{"id":247165,"date":"2004-08-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-08-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004"},"modified":"2017-12-17T11:01:26","modified_gmt":"2017-12-17T05:31:26","slug":"ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004","title":{"rendered":"Ramiah vs N. Narayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs on 10 August, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ramiah vs N. Narayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs on 10 August, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Kapadia<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ashok Bhan, S.H. Kapadia.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5864 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nRAMIAH\n\nRESPONDENT:\nN. NARAYANA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRs.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/08\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nASHOK BHAN &amp; S.H. KAPADIA.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>KAPADIA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBeing aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27th May,<br \/>\n1997 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.F.A. No.412 of<br \/>\n1988, the original plaintiff has come to this Court by this appeal.  By<br \/>\nthe impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the suit filed by<br \/>\nthe plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe short question which arises for consideration in this appeal<br \/>\nby special leave is  whether the plaintiff has proved that he was in<br \/>\npossession of the suit land within 12-years of the date of the suit?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe facts on which this appeal has arisen are as follows:<\/p>\n<p>\tOne Bayyanna was owner of the suit land in Survey No.19\/1<br \/>\nadmeasuring 3 acres 12 gunthas.  The suit land was Inam land.<br \/>\nBayyanna sold the suit land to N. Narayana Reddy (since deceased)<br \/>\nfather of the respondents herein, vide registered sale deed dated<br \/>\n4.11.1958.  N. Narayana Reddy had instituted suit no.357\/60 in the<br \/>\nCourt of Principal Second Munsiff, Bangalore for recovery of<br \/>\npossession based on title and for permanent injunction against the<br \/>\nappellant herein on the ground that the appellant was trying to<br \/>\ninterfere with his possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe defence of the appellant herein in the above suit was that he<br \/>\nhad purchased the suit land on 27.11.1959 from B. Bayyanna and that<br \/>\nhe was in possession of the suit land.  His further defence was that the<br \/>\nsuit land was Inam land and that he was registered as Khadim tenant<br \/>\nby the Inam Abolition Authorities.  By judgment and order dated<br \/>\n7.4.1971, the Principal Munsiff, Bangalore partly decreed the suit<br \/>\nfiled by N. Narayana Reddy holding him to be the owner of only 1<br \/>\nacre 21 gunthas and not of the entire land admeasuring 3 acres 12<br \/>\ngunthas.  However, he was found to be in possession of the entire 3<br \/>\nacres 12 gunthas and, therefore, the Principal Munisff granted<br \/>\npermanent injunction in favour of N. Narayana Reddy restraining the<br \/>\nappellant herein from interfering with the possession of N. Narayana<br \/>\nReddy on the entire suit land admeasuring 3 acres 12 gunthas with<br \/>\nliberty to the appellant herein to take steps to recover possession of 1<br \/>\nacres 21 gunthas out of the total area of 3 acres 12 gunthas by<br \/>\nfollowing due process of law.  By the aforestated judgment, the<br \/>\nPrincipal Munsiff, Bangalore came to the conclusion that N. Narayana<br \/>\nReddy was in possession of the entire area admeasuring 3 acres 12<br \/>\ngunthas; that the entire area was Inam lands and since an area<br \/>\nadmeasuring 1 acre 21 gunthas out of total area admeasuring 3 acres<br \/>\n12 gunthas was regranted by the Deputy Commissioner to the<br \/>\nappellant herein, N. Narayana Reddy was not the owner of the entire<br \/>\narea admeasuring 3 acres 12 gunthas.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBeing aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7.4.1971, N.<br \/>\nNarayana Reddy preferred Regular Appeal No.45 of 1971.  The First<br \/>\nAppellate Court dismissed the said Regular Appeal vide judgment<br \/>\ndated 13.1.1975.  Thereafter, N. Narayana Reddy filed Regular<br \/>\nSecond Appeal No.801 of 1975 in the High Court of Karantaka,<br \/>\nwhich came to be dismissed on 24.11.1982.  Consequently, the<br \/>\njudgment and decree passed in suit no.357\/60 dated 7.4.1971 reached<br \/>\nfinality on 24.11.1982.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn 8.5.1984, the appellant herein filed the present suit no.1518<br \/>\nof 1984 i.e. within two years from the date of the decision of the High<br \/>\nCourt dated 24.11.1982 in RSA No.801\/75 filed by N. Narayana<br \/>\nReddy, for possession of land admeasuring 1 acre 21 gunthas.  