{"id":58378,"date":"2007-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007"},"modified":"2016-09-05T10:09:42","modified_gmt":"2016-09-05T04:39:42","slug":"m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"M. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By … vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors on 5 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By … vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors on 5 April, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7061 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nM. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By L.Rs\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/04\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. Sinha, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tDefendant No. 1 in the suit is the appellant herein.  The parties hereto
\nwere admittedly co-owners of the suit property.  The relationship between
\nthe parties shall appear from the following genealogical table:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tM. Ramakrishna Hebbar
\n\t\t\t\t=  Smt. Sundari Amma (D-9)<\/p>\n
\tM. Venkatram-\t     M. Rajgopala\t      M. Mohana \t M. Anantha
\n\tAnd Hebbar\t\t     Hebbar\t\t      Hebbar\t\t   Hebbar
\n\t(D-1)\t\t\t      (P-1)\t\t        (D-5)\t  \t     (D-6)
\n\t     |\t\t\t\t|\t\t      ____________________
\n\t     |\t\t\t\t|
\n\t     |\t     _____________________________\t\t\t|
\n\t     |\t   Srirama           Srikrishna\t Srivittala\t\t\t|
\n\t     |\t    (P-2)\t\t(P-3)\t\t   (P-4)\t\t\t|
\n\t     |\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t|
\n\t     |\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t|
\n\t     |\t\t\t\t\t\t\t____________________
\n\t     |\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPrasanna\t  Prashantha
\n\t     |\t\t\t\t\t\t\t   (D-7)\t     (D-8)
\n               |
\n               |
\n\t     |
\n_____________________________________
\nM. Gopal\t     M. Harisha\tM. Janardhana
\nKrishna\t     Hebbar
\nHebbar\t      (D-3)
\n(D-2)<\/p>\n
\tA suit for partition was filed by the plaintiffs claiming one-fourth
\nshare in the suit property.  It is not in dispute that on or about 30.3.1973, a
\npurported family settlement was arrived at by the parties.  One of the
\ndefendants, however, was not a signatory thereto.   In the said purported
\nfamily settlement, it was stated:-\n<\/p>\n
“We each of us are entitled to < share in the family
\nproperty.  As that property is a small areca garden and as
\nthere are no sites near by to construct a separate houses,
\nthat property cannot be divided.  Hence as owelty  No. 1
\nof us is liable to pay to No. 2 and 4 of us Rs. 15,000\/-
\neach.   That amount is to be paid in 15 yearly instalments
\nof Rs. 1000\/- each.  On payment of last instalment 2 and
\n4 of us release their rights in favour of No. 1 of us at his
\ncosts.   We No. 1, 2 and 4 of us have agreed for this.  The
\nIst instalment is to begin with the end of March 1973 and
\nend with the period of 15 years at the end of March 1987.\n<\/p>\n
The marriage of Nos. 2 and 4 of us is to be performed by
\nNo. 1 of us in the family House.   If the instalments
\ncannot be paid due to the marriage in that year = the
\namount is to be paid in that year and the balance is to be
\npaid in the subsequent year.  Accordingly if the entire
\namount is not paid as stipulated the same is to be paid by
\nthe end of March 1990 by number 1 of us and get a
\nrelease deed executed from No. 2 and 4 of us at the costs
\nof No. 1 of us.\n<\/p>\n
No. 2 and 4 of us have to construct separate houses by
\nthe end of May 1976 and reside there.\n<\/p>\n
As there are no sufficient movable and gold jewels in the
\nfamily house No. 2 and 4 have no separate share in it.
