{"id":33015,"date":"1995-04-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-04-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995"},"modified":"2018-06-30T05:57:50","modified_gmt":"2018-06-30T00:27:50","slug":"s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995","title":{"rendered":"S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) By Lrs. & … vs Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) By … on 17 April, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) By Lrs. & … vs Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) By … on 17 April, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 1607, \t\t 1995 SCC (4)\t 15<\/div>\n
Author: H B.L.<\/div>\n
Bench: Hansaria B.L. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nS.V.R. MUDALIAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMRS. RAJABU F. BUHARI (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT17\/04\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nHANSARIA B.L. (J)\nBENCH:\nHANSARIA B.L. (J)\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nMANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 AIR 1607\t\t  1995 SCC  (4)\t 15\n JT 1995 (3)   614\t  1995 SCALE  (2)720\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
HANSARIA, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.  This litigation is about three and half decades  old  by
\nnow   inasmuch\tthe  suit  for\tspecific   performance\t for
\nreconveyance
\n618<\/span>
\nof the property sold by the plaintiff was filed in 1962.  It
\nwas decreed by the trial court (a single Judge of the Madras
\nHigh Court) on 10.11.65. The letters Patent Bench,  however,
\non appeal being preferred, set aside the decree on  10.5.72.
\nHence this appeal by special leave by the plaintiff.  As the
\nplaintiff  died\t in  1990, his\tlegal  representatives\thave
\npursued\t the appeal.  It may also be stated that during\t the
\npendency of this appeal the appellants assigned their  right
\nto  two\t outsiders sometime in September,  1988.   We  would
\nhave,  therefore, to see, in case we were to agree with\t the
\nplaintiff  regarding  there  having  been  a  contract\t for
\nreconveyance,  which is the real bone of contention  between
\nthe parties, whether in view of the aforesaid assignment,  a
\ndecree\tfor specific relief is still called for, keeping  in
\nview the fact that such a relief is discretionary.\n<\/p>\n
2.   We\t may  note  relevant  facts.   These  are  that\t the
\noriginal  plaintiff, SV Ramakrishna Mudaliar, was a  man  of
\nmeans at one point of time, to run into rough weather, which
\nrequired mortgage of some of his properties.  It is to repay
\nthe  mortgage  debt  that  the plaintiff  sold\ttwo  of\t his
\nproperties  ostensibly to Mrs. Rajabu Fathima  Buhari  (Mrs.
\nBuhari)\t described in Schedules ‘A’ and ‘B’ of\tthe  plaint.
\nThe sale deeds in respect of these properties were  executed
\non  26.3.59  (Ex.P  2)\tand  31.3.59  (Ex.P.3);\t both  were,
\nhowever,  registered on 31.3.1959. The plaintiff’s  case  is
\nthat  before  these  properties had been sold  there  was  a
\n‘gentleman’s  understanding’  between him  and\tMr.  Buhari,
\nhusband of Mrs Buhari, on 24.3.59 that in case the  purchase
\namounts\t as  per  the sale deeds were  repaid  within  three
\nyears, the properties would be reconveyed, when in  addition
\nto sale price, 10% thereof shall be paid as solatium of\t the
\nactual\t amount\t  spent\t on  improvement,  if\tany.\tThis
\nunderstanding  was  put in writing  subsequently  under\t the
\ntitle  “Record\tof  fact”, which was  exhibited\t during\t the
\ncourse\tof the trial as Ex.P1. Plaintiff’s another case\t was
\nthat though the sale deeds were in the name of Mrs.  Buhari,
\nthe  real purchaser was Mr. Buhari.  To put it\tdifferently,
\nMrs.  Buhari  was  only\t an  ostensible\t owner.\t  The  third
\nimportant  facet of the plaintiff’s case was that Ex.P1\t had
\nbeen signed by one Kamal as an agent of the couple, who were
\nimpleaded  as defendants in the suit.  As, however,  of\t the
