{"id":52009,"date":"2008-07-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-04-17T03:36:33","modified_gmt":"2018-04-16T22:06:33","slug":"nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Nune Prasad & Ors vs Nune Ramakrisna on 29 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Nune Prasad & Ors vs Nune Ramakrisna on 29 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Mukundakam Sharma<\/div>\n
                           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4701 OF 2008\n             (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.17588 of 2006)\n\n\n\n     Nune Prasad and Ors.                         ....Appellants\n\n\n                         Versus\n\n     Nune Ramakrisna                                ....Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.             Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     1<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
2.       Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at<\/p>\n
Hyderabad allowing the second appeal filed by the respondent<\/p>\n
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in<\/p>\n
short ‘CPC’).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.       Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:<\/p>\n
         The appellant-plaintiff filed O.S. No.78 of 1990 before<\/p>\n
the Sub-Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District,<\/p>\n
Andhra Pradesh against the respondent-defendant. The Trial<\/p>\n
Court by the judgment and order dated 27.06.1995 held that<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs are the owners of the schedule property and they<\/p>\n
being the owners of the schedule property are entitled to<\/p>\n
possession. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial<\/p>\n
court, the respondent-defendant preferred an appeal in the<\/p>\n
Court   of   Additional   District   Judge,   Rajahmundry,   East<\/p>\n
Godavari District. By judgment and order dated 14.06.2001,<\/p>\n
the first appellate court confirmed the Trial Court’s judgment.<\/p>\n
The respondent-defendant preferred a second appeal under<\/p>\n
                                                                    2<\/span>
\nSection 100 C.P.C. before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh<\/p>\n
at Hyderabad, being Second Appeal No.512 of 2001. By the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the<\/p>\n
second appeal and the judgments and decree passed by the<\/p>\n
courts below were set aside.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         Though many points have been urged in support of<\/p>\n
the appeal, the primary stand of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants is that the second appeal was allowed without<\/p>\n
framing any substantial question of law as mandated by<\/p>\n
Section 100 CPC.       Learned counsel for the respondent<\/p>\n
submitted that though the High Court’s judgment does not<\/p>\n
show that any substantial question of law was framed yet<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge has allowed the appeal after analyzing<\/p>\n
the factual position in the background of settled principles in<\/p>\n
law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.       Section 100 of CPC deals with “Second Appeal”. The<\/p>\n
provision reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                “Section 100-Second Appeal: (1) Save as
\n                otherwise expressly provided in the body<\/p>\n
                                                                  3<\/span>
\n               of this Code or by any other law for the
\n               time being in force, an appeal shall lie to
\n               the High Court from every decree passed
\n               in appeal by any Court subordinate to
\n               the High Court, if the High Court is
\n               satisfied that the case involves a
\n               substantial question of law.\n<\/p>\n
               (2)       An appeal may lie under this
\n               section from an appellate decree passed
\n               ex parte.\n<\/p>\n
               (3)       In an appeal under this Section,
\n               the memorandum of appeal shall
\n               precisely state the substantial question of
\n               law involved in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
               (4)       Where the High Court is
\n               satisfied that a substantial question of
\n               law is involved in any case, it shall
\n               formulate that question.\n<\/p>\n
               (5)      The appeal shall be heard on
\n               the question so formulated and the
\n               respondent shall, at the hearing of the
\n               appeal, be allowed to argue that the case
\n               does not involve such question:\n<\/p>\n
                                  Provided that nothing
\n               in this sub-section shall be deemed to
\n               take away or abridge the power of the
\n               Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded,
\n               the appeal on any other substantial
\n               question of law, not formulated by it, if it
\n               is satisfied that the case involves such
\n               question.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.      A perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the<\/p>\n
High Court does not show that any substantial question of law<\/p>\n
has been formulated or that the second appeal was heard on<\/p>\n
                                                                4<\/span>
\nthe question, if any, so formulated. That being so, the<\/p>\n
judgment cannot be maintained, which is set aside and<\/p>\n
remitted back to the High Court for proceeding in the matter<\/p>\n
in accordance with law and in terms of observations made<\/p>\n
herein.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.        In Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal (2000 (1) SCC 434),<\/p>\n
this Court in para 10, has stated thus:<\/p>\n
           “10. Now under Section 100 CPC, after the
\n           1976 Amendment, it is essential for the High
\n           Court to formulate a substantial question of
\n           law and it is not permissible to reverse the
\n           judgment of the first appellate Court without