\nNo. 1 of us is liable to pay the family dues if any and
\nbear the expenses of the viniyogas of Gods and devils.\n<\/p>\n
Towards the maintenance of our mother each of us is
\nliable to pay 2 muras of rice and Rs. 25\/- every year and
\nobtain receipts and her obsequies is to be performed by
\nNo. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of us in equal shares.  No. 2 and 4 are
\nnot liable for the family debts.   The share of No. 3 of us
\nis retained by No. 1 of us he is liable to deliver the same
\nwhen he demands, we Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of us agreed for
\nthe terms in the presence of the grahastas with our full
\nconsent and executed this agreement we are liable to
\nabide by all the conditions of this agreement.  If any of us
\nincurs loss etc. by non performing as per the agreement,
\nthe person who had not performed his part is liable to pay
\nthe loss etc. and that person is entitled to recover the
\namounts.  Accordingly we have entered into this
\nagreement.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAllegedly, the said family settlement had not been acted upon in so far
\nas the appellant herein did not pay a sum of Rs. 15,000\/- to the respondents
\nherein.  In their complaint, the appellant stated:-\n<\/p>\n
“VI. The plaintiffs further submit that the alleged
\nagreement dt. 30.03.1973 has never come into force and
\nit has never been acted upon.   The 1st plaintiff has
\nnever been paid any amount under the said agreement,
\nthe averments made in the notice dated 05.05.1988 and
\nthe reply dated 12.05.1988 in this regard are palpably
\nfalse, defendants 1 to 4 cannot take shelter under the
\nsaid agreement and deny the plaintiffs their lawful share
\nin the plaint properties.  Further, the said document is
\nalso not valid since the 6th and the 9th defendants are not
\nparties to it.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe averments made in the plaint to that effect had not been denied or
\ndisputed.  Appellant, however, raised a contention that by reason thereof as
\nthe parties have arrived at a family settlement and a part of it have been
\nacted upon;  the plaintiffs\/respondents were estopped from filing the suit.
\nLearned trial Judge having regard to the rival contentions raised by the
\nparties, inter-alia framed the following issue:-\n<\/p>\n
“3.  Whether defendants 1 to 3 prove that plaintiff-1
\nand defendant-6 were paid money in respect of their
\nshare as per agreement dated 30.3.1973?”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe first part of the said issue, namely whether the appellant herein
\nhad paid the said sum of Rs. 5,000\/- in favour of plaintiff No. 1, was
\nanswered in the negative.  Despite the said finding, in view of the said
\npurported family settlement dated 30.3.1973, the learned Trial Judge decreed
\nthe suit.  On an appeal having been preferred by the said decree by the
\nrespondent herein,  the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment
\nreversed the same inter-alia holding:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe said deed of family settlement dated 30.3.1973 not being
\nregistered, was inadmissible in law.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThe family settlement could not have been acted upon as all the
\nparties are not signatories thereto.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was opined:-\n<\/p>\n
“11. The view of the court below that there was a
\npartition and the plaintiff is governed by the same and
\nseverance of status cannot be accepted at all.  Even if
\nthere be severance of status, there is no partition in the
\neye of law.  Therefore, a preliminary decree has to be
\npassed declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to one
\nfourth share.\n<\/p>\n
12.  It is open to the plaintiff to move to (sic) final
\ndecree for division and separate possession.  It is open
\nto the 1st Defendant-Respondent to put forward all his
\nclaim regarding his spending moneys on the family in
\nthe minutes of the enquiry to be conducted by the
\nenquiry authority who shall consider all his objections.”\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in
\nsupport of the appeal submitted that the High Court committed a manifest
\nerror in arriving at the aforementioned finding inasmuch as a deed of family
\nsettlement is not required to be compulsorily registered under Section 17 of
\nthe Registration Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel contended that the said deed of family settlement has
\nwrongly been held to be ineffective only because all parties did not sign
\nthereto.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the
\nother hand, supported the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe execution of the said document is not, in question.  It is
\nfurthermore not in dispute that all the co-shareholders are not parties thereto.