\ntwo properties sold, only one, styled as ‘Serles Garden’ was
\nreconveyed  in May, 1960, the suit was filed for  seeking  a
\ndecree\t for  the  reconveyance\t of  the  second   property,
\ndescribed in Schedule ‘A’ to the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
3.   As\t already  noted the trial court\t decreed  the  suit,
\nwhich  decree came to be reversed in appeal by\tthe  Letters
\nPatent Bench.  The following questions are to be answered to
\ndispose of the appeal:-\n<\/p>\n
(1)Whether   Ex.P1  is\ta  genuine  document.\tThis   needs
\ndetermination  because the Letters Patent Bench has  allowed
\nthe appeal of the defendants principally on the ground\tthat
\nthis document is a result of fabrication.\n<\/p>\n
(2)If  the aforesaid document be genuine, whether Kamal\t who
\nis  said  to have signed the same was an agent\tof  the\t de-
\nfendants.\n<\/p>\n
(3)Whether  the understanding given by Mr. Buhari, could  be
\nenforced  against  Mrs.\t Buhari.  This\twould  also  require
\ndetermination of the question whether Mrs. Buhari was a name
\nlender.\n<\/p>\n
619<\/span><\/p>\n
(4)In  case  the factual basis of the  plaintiff’s  case  be
\ncorrect,  the legal question to be decided would be  whether
\nin   the   facts  and  circumstances  of  the\tcase,\tmore
\nparticularly the assignment of the right by the\t successors-
\nin-interest  of\t the plaintiff in favour of  third  persons,
\ngranting  of  the relief of specific performance  is  called
\nfor,  which  the statute has left to the discretion  of\t the
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
GENUINENESS OF EX.P1\n<\/p>\n
4.   The  Letters  Patent Bench of the High  Court  regarded
\nEx.P1 not as a genuine document mainly because Exs.P.2 and 3
\ndo  not contain a stipulation regarding the reconveyance  of
\nthe  properties sold by the plaintiff.\tNot only this,\teven
\nEx.P.  15,  by\twhich Selers Garden  was  resold,  does\t not
\nmention\t about\tthe same having been done  pursuant  to\t any
\ncontract  of  reconveyance.  This apart, as  in\t support  of
\nproof  of Ex.  P. 1, the plaintiff had examined, apart\tfrom
\nhimself,  his agent Narayana lyer, the appellate  court\t did
\nnot  fell satisfied about there being credible\tevidence  in
\nthis regard.  It may be mentioned that when the trial began,
\nanother signatory to P.1, Shri VS Rangachari, who had played
\nprominent part throughout, having died was not available for
\nexamination.   The  only  other\t signatory  to\tEx.P.  1  is
\naforesaid  Kamal,  who could not be examined  by  the  trial
\nJudge even as a Court witness.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Shri  Vaidyanathan, learned counsel  representing\tMrs.
\nBuhari, has, apart from mentioning about silence of Exs.P.2,
\n3  and 15 relating to any agreement of\treconveyance,  urged
\nthat the evidence adduced in the case by the plaintiff would
\nitself\tshow that P. 1 had not seen the light of the day  on
\n24.3.59.  The  basic submission in this regard is  that\t his
\ndocument  was described by PW 1 Narayana in his evidence  as
\n‘letter’.   We\tdo  not think if we  should  go\t by  labels,
\nbecause\t even if it was a letter which came  into  existence
\nthat shows that something in writing had been put on record;
\nand  it\t may  because of this that P.  1  was  described  as
\n‘record of fact’ and it being on a letterhead of the  plain-
\ntiff, might have loosely described as “letter” of PW 1.\n<\/p>\n
6.   As to why in Exs.P.2,3 and 15 no mention was made about
\nP.1, has been sufficiently explained by PW2 (the  plaintiff)
\nin  his evidence, whose purport is that Shri Rangachari\t who
\nhad  played a vital role in the entire episode, had  advised
\naccordingly.  The evidence clearly shows that Rangachari was
\na  legal advisor both to the plaintiff and Mr.\tBuhari.\t  On
\nPW2 being specifically asked as to why Exs.P2 and P3 did not
\ncontain the recital about reconveyance, his answer was:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ” I wanted it to be included in the sale deed.
