{"id":237999,"date":"2001-04-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-04-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001"},"modified":"2018-12-08T07:03:34","modified_gmt":"2018-12-08T01:33:34","slug":"muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001","title":{"rendered":"Muninanjappa And Ors vs R. Manual And Anr on 11 April, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Muninanjappa And Ors vs R. Manual And Anr on 11 April, 2001<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Misra, U.C. Banerjee<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  9147 of 1996\n\nPETITIONER:\nMUNINANJAPPA AND ORS.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nR. MANUAL AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/04\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nA.P. MISRA & U.C. BANERJEE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2001 (2) SCR 1113<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
MISRA, J. In spite of expertise in drafting a Will, the testators infusing
\nhis intentions in it, the struggle for a claim under it remained unabated,
\nthe tug of war between the two claimants under it has been the cause of
\nissue before the courts from its very inception. The strong desire to
\nsucceed, even for wrongful claims, has led such claimants to split and
\ninterpret, even simple words and clear intentions into two possible
\ninterpretations. That is why court has to exercise and interpret a Will
\nwith circumspection and caution in order to give thrust to the true
\nintentions of a testator.\n<\/p>\n
This appeal also raises similar question of the interpretation of a Will
\nand consequently the right of a widow of a benefactor under the Will. The
\nquestions raised are :\n<\/p>\n
(a)     Whether the right given to Guruswamy, the benefactor under the Will
\ndated 1st June, 1942 was a limited right.\n<\/p>\n
(b)     If Guruswamy had a limited right, whether his widow Sevamma could
\nget absolute right under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to
\nexecute the impugned sale deed in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
In order to appreciate the controversies and to answer the aforesaid two
\nquestions, we are hereunder giving short matrix of facts which are
\nessential for the disposal of this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The following Genealogical Table showing the relationship inter se between
\ntestatrix Poovamma and the beneficiaries under the Will is given as under:<\/p>\n
\n\nRevalappa Muniyamma = Lakshmaiah = Vellamma                Poovamma\n\n(First Wife)                         (Second Wife)\nTextatrix\n\nMuninanjappa              Guruswamy=Sevamma(widow)\n\n(Plaintiff)                                (Defendant no. 3)\n\n<\/pre>\n
The suit was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for declaration that the
\nsale deed executed by defendant no. 3 Sevamma, widow of Guruswamy in favour
\nof defendant-respondent nos.l and 2 is not binding on them as she had no
\nright to’ sell the same, hence defendant nos. 1 and 2 cannot derive any
\nright, title or interest over the suit property by virtue of the said sale
\ndeed. Poovamma was the original owner of the suit property which is not in
\ndispute. The plaintiffs lost his father Lakshmaiah, the brother of
\nPoovamma’When he was four years old and was lookedafter by Poovamma.
\nGuruswamy the brother of plaintiff born from the second wife also came
\nunder the care of Poovamma. Defendant no.3 Sevamma is the widow of
\nGuruswamy. The case of plaintiffs-appellants is, under the aforesaid
\nregistered Will dated 1st June, 1942 Poovamma bequeathed the suit property
\nin favour of both plaintiff and Guruswamy. Under the Will none of the
\nlegatees, the benefactor under the Will gets any right to alienate any part
\nof the suit property hence Guruswamy and his widow Sevamma could at best
\nhave life interest without any right of alienation. Thus the property
\nbequeathed, after the death of both, namely, Guruswamy and his widow
\nSevamma reverts back to the plaintiff. In spite of this limited right,
\nSevamma sold this property to defendant nos. 1 and 2 (respondent nos. 1 and
\n2 in this Court) on 4th September, 1980 through a registered sale deed. As
\na consequence of this respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed petition for plaintiffs
\neviction. This led to the filing of the present suit by the plaintiffs-
\nappellant as aforesaid. The case set up by respondent nos. 1 and 2 is that
\nafter the death of Guruswamy his widow Sevamma became absolute owner by
\nvirtue of Sections 13 and 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and hence
\nalienation of this property, through the said sale deed is valid. Defendant
\nno. 3 Sevamma supported the case of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and further
\nsaid that after the death of her husband she was in possession of the suit
\nproperty, which was in lieu of her right of maintenance, thus by virtue of
\nSections 13 and 14 of the Hindu Succession Act she became absolute owner
\nafter her husband’s death on 23rd August, 1970.\n<\/p>\n
The trial court came to the conclusion, while interpreting the aforesaid
\nWill, that the suit property was bequeathed to Guruswamy for enjoying it
\nduring his life time without any right of alienation, in case a son is born
\nto him, such son would be the full owner, with a right of alienation.
