the application for review.  It<br \/>\ncan only apply to those who were in lawful occuaption at the<br \/>\ntime of the making of the original Order. It cannot  curtail<br \/>\nthe  rights  of the landlord, as such, it only\taffects\t any<br \/>\nother person who was lawful occupation. In any event, it  is<br \/>\na well-settled principle of construction that unless clearly<br \/>\nindicated, a proviso would not away substantive rights given<br \/>\nby  the Section or the sub-section. A land lord has a  right<br \/>\nto  the property. The Section should not be construed as  to<br \/>\ndefeat\tthe right to possession of property  in\t appropriate<br \/>\ncases unless the intention of the Legislature is manifest We<br \/>\nfind no such clear intention in the facts of this case.<br \/>\n    We\tare, therefore,. of the opinion that the High  Court<br \/>\ncame to the correct conclusion that a landlord, even  though<br \/>\nnot  in\t actual\t physical  possession at  the  time  of\t the<br \/>\npossession of the property. call ask for review of the order<br \/>\nof release or allotment. It must be borne in mind that\tthis<br \/>\nview  was  also expressed by Mr. Justice  N.D.Ojha,  as\t our<br \/>\nlearned brother then was, in his judgment in Niren Kumar Das<br \/>\nv.  The District Judge, Pilibhit &amp; Ors., AIR 1977  Allahabad<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 281\n<\/p>\n<p>47. We agree with that interpretation.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the<br \/>\ncontentions   urged  in\t the  specil  leave  petition.\t The<br \/>\napplication is, therefore,rejected.\n<\/p>\n<pre>N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t Petition dismissed.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Madhu Gopal vs Vi Additional District Judge &amp; Ors on 26 September, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 155, 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 276 Author: S Mukharji Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: MADHU GOPAL Vs. RESPONDENT: VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT26\/09\/1988 BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI [&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-205321","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>Madhu Gopal vs Vi Additional District Judge &amp; Ors on 26 September, 1988 - 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\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madhu Gopal vs Vi Additional District Judge &amp; Ors on 26 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-08T20:05:25+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\\\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madhu Gopal vs Vi Additional District Judge &amp; Ors on 26 September, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-08T20:05:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988\"},\"wordCount\":1376,\"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\\\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988\",\"name\":\"Madhu Gopal vs Vi Additional District Judge &amp; Ors on 26 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-08T20:05:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madhu Gopal vs Vi Additional District Judge &amp; Ors on 26 September, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Madhu Gopal vs Vi Additional District Judge &amp; Ors on 26 September, 1988 - 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\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madhu Gopal vs Vi Additional District Judge &amp; Ors on 26 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-08T20:05:25+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\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madhu Gopal vs Vi Additional District Judge &amp; Ors on 26 September, 1988","datePublished":"1988-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-08T20:05:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988"},"wordCount":1376,"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\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988","name":"Madhu Gopal vs Vi Additional District Judge &amp; Ors on 26 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-08T20:05:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-gopal-vs-vi-additional-district-judge-ors-on-26-september-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madhu Gopal vs Vi Additional District Judge &amp; Ors on 26 September, 1988"}]},{"@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\/205321","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=205321"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205321\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205321"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205321"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205321"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}