The<br \/>\nsaid suit was instituted in the Court of Additional City Civil Judge,<br \/>\nBangalore (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as &#8220;the trial<br \/>\nCourt&#8221;).  In the said suit, it was held that the appellant herein<br \/>\nadmittedly stood ousted in 1971 and, therefore, the said suit was<br \/>\nbarred by limitation as it was filed after 13 years from dispossession.<br \/>\nConsequently, the trial Court dismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBeing aggrieved, the appellant herein preferred Regular First<br \/>\nAppeal No.412 of 1988 under Section 96 of CPC in the High Court of<br \/>\nKarnataka.  By the impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed the<br \/>\ndismissal of the suit by the trial Court by holding that the present suit<br \/>\nhas been filed much beyond 12 years.  By the impugned judgment, the<br \/>\nHigh Court rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellant that the period of limitation commenced only after the<br \/>\ndecision of the High Court of Karantaka in RSA No.801\/75, filed by<br \/>\nN. Narayana Reddy, decided on 24.11.1982.  Hence, this civil appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr. P. R. Ramasesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellant contended that the plaintiff had instituted the suit for<br \/>\npossession based on title and not on the basis of previous possession<br \/>\nand, therefore, under article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the suit<br \/>\nwas well within the time as the limitation of 12-years commenced<br \/>\nfrom the date when the possession of the defendant became adverse to<br \/>\nthe plaintiff.  He contended that article 64 was not applicable to the<br \/>\nfacts of the present case as the suit instituted by the appellant for<br \/>\npossession of immovable property was based on title and not on the<br \/>\nbasis of previous possession.  It was further urged that the appellant<br \/>\nwas entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963,<br \/>\nas the earlier litigation instituted by N. Narayana Reddy came to an<br \/>\nend only on 24.11.1982 when the High Court in RSA No.801\/75<br \/>\nconfirmed the decree dated 7.4.1971 passed by the Principal Munsiff<br \/>\nin suit no.357\/60.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe do not find any merit in the aforestated arguments.  Article<br \/>\n64 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Article 142 of the Limitation Act,<br \/>\n1908) is restricted to suits for possession on dispossession or<br \/>\ndiscontinuance of possession.  In order to bring a suit within the<br \/>\npurview of that article, it must be shown that the suit is in terms as<br \/>\nwell as in substance based on the allegation of the plaintiff having<br \/>\nbeen in possession and having subsequently lost the possession either<br \/>\nby dispossession or by discontinuance.  Article 65 of the Limitation<br \/>\nAct, 1963 (Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908) on the other hand<br \/>\nis a residuary article applying to suits for possession not otherwise<br \/>\nprovided for.  Suits based on plaintiffs&#8217; title in which there is no<br \/>\nallegation of prior possession and subsequent dispossession alone can<br \/>\nfall within article 65.  The question whether the article of limitation<br \/>\napplicable to a particular suit is article 64 or article 65 has to be<br \/>\ndecided by reference to pleadings.  The plaintiff cannot invoke article<br \/>\n65 by suppressing material facts.  In the present case, in suit<br \/>\nno.357\/60 instituted by N. Narayana Reddy in the Court of Principal<br \/>\nMunsiff, Bangalore, evidence of the appellant herein was recorded.  In<br \/>\nthat suit, as stated above, the appellant was the defendant.  In his<br \/>\nevidence, appellant had admitted that he was in possession of the suit<br \/>\nproperty up to 1971.  This admission of the appellant in that suit<br \/>\nindicates ouster from possession of the appellant herein.  In the<br \/>\npresent suit instituted by the appellant, he has glossed over this fact.<br \/>\nIn the circumstances, both the Courts below were right in coming to<br \/>\nthe conclusion that the present suit was barred by limitation. The<br \/>\nappellant was ousted in 1971.  The appellant had instituted the present<br \/>\nsuit only on 8.5.1984.  Consequently, the suit has been rightly<br \/>\ndismissed by both the Courts below as barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the case of Ram Surat Singh &amp; others v. Badri Narain<br \/>\nSingh reported in [AIR 1927 Allahabad 799], it has been held that if<br \/>\nthe suit is for possession by a plaintiff who says that while he was in<br \/>\npossession of the property he was dispossessed, then he must show<br \/>\npossession within 12-years under article 142 (now article 64) of the<br \/>\nLimitation Act.  To the same effect is the ratio of the judgment in the<br \/>\ncase of Mohammad Mahmud v. Muhammad Afaq &amp; others reported<br \/>\nin [AIR 1934 Oudh 21].  