\n\t      Rangachari told that the gentleman’s agreement
\n\t      is  binding  on  Mr. Buhari  to  reconvey\t the
\n\t      property\tand so need not be included  in\t the
\n\t      sale deed”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.   Shri  Salve, appearing for Mr. Buhari, puts his  weight
\n(and  he  has  enough  of it) to  the  submissions  of\tShri
\nVaidyanathan and asks why is it that P. 1 was not signed  by
\nBuhari;\t and  why is it that the plaintiff himself  did\t not
\nsign the same?\tThe queries do not stop here as, the fulcrum
\nsenior\tlawyer\tasks why was the sale not in the  nature  of
\nconditional sale?  When first two questions were put to\t the
\nplaintiff  his short, simple and unsophisticated answer\t was
\nthat the confidence-inspiring advocate Rangachari had stated
\nthat  signing by the two agents in the presence of  the\t two
\nprincipals would meet the requirement of law.  And it  does,
\nas  acts done by agents within the permitted field  do\tbind
\nthe  principals.   The first two questions  raised  by\tShri
\nSalve may be answered also by pointing out that we have seen
\nlesser\tmortals\t signing  big  inter-country  agreements  in
\npresence  of  higher-ups.   The\t third\tposer  is  no  doubt
\npertinent,  but\t as there are many ways of getting  a  thing
\ndone,  all  concerned  might have thought  that\t instead  of
\nmaking\tthe sales conditional, for reasons not quite  known,
\nthe  situation demanded that the arrangement of\t  the\ttype
\ngone into was better suited.  All   important  question\t  is
\nwhether\t parties were ad idem; if so, how did  they  express
\ntheir  meeting\tof  mind  is not  material.   And  on  their
\nagreeing as recorded in P. 1, we are in no doubt.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The  case\tof  the plaintiff in  this  regard  receives
\nsupport\t from P.28 which is a letter from the  plaintiff  to
\nMr.  Buhari, dated 1st Feb. 1961, which mentions  about\t the
\nunderstanding in question.  Though the Division Bench of the
\nHigh  Court  has  held\tthat  Ex.P.28  is  also\t  fabricated
\ndocument, we find ourselves unable to agree with it on\tthis
\npoint.\t There\tis some force in the case of  the  plaintiff
\nthat  the defendants challenged about the  understanding  in
\nquestion after the death of Rangachari.\n<\/p>\n
9.   According to us, therefore, it would not\t  be correct
\nto doubt the existence of P.  1\t because  of  non-mentioning
\nabout any stipulation to reconvey in Exs.  P2 and 3 and\t for
\nthat matter for Ex.P. 15 having not mentioned about it-\t nor
\ndo the questions raised by Shri Salve take away the ring  of
\n,truth,\t the  plaintiff’s case has in this regard.   So,  we
\nhold that P. 1 is a genuine document, as opined by the trial
\nJudge.\n<\/p>\n
WHETHER KAMAL WAS AN AGENT OF THE DEFENDANTS\n<\/p>\n
10.We  come to the role played by Kamal.  According  to\t the
\nplaintiff  full\t name of Kamal who had signed Ex.P1  is\t MH.
\nKamal,\tson of MS Mohammed Hasan, who at the  relevant\ttime
\nwas residing at Nos.5\/ and 58, 3rd Main Road, Gandhi  Nagar.
\nAs  per\t the  second defendant, who alone  appeared  in\t the
\nwitness\t box, there were many Kamals in his  employment\t and
\nthe signature appearing in P. 1 is not MH Kamal, who at some
\npoint of time was in employment of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
11.The trial Judge has dealt with this aspect in detail\t and
\nto find out the truth as to whether ME Kamal has signed\t PI,
\nhe  even  wanted to examine this Kamal as a  court  witness;
\nbut, according to him, Kamal was kept out by the defendants,
\nbecause\t of  which  some adverse inference  has\t been  drawn
\nagainst them by him.\n<\/p>\n
12.Mr.\t Parasaran,  appearing\tfor  the  appellants,  fully
\nsupports the finding of the trial Judge in this regard\tand,
\naccording  to  him, law permits an adverse inference  to  be
\ndrawn,\twhere  a  party\t in  possession\t of  best   evidence
\nwithholds the same, even if the onus of proving the fact  in
\nquestion were not to be on him.\t To support him on the legal
\nsubmission, the learned counsel has relied on a\t three-Judge
\nBench decision of this Court in Gopalakrishnaji v.  Mohammed
\nHazi Latiff, AIR 1968 SC 1413.\t   In  that case this  Court
\nwhile stating as    above observed that a party cannot\trely
\non abstract doctrine of onus.\n<\/p>\n
13.  According\tto the learned counsel for the\trespondents,
\nthe case of the defendants on this score finds support\tfrom
\nnone
\n621<\/span>
\nother  than aforesaid Kamal, if what has been stated by\t him
\nin  his affidavit filed before this Court is borne in  mind.
