{"id":61724,"date":"2000-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000"},"modified":"2017-01-03T16:05:12","modified_gmt":"2017-01-03T10:35:12","slug":"kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000","title":{"rendered":"Kadiyala Rama Rao vs Gutala Kahna Rao (Dead) By Lrs &amp; Ors on 18 February, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kadiyala Rama Rao vs Gutala Kahna Rao (Dead) By Lrs &amp; Ors on 18 February, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Banerjee<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B.Majumdar, U.C.Banerjee<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 2269  of  1981\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nKADIYALA RAMA RAO\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGUTALA KAHNA RAO (DEAD) BY LRS &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t01\/01\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.B.Majumdar, U.C.Banerjee\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>BANERJEE, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;..I&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>      This  appeal  pertains  mainly  to  the  question\t  of<br \/>\nvalidity of court sale in regard to immovable property.\t The<br \/>\nfacts  in  the\tappeal may briefly be adverted in  order  to<br \/>\nappreciate the issue involved effectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The situation is now thus by reason of the legislative<br \/>\nchanges\t as above is clear enough to indicate that an  order<br \/>\npassed\tby  court  subordinate\tto the\tHigh  Court  in\t its<br \/>\nappellate  jurisdiction,  if it is not appealable, would  be<br \/>\nwithin\tthe  ambit  of Section 115 of the Code\tand  thus  a<br \/>\nrevisional  application would be maintainable.\tA revisional<br \/>\napplication  against an order which is not appealable either<br \/>\nbefore the subordinate court or the High court would also be<br \/>\nmaintainable.\tLet us now at this juncture however, come to<br \/>\nthe  contextual\t facts\tin  order to  appreciate  the  issue<br \/>\ninvolved  more\teffectively.  The petitioner is\t a  stranger<br \/>\nauction\t purchaser of a house property sold in court auction<br \/>\non  31st July, 1978 in pursuance of a mortgage decree  dated<br \/>\n4.6.1975  passed  in C.S.No.1245 of 1973 on the file of\t the<br \/>\ncourt  of District Munsif, Rajamundhry, Andhra Pradesh.\t The<br \/>\ncourt  sale of the house property was effected upon  payment<br \/>\nof  25%\t of  the sale price offered by the  highest  bidder.<br \/>\nSubsequently, the sale was confirmed on 31st July, 1978 upon<br \/>\npayment\t of  the full purchase price.  On 26th August,\t1978<br \/>\nthe respondents herein filed an application to set aside the<br \/>\nauction\t sale  dated 31st July, 1978.  The learned  District<br \/>\nMunsif\tRajamundhry, however by an order dated 31st  August,<br \/>\n1978  rejected the said application and thereafter confirmed<br \/>\nthe  sale and disposed of the Execution Petition on the same<br \/>\nday  and a cheque for Rs.4420\/- was issued in favour of\t the<br \/>\nAdvocate  for  the  decree  holder and\tthereupon  the\tfull<br \/>\nsatisfaction  was duly recorded.  It is significant to\tnote<br \/>\nthat  the  appellant took delivery of the house property  on<br \/>\n9th  November, 1978.  Subsequently, on an application  filed<br \/>\nunder  Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  of\t Andhra\t  Pradesh,  the\t respondents  herein<br \/>\nobtained  an  interim stay of the proceedings on  22.11.1978<br \/>\nupon  deposit of half of the decretal amount.  On 4th April,<br \/>\n1980, the High Court however further directed the respondent<br \/>\nto  deposit the remaining half of the decretal amount.\t The<br \/>\nrecords\t depict that the respondents duly complied with\t the<br \/>\norders\tof  deposit.  The Revision Petition thereafter\tupon<br \/>\nhearing\t was  allowed  by the High Court and  the  appellant<br \/>\nherein\tsubsequently  filed  a\tReview\tPetition  which\t was<br \/>\nhowever, dismissed by the order dated 22nd December, 1980 by<br \/>\nthe  Learned  Single Judge of the High Court and  hence\t the<br \/>\nAppeal\tbefore\tthis Court.  To appreciate  the\t contentions<br \/>\nraised\tin  the matter, it would however, be  convenient  to<br \/>\nnote  the  provisions  of Order 21 Rule 90  which  reads  as<br \/>\nbelow:\t90 [S.311] (1)Where any immovable property has been<br \/>\nsold   Application  to\tin  execution\tof  a  decree,\t the<br \/>\ndecree-holder, or set aside sale the purchaser, or any other<br \/>\nperson\tentitled  to  on  ground  of  share  in\t a  rateable<br \/>\ndistribution  of assets, or irregularity or whose  interests<br \/>\nare  affected by the sale, may fraud.  apply to the Court to<br \/>\nset aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or<br \/>\nfraud in publishing or conducting it.