In the commentary on the Limitation Act by<br \/>\nSanjiva Row [Ninth Edition  IInd Volume page 549] it has been<br \/>\nstated that the question as to which of the two articles would apply to<br \/>\na particular case should be decided by reference to pleadings, though<br \/>\nthe plaintiff cannot be allowed by skilful pleading to avoid the<br \/>\ninconvenient article.  On facts of the case, we find that the article 64 is<br \/>\napplicable to the present suit.  Consequently, the suit has been rightly<br \/>\ndismissed by both the Courts below.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the present case, on the facts of this case as stated above,<br \/>\nsection 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked by the<br \/>\nappellant as the appellant herein had never challenged the findings on<br \/>\npossession recorded by the Principal Munsiff vide decree dated<br \/>\n7.4.1971.  In the present case, earlier suit no.357\/60 was filed by the<br \/>\nsaid N. Narayana Reddy, which was partly decreed and, therefore, he<br \/>\npreferred Regular Appeal No.45\/71 which was dismissed by the First<br \/>\nAppellate Court on 13.1.1975.  Thereafter, N. Narayana Reddy filed<br \/>\nRSA No.801\/75 which was dismissed by the High Court on<br \/>\n24.11.1982.  All throughout this period, although the appellant had the<br \/>\nright to recover possession from N. Narayana Reddy to the extent of 1<br \/>\nacre 21 gunthas in accordance with law, the appellant herein did not<br \/>\ntake any steps to sue for possession till 8.5.1984.  Consequently, the<br \/>\nappellant was not entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation<br \/>\nAct, 1963.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this civil<br \/>\nappeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to<br \/>\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Ramiah vs N. Narayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs on 10 August, 2004 Author: Kapadia Bench: Ashok Bhan, S.H. Kapadia. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5864 of 1999 PETITIONER: RAMIAH RESPONDENT: N. NARAYANA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRs. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/08\/2004 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN &amp; S.H. KAPADIA. JUDGMENT: J U D G M [&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-247165","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>Ramiah vs N. Narayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs on 10 August, 2004 - 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\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramiah vs N. Narayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs on 10 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-17T05:31:26+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramiah vs N. Narayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs on 10 August, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-17T05:31:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1529,\"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\\\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004\",\"name\":\"Ramiah vs N. Narayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs on 10 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-17T05:31:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramiah vs N. Narayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs on 10 August, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramiah vs N. Narayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs on 10 August, 2004 - 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\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramiah vs N. Narayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs on 10 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-17T05:31:26+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramiah vs N. Narayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs on 10 August, 2004","datePublished":"2004-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-17T05:31:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004"},"wordCount":1529,"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\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004","name":"Ramiah vs N. Narayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs on 10 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-17T05:31:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramiah-vs-n-narayana-reddy-dead-by-lrs-on-10-august-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramiah vs N. Narayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs on 10 August, 2004"}]},{"@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\/247165","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=247165"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247165\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247165"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247165"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247165"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}