\n           doing so.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.        Yet again in Roop Singh v. Ram Singh (2000 (3) SCC<\/p>\n
708), this Court has expressed that the jurisdiction of a High<\/p>\n
Court is confined to appeals involving substantial question of<\/p>\n
law. Para 7 of the said judgment reads:<\/p>\n
              “7.      It is to be reiterated that under
\n              section 100 CPC jurisdiction of the High
\n              Court to entertain a second appeal is
\n              confined only to such appeals which
\n              involve a substantial question of law and it
\n                                                                 5<\/span>
\n            does not confer any jurisdiction on the
\n            High Court to interfere with pure questions
\n            of fact while exercising its jurisdiction
\n            under section 100 CPC. That apart, at the
\n            time of disposing of the matter the High
\n            Court did not even notice the question of
\n            law formulated by it at the time of
\n            admission of the second appeal as there is
\n            no      reference of it in the impugned
\n            judgment. Further, the fact findings courts
\n            after appreciating the evidence held that
\n            the defendant entered into the possession
\n            of the premises as a batai, that is to say, as
\n            a tenant and his possession was
\n            permissive and there was no pleading or
\n            proof as to when it became adverse and
\n            hostile. These findings recorded by the two
\n            courts below were based on proper
\n            appreciation of evidence and the material
\n            on record and there was no perversity,
\n            illegality or irregularity in those findings. If
\n            the defendant got the possession of suit
\n            land as a lessee or under a batai
\n            agreement then from the permissive
\n            possession it is for him to establish by
\n            cogent and convincing evidence to show
\n            hostile animus and possession adverse to
\n            the knowledge of the real owner. Mere
\n            possession for a long time does not result
\n            in converting permissive possession into
\n            adverse possession (Thakur Kishan Singh
\n            v. Arvind Kumar<\/a> (1994 (6) SCC 591). Hence
\n            the High Court ought not to have
\n            interfered with the findings of fact recorded
\n            by both the courts below.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.      The position has been reiterated in Kanhaiyalal and<\/p>\n
Ors. v. Anupkumar and Ors.<\/a> (2003 (1) SCC 430), Mathakala<\/p>\n
Krishnaiah v. V. Rajagopal<\/a> (2004(10) SCC 676), Smt. Ram
\n                                                               6<\/span>
\nSakhi Devi v. Chhatra Devi & Ors. (JT<\/a> 2005 (6) SC 167),<\/p>\n
Sasikumar & Ors. v. Kunnath Chellappan Nair & Ors.<\/a> (2005<\/p>\n
(12) SCC 588), Gian Dass v. The Gram Panchayat Village<\/p>\n
Sunner Kalan & Ors.<\/a> (2006 (6) SCC 271), Shah Mansukhlal<\/p>\n
Chhaganial (d) through Lrs. V. Gohil Amarsing Govindbhai (d)<\/p>\n
through Lrs. (2006(13) SCALE 99).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.       The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.<\/p>\n
There will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                            ……………………………………J.
\n                            (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)<\/p>\n
                            ……………………………………J.
\n                            (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
\nNew Delhi,
\nJuly 29, 2008<\/p>\n
                                                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Nune Prasad & Ors vs Nune Ramakrisna on 29 July, 2008 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Mukundakam Sharma IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4701 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.17588 of 2006) Nune Prasad and Ors. ….Appellants Versus Nune Ramakrisna […]<\/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-52009","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNune Prasad & Ors vs Nune Ramakrisna on 29 July, 2008 - 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\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nune Prasad & Ors vs Nune Ramakrisna on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-16T22:06:33+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nune Prasad & Ors vs Nune Ramakrisna on 29 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-16T22:06:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1053,\"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\\\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Nune Prasad & Ors vs Nune Ramakrisna on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-16T22:06:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nune Prasad & Ors vs Nune Ramakrisna on 29 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Nune Prasad & Ors vs Nune Ramakrisna on 29 July, 2008 - 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\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nune Prasad & Ors vs Nune Ramakrisna on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-16T22:06:33+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nune Prasad & Ors vs Nune Ramakrisna on 29 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-16T22:06:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008"},"wordCount":1053,"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\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008","name":"Nune Prasad & Ors vs Nune Ramakrisna on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-16T22:06:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nune-prasad-ors-vs-nune-ramakrisna-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nune Prasad & Ors vs Nune Ramakrisna on 29 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/52009","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=52009"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52009\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52009"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52009"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52009"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}