{"id":247537,"date":"2004-08-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-08-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004"},"modified":"2017-12-31T04:04:32","modified_gmt":"2017-12-30T22:34:32","slug":"pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004","title":{"rendered":"Pankaja &amp; Anr vs Yellappa (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 August, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pankaja &amp; Anr vs Yellappa (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 August, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha.<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4983-4984 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nPankaja &amp; Anr.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nYellappa (D) by LRS. &amp; Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/08\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nN. Santosh Hegde  &amp; S.B. Sinha.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. ) NOS. 3089-3090 OF 2004)<\/p>\n<p>SANTOSH HEGDE, J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tHeard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\tThe appellants herein filed a suit before the Principal Civil<br \/>\nJudge, Shimoga, originally seeking  the following reliefs :-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">a ) \tTo grant a judgment and decree of  permanent  Injunction<br \/>\nrestraining  the Defendants 1 to 10  their men, and agents from<br \/>\ninterfering with A A1 L O N C D portion of  the suit schedule<br \/>\nproperty.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">b)\tFor  possession  of the property identified  as A1 B M N O L<br \/>\nportion  and  also  the   N  N1 O O 1  at   annexure-A  to the plaint<br \/>\nof the suit schedule  property.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">c)\tSuch  other  relief\/reliefs  that  this Hon&#8217;ble Court deems fit<br \/>\nto grant under  the circumstances  of the case as also  the cost<br \/>\nof this suit.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\tIt is their case during the pendency  of the said suit the<br \/>\nrespondent  in violation  of the court order further encroached  into<br \/>\nsuit property to an extent of 15&#8242; x 15&#8242;.  Therefore,  the appellants<br \/>\nsought for an amendment  of the plaint  seeking for possession  of<br \/>\nthe said encroached  area also.  This application was also allowed<br \/>\nby the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">In the written statement filed by the  respondents,  a<br \/>\ncontention was taken  that a suit  for injunction  and possession<br \/>\nwithout seeking a declaration  of title  was not maintainable.<br \/>\nWritten statement  was filed on 17th September, 1994.  On  27th of<br \/>\nJuly, 2000 realizing  that a prayer  for declaration  on the facts of<br \/>\nthe case was essential  the appellants filed an application for<br \/>\namendment of the plaint under  Order 6 Rule 17, CPC by adding<br \/>\nthe following prayers :-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">&#8220;[a]\tTo declare that the Plaintiffs are the owners<br \/>\nA1.B.M.N.N1.O1.O.L  of the suit schedule property.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">\tThe Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga,  by his judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 22nd of September, 2000 rejected the application of the<br \/>\nappellants  on the ground that the application is filed at a belated<br \/>\nstage.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\"> Being aggrieved  by the said order the appellants preferred a<br \/>\nRevision Petition before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.<br \/>\nThe said Revision Petition  came to be dismissed  by the High<br \/>\nCourt  also on the ground that  the application for amendment  was<br \/>\nfiled at a  belated stage. The court also held that the amendment<br \/>\nintroduced a different relief than what  was originally asked for.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">The appellants thinking that there was an error  apparent  on<br \/>\nthe judgment of the High Court filed a Review Petition which came<br \/>\nto be dismissed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">Therefore, the appellants  are now before us in this appeal<br \/>\nchallenging the said order of the High Court as also  the order of<br \/>\nthe Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga, rejecting  their application<br \/>\npraying for  amendment of the plaint.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\"> Ms. Kiran Suri, learned counsel for the appellants contended<br \/>\nthat the Trial Court was in error  in coming to the conclusion  that a<br \/>\nbelated application for amendment  of the plaint, per se can not be<br \/>\nallowed, she also contended the High Court erred  in coming to the<br \/>\nconclusion that the proposed amendment  if granted  would take<br \/>\naway  the right  accrued  to the respondent by lapse of time.  She<br \/>\nsubmitted that this view of the High Court is opposed to a number<br \/>\nof judgments  of this Court where this Court had taken the view that<br \/>\ndelay in filing an application for amendment by itself should not be<br \/>\na ground for rejection  of such application  unless a serious<br \/>\nprejudice  was caused to the opposite party.  She further submitted<br \/>\non the facts of this case the necessary averments  in regard to the<br \/>\ntitle  of the appellants over the suit property was already there in the<br \/>\noriginal plaint and what was sought by the amendment was only a<br \/>\nrelief in furtherance  to the said plea found in the plaint.  She also<br \/>\nsubmitted that assuming for argument sake  that there was a delay<br \/>\nwhich  creates a right on the opposite side even then in an<br \/>\nappropriate case,  it was open to the Court to consider  the prayer<br \/>\nfor amendment, bearing in mind the fact that the power of the Court<br \/>\nto allow application for amendment is unfettered  provided  the<br \/>\nfacts of the case so  required the Court to exercise its discretion in<br \/>\nfavour of allowing the amendment. In support of her case, she<br \/>\nplaced strong reliance on the following judgments of this Court :-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">1. Ragu Thilak D. John  Vs. S. Rayappan &amp; Ors.,  2001(2) SCC<br \/>\n472;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">2. Estralla Rubber   Vs.  