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (2)  No  sale  shall  be set aside on  the  ground  of<br \/>\nirregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it unless,<br \/>\nupon  the  facts  proved, the Court is\tsatisfied  that\t the<br \/>\napplicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such<br \/>\nirregularity  or  fraud.  (3) No application to set aside  a<br \/>\nsale  under  this rule shall be entertained upon any  ground<br \/>\nwhich  the applicant could have taken on or before the\tdate<br \/>\non   which   the  proclamation\tof   sale  was\t drawn\t up.<br \/>\nExplanation:   The mere absence of, or defect in, attachment<br \/>\nof  the\t property  shall  not, by itself, be  a\t ground\t for<br \/>\nsetting aside a sale under this rule.\n<\/p>\n<p>      On  a  plain  reading  of the  provisions\t thus  three<br \/>\nseveral\t factors emerge and which ought to be taken note  of<br \/>\nin  the\t matter\t of setting aside the sale of  an  immovable<br \/>\nproperty,  viz.,  (i)  material irregularity  and  fraud  in<br \/>\npublishing  or conducting the sale;  (ii) the Court  dealing<br \/>\nwith such an application is satisfied that the applicant has<br \/>\nsustained   substantial\t  injury  by   reason  of  such\t  an<br \/>\nirregularity  or  fraud;  and (iii) no application would  be<br \/>\nentertained  upon  a ground which the applicant\t could\thave<br \/>\ntaken  on  or  before  the  date   of  drawing\tup  of\t the<br \/>\nproclamation of sale.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  only issue was of saleable interest for a  period<br \/>\nof  15\tyears  since the deed of sale has  executed  by\t the<br \/>\nMunicipality   of  Rajamundhry\t and  the   Judgement-Debtor<br \/>\ncontained  a condition that the property cannot be alienated<br \/>\nby  the Judgment-Debtor for a period of 15 years.  It is  to<br \/>\nbe  noticed  at\t this  juncture that  question\tof  saleable<br \/>\ninterest  does not come within the ambit of Order 21 Rule 90<br \/>\nand  as\t such the Judgment-Debtor have not locus  standi  to<br \/>\napply  to  the\tCourt for setting aside the  sale.   Statute<br \/>\nrecognizes such a locus standi only in the event of material<br \/>\nirregularity  or fraud and not otherwise.  Apart  therefrom,<br \/>\nsaleable  interest  can only be challenged by the  purchaser<br \/>\nand not by the Judgement- Debtor since the purchasers right<br \/>\nwould  otherwise  be  clouded therewith by reason  of  there<br \/>\nbeing  no  saleable interest in the property so far  as\t the<br \/>\nJudgent-debtor\tis concerned.  Order 21 Rule 91 is  specific<br \/>\non  this  score\t and a right has been conferred\t on  to\t the<br \/>\npurchaser  only.   Let us now at this juncture\trecount\t the<br \/>\norder  against which the Revision Petition was moved  before<br \/>\nthe  High Court.  The Order is set out herein below:  Heard<br \/>\nMr.   P.M.  Gandhi, perused the petition.  As stated by\t Mr.<br \/>\nP.M.Gandhi,  petitioners  who have had sale notice  did\t not<br \/>\nraise the present objection regarding the nature of property<br \/>\nraise  i.e., that it is not saleable.  However to give\tthem<br \/>\nan  opportunity to avoid the sale by paying the E.P.  amount<br \/>\ntheir  counsel if asked whether they are willing to pay\t the<br \/>\nE.P.   amount.\t He is not able to give any positive  reply.<br \/>\nPetition  is  prima facie devoid of bonafides besides  being<br \/>\nbelated.  Hence rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>      At  this\tjuncture  the\tAndhra\tPradesh\t and  Madras<br \/>\nAmendment Order 21 Rule 90 are also to be noticed.  The said<br \/>\namendment  reads  as below:  Provided that the\tCourt  may,<br \/>\nafter  giving notice to the applicant, call upon him  before<br \/>\nadmitting the application, either to furnish security to the<br \/>\nsatisfaction  of  the  Court  for an amount  equal  to\tthat<br \/>\nmentioned  in  the sale warrant or to that realized  by\t the<br \/>\nsale, whichever is less, or to deposit such amount in Court:<br \/>\nProvided  also\tthat the security furnished or\tthe  deposit<br \/>\nmade  as  aforesaid shall be liable to be proceeded  against<br \/>\nonly  to  the  extent  of the deficit on a  re-sale  of\t the<br \/>\nproperty  already  brought to sale. In the present  proviso<br \/>\nafter the word Provided insert the word further.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It  is  on this score the Learned District Munsif\t has<br \/>\noffered\t such an opportunity to avoid the sale by deposit of<br \/>\nmoney,\tas  such  there is due compliance  thereof,  of\t the<br \/>\nrequirement  of law in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Amendment<br \/>\nto  the\t provisions  of\t the Code  as  noticed\tabove.