\nThat affidavit is a part of IA No.2, in which the prayer  Is
\nto  direct  examination\t of MH Kamal as\t a  witness  in\t the
\nappeal.\t  Shri Salve has drawn our attention to the  account
\nof  salary  and\t batta paid to Kamal, as  mentioned  in\t the
\nenclosure to the affidavit, according to which, for the year
\n31.3.63 batta paid was Rs. 124 and salary was Rs. 525.\t The
\nlearned\t counsel brings to our notice that in earlier  years
\nthe  batta had ranged about four times more and\t the  salary
\nmore  than that, which would go to show that  after  31.3.62
\nKamal  was  in the service not upto 31.3.63, but for  a\t few
\nmonths\tafter  31.3.62, as in the case\tof  the\t defendants.
\nThere seems to be some force in this contention.\n<\/p>\n
14.  We,  therefore, do not propose to decide this  fact  by
\ndrawing\t any adverse inference against the  respondent-\t but
\nwould do so on the basis of evidence led by the plaintiff As
\nalready stated, this evidence has received better  treatment
\nat  the hand of trial Judge, who, while holding\t that  Kamal
\nhad  acted as an agent of the defendants, referred  to\tmany
\ncircumstances  also.   Shri  Parasaran\thas  submitted\tthat
\nthough\tthe  appellate court is within its right to  take  a
\ndifferent  view on a question of fact, that should  be\tdone
\nafter  adverting to the reasons given by the trial Judge  in
\narriving  at the finding in question.  Indeed, according  to
\nShri Parasaran an appellate court should interfere with\t the
\nJudgment under appeal not because it is not right, but\twhen
\nit is shown to be wrong, as observed by three-Judge Bench of
\nthis Court in Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras,<\/a> 1975  Supp.
\nSCR  403.   As to this observation, the contention  of\tShri
\nVaidyanathan  is that what was stated therein was  meant  to
\napply  when this Court examines a matter under Article\t136.
\nWe do not, however, think if this meaning can be ascribed to
\nwhat was observed.\n<\/p>\n
15.There  is  no need to pursue the legal principle,  as  we
\nhave no doubt in our mind that before reversing a finding of
\nfact,  the appellate court has to bear in mind\tthe  reasons
\nascribed  by  the  trial court.\t This  view  of\t ours  finds
\nsupport\t from what was stated by the Privy Council  in\tRani
\nHemant\tKumari\tv. Maharaja Jagadhindra Nath,  10  CWN\t630,
\nwherein, while regarding the appellate judgment of the\tHigh
\nCourt  of Judicature at Fort William as “careful and  able”,
\nit  was stated that it did not “come to close quarters\twith
\nthe judgment which it reviews, and indeed never discusses or
\neven alludes to the reasoning of the Subordinate Judge.”\n<\/p>\n
16.Shri\t Salve has taken pains to satisfy us that it is\t not
\nquite correct to submit that the Division Bench did not take
\nnote  of circumstantial evidence noted by the  trial  Judge.
\nTo satisfy us in this regard, our attention has been invited
\nto what was stated by the Bench at page 291 of Vol. 11.\t  As
\nperusal\t of this part of the appellate judgment\t shows\tthat
\ntwo   circumstances  mentioned\tby  the\t trial\tJudge\twere
\ntraverssed,  but  all were not.\t This apart,  first  circum-
\nstance\twas  not  regarded  as\tconnecting  Kamal  with\t the
\ndefendants  mainly  because the Bench was not  satisfied  if
\nKamal who had taken part in the documents marked as Ex.\t P9,
\n10,  64 and 65, and the Kamal referred in PI are  the  same.
\nWe  do not, however, think that this view is  sound  because
\nthough\tthe  defendants\t might\thave  had  many\t Kamals\t  as
\nemployees but they had only one employee, named MH.  Kamal,
\n622<\/span>
\nson  of Mohammad Hasan, and it is this Kamal who had  signed
\nEx.P. 1. As to the second circumstance relatable to issuance
\nof  Ex.P.28, we have already observed that we do  not  agree
\nwith the view of the Division Bench qua this.
