{"id":231839,"date":"2003-07-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003"},"modified":"2014-04-26T07:21:38","modified_gmt":"2014-04-26T01:51:38","slug":"r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003","title":{"rendered":"R. Rajeswari, D\/O Rangayya Gowder vs Anil Fire Works Factory, Through &#8230; on 15 July, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R. Rajeswari, D\/O Rangayya Gowder vs Anil Fire Works Factory, Through &#8230; on 15 July, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Radhakrishnan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K Radhakrishnan, P C Kuriakose<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. <\/p>\n<p>1. This appeal has been preferred by the assignee of the first defendant.<br \/>\nSuit was instituted by the first respondent herein as plaintiff praying for a<br \/>\ndecree for partition of 1\/4th rights of the plaint schedule property with mesne<br \/>\nprofits at the rate of Rs. 1,200\/- per year. Trial court decree the suit. In<br \/>\nappeal it was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been<br \/>\npreferred.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. When the matter came up for hearing, counsel appearing for the respondents<br \/>\nraised a preliminary objection that the appeal itself is not maintainable. We<br \/>\nwill deal with that question after examining the facts of the case. Plaint<br \/>\nschedule property belongs to defendants 1 to 4. Fourth defendant is the son of<br \/>\nthe first defendant and has a share. Plaintiff had instituted suit, O.S.No. 163<br \/>\nof 1974 before the Munsiff&#8217;s Court, Sathur, as against fourth defendant which<br \/>\nwas decreed. The decree was sought to be executed by filing E.P. No. 383 of 1976<br \/>\nwhich was filed before the Munsiff&#8217;s Court, Palghat, for attachment and sale of<br \/>\nthe fourth defendant&#8217;s rights in the property. Fourth defendant&#8217;s right was sold<br \/>\nand purchased by the plaintiff on 27.11.1978 in execution of the decree and the<br \/>\ncourt confirmed the sale on 31.1.1979. Plaintiff obtained symbolic delivery as<br \/>\nper sale certificate dated 31.1.1979 and was recorded on 11.2.1980. Plaintiff is<br \/>\ntherefore in joint possession of the property belonged to defendants 1 to 3 and<br \/>\nhis 1\/4th right in the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. First defendant filed a written statement stating that the share of the<br \/>\nfourth defendant was not available to be attached in E.P.No. 383 of 1976 on the<br \/>\nfile of the Munsiff&#8217;s Court, Palghat since he had no saleable interest in the<br \/>\nproperty at that time. Fourth defendant was doing business in the property and<br \/>\nhad kept salestax arrears for 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 amounting to Rs.<br \/>\n22,467-25. State had got paramount charge over the share of the fourth<br \/>\ndefendant. Consequently it had initiated revenue recovery proceedings against<br \/>\nhim. In exercise of the powers conferred under the Revenue Recovery Act,<br \/>\nDistrict Collector, Palghat had brought fourth defendant&#8217;s properties to sale<br \/>\nafter due publication. First defendant purchased the said property in public<br \/>\nauction held on 28.10.1980 which was later on confirmed as per District<br \/>\nCollector&#8217;s order dated 30.12.1980. Plaintiff is therefore estopped from<br \/>\nclaiming and right in the property. It was contended that the suit was liable to<br \/>\nbe dismissed. In order to establish his case plaintiff had produced Exts. A1 and<br \/>\nA2 documents. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the plaintiff. On the<br \/>\nside of the defendants first defendant got examined as DW-1 and Exts. B1 and B2<br \/>\nwere produced. Trial court framed an issue whether the plaintiff had acquired<br \/>\nany valid title in respect of 1\/4th share of the fourth defendant and also<br \/>\nexamined the question as to whether Government had any prior charge and the<br \/>\nauction sale was subject to such charge. After examining the oral and<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence the trial court came to the conclusion that first defendant<br \/>\ndid not succeed to the fourth defendant&#8217;s share of the property pursuant to<br \/>\nrevenue sale. It was therefore held that the plaintiff was entitled to get<br \/>\npreliminary decree for partition and mesne profits from defendants 1 to 3 from<br \/>\nthe date of the plaint. Judgment was delivered on 27.9.1983.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The first defendant then filed A.S.No. 22 of 1984 before District Court,<br \/>\nPalghat on 7.2.1984. Appeal was not competent before District Court, Palghat and<br \/>\nreturned for presentation before this court. Appeal was then filed before this<br \/>\ncourt on 20.8.1984 and numbered as A.S.No. 217 of 1984. When the appeal was<br \/>\nheard by the learned single judge a preliminary objection was raised by the<br \/>\nrespondents that the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation. It<br \/>\nwas pointed out that no petition for condoning the delay was filed. Consequently<br \/>\nexclusion of time is not possible under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was<br \/>\nalso pointed out that the court below was not justified in fixing the time for<br \/>\npresenting the appeal before this court and the appeal was barred by the law of<br \/>\nlimitation. On facts also learned single Judge found there is no merit in the<br \/>\nappeal. Consequently the appeal was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Before the examine the merits of the case we may examine whether appeal is<br \/>\nmaintainable. We find from the facts that appeal was wrongly filed before the<br \/>\nDistrict Court, Palghat though it should have been filed before this court. Counsel appearing for the appellant cited several decisions before us and contended that the learned single judge ought to have condoned the delay since the appellant was honestly and diligently prosecuting the matter before the District Court, Palghat. Counsel placed reliance mainly on the decisions, such as  Sarojini v. Pathummal (1987 (2) KLT 576),  Builders Supply<br \/>\nCorporation v. The Union of India(AIR 1965 S.C. 1061),<br \/>\n Parameswaran v. Ramachandran(1986 KLT 982)  <a href=\"\/doc\/750958\/\">Zafar Khan and Ors. v. Board of Revenue and Ors.