\nHowever, Guruswamy died without any male issue. Thus the question which
\ncame for consideration was, whether after the death of Guruswamy, his widow
\ncould succeed to this property in lieu of maintenance, which could mature
\ninto full owner under the Hindu Succession Act, if not, whether the
\nimpugned sale deed would be void and this property would reverts back to
\nthe plaintiff (Muninanjappa) the only surviving heir. The trial court
\nconcluded that the testatrix intention under the Will was to bequeath the
\nsuit property to the branch of Guruswamy exclusively though with life
\ninterest to Guruswamy. The reason for this is because of the absence of
\nrecording in the Will after the death of Guruswamy and his widow, the suit
\nproperty would revert back to the plaintiff. The trial court finally
\nconcluded that the branch of Guruswamy and of plaintiffs would become
\nabsolute owner of the suit property be-queathed to them. Thus the widow
\nbeing the only heir of the Guruswamy branch would succeed to the said
\nproperty under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act as she falls under
\nclass I category of the schedule. It further held, Section 14(2) of the
\nHindu Succession Act has no application. Thus the sale deed in question
\ncannot be held to be illegal, so dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. Aggrieved
\nby this the plaintiff-appellant filed appeal before the High Court which
\nwas also dismissed in which it is held :\n<\/p>\n
“As far as the first aspect of the matter is concerned, I need to observe
\nthat the learned trial Judge has relied on the provisions of S. 14 of the
\nHindu Succession Act. Admittedly the property was not inherited by Sevamma
\nin her own right. What was contended on her behalf was that on the death of
\nher husband, she was the sole surviving hek of Guruswamy and that
\nconsequently the property which constituted his estate devolved on her but
\nthe supportive reason for this was that being the wife of Guruswamy she had
\nthe absolute right of claiming maintenance and that by virtue of the
\nproviso to s. 14 on the ground, principally that she was entitled to
\nmaintenance, the property did come to her.\n<\/p>\n
…..The respondents’ learned advocate has seriously contested this
\nposition because he points out that by virtue of operation of S. 14,
\nregardless of provisions of S. 14 (2) that on the facts of the present
\ncase, Sevamma had become the absolute owner. I have already held that it is
\nimpossible to read into the will any limitation vis-a-vis the alienation of
\nthis property and under these circumstances, the provisions of S. 14 (2)
\nwould not come into operation. Under these circumstances for very good
\nreasons the legislature has pro-vided that a Hindu wife will acquire
\nabsolute rights in respect of the property of her husband. When the law
\nuses the word ‘absolute’, it envisages the freedom or liberty to deal with
\nthose properties in whatever manner the holder deems fit….\n<\/p>\n
To my mind, the wordings in the Will are unambiguous and are quite clear.