\nWHETHER MRS.  BUHARI WAS A BENAMIDAR OF MR.  BUHARI\n<\/p>\n
17.The\ttrial Judge has answered this question in favour  of
\nthe  plaintiff-, the Division Bench has observed that it  is
\nnot  necessary to advert to this aspect of the case  of\t the
\nplaintiff.   We also propose to traverse the path  taken  by
\nthe  appellate court and resist from giving our\t finding  on
\nthis  aspect of the case.  We have taken this stand  because
\nwe  are satisfied about the genuineness of Ex.P. 1; so\talso
\nabout Kamal who had signed the same as being an agent of the
\ndefendants,  because of which the understanding recorded  in
\nEx.P.  1  has to be regarded as binding on  the\t defendants.
\nFor  the sake of completeness, we may also observe that\t the
\nunderstanding  having had consent of Mr. Buhari,  and  there
\nbeing evidence a-galore about Mr. Buhari acting as an  agent
\nof  Mrs.  Buhari,  there  is  nothing  to  doubt  that\t the
\nunderstanding  given  by Mr. Buhari has to  be\tregarded  as
\nbindIng\t on  Mrs. Buhari.  The leading role  played  by\t Mr.
\nBuhari\tin the entire episode is writ large and there is  no
\nescape\tfrom the conclusion that the consent of\t Mr.  Buhari
\nhas to be regarded as a consent given by Mrs. Buhari.\n<\/p>\n
18.We,\t therefore,  conclude  that  there  did\t  exist\t  an
\nunderstanding to reconvey two properties as recorded in\t the
\ndocument  executed  on\t24.3.59.  This\tconclusion  of\tours
\nreceives support from reconveyance of ‘Serles Garden’ within
\nthe  period of 3 years as stipulated in Ex.P.1 and that\t too
\nat  the\t added solatium of 10%.\t Ibis property\thaving\tbeen
\nsold at Rs.85,000, 10% of the same comes of Rs. 8,500\/-\t and
\nEx.P.  1  5 evidences the sale at Rs. 95,000\/-Though  it  is
\ncorrect\t that  Rs.85,000\/-  and 10% of\tthat  comes  to\t Rs.
\n93,500\/-,  it may as well be at this figure was\t rounded  to
\nRs.95,000\/  In this context Shri Vaidyanathan’s\t submission,
\nhowever, is that ‘Serles Garden’ was sold back, not pursuant
\nto the agreement to reconvey, but because Mrs. Buhari  could
\nnot  get a lessee despite advertisement having been  put  in
\n‘The Hindu’ and ‘The Mail’, as evidenced by Exs.  D 1 to D4.
\nThough\tthis  contention  has some  cutting  edge,  we\twere
\ninclined  to  think,  on the totality  of  facts,  that\t the
\ntransfer  of  Serles  Garden back to the  plaintiff  was  in
\ndischarge of the legal obligation contained in P. 1, as both
\nthe  period during which it was transferred and for the\t sum
\nit was so done, fit in well with the terms embodied in P. 1.
\nIS A CASE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE MADE OUT IN LAW?\n<\/p>\n
19.Being  satisfied that the parties had agreed as  recorded
\nin  Ex.P  1,  the question to be  examined  is\twhether\t the
\nagreement  of the type at hand, described as  ”\t gentlemen’s
\nunderstanding” in Ex.P.1, permitted the plaintiff to seek  a
\ndecree\tfor  specific  performance.   According\t to  learned
\ncounsel\t for the respondents, the agreement has\t created  no
\nlegal  obligation and as such is not agreement, even if\t en-
\nforceable, can be so done only against the executable of the
\noriginal contract.  The final submission is that the  remedy
\nof  specific performance being discretionary, the  same\t may
\nnot  be\t granted at this length of time; more so,  when\t the
\nappellants have
\n623<\/span>
\nassigned their interest to some outsiders.\n<\/p>\n
20.  So\t far as the first submission is concerned, we  agree
\nthat  it  is a valid and enforceable contract which  is\t the
\nbasis for the jurisdiction to order specific performance, as
\npointed out in Mayawanti v. Kaushalya Devi,<\/a> 1990 (3) SCC  1.
