{"id":43094,"date":"2004-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004"},"modified":"2017-09-02T07:09:38","modified_gmt":"2017-09-02T01:39:38","slug":"k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004","title":{"rendered":"K. Raghunath vs Chandrasekhar & Anr on 1 December, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K. Raghunath vs Chandrasekhar & Anr on 1 December, 2004<\/div>\n
Bench: B.P.Singh, Arun Kumar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4533 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nK. RAGHUNATH\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCHANDRASEKHAR & ANR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/12\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nB.P.SINGH & ARUN KUMAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G E M E N T  \t\t<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgement of
\nthe High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 13th April, 2000 in
\nH.R.R.P No.227 of 2000. The appellant before us is a tenant and the
\nrespondents are the  landlords. By the impugned judgement and order
\nthe High Court has dismissed the Revision Petition preferred by the
\nappellant holding that the arrears of rent had not been paid or deposited
\nby the appellant as required, in the manner contemplated by Section 29
\nof the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the
\nAct”) before filing of the Revision Petition, and that
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…2\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-2-<\/span><\/p>\n
no explanation had been given for not depositing the rent before filing
\nthe Revision Petition under Section 50(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe facts of the case are not in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent-landlords filed a petition for eviction of the
\nappellant under Section 22(1)(h) and 22(1)(p)of the Act which was
\ndisposed of by the Small Causes Court allowing the petition and passing
\nan order of eviction against the appellant by judgement and order of
\nFebruary 4, 2000. The appellant preferred a Revision Petition before the
\nHigh Court on 6th April, 2000 under Section 50(1) of the Act. Before
\npreferring the Revision Petition he had neither deposited nor paid the
\narrears of rent, but he sent the same by money order to the landlords on
\n11th April, 2000. The matter came up before the High Court on 13th
\nApril, 2000 when the High Court passed the impugned order dismissing
\nthe Revision Petition for non compliance with requirements of Section
\n29 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t…3\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-3-<\/span><\/p>\n
\tCounsel for the appellant argued before us that there was, in fact,
\nno delay in filing the Revision Petition as also in payment of arrears of
\nrent and therefore, the High Court was in error in dismissing the
\nRevision Petition on that ground. Counsel for the respondent has
\nsupported the order of the High Court and drawn our attention to the
\nrelevant provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe relevant part of Section 29 of the Act provides as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“29.Deposit and payment of rent during the pendency of
\nproceedings for eviction.-\n<\/p>\n
\t(1)\tNo tenant against whom an application for eviction
\nhas been made by a landlord under Section 21, shall be entitled to
\ncontest the application before the Court under that Section or to
\nprefer or prosecute a revision petition under Section 50 against an
\norder made by the Court on application under Section 2(1) unless he
\nhas paid or pays to the landlord or deposits with the Court or the
\nDistrict Judge or the High Court, as the case may be, all arrears of
\nrent due in respect of the premises upto the date of payment or
\ndeposits and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may
\nsubsequently become due in respect of the premises at the rate at
\nwhich it was last paid or agreed to be paid, until the termination of
\nthe proceedings before the Court or the District Judge or the High
\nCourt, as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t…4\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-4-<\/span><\/p>\n
\t(2)\tThe deposit of the rent under sub-section (1) shall be
\nmade within the time and in the manner prescribed and shall be
\naccompanied by such fee as may be prescribed for the service of the
\nnotice referred to in sub-section (5).\n<\/p>\n
\t(3)\tx x x x x x x <\/p>\n
\t(4)\tIf any tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent as
\naforesaid, the Court, the District Judge or the High Court, as the
\ncase may be, shall unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the
\ncontrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing
\nthe tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises or
\ndismiss the appeal or revision petition, as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
\t(5)\tx x x x x x x”\n<\/p>\n
\tSub-Section (2) of Section 29 provides that the deposit of the rent
\nunder sub-section (1) shall be made within the time and in the manner
\nprescribed, which means that the deposit of rent must be made in the
\nmanner prescribed and within the time provided by the Rules. Section 50
\nwhich provides for a revision to the High Court or the District Judge is
\nas follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“50. Revision.(1) The High Court may, at any time call for
\nand examine any order passed or proceeding taken by the Court of
\nSmall Causes or the Court of Civil Judge under this Act or any
\norder passed by the Controller under Sections 14, 15, 16 or 17 for
\nthe purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or correctness of
\nsuch order or proceeding and may pass such order in reference
\nthereto as it thinks fit.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t…5\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-5-<\/span><\/p>\n
\t(2)\tThe District Judge may, at any time call for and
\nexamine any order passed or proceeding taken by the Court of
\nMunsiff referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (d) of Section 3 for
\nthe purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or correctness of
\nsuch order or proceeding and may pass such order in reference
\nthereto as he thinks fit. The order of the District Judge shall be final.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3)\tThe costs of and incidental to all proceedings before
\nthe High Court or the District Judge shall be in the discretion of the
\nHigh Court or the District Judge, as the case may be.”\n<\/p>\n
\tRule 9 is the relevant Rule which prescribes the manner and time
\nwithin which the deposit as contemplated by Section 29 shall be made.
