{"id":63423,"date":"1967-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967"},"modified":"2018-09-03T19:46:05","modified_gmt":"2018-09-03T14:16:05","slug":"solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967","title":{"rendered":"Solana Ramachandra Rao & Ors vs Maddi Kutumba Rao & Anr on 19 April, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Solana Ramachandra Rao & Ors vs Maddi Kutumba Rao & Anr on 19 April, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1637, \t\t 1967 SCR (3) 703<\/div>\n
Author: G Mitter<\/div>\n
Bench: Mitter, G.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSOLANA RAMACHANDRA RAO & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMADDI KUTUMBA RAO & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n19\/04\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nWANCHOO, K.N. (CJ)\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1637\t\t  1967 SCR  (3) 703\n\n\nACT:\nCode  of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), O.XXI, r. 89\t(b)-\nDeposit\t of amounts to be paid to decree-holder-When can  be\ndispensed with.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nProperties belonging to a 'trust were sold in execution of a\ndecree\tobtained by the second respondent against the  trust\nand  were purchased by the first respondent.  Thereafter,  a\nsuit  was filed under s. 92, C.P.C. for the removal  of\t the\ntrustees  wherein it was prayed that the sale in  favour  of\nthe first respondent may be set aside and adequate provision\nfor discharging the decree of the second respondent be\tmade\nin  the\t scheme to he framed for managing  the\ttrust.\t The\nsecond respondent agreed to such a course and thereupon, the\nappellant, who was appointed a receiver in the suit under s.\n92,  applied  to  the Court under O.XXI, r.  89\t C.P.C.\t for\nsetting\t aside the sale.  He deposited certain\tamounts\t for\npayment\t to  the first respondent purchaser.   He  did\tnot,\nhowever, deposit the amount specified in the Proclamation of\nsale for payment to the second respondent decree-holder,  as\nrequired under O.XXI, r. 89(b), but instead, prayed that the\nCourt may dispense with such deposit.  The Court allowed the\napplication,  but on appeal by the purchaser the High  Court\nset aside the order.\nIn appeal, by the receiver, to this Court,\nHELD  : If at the time when the application under O.XXI,  r.\n89  is\tmade  by the judgment-debtor, the  decree  has\tbeen\nsatisfied or adjusted, the deposit of any money for  payment\nto the decree-holder is not called for.\t But a mere  promise\non  the part of the judgment-debtor to take steps to  ensure\npayment\t of the decretal amount, even if acceded to  by\t the\ndecree-holder  would  not  have the  same  effect.   In\t the\npresent\t case,\tthe decree was kept alive  and\tthe  decree-\nholder had merely agreed to postpone realising the  decretal\namount\tin  case satisfactory provision for payment  of\t his\ndues  was made in the suit.  There was no adjustment of\t the\ndecree\twhich could be recorded under O.XXI, r.\t 2;  neither\nhad the decree been satisfied.\tTherefore, the necessity for\nthe judgment-debtor making a deposit under the provisions of\nO.XXI, r. 89(b) was not obviated. [706 B-C, E-H; 707'A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 805 of
\n1964.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated March 4,  1963  of
\nthe Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal against order No.  4
\nof 1960.\n<\/p>\n
A. K. Sen, and T. Satyanarayana, for the appellants
\nDishan Narain, A. Vedavalli and A. V. Rangam, for respondent
\nNo. 1.\n<\/p>\n
R.   Thiagarajan, for respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
704<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by –
\nNitter, J. This is an appeal by a certificate granted by the
\nHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh against a judgment and order of
\nthat court dated March 4, 1963.\t The appeal is by a receiver
\nappointed  in  a suit under the provisions of s. 92  of\t the
\nCode  of  Civil Procedure with the object  of  applying\t for
\nsetting\t aside a sale of certain properties belonging  to  a
\nchoultry.\n<\/p>\n
The  facts  shortly are as follows :-The  second  respondent
\nbefore,\t this  Court obtained a decree in O. S. No.  116  of
\n1949  of Sub-Court, Vijayawada against Tammana\tTatayya\t and
\nNarayana  Murty\t Annapurna Satram and put some\tproperty  to
\nexecution  sale.  The properties of the Satram were sold  in
\ncourt  auction\ton July 1, 1957 and  the  first\t respondent,
\nMaddi Kutumbarao became the purchaser for Rs. 24,600.\tO.S.