\nAny co-owner can cause a severance in the status of joint family by
\nexpressing his unequivocal intention to separate.  Such intention can be
\nexpressed even by filing a suit for partition.  But, despite such separation in
\nthe joint status, parties may continue to possess the lands jointly unless a
\npartition of the joint family property takes place by metes and bounds.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the purpose of this case, we will proceed on the assumption that
\nthe said deed of family settlement was not required to be compulsorily
\nregistered, in terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act as by reason
\nthereof, the relinquishment of the property was to take effect in future.  But
\nthere cannot be any doubt whatsoever that before the Court rejects a claim of
\npartition of joint family property, at the instance of all the co-owners, it must
\nbe established that there had been a partition by metes and bounds.  By
\nreason of the family settlement, a complete partition of the joint family
\nproperty by metes and bounds purported to have taken place.    One of the
\nco-sharer, however, did not join in the said purported family settlement.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe contract between the parties, moreover was a contingent contract.
\nIt was to have its effect only on payment of the said sum of Rs. 15,000\/- by
\nthe plaintiff and other respondents by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3.   It has been
\nnoticed hereinbefore by us that as of fact, it was found that no such payment
\nhad been made.   Even there had been no denial of the assertions made by
\nthe appellant in their written statement in that behalf.  The said averments
\nwould, therefore, be deemed to be admitted.  Order VIII Rule 3 and Order
\nVIII Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code read thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“3. Denial to be specific.  It shall not be sufficient for a
\ndefendant in his written statement to deny generally the
\ngrounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must
\ndeal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he
\ndoes not admit the truth, except damages.\n<\/p>\n
5. Specific denial.  [(1)]  Every allegation of fact in the
\nplaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary
\nimplication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of
\nthe defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as
\nagainst  person under disability.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any
\nfact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such
\nadmission.\n<\/p>\n
[(2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall
\nbe lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis
\nof the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a
\nperson under a disability, but the Court may, in its
\ndiscretion, require any such fact to be proved.\n<\/p>\n
(3) In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub-
\nrule (1) or under sub-rule (2), the Court shall have due
\nregard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or has,
\nengaged a pleader.\n<\/p>\n
(4) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a
\ndecree shall be drawn up in accordance with such
\njudgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the
\njudgment was pronounced.]”\n<\/p>\n
\tThus, if a plea which was relevant for the purpose of maintaining a
\nsuit had not been specifically traversed, the Court was entitled to draw an
\ninference that the same had been admitted.  A fact admitted in terms of
\nSection 58 of the Evidence Act need not be proved.\n<\/p>\n
\tEven otherwise, the Court had framed an issue and arrived at a
\npositive finding that the appellant herein did not pay the said sum of
\nRs. 15,000\/- in favour of the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3.  The High Court has also
\naffirmed the said finding.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any error
\nwhatsoever in arriving at the finding that by reason of the said purported
\ndeed of family settlement, the co-owners had not partitioned the joint family
\nproperty by meets and bounds.   The plaintiffs\/respondents were thus, yet to
\nrelinquish their rights in the joint family properties by receiving the said
\namount of Rs. 15,000\/-.   Deed of family settlement had not been given its
\nfull effect to.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe agree with the High Court that even on that count, the plaintiff’s
\nsuit should have been decreed.  We, therefore, do not find any merit in this
\nappeal which is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By … vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors on 5 April, 2007 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7061 of 2000 PETITIONER: M. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By L.Rs RESPONDENT: M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/04\/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha […]<\/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-58378","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By ... vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors on 5 April, 2007 - 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\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By ... vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors on 5 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-05T04:39:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By … vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors on 5 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-05T04:39:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1910,\"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\\\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007\",\"name\":\"M. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By ... vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors on 5 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-05T04:39:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By … vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors on 5 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"M. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By ... vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors on 5 April, 2007 - 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\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By ... vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors on 5 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-05T04:39:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By … vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors on 5 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-05T04:39:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007"},"wordCount":1910,"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\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007","name":"M. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By ... vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors on 5 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-05T04:39:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkataramana-hebbar-d-by-vs-m-rajagopal-hebbar-ors-on-5-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) By … vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Ors on 5 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/58378","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=58378"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58378\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58378"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58378"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58378"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}