\nThe relevant Rule is quoted below :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Rule 9. Deposit of rent under Section 29.-\n<\/p>\n
(1) The time within which a deposit of rent under sub-section (1) of
\nSection 29, may be made shall be fifteen days of the last date fixed in
\nthe agreement of tenancy with the landlord for payment of the rent
\nor in the absence of such agreement fifteen days from the last date of
\nthe month next following that for which the rent is payable.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt will thus be seen that Section 50 which provides for a revision
\nto the High Court against the order of the Court of Small Causes, as in
\nthis case, does not prescribe a limitation for preferring the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…6\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-6-<\/span><\/p>\n
revision. In fact the power has been conferred upon the High Court and
\nthe District Judge to act suo motu, but it is not disputed before us that the
\naggrieved party also may invoke that provision and seek relief.\n<\/p>\n
\tCounsel for the parties submitted before us that in the absence of
\na provision providing  for a limitation the High Court of Karnataka has
\nheld that such a revision must be preferred within 90 days. It was so laid
\ndown in the case of P. Kannaswamy Versus B.L. Shankaranarayana
\nShetty AIR 1977 Karnataka 72. A subsequent decision of the same
\nCourt in Obalappa Versus Alamelamma  AIR 1983 1 Rent Control
\nReporter 258 has clarified that the period of 90 days though not a period
\nof limitation prescribed by law, is all the same a guidance for the
\nexercise of discretion in such matters. Without going into the correctness
\nof these decisions we proceed on the basis that a revision could be
\npreferred within 90 days, though Section 50 does not lay down the
\nlimitation for preferring such a revision.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t…7\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-7-<\/span><\/p>\n
\tIn view of the above if a revision is filed within 90 days as laid
\ndown by the aforesaid decisions of the Karnataka High Court, and the
\narrears of rent is not deposited within the period of 90 days, the situation
\nposes no difficulty, because in that event the Court may dismiss the
\nrevision unless the revisionist is able to satisfy the Court that he had
\nsufficient cause for not making the deposit within such time. In the
\ninstant case we are faced with a different situation. The revision was
\npreferred against the order of the Small Causes Court dated 4th
\nFebruary, 2000 on 6th April, 2000. The revision petition, therefore, was
\nfiled within time. The arrears of rent were paid on 11th April, 2000.
\nTherefore, by the time the revision came up for hearing before the High
\nCourt on 13th April, 2000, the arrears of rent had already been paid
\nwithin the period allowed for preferring the revision petition. In these
\ncircumstances, we are of the view that the revision petition should have
\nbeen entertained on merit and the High Court should not have dismissed
\nit on the ground of limitation. The Court should have <\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t…8\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-8-<\/span><\/p>\n
treated the Revision as duly presented on April 6, 2000, the date on
\nwhich the payment was made.\n<\/p>\n
\tCounsel for the respondents submitted that Rule 29 prescribes the
\nperiod within which the deposit should be made. We have examined
\nRule 29 to ascertain within what period, according to the Rule, the
\ndeposit or payment of the arrears of rent should have been made.
\nUnfortunately, the Rule is not happily worded. In our view it has not
\nprescribed a time limit for deposit of rent in a revisional proceeding
\nunder Section 50 even though Section 29 directly refers to such a
\nproceeding. This may perhaps be on account of the fact that the Act
\nitself does not prescribe a limitation for invoking the revisional
\njurisdiction under Section 50. However, if it were permissible to
\ncompute the limitation under Rule 9, in view of the fact that we do not
\nknow the last date contemplated in the agreement of tenancy for
\npayment of rent, we may compute the limitation on the basis of time
\nprescribed in the last part of sub-section (1) namely “15 days from the
\nlast
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…9\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-9-<\/span><\/p>\n
date of the month next following that for which the rent is payable”.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the instant case the order of eviction was passed on 4th
\nFebruary, 2000. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary we take it
\nthat rent for the month of February was due and payable. The month
\nnext following that for which the rent is payable will be the month of
\nMarch, 2000, and 15 days from the last day of March would be the 15th
\nApril, 2000. Even if we so compute the limitation period allowed for
\ndepositing the arrears of rent, the payment made on 11th April, 2000 was
\nwell within time. We are, therefore, of the view that there was in fact no
\ndelay in paying the arrears of rent reading Section 29 of the Act with
\nRule 9 of the Rules. Even otherwise in principle we are supported in our
\nconclusion by the decision of this Court in The Commissioner of
\nIncome Tax, Bombay Versus M\/s Filmistan Ltd. 1961 3 SCR 893.