\nNo.  60\t of 1957 was instituted in the same  court  for\t the
\nremoval of the two trustees on the ground of  mismanagement.
\nThe decree holder was made a party to this suit filed  under
\ns.  92, Civil Procedure Code and one of the  reliefs  prayed
\nfor  in\t the suit was that the sale above-mentioned  be\t set
\naside  and’  provision\tbe made for payment  of\t the  decree
\namount\tin  O.S.  No. 116 of 1949 under\t the  scheme  to  be
\nsettled\t by the court.\tTo quote that from paragraph  11  of
\nthe plaint in that suit, the plaintiff asked
\n\t      “all  proceedings in execution of\t the  decree
\n\t      obtained\tby  the 3rd  defendant\tagainst\t the
\n\t      Satram  be stayed pending the framing  of\t the
\n\t      scheme and that the sale in favour of the\t 4th
\n\t      defendant\t held on 1-7-1957 by the  Sub-Court,
\n\t      Gudivada\tin  E.P.  No. 37  of  1956  in\tO.S.\n<\/p>\n
\t      116,.\/49\tSub-Court, Vijayawada, be set  aside
\n\t      and that adequate provision for the  discharge
\n\t      of the same be made.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      The plaint bears the date 22nd July 1957.\t The
\n\t      decree-holder,  the  third  defendant,  was  a
\n\t      minor represented by his mother and  guardian,
\n\t      Lakshmikantamma.\tIt appears that on July\t 30,
\n\t      1957  a memorandum was filed on his behalf  in
\n\t      the  court of the Subordinate Judge.   It\t was
\n\t      stated therein that
\n\t      “As the plaintiff in O. S. No. 60 of 1957 have
\n\t      filed  that suit for framing a scheme for\t the
\n\t      management  of  the choultry,  etc.  and\thave
\n\t      asked  in that suit for a proper provision  to
\n\t      be  made\tfor  the amount\t due  to  the  third
\n\t      respondent in this petition, under the  decree
\n\t      in  O.S. No. 116\/1949, this  third  respondent
\n\t      agrees to the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Therefore,   this\t  3rd  respondent   has\t  no
\n\t      objection. for allowing the petition that\t has
\n\t      been filed for setting
\n\t      7 0 5
\n\t      aside  the sale held on 1-7-1957 in this\tsuit
\n\t      without  the necessity of depositing the\tsale
\n\t      warrant amount.”\n<\/p>\n
The  receiver  appointed  in  O.S.  No.\t 60\/1957  filed\t  an
\napplication  under  O.\tXXI  r.\t 89  in\t the  court  of\t the
\nSubordinate Judge to set aside the court sale.\tHe deposited
\nRs. 1,230 representing 5% of the purchase money for  payment
\nto  the purchaser; RS. 410-15-0 as poundage and Rs. 123\t for
\ninterest.   No deposit was made for payment to\tthe  decree-
\nholder\tand  it was stated in paragraph 6  of  the  petition
\nthat:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The 3rd respondent represented by his  mother
\n\t      is impleaded as third respondent in the Scheme
\n\t      Suit   O.S.   No.\t 60  of\t  1957,\t  Sub-Court,
\n\t      Vijayawada,  wherein necessary  provision\t for
\n\t      the  discharge of the decree debt due  to\t him
\n\t      from the choultry is prayed for and has to  be
\n\t      made.   At  the request of the  petitioner  to
\n\t      keep  up\tthe fair name and  prestige  of\t the
\n\t      founders of the choultry, the 3rd respondent’s
\n\t      mother as guardian and executor agreed to\t the
\n\t      said  course  and is willing for\tan  adequate
\n\t      provision for the discharge of the decree debt
\n\t      being made in the said suit and has agreed  to
\n\t      postpone realising the decree debt in O.S. 116
\n\t      of  1949, Sub-Court, Vijayawada, till then  in
\n\t      case the existing trustees, respondents  and 2
\n\t      do  not  choose to discharge the same  in\t the
\n\t      meanwhile.    Under  the\tcircumstances,\t the
\n\t      petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Court\t may