\nThey do not create any doubt whatsoever in my mind and it is very clear
\nalso in law that on the death of Guruswamy, his wife did acquire an
\nabsolute right in respect of the disputed property.”\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by this the appellant has filed the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits, in
\ninterpreting a Will; intention of testatrix should be taken into account
\nand thus if the said Will is construed properly, it would reveal that
\ntestatrix’s brother Lakshmaiah had two wives – one Muniyamma and other
\nYellamma. Plaintiff was born from the first wife Muniyamma while Guruswamy
\nwas bom from the second wife Yellamma. Since at the time of the execution
\nof the said Will both plaintiff and Guruswamy were young, hence limited
\nright was given to them by dividing the suit property half and half – one
\ngoing to the branch of the son bom from the first wife and second going to
\nthe branch of son bom from the second wife. This clearly reveals testatrix
\nintended the property to go to two branches absolutely specially in the
\nabsence of any reference in the Will that the property would revert to the
\nother branch where no son is born. Thus the right of the said two brothers
\neven if limited would mature into absolute right if this intention of the
\ntestatrix is read into the Will. He further submits, in any case, even if
\nGuruswamy had a limited right, after his death his widow having right in
\nlieu of maintenance out of any estate of her husband it would mature into
\nfull right by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.\n<\/p>\n
On the other hand Mr. Rajesh Mahale, advocate appearing for the appellant
\nsubmits that the said Will gives limited right to both the brothers,
\nnamely, the plaintiff and Guruswamy and it is only when a son is bom to
\nthem, such son is to acquire the absolute right of his branch. Further if
\nGuruswamy himself had a limited right it cannot mature into full right
\neither in his favour or in favour of his widow. In any case, at the most
\nthe widow may continue to enjoy this limited right until a son is born out
\nof her wedlock with Guruswamy, but in no case this limited right could be
\nconstrued to be in lieu of maintenance or any of her pre-existing right.
\nHence the judgment of both the trial court and the appellate court holding
\nthe widow Sevamma having full right is not sustainable in the eyes of law
\nand liable to be set aside. He also referred to Sections 112 and 115 of the
\nIndian Succession Act, 1925. The submission is, Section 112 spells out,
\nwhen a bequest is made to a person not in existence till testator’s death
\nthen such bequest to such person is void to that extent. In the present
\ncase admittedly at the time of death of testatrix no son was born to
\nGuruswamy hence the second bequest in favour of son of Guruswamy is void.
\nHowever, by virtue of Section 115, if bequest is made to a class of person
\nand even if for some it is inoperative viz. those falling under Section
\n112, then such bequest would be void only in regard to such persons and not
\nin regard to the remaining class of persons.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the respondent construes the Will to mean that
\nintention of the testatrix was that the two branches, one out of 1st wife
\nand other out of 2nd wife of Lakshmaiah become absolute owner. Submission
\nis, even if words in the Will are missing, the court should supply these
\nmissing words to subserve the intentions of the testator. For this,
\nreliance is placed in Smt. Pramod Kumari Bhatia v. Om Prakash Bhati and
\nOrs.,<\/a> [1980] 1 SCC 412, which holds while constituting a Will, the court
\ncould supply the missing words to carry out the intention of the testator,
\nin order to appreciate this, the relevant portion of the Will is quoted
\nhereunder:\n<\/p>\n
“After my death the schedule item one house shall go to Guruswamy, the 4
\nyears old minor son of my above said deceased elder brother, Lakshmaiah
\nthrough his second wife Yellamma and also to the male child to be born to
\nYellamma who is presently carrying.\n<\/p>\n
My adopted son, the said Muninanjappa shall only enjoy the schedule one
\nitem house and he shall not have any right to alienate it by way of either
\nsale, gift or mortgage. His male children may enjoy the same as they
\ndesire. The schedule item two house may be enjoyed by the said Yellamma’s
\nson Guruswamy and the male child to be born to Yellamma and they shall not
\nhave any right to alienate the same by way of sale, gift, mortgage etc.