\nThat was a case under the Income Tax Act and the question arose in the <\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t…10\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-10-<\/span><\/p>\n
context of Section 30 of the Act which provided for appeals against
\norders of assessment. The proviso as contained in Section 30(1) read as
\nfollows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Provided that no appeal shall lie against an order under sub-
\nsection (1) of section 46 unless the
\ntax has been paid.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe objection by the department was that the appeal was barred
\nby limitation since the tax had not been paid when the appeal was
\npreferred. Negativing this contention this Court held :’<\/p>\n
\t“The controversy between the parties revolves round the
\nwords “no appeal shall lie.” The contention which was raised before
\nus was that these words mean that there is no right of appeal till the
\ntax is paid and therefore if the tax has not been paid the
\nmemorandum of appeal cannot be filed and if filed it is merely a
\nwaste paper. In our opinion the meaning of the words “no appeal
\nshall lie” in the proviso is not that no memorandum of appeal can be
\npresented. All that it means is that the appeal will not be held to be
\nproperly filed until the tax has been paid. If, for instance, the
\nmemorandum of appeal is filed on the 20th day, i.e., 10 days before
\nthe period of limitation expires and the tax is paid within the rest of
\nthe 10 days, the appeal will be a proper appeal; it will be within time
\nand no question of limitation will arise but if the tax is paid after the
\nperiod of limitation has expired it will be taken to have been filed on
\nthe day when the tax is paid even though the memorandum of <\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t…11\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-11-<\/span><\/p>\n
appeal was presented earlier and within the period of limitation.
\nThe question will then have to be decided whether there was
\nsufficient cause for condonation of delay and that is exactly what the
\nTribunal had ordered and that in our opinion is the effect of the
\nproviso to Section 30(1) read with sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the
\nAct.”\n<\/p>\n
\tWe therefore, allow the appeal and remit the matter to the High
\nCourt for disposal of the revision petition on merit. Since the need of the
\nlandlords as claimed by them is urgent as they require the premises for
\ntheir bona fide personal need, we request the High Court to dispose of
\nthe revision petition as early as possible. It was also brought to our
\nnotice that during the pendency of the appeal before this Court no rent
\nhas been deposited. Unfortunately, neither the appellant voluntarily
\ndeposited the rent each month as and when it fell due, nor did the
\nrespondents seek a direction from this Court to the appellant to deposit
\nthe rent each month. However, we direct the appellant to deposit the
\narrears of rent due as on 30th November, 2004 within a period of four
\nweeks from today.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t…12\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-12-<\/span><\/p>\n
\tThe parties are at liberty to move the High Court and seek further
\ndirections for the deposit of rent in future. If the rent as directed by us is
\nnot deposited within the  period of four weeks from today, it will be
\nopen to the High Court to dismiss the revision petition on that ground
\nalone. The parties are directed to appear before the Registrar General of
\nthe Karnataka High Court on 17th January, 2005 when he shall intimate
\nthe parties the probable date of hearing.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K. Raghunath vs Chandrasekhar & Anr on 1 December, 2004 Bench: B.P.Singh, Arun Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4533 of 2001 PETITIONER: K. RAGHUNATH RESPONDENT: CHANDRASEKHAR & ANR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/12\/2004 BENCH: B.P.SINGH & ARUN KUMAR JUDGMENT: J U D G E M E N T This appeal by special […]<\/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-43094","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK. Raghunath vs Chandrasekhar & Anr on 1 December, 2004 - 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\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Raghunath vs Chandrasekhar & Anr on 1 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-02T01:39:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Raghunath vs Chandrasekhar & Anr on 1 December, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-02T01:39:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2334,\"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\\\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004\",\"name\":\"K. Raghunath vs Chandrasekhar & Anr on 1 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-02T01:39:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Raghunath vs Chandrasekhar & Anr on 1 December, 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":"K. Raghunath vs Chandrasekhar & Anr on 1 December, 2004 - 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\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Raghunath vs Chandrasekhar & Anr on 1 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-02T01:39:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Raghunath vs Chandrasekhar & Anr on 1 December, 2004","datePublished":"2004-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-02T01:39:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004"},"wordCount":2334,"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\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004","name":"K. Raghunath vs Chandrasekhar & Anr on 1 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-02T01:39:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-raghunath-vs-chandrasekhar-anr-on-1-december-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Raghunath vs Chandrasekhar & Anr on 1 December, 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\/43094","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=43094"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43094\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43094"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43094"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43094"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}