\nThe  point  for determination is whether  the  agreement  as
\nrecorded in Ex.P1 is enforceable.  It has been contended  on
\nbehalf\tthe respondents that while agreeing as\tembodied  in
\nthe  document  the parties had no intention  to\t create\t any
\nlegal  interest,  because of which the agreement  cannot  be
\nenforced.   Strong reliance has been placed, in\t support  of
\nthis  submission, on the decision of House of Lords in\tRose
\nand  Frank  Co.\t v.J.R. Crompton &  Bros.   Ltd.,  1924\t All
\nE.L.R.(Reprint)\t 245.  In that case, after noting  what\t had
\nbeen agreed upon, the House of Lords came to the  conclusion
\nthat  the parties had not intended that the document  should
\nbe legally enforceable.\n<\/p>\n
21.  As\t the aforesaid decision was arrived at on the  basis
\nof what was contained in the document, it would be pertinent
\nto note the clause in question, which read as below:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “This arrangement is not entered into, nor  is
\n\t      this memorandum written, as a formal or  legal
\n\t      agreement,  and shall not be subject to  legal
\n\t      jurisdiction  in the law courts either of\t the
\n\t      United  States  or England, but it is  only  a
\n\t      definite expression and record of the  purpose
\n\t      and intention of the three parties  concerned,
\n\t      to   which   they\t  each\t honourably   pledge
\n\t      themselves with the fullest confidence   based
\n\t      on  past\tbusiness with each  other   that  it
\n\t      would be carried through by each of the  three
\n\t      parties  with mutual loyalty and friendly\t co-
\n\t      operation.  ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
22.  The  decision  being on the facts of  the\tcase  cannot
\napply to facts here which a different; and we do think\tthat
\nwhat  agreed upon in the present case is much different,  as
\nwould appear from Ex.P 1 which reads as below:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      “Record of fact
\n\t      This  is\tto  record  the\t gentleman’s  under-
\n\t      standing\tbetween\t Mr.  S.V.R.  and  Mr.\tA.M.
\n\t      Buhari that Mr. Buhari will see to it that  in
\n\t      case  the\t purchase amounts as  per  the\tsale
\n\t      deeds  in\t favour\t of Mrs.  A.M.B.  Buhari  is
\n\t      repaid  within  3 years from  this  date,\t the
\n\t      properties  will be reconveyed to Mrs.  S.V.R.
\n\t      who will also have to pay in addition to\tsale
\n\t      price  10 per cent thereof as solatium of\t the
\n\t      actual amount spent on improvement if any.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
23.  The aforesaid shows that though what has been  recorded
\nwas  described as “gentlemen’s understanding”, according  to
\nus,  the understanding was such which was meant to be  acted
\nupon.  We have taken this view because terms and  conditions
\nof reconveyance have been clearly mentioned and document was
\nexecuted  by the agents of both the sides.  It\twas,  there-
\nfore, intended to create legal obligation.  In this context,
\nShri Parasaran has brought to our notice a decision of\tthis
\nCourt  rendered\t in Commissioner of Wealth  Tax,  Bhopal  v.
\nAbdul  Hussain Mulla Mohammad Ali,<\/a> (dead) by LRs., 1988\t (3)
\nSCC  562,  in which after referring to the decision  of\t the
\nHouse  of  Lords  in  the  aforesaid  case  and\t some  other
\ndecisions,  as\twell  as  what\thas  been  stated  in  legal
\ntreatise,  it was observed in para 24 that  the\t proposition
\nthat  in addition to the existence of an agreement  and\t the
\npresence of consideration, there is also a third element  in
\nthe form of intention of parties to create legal
\n624<\/span>
\nrelations,  is one which has not passed\t unchallenged.\t The
\nBench  observed\t that  it  is not  possible  to\t accept\t the
\nargument that an agreement will not, by itself, yield  legal
\nobligations  unless  it\t is  one  which\t can  reasonably  be
\nregarded  as  having  been  made  between  the\tparties\t  in
\ncontemplation  of  legal consequences.\tFrom  the  averments
\nmade  in Ex.P 1 and the legal position being what  has\tbeen
\nnoted  in  this case, we are satisfied that  an\t enforceable
\ncontract  had come into existence on the  parties  executing
\nEx.Pl. According to us, they were ad idem and the  plaintiff
\nwas  within his rights to seek specific performance  of\t the
\nsame.\n<\/p>\n
24.  On\t the second legal question raised, we may not  spend
\nmuch time because the prop of this submission being what was
\nheld  by this Court in Annapoorani Ammal v. G.\tThangapalam,<\/a>