<\/a>(AIR 1985 S.C. 39),  Abraham v. Sadanandan and Ors.(1979 KLT 493) etc.<\/p>\n<p>6. We notice that the appeal filed before the District Court was not<br \/>\nmaintainable. The appeal was kept pending before the court from 7.2.1984 to<br \/>\n30.7.1984. The appeal ought to have been filed before this court. District Court<br \/>\nreturned the appeal memorandum. The appeal was filed before this court only on<br \/>\n20.8.1984. Contention was raised before the learned single judge that since the<br \/>\nappellant was prosecuting with due diligence and good faith before the District<br \/>\nCourt the period spent before that court be excluded under Section 14 of the<br \/>\nLimitation Act. Even if the period spent between 7.2.1984 and 30.7.1984 be<br \/>\nexcluded under Section 14 the appellant had not filed any application under<br \/>\nSection 5 of the Limitation Act to exclude the delay from 30.7.1984 to 20.8.1984<br \/>\nbefore this court. It is well settled, existence of sufficient cause is a<br \/>\ncondition precedent for the exercise of power of granting or refusing extension<br \/>\nof time. Since no application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act<br \/>\nfor condoning the delay in filing the appeal, A.S.No. 217 of 1984 was<br \/>\nincompetent and was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. Filing of an<br \/>\napplication under Section 14 by itself will not save limitation. There is a<br \/>\nclear distinction between Section 5 and Section 14. Section 5 affords an<br \/>\nextension of time for sufficient cause. Section 14 provides for exclusion of<br \/>\ntime during which civil proceedings was pending in computing the period of<br \/>\nlimitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. The appellant after filing this appeal filed C.M.P. No. 1953 of 1992 for<br \/>\nexclusion of time under Section 14 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act for<br \/>\nfiling the Appeal Suit. We are of the view, such a petition is not maintainable<br \/>\nin this appeal, but should have been filed in the Appeal Suit. We may also point<br \/>\nout that the District Court has no power to grant time for filing the appeal<br \/>\nbefore the superior court. It is for the superior court to determine whether<br \/>\napplication under Section 14 or under Section 5 be allowed or not. We have no<br \/>\nhesitation to hold that the appeal. A.S.No. 217 of 1984, was incompetent and was<br \/>\nrightly dismissed. Since the Appeal Suit was not competent, this appeal from<br \/>\nthat appeal is also not liable to be entertained as it is not maintainable.<br \/>\nSince we have found that the appeal is not maintainable, we need not further<br \/>\nprobe into the merits of this case. The appeal would therefore stand dismissed.<br \/>\nParties would bear their respective costs in this appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court R. Rajeswari, D\/O Rangayya Gowder vs Anil Fire Works Factory, Through &#8230; on 15 July, 2003 Author: K Radhakrishnan Bench: K Radhakrishnan, P C Kuriakose JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assignee of the first defendant. Suit was instituted by the first respondent herein as plaintiff [&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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-231839","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R. Rajeswari, D\/O Rangayya Gowder vs Anil Fire Works Factory, Through ... on 15 July, 2003 - 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\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. Rajeswari, D\/O Rangayya Gowder vs Anil Fire Works Factory, Through ... on 15 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-26T01:51:38+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. Rajeswari, D\\\/O Rangayya Gowder vs Anil Fire Works Factory, Through &#8230; on 15 July, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-26T01:51:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1266,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003\",\"name\":\"R. Rajeswari, D\\\/O Rangayya Gowder vs Anil Fire Works Factory, Through ... on 15 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-26T01:51:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. Rajeswari, D\\\/O Rangayya Gowder vs Anil Fire Works Factory, Through &#8230; on 15 July, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"R. Rajeswari, D\/O Rangayya Gowder vs Anil Fire Works Factory, Through ... on 15 July, 2003 - 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\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. Rajeswari, D\/O Rangayya Gowder vs Anil Fire Works Factory, Through ... on 15 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-26T01:51:38+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. Rajeswari, D\/O Rangayya Gowder vs Anil Fire Works Factory, Through &#8230; on 15 July, 2003","datePublished":"2003-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-26T01:51:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003"},"wordCount":1266,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003","name":"R. Rajeswari, D\/O Rangayya Gowder vs Anil Fire Works Factory, Through ... on 15 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-26T01:51:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajeswari-do-rangayya-gowder-vs-anil-fire-works-factory-through-on-15-july-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. Rajeswari, D\/O Rangayya Gowder vs Anil Fire Works Factory, Through &#8230; on 15 July, 2003"}]},{"@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\/231839","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=231839"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231839\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231839"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231839"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231839"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}