\n\t      be  pleased to dispense, with the\t deposit  of
\n\t      the  amount specified in the  proclamation  of
\n\t      sale  for\t payment  to  the  decree-holder  as
\n\t      required by cl. (b) of r. 89 of O. XXI C.P.C.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  prayer-  in  the petition was that,  the  sale  of\t the
\nproperties in. favour of the fourth respondent be set  aside
\nand  that  respondents\t1 and 2 do pay the  expenses  to  be
\nincurred  by the petitioner.  The Subordinate Judge  allowed
\nthe application observing:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where  there  is an arrangement\tbetween\t the
\n\t      decree-holder and the judgment-debtor for\t the
\n\t      satisfaction  of\tthe decree and\tthe  decree-
\n\t      holder  does not want any deposit to  be\tmade
\n\t      into  court,  it\tis  perfectly  open  to\t the
\n\t      judgment-debtor\tto  come  forward   with   a
\n\t      petition\t under\t O.  XXI,  r.\t89   without
\n\t      depositing the amount required to be deposited
\n\t      under cl. (b).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This  was upset in appeal by the High Court.   According  to
\nthe High Court, O. XXI, r. 89 permits the decree-holder\t and
\nthe  judgment-debtor to mutually cancel the decree debt\t and
\nthe cancellation of the debt may be either by an  adjustment
\non a constructive payment or by waiver by the decree-holder.
\nThe High Court however found itself unable to agree with the
\ncon
\n706<\/span>
\nclusion\t of the Subordinate Judge that on the facts  of\t the
\ncase  the decree-holder could be said to have  received\t the
\namount shown in the proclamation of sale for the purpose of
\nO. XXI, T. 8 9.\n<\/p>\n
There  can be no doubt that if at the time when an  applica-
\ntion under O. XXI, r. 89 is made by the judgment-debtor, the
\n,decree\t has been satisfied or adjusted, the deposit of\t any
\nmoney  for payment to the decree-holder is not\tcalled\tfor.
\nIt  was\t argued\t on behalf of the  appellants  that  a\tmere
\npromise on the part of the judgment-debtor to take steps  to
\nensure\tpayment\t of the decretal debt if acceded to  by\t the
\ndecree-holder  would  have the same  effect.   Reliance\t was
\nplaced on a judgment of this ‘Court in The Union of India v.
\nKishorilal Gupta and Bros.<\/a>(1). There it was pointed out that
\n\t      “One  of the modes by which a contract can  be
\n\t      discharged  is  by  the  same  process   which
\n\t      created  it,  i.e. by  mutual  agreement;\t the
\n\t      parties  to  the original contract  may  enter
\n\t      into a new contract in substitution of the old
\n\t      one.”\n<\/p>\n
Reference  was also made to the rule as stated\tby  Cheshire
\nand Fifoot in their Law of Contract, 3rd Edn. at p. 453: “if
\nWhat the creditor has accepted in satisfaction is merely his
\ndebtor’s   promise  to\tgive  consideration,  and  not\t the
\nperformance of that promise, the original cause of action is
\ndischarged  from  the  date when  the  agreement  is  made.”
\nRelying on the above decision, it was contended on behalf of
\nthe appellants that even an executory agreement between\t the
\ndecree-holder  and the judgment-debtor would have  the\tsame
\neffect\tas the adjustment of a decree.\tIt is  necessary  to
\nbear  in mind that a decree. for payment of money is  not  a
\ncontract between the parties although it is possible for the
\nparties\t to  agree upon a course of payment or lo  have\t the
\ndecree\tsatisfied otherwise than by payment of\tmoney.\t For
\nthe  purpose of this appeal, it is not necessary to go\tinto
\nthat question.\tAssuming that the proposition put forward on
\nbehalf\tof the appellants is correct, it must be shown\tthat
\nthere  was  an agreement between the parties  by  which\t the
\ndecree-holder agreed to forego his rights under the  decree.