\t The<br \/>\ncontextual  facts  depict  that the  Revision  Petition\t was<br \/>\ndismissed  on  11th  April,  1980 that\tis  long  after\t the<br \/>\ncompletion  of\tsale which has been totally ignored and\t the<br \/>\nLearned\t Single Judge as a matter of fact has proceeded on a<br \/>\ntotal  misconception of facts.\tBe it noted that at no point<br \/>\nof  time,  any\tquestion  was raised as\t regards  the  total<br \/>\npurchase  price and as such, a faint attempt on the part  of<br \/>\nthe respondent herein before this Court to denounce the sale<br \/>\non  the\t ground of quantum of purchase price, in  our  view,<br \/>\nought  not to be permitted to be raised before this Court at<br \/>\nthis   juncture.   The\tLearned\t  Singe\t Judge\t erroneously<br \/>\nproceeded  on certain misconception of facts as also of\t law<br \/>\nby  reason of the factum of challenge of sale on the  ground<br \/>\nof saleability.\t Order 21 Rule 90 does not envisage an issue<br \/>\nof  saleability and the Learned Single Judge was in error in<br \/>\nintroducing  such  a concept under Order 21 Rule 90  of\t the<br \/>\nCode.\tIn any event as noticed above no saleable interest<br \/>\ncan  be agitated by the purchaser only in terms of Order  21<br \/>\nRule  91  and  not by the Judgment-debtor.  The\t grounds  of<br \/>\nchallenge  is  specific\t in  the  provision  itself  namely,<br \/>\nmaterial  irregularity\tor fraud and in the absence  of\t any<br \/>\nevidence  or  even  an allegation in regard thereof  in\t the<br \/>\npetition under Order 21 Rule 90, question of introduction of<br \/>\nthe  concept of no saleable interest or another\t opportunity<br \/>\nto  the judgment-debtor does not and cannot arise.  In\tthat<br \/>\nview  of the matter, this Appeal succeed.  The order  passed<br \/>\nby  the\t Learned  Single Judge as impugned  in\tthis  Appeal<br \/>\nstands\tset aside and quashed and in that view of the factum<br \/>\nof the position of the property being with the purchaser, we<br \/>\nare  not  inclined  to issue any directive in  that  regard.<br \/>\nThere is no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Kadiyala Rama Rao vs Gutala Kahna Rao (Dead) By Lrs &amp; Ors on 18 February, 2000 Author: Banerjee Bench: S.B.Majumdar, U.C.Banerjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2269 of 1981 PETITIONER: KADIYALA RAMA RAO Vs. RESPONDENT: GUTALA KAHNA RAO (DEAD) BY LRS &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/01\/2000 BENCH: S.B.Majumdar, U.C.Banerjee JUDGMENT: BANERJEE, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61724","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kadiyala Rama Rao vs Gutala Kahna Rao (Dead) By Lrs &amp; Ors on 18 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kadiyala Rama Rao vs Gutala Kahna Rao (Dead) By Lrs &amp; Ors on 18 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-03T10:35:12+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kadiyala Rama Rao vs Gutala Kahna Rao (Dead) By Lrs &amp; Ors on 18 February, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-03T10:35:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1542,\"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\\\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000\",\"name\":\"Kadiyala Rama Rao vs Gutala Kahna Rao (Dead) By Lrs &amp; Ors on 18 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-03T10:35:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kadiyala Rama Rao vs Gutala Kahna Rao (Dead) By Lrs &amp; Ors on 18 February, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Kadiyala Rama Rao vs Gutala Kahna Rao (Dead) By Lrs &amp; Ors on 18 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kadiyala Rama Rao vs Gutala Kahna Rao (Dead) By Lrs &amp; Ors on 18 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-03T10:35:12+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kadiyala Rama Rao vs Gutala Kahna Rao (Dead) By Lrs &amp; Ors on 18 February, 2000","datePublished":"2000-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-03T10:35:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000"},"wordCount":1542,"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\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000","name":"Kadiyala Rama Rao vs Gutala Kahna Rao (Dead) By Lrs &amp; Ors on 18 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-03T10:35:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kadiyala-rama-rao-vs-gutala-kahna-rao-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-18-february-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kadiyala Rama Rao vs Gutala Kahna Rao (Dead) By Lrs &amp; Ors on 18 February, 2000"}]},{"@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\/61724","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=61724"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61724\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61724"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61724"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61724"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}