\nTheir male children shall have every right to enjoy the same as they
\ndesire. The said Yellamma shall have the right to reside in the said house
\nalong with the minor children during her life time.”\n<\/p>\n
Reliance is also placed in Raghbir Singh and Ors. v. Budh Singh and Ors.,
\nAIR<\/a> (1978) Delhi 86. In this case also the Court held, while construing a
\nWill the intention of the Testator should be carried out. It further held,
\nkeeping this in view, different parts of the Will should be construed
\nharmo-niously. The Courts should not reject any part of the Will being a
\nsurplusage. As the testator could not have intended to make any bequest in
\nthe Will as an exercise in futility. It further held, in doing so, if
\nnecessary, the Court may read down the language of a part of the Will to
\ngive full effect to the general words of the other part of the Will.\n<\/p>\n
The principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions cannot be disputed. This
\nwill depend on the facts of each case and the language of the Will. It may
\nbe, in a given case the court may supply the missing words and in some
\nother the court may read down the language of the Will in order to
\nimplement the intention of a testator. However, where the language and the
\nwords of a Will are clear, there is no ambiguity which could be understood
\nclearly without any doubt then it would not be proper to either supplement
\nthe words or read it down to give benefit to either of the contesting
\nparties. In the present case we find that the language of the Will is clear
\nand unambiguous. Thus to find out intentions of the testatrix, no
\nsupplementing or reading down any word is necessary. The testatrix
\nbequeathed her property to her brother’s sons, namely, one from first wife,
\nplaintiff and other to Guruswamy, from the second wife. To both she clearly
\nrecords in no uncertain words that they would have limited right with no
\nright to alienate. She also clearly records in case son is bom to them they
\nwould get absolute right including right to alienate. The language in the
\nWill is :\n<\/p>\n
“After my death the schedule item one (which is item No.2 in the schedule
\nto the plaint) house shall go to Guruswami………, My adopted son, the
\nsaid Muninanjappa (Plaintiff) shall only enjoy the schedule one item house
\nand he shall not have any right to alienate<\/p>\n
……….His male child may enjoy the same as they desire. The schedule
\nitem two, house may be enjoyed by the said……..Guruswamy and the male
\nchild to be born to Yellamma and they shall not have any right to
\nalienate…….The male child shall have every right to enjoy the same as
\nthey desire.”\n<\/p>\n
The aforesaid language in the Will are clear that the testatrix intended to
\ngive limited right to both plaintiff and Guruswami and absolute right only
\nto the sons born to them. If that be so, the only point which requires our
\nconsideration, is what right Sevamma widow of Guruswamy gets after the
\ndeath of Guruswamy? We have no hesitation to hold that the limited right of
\nGuruswamy cannot be Interpreted by any stretch of language that testatrix
\nintended to give absolute right to Guruswamy or to his widow. They were to
\nhold the property for delivery to the son, in case, bom out of their
\nwedlock. In no case Sevamma’s right over the property would mature into
\nabsolute right by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Her
\nright could only mature as such, if her claim could be based on any of her
\npre-existing right including right in lieu of maintenance out of her
\nhusband’s property. But in no case it would mature where the property is
\nheld by her husband either in trust for the benefit of other or as limited
\nand restricted owner with no right to alienate. Hence even if Sevamma
\ncontinued to enjoy the property after the death of her husband, she held
\nthe property at the most, in the same capacity as her husband but not to
\nclaim it towards her right of maintenance. If husband had any other
\nproperty apart from what was gifted by Poovamma, she could claim her above
\nright under Section 14(1) but not over the property given to her husband
\nGuruswamy as a limited owner. The High Court fell into error while
\nconstruing Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act by extending its width
\nso wide which spills over its permissible boundary when it held, a Hindu
\nwife will acquire absolute right in the property of her husband and then
\napplying it to the facts of this case. It seems High Court was not
\nappraised with the settled law, in respect of the field of Section 14(1) as
\ndeclared by this Court as far back as in V. Tulasamma & Ors. v. Sesha Reddy
\n(Dead)<\/a> by Lrs., [1977] 3 SCC 99 and also reiterated in Velamuri Venkata
\nSivaprasad (Dead) by Lrs., v. Kothuri Venkateswarlu (dead) by Lrs. & Ors.,
\n[2000] 2 SCC 139, which holds benefit to a female could be given under
\nSection 14 (1) where her claim is based on her pre-existing right over her