Dass Estate (P) Ltd.  2001 (8) SCC 97;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">3. Sampath Kumar  Vs.  Ayyakannu &amp; Anr.  2002 (7) SCC 559.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">\tMr. Girish Ananthamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondents-defendants  strongly supported  the impugned orders of<br \/>\nthe two courts below. He submitted that though the suit in question<br \/>\nwas filed as far back as  on 11-7-1994 and the original defendant<br \/>\nhad in his written statement  filed on 17-9-1994 disputed the title of<br \/>\nthe appellants. Even then the appellants  application for amendment<br \/>\nof the suit  incorporating the prayer for possession was filed only<br \/>\non 27-7-2000 nearly 6 years  after the institution of the suit.  He<br \/>\nfurther contended that in view of Entry 58 of the Schedule to the<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1317393\/\" id=\"a_1\">Limitation Act<\/a>, 1963 a suit for declaration could have been<br \/>\ninstituted  only within 3 years when the right to sue  accrued to the<br \/>\nappellants and  the said right having accrued  as far back as  in the<br \/>\nyear 1994,   an amendment  seeking a declaratory  prayer after 6<br \/>\nyears thereafter is clearly barred  by the provision of the <a href=\"\/doc\/1317393\/\" id=\"a_1\">Limitation<br \/>\nAct<\/a> and the respondents having accrued a statutory right the same<br \/>\ncould not have been defeated by allowing an amendment filed<br \/>\nbeyond the statutory period of limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">\tSo far as the Court&#8217;s  jurisdiction  to allow an amendment  of<br \/>\npleadings  is concerned there can be no two opinion that  the same<br \/>\nis  wide enough  to permit amendments  even in cases where there<br \/>\nhas been substantial delay in filing  such amendment applications.<br \/>\nThis Court in numerous  cases has held  the dominant  purpose of<br \/>\nallowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation, therefore, if<br \/>\nthe facts  of the case so permits, it is always open to the court to<br \/>\nallow applications in spite of the delay and latches  in moving such<br \/>\namendment application.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">\tBut the question for our consideration  is whether in cases<br \/>\nwhere  the delay has extinguished the right of the party by virtue of<br \/>\nexpiry  of the period of the period of limitation prescribed  in law,<br \/>\ncan the court in the exercise of its discretion  take away  the right<br \/>\naccrued to another party by allowing such belated amendments?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">The law in this regard  is also  quite  clear and consistent that<br \/>\nthere is no absolute  rule that in every case  where  a relief is barred<br \/>\nbecause of limitation  an amendment  should not be allowed.<br \/>\nDiscretion  in such cases  depends  on the facts and circumstances<br \/>\nof the case. The jurisdiction  to allow or not allow  an amendment<br \/>\nbeing  discretionary  the same  will have to be  exercised  in a<br \/>\njudicious evaluation  of the  facts and circumstances  in  which  the<br \/>\namendment  is sought.  If the granting of  an amendment  really<br \/>\nsubserves  the ultimate  cause of justice  and avoids  further<br \/>\nlitigation  the same should be allowed. There can be no straight<br \/>\njacket formula for allowing  or disallowing  an amendment  of<br \/>\npleadings. Each case depends  on the factual background of that<br \/>\ncase.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">This Court in  the case of   L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. &amp; Anr.<br \/>\nVs.  Messrs. Jardine Skinner and Co.  &#8211;  A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 357 has<br \/>\nheld :-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">&#8220;It is no doubt true that Courts would, as a rule,<br \/>\ndecline  to allow amendments, if a fresh suit  on<br \/>\nthe amended  claim would be barred  by<br \/>\nlimitation  on the date of the application.  But<br \/>\nthat is a factor to be taken into account in<br \/>\nexercise of the discretion as to whether<br \/>\namendment should be ordered, and does not<br \/>\naffect  the power of the Court to order it, if that<br \/>\nis required in the interests of justice.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_24\">\tThis view of this Court has, since, been followed by a 3<br \/>\nJudge Bench of this Court in the case of   T.N. Alloy Foundry Co.<br \/>\nLtd.  Vs.  T.N. Electricity Board &amp; Ors.  2004 (3) SCC 392.<br \/>\nTherefore, an application for amendment  of the pleading should<br \/>\nnot be disallowed  merely because  it is opposed on the ground that<br \/>\nthe same is barred by limitation,  on the contrary, application will<br \/>\nhave to be considered bearing in mind the discretion that is vested<br \/>\nwith the Court in allowing or disallowing such amendment in the<br \/>\ninterest of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_25\">\tFactually in this case, in regard to the stand of the defendant<br \/>\nthat the declaration  sought by the appellants is barred by limitation,<br \/>\nthere is   dispute and it is not an admitted  fact. While the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the defendant-respondents  pleaded  that under Entry 58<br \/>\nof the Schedule to the <a href=\"\/doc\/1317393\/\" id=\"a_2\">Limitation Act<\/a>, the declaration  sought for by<br \/>\nthe appellants  in this case ought to have been done within 3 years<br \/>\nwhen the right to sue  first accrued,  the appellant-plaintiff contends<br \/>\nthat the same  does not fall under the said Entry  but falls  under<br \/>\nEntry 64 or 65 of the said Schedule of the Limitation Act which<br \/>\nprovides  for a limitation of 12 years, therefore, according to them<br \/>\nthe  prayer  for declaration of title is not barred by limitation,<br \/>\ntherefore, both the courts below have seriously erred in not<br \/>\nconsidering this question  before  rejecting the prayer for<br \/>\namendment.   