\n1989  (3) SCC 287, whose facts were entirely different,\t the
\nratio  of  that\t decision cannot be called  in\taid  by\t the
\nrespondents.   In that case the mother of the appellant\t who
\nhad allegedly executed the ‘yadast’ was not the owner of the
\nproperty because of which it was held that the suit  against
\nthe appellant filed for reconveyance of the property on\t the
\nbasis of ‘yadast’ could not have been decreed.\tIn our\tcase
\nEx.P  1\t had  been  executed by Kamal as  an  agent  of\t the
\ndefendants and what had been agreed upon by him has to\tbind
\nthe principals.\n<\/p>\n
25.  We now come to the main legal submission, which is that
\nthe  relief of specific performance being discretionary,  we
\nmay  not  grant the same for two reasons in  the  main:\t (1)
\nlapse  of  about 33 years after filing of  the\tsuit  during
\nwhich  period price of the property has gone up\t enormously;
\nand   (2)  the\tplaintiff’s  legal  representatives   having
\nassigned  their right of repurchase. the assignees  are\t the
\nreal person interested in getting back the property, and  we
\nmay  not allow the same, as what they had purchased was\t not
\nthe property as such, but litigation, which could be said to
\nbe akin to champerty.\n<\/p>\n
26.Shri\t Parasaran  contends  that the\trelief\tof  specific
\nperformance  is said to be discretionary only in  the  sense
\nthat  the court may not act arbitrarily and  nothing  beyond
\nthis,\tand   while  exercising\t the   discretion   judicial
\nconscience and judicial statesmanship alone are the  guiding
\nfacts.\tThat this is the legal position is sought to be sus-
\ntained by referring to sub-section (1) of section 20 of\t the
\nSpecific Relief Act, 1963, in which, it has been stated that
\nthe  jurisdiction  to  decree the  specific  performance  is
\ndiscretionary,\tbut the discretion is not arbitrary;  it  is
\nsound  and  reasonable\tand  is to  be\tguided\tby  judicial
\nprinciples.   As to when the court may not exercise  discre-
\ntion  to grant the decree for specific performance has\tbeen
\nmentioned in sub-section (2); whereas subsection (3)  states
\nas to when the court may properly exercise its discretion to
\ndecree specific performance.  No doubt what has been  stated
\nin  these  two\tsub-sections  is  not  exhaustive,  but\t  is
\nillustrative, yet the intention of the legislature has\tbeen
\nwell  reflected, both as regards the granting of the  relief
\nand  nongranting of the same.  Clause(c) of  subsection\t (2)
\nstates\tthat if granting of specific performance would\tmake
\nit  “inequitable”, the court may not grant the relief It  is
\nthis  part of the statutory provision which is sought to  be
\nrelied\tby  the\t learned  counsel  for\tthe  respondents  by
\ncontending  that it would be inequitable to  grant  specific
\nperformance for the aforesaid two reasons.\n<\/p>\n
625<\/span><\/p>\n
27.In  so far as the delay in the disposal of the  case\t and
\nthe rise in prices during interregnum, Shri Parasaran  urges
\nthat the delay not having been occasioned by any act of\t the
\nplaintiff,  he\tmay  not be punished for  the  same  on\t the
\nprinciple of ‘ actus curiae neminem gravabit”  an act of the
\ncourt  shall  prejudice\t no man.  As  regards  the  rise  in
\nprices,, the submission is that it should not weigh with the
\ncourt in refusing the relief if otherwise due, as opined  in
\nS.  V.\tSankaralinga Nagar v. P.I.S. Ratnaswami\t Nadar,\t AIR
\n1992  Madras 389, which decision was cited with approval  in
\nMr. Abdul Hakeem Khan v. Abdul Menon Khadri, AIR 1972 Andhra
\nPradesh 178.  We are in agreement with this view because  of
\nthe  normal trend of price in prices of\t properties  situate
\nespecially  in\tmetropolitan  city like\t Madras,  where\t the
\nproperty  in  question is situate.  If\tmerely\tbecause\t the
\nprices have risen during the pendency of litigation, we were
\nto deny the relief of specific performance if otherwise due,
\nthis relief could hardly be granted in any case, because  by
\nthe  time the litigation comes to an end  sufficiently\tlong
\nperiod\tis  likely  to elapse in most of  the  cases.\tThis
\nfactor,\t therefore,  should not normally weigh\tagainst\t the
\nsuitor in exercise of discretion by a court in a case of the
\npresent nature.\n<\/p>\n
28.The final onslaught is on the ground that the  plaintiffs
\nsuccessors-in-interest\thaving assigned the right  to  third
\nparties in the meantime, we may not grant the relief because
\nthe  assignees have, as already noted, purchased  litigation
\nand  so the transaction could be described  as\tchampertous.