\nhusband’s property. V. Tulasamma & Ors. (supra) holds Section 14 (2) is in
\nthe nature of a proviso to Section 14 (1). Section 14 (1) applies to
\nproperty granted to a female Hindu by virtue of a pre-existing right of
\nmaintenance. The decision while carrying out the field of Section 14 (2)
\nheld:\n<\/p>\n
“…Sub-section (2) must be confined to cases where property is acquired by
\na Hindu female for the first time as a grant, without any pre existing
\nright……., the terms of which prescribes a restricted estate in the
\nproperty…….Where, however, property is acquired by a Hindu female at a
\npartition or in lieu of maintenance, it is by virtue of a pre-existing
\nright and such an acquisition would not be within the scope of sub-section
\n(2), but within the scope of sub-section (1).”\n<\/p>\n
Applying the said principle, it has to be seen whether Sevemma is possessed
\nof the property of her deceased husband based on her pre-existing right or
\nis holding such property under any instrument prescribing restrictive
\nestate in such property. By no stretch of interpretation it could be said,
\nSevamma was possessed of the suit property in lieu of her any pre-existing
\nright. When a widow claims her right under sub-section (1) of Section 14 in
\nthe hand of either coparcener or male issue of her deceased husband, it is
\nbecause of her pre-existing right of maintenance to the extent of her
\nhusband share in a joint family property. She cannot claim any such right
\nout of the share of other coparcener in which there is no trace of her
\nhusband’s share. So when limited right as spoken with reference to the
\nhusband right in joint Hindu family property, it only means limited to the
\nextent of husband’s share.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the respondent referred to N. Appavu Udayan and Anr. v.
\nNallammal, AIR (1949) Madras 24. In this case, it is held that even father-
\nin-law has a moral obligation to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law out
\nof his self-acquired property and on his death this liability passes on to
\nhis heirs. This case has no application to the facts in the present case.
\nWe are in the present case not called upon to decide any claim of the
\ndaughter-in-law over the property of her father-in-law and further in the
\nsaid case father-in-law was the absolute owner being self-acquired
\nproperty. In the present case her husband’s right to the suit property is
\nlimited and restricted hi its enjoyment under the said Will, thus no right
\non the widow could be conferred more than what her husband possessed. He
\nalso referred to Ram Kali (Smt.) v. Choudhri Ajit Shankar and Ors.,<\/a> [1997]
\n9 SCC 613. This case also has no application, as the property acquired by
\nthe widow under Will was in lieu of maintenance allowance. Widow in this
\ncase was given the right to reside in the house during her lifetime and was
\ndebarred from alienating the same. However, widow was in possession of the
\nhouse when the Hindu Succession Act came into force. The Court held that
\nshe held the property in recognition of her pre-existing right to
\nmaintenance. As a consequence her limited estate enlarged into an absolute
\nestate.\n<\/p>\n
Next reference was made Kalawatibai v. Soiryabai and Ors.,<\/a> [1991] 3 SCC\n<\/p>\n
410. This was a case where the Hindu widow alienate the entire property
\ninherited by her from her husband by executing a gift deed. This was a case
\nwhere the question was, whether a widow possessed of the property in
\nquestion being the limited owner could she mature her right under Section
\n14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Reliance is placed on the following lines:\n<\/p>\n
“No actual division of share had taken place, yet the court held that it
\nwas property ‘possessed’ by her on the date the Act came into force. In
\nSukhram v. Gauri Shankar,<\/a> it was held that a widow was full owner in Joint
\nHindu family property as she became entitled to the interest which her
\nhusband had by virtue of Hindu Women Right to Property Act. The court ruled
\nthat even though a male was subject to restrictions qua alienation on his
\ninterest in joint Hindu family property, but a widow acquiring an interest
\nby virtue of the Act did not suffer such restriction. V. Tulsamma v. Shesha
\nReddy and Bai Vajia v. Thakorbhai Chelabhai, were cases where the widow was
\n‘pos-sessed’ of the property in lieu of maintenance, and therefore, she was
\nheld to be full owner”.\n<\/p>\n
This was a case of joint Hindu family property where husband had a right in
\nthe property being member of the joint Hindu family, even though limited,
\nwhich is distinguishable from the limited right which testatrix granted to
\nGuruswamy. In the aforesaid case husband’s limited right is referred as
\nlimited to the extent of his share, but there existed in the property the
\nright of the husband independently to the extent of his share while right