In such a situation  where there is a dispute  as to the<br \/>\nbar of limitation this Court in the case of  Ragu Thilak D. John<br \/>\nVs. S. Rayappan &amp; Ors. 2001(2) SCC 472 (supra)  has held :-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_26\">&#8220;The amendment sought  could not be declined.<br \/>\nThe dominant purpose  of allowing the<br \/>\namendment is to minimise the  litigation.  The<br \/>\nplea that the relief  sought by way of amendment<br \/>\nwas barred by time is arguable in the<br \/>\ncircumstances  of the case.  The plea of limitation<br \/>\nbeing disputed could be made a subject-matter of<br \/>\nthe issue after allowing the amendment prayed<br \/>\nfor.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_27\">\tWe think that the course adopted by this Court  in Ragu<br \/>\nThilak D. John&#8217;s case (supra) applies appropriately to the facts of<br \/>\nthis case.  The courts below  have proceeded  on an assumption<br \/>\nthat the amendments sought for by the appellants is ipso facto<br \/>\nbarred by the law of limitation and amounts to introduction of<br \/>\ndifferent relief than what the plaintiff had asked for  in the original<br \/>\nplaint.  We do not agree with the courts below that the amendments<br \/>\nsought for by the plaintiff  introduces  a different relief  so as to bar<br \/>\nthe grant of prayer  for amendment,  necessary factual  basis  has<br \/>\nalready been laid down  in the plaint in regard to the title  which, of<br \/>\ncourse,  was denied by the respondent  in his written statement<br \/>\nwhich will be an issue  to be decided in a trial. Therefore, in the<br \/>\nfacts of this case, it will be  incorrect to come to the conclusion<br \/>\nthat by the amendment  the plaintiff will be introducing a different<br \/>\nrelief.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_28\">\tWe have already noted, hereinabove,  that there is an<br \/>\narguable  question whether the limitation applicable for seeking  the<br \/>\nrelief of declaration on facts of this case falls under Entry 58 of the<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1317393\/\" id=\"a_3\">Limitation Act<\/a> or under Entries  64 or 65 of the <a href=\"\/doc\/1317393\/\" id=\"a_4\">Limitation Act<\/a><br \/>\nwhich question   has to be  decided in the trial, therefore, in our<br \/>\nview, following  the judgment of this Court in the case of Ragu<br \/>\nThilak D. John (supra), we set aside  the impugned orders of the<br \/>\ncourts below, allow the amendment prayed for,  direct the Trial<br \/>\nCourt  to frame necessary issue in this regard and decide the said<br \/>\nissue in accordance with law bearing  in mind the law laid  down by<br \/>\nthis Court in the case of L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. &amp; Anr.  (supra).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_29\">\tFor reasons stated above these appeals succeed and same are<br \/>\nallowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Pankaja &amp; Anr vs Yellappa (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 August, 2004 Author: S Hegde Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4983-4984 of 2004 PETITIONER: Pankaja &amp; Anr. RESPONDENT: Yellappa (D) by LRS. &amp; Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/08\/2004 BENCH: N. Santosh Hegde &amp; S.B. [&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-247537","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>Pankaja &amp; Anr vs Yellappa (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 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\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pankaja &amp; Anr vs Yellappa (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-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=\"2004-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-30T22:34:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pankaja &amp; Anr vs Yellappa (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 August, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-30T22:34:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1980,\"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\\\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004\",\"name\":\"Pankaja &amp; Anr vs Yellappa (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-30T22:34:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pankaja &amp; Anr vs Yellappa (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 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":"Pankaja &amp; Anr vs Yellappa (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 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\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pankaja &amp; Anr vs Yellappa (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-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":"2004-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-30T22:34:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pankaja &amp; Anr vs Yellappa (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 August, 2004","datePublished":"2004-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-30T22:34:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004"},"wordCount":1980,"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\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004","name":"Pankaja &amp; Anr vs Yellappa (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-30T22:34:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pankaja-anr-vs-yellappa-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-august-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pankaja &amp; Anr vs Yellappa (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 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\/247537","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=247537"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247537\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247537"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247537"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247537"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}