\nShri  Parasaran,  however,  contends  that  all\t assignments
\npendente  lite cannot be regarded as champertous;  the\tsame
\nwould  depend on the facts of each case.  It is\t also  urged
\nthat  an  assignee  has\t the  right  to\t pray  for  specific
\nperformance  because  he is one who has to  be\tregarded  as
\n“representative-in-interest”, of which mention has been made
\nin  clause  (b) of section 15 of the aforesaid\tAct  dealing
\nwith the persons who may obtain specific performance.\t‘Mat
\nan  assignee  would be such a person was  accepted  by\tthis
\nCourt in T.M. Balakrishna Mudaliar v. M. Satyanarayana\tRao,<\/a>
\n1993 (2) SCC 740.\n<\/p>\n
29.We are of the view that if in a case the act of the third
\nparty  could be regarded akin to champertous, the relief  of
\nspecific  performance  may  be refused;\t indeed,  should  be
\nrefused.   In  the present case, however, we find  that\t the
\nassignees  themselves applied to this Court  for  impleading
\nthem   as  appellants  and  put\t on  record  the  deeds\t  of
\nassignment,  a\tperusal\t of which shows that  the  need\t for
\nassignment  was It for pressing reasons.  There has been  no
\nhide an seek with the court and the legal representatives of
\nthe original plaintiff having received a sum of about Rs. 13
\nlacs pursuant to the contract of assignments entered between
\nSeptember to November ‘1988, we do not think if we would  be
\njustified in refusing the relief of specific performance, if
\nthe conduct of the respondents is also borne in mind,  about
\nwhich  one  could say that the same is tainted\tinasmuch  as
\nthey  departed from truth to bolster their case and went  to
\nthe  extent  of not complying with the desire of  the  trial
\njudge  in allowing aforesaid Kamal to be examined even as  a
\ncourt witness.\tSuch parties who pay foul with equity cannot
\nbe allowed to use the shield of equity to protect them.\n<\/p>\n
30.The result of the foregoing discussions is that we  allow
\nthe appeal, set aside
\n626<\/span>
\nthe  impugned  judgment\t of the\t Letters  Patent  Bench\t and
\nrestore\t that  of the trial Judge and decree  the  suit\t for
\nspecific performance.  The respondents or their\t successors-
\nin-  interest  would  reconvey\tthe  property  mentioned  in
\nSchedule  ‘A’  of  the plaint within a period  of  1  month,
\nfailing which it would be open to the trial Judge to execute
\nthe required document(s).  In the facts and circumstances of
\nthe  case,  the\t parties are left to bear  their  own  costs
\nthroughout.\n<\/p>\n
[A.  Nos.], 2 & 5 of 1994\n<\/p>\n
31.I.A.\t Nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed.  I.A. No.5 is  allowed;
\nthe cause title may be amended accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) By Lrs. & … vs Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) By … on 17 April, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 1607, 1995 SCC (4) 15 Author: H B.L. Bench: Hansaria B.L. (J) PETITIONER: S.V.R. MUDALIAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: MRS. RAJABU F. BUHARI (DEAD) BY […]<\/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-33015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) By Lrs. & ... vs Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) By ... on 17 April, 1995 - 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\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) By Lrs. & ... vs Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) By ... on 17 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995\" \/>\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=\"1995-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-30T00:27:50+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) By Lrs. & … vs Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) By … on 17 April, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-30T00:27:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995\"},\"wordCount\":4809,\"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\\\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995\",\"name\":\"S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) By Lrs. & ... vs Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) By ... on 17 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-30T00:27:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) By Lrs. & … vs Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) By … on 17 April, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) By Lrs. & ... vs Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) By ... on 17 April, 1995 - 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\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) By Lrs. & ... vs Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) By ... on 17 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-30T00:27:50+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) By Lrs. & … vs Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) By … on 17 April, 1995","datePublished":"1995-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-30T00:27:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995"},"wordCount":4809,"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\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995","name":"S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) By Lrs. & ... vs Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) By ... on 17 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-30T00:27:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-r-mudaliar-dead-by-lrs-vs-mrs-rajabu-f-buhari-dead-by-on-17-april-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) By Lrs. & … vs Mrs. Rajabu F. Buhari (Dead) By … on 17 April, 1995"}]},{"@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\/33015","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=33015"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33015\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}