\nto Guruswami in the suit property, he had no other right except what is
\nconferred under the Will, which restricts it for its enjoyment only but no
\nindependent right to transfer. Distinguishing feature between these two
\ntypes of limited rights is, in the case of husband’s right in the joint
\nfamily property, even though limited, has a right to seek partition or
\nright to transfer to the extent of his share which Guruswami could not
\nenjoy in the restrictive right under the said Will. In other words,
\nGuruswamy could neither seek right of partition nor transfer his such right
\nto any one else.\n<\/p>\n
We find in the case before us trial court held that Sevamma became absolute
\nowner by virtue of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act which has no legs
\nto stand, both on facts and law. We have already recorded Guruswamy has a
\nlimited and restrictive right, no absolute right. His widow on the facts of
\nthis case cannot be treated to be class I heir under the said Act. Hence
\nboth the courts below fell into error in holding that Sevamma became
\nabsolute owner. Accordingly, the finding of both the trial court and the
\nappellate court are unsustainable in law. In view of the aforesaid findings
\nwe answer the first question by holding that the Will dated 1st June, 1942,
\ngrants Guruswamy limited and restrictive right in no case to mature into
\nfull right.\n<\/p>\n
As a consequence of this we answer the second question by holding that
\nSevamma did not inherit the suit property from her husband nor possessed it
\nin lieu of maintenance hence question of maturing it into full right under
\nSection 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act does not arise. Thus we hold
\nSevamma had no right to alienate the suit property, thus sale of the suit
\nproperty in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2 can not be held to be valid.
\nThus for these reasons and findings, we set aside the findings and the
\njudgment of both of the trial court and the High Court and decree the suit
\nof the plaintiff. Costs on the parties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Muninanjappa And Ors vs R. Manual And Anr on 11 April, 2001 Bench: A.P. Misra, U.C. Banerjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 9147 of 1996 PETITIONER: MUNINANJAPPA AND ORS. RESPONDENT: R. MANUAL AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/04\/2001 BENCH: A.P. MISRA & U.C. BANERJEE JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2001 (2) SCR 1113 The Judgment […]<\/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-237999","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMuninanjappa And Ors vs R. Manual And Anr on 11 April, 2001 - 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\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Muninanjappa And Ors vs R. Manual And Anr on 11 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-08T01:33:34+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Muninanjappa And Ors vs R. Manual And Anr on 11 April, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-08T01:33:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001\"},\"wordCount\":4029,\"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\\\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001\",\"name\":\"Muninanjappa And Ors vs R. Manual And Anr on 11 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-08T01:33:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Muninanjappa And Ors vs R. Manual And Anr on 11 April, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Muninanjappa And Ors vs R. Manual And Anr on 11 April, 2001 - 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\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Muninanjappa And Ors vs R. Manual And Anr on 11 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-08T01:33:34+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Muninanjappa And Ors vs R. Manual And Anr on 11 April, 2001","datePublished":"2001-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-08T01:33:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001"},"wordCount":4029,"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\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001","name":"Muninanjappa And Ors vs R. Manual And Anr on 11 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-08T01:33:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muninanjappa-and-ors-vs-r-manual-and-anr-on-11-april-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Muninanjappa And Ors vs R. Manual And Anr on 11 April, 2001"}]},{"@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\/237999","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=237999"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237999\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237999"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237999"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237999"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}