\nParagraph  6 of the petition under O. XXI, r. 89  which\t has
\nbeen  quoted above shows that the decree-holder\t had  merely
\nagreed\tto  postpone realising the decretal amount  in\tcase
\nrespondents  1 and 2 did not choose to discharge  the  same.
\nThat petition shows clearly that it was anticipated that the
\ncourt  would  be in a position to make a provision  for\t the
\ndischarge  of the decretal debt.  The decree was kept  alive
\nand   not  touched  upon  in  any  manner  much\t less\tex-‘ tingu
\nished.\t The  decree-holder was prepared to  stay  his
\nhands in
\n(1) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 493, 502.\n<\/p>\n
70 7
\ncase satisfactory provision for payment of his dues was made
\nin  the suit.  There was no adjustment of the  decree  which
\ncould  be  recorded under the provisions of O.\tXXI,  r.  2;
\nneither\t had the decree been satisfied.\t The High Court\t was
\ntherefore right in its conclusion that the situation was not
\none  which  obviated the necessity for\tthe  judgment-debtor
\nmaking\ta deposit under the provisions of O. XXI, r.  89(b).
\nOn behalf of the appellants. reference was also made to\t the
\nfact  that the auction purchaser had been permitted  by\t the
\ncourt to withdraw the sum of Rs. 24,600 deposited in  court.
\nWe were informed that such withdrawal had been permitted but
\nthe  auction  purchaser\t had once more\tmade  the  necessary
\ndeposit\t under the orders of the court.\t This  cannot  after
\nthe position in law under O. XXI, r. 89.
\nIn the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
\nV.P.S. Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
708<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Solana Ramachandra Rao & Ors vs Maddi Kutumba Rao & Anr on 19 April, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1637, 1967 SCR (3) 703 Author: G Mitter Bench: Mitter, G.K. PETITIONER: SOLANA RAMACHANDRA RAO & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: MADDI KUTUMBA RAO & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/04\/1967 BENCH: MITTER, G.K. BENCH: […]<\/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-63423","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSolana Ramachandra Rao & Ors vs Maddi Kutumba Rao & Anr on 19 April, 1967 - 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\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Solana Ramachandra Rao & Ors vs Maddi Kutumba Rao & Anr on 19 April, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967\" \/>\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=\"1967-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-03T14:16:05+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\\\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Solana Ramachandra Rao & Ors vs Maddi Kutumba Rao & Anr on 19 April, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-03T14:16:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967\"},\"wordCount\":1571,\"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\\\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967\",\"name\":\"Solana Ramachandra Rao & Ors vs Maddi Kutumba Rao & Anr on 19 April, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-03T14:16:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Solana Ramachandra Rao & Ors vs Maddi Kutumba Rao & Anr on 19 April, 1967\"}]},{\"@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":"Solana Ramachandra Rao & Ors vs Maddi Kutumba Rao & Anr on 19 April, 1967 - 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\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Solana Ramachandra Rao & Ors vs Maddi Kutumba Rao & Anr on 19 April, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-03T14:16:05+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\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Solana Ramachandra Rao & Ors vs Maddi Kutumba Rao & Anr on 19 April, 1967","datePublished":"1967-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-03T14:16:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967"},"wordCount":1571,"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\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967","name":"Solana Ramachandra Rao & Ors vs Maddi Kutumba Rao & Anr on 19 April, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-03T14:16:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/solana-ramachandra-rao-ors-vs-maddi-kutumba-rao-anr-on-19-april-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Solana Ramachandra Rao & Ors vs Maddi Kutumba Rao & Anr on 19 April, 1967"}]},{"@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\/63423","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=63423"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63423\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63423"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63423"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63423"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}