{"id":70405,"date":"1982-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982"},"modified":"2017-09-07T19:55:12","modified_gmt":"2017-09-07T14:25:12","slug":"javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982","title":{"rendered":"Javvadi Venkata Satyanarayana vs Pyboyina Manikyan And Ors. on 2 November, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court<\/div>\n
Javvadi Venkata Satyanarayana vs Pyboyina Manikyan And Ors. on 2 November, 1982<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1983 AP 139<\/div>\n
Author: Kodandaramayya<\/div>\n
Bench: P Choudary, Kodandaramayya<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 Kodandaramayya, J. <\/p>\n
 1. This appeal is referred by our  learned  brother Ramaujulu Naidu J.,  as it  involves interpretation of S. 16 of the  Transfer of property  Act.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The facts are not in  dispute but only its effect in law.  The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal.  One  P. Muthaiah had a son Ganga Raju and executed a settlement deed in respect of the suit  property conferring life estate   on his  son and after his death to the  sons of Ganga  Raju to be borne   absolutely.  Ganga  Raju   in his  turn executed a relinquishment deed  of his life estate got under Ex. A-3 in favour of  his father  Muthaiah on  31-8-1934  under Ex. A-4.  Ganga Raju died in 1971  leaving  behind three  sons viz.,  rama  Rao, lakshmanarao and Muthaiah.  The first son Ramarao was born in the year 1942  the  plaintiff happened to be the auction purchaser of th one-third share of Muthaiah under  a sale  certificate Ex.  A-1 in a Court auction in execution of the decree.  The plaintiff also purchased the share of lakshmanarao from his wife Raghavamma under  a registered sale deed dt. 24-2-1972  as per Ex. A-2 and he filed the present suit  for the recovery of  this  two- thirds share.  The  1st  defendant is the son  of Muthaiah who resisted the suit.  The other  defendants  are in possession of the property and the suit is contested by the 1st defendant contending that the  relinquishment deed in favour of ganga Raju (sic) executed a relinquishment deed long before the birth of  his sons and  hence the gift in favour of the  unborn sons has  failed.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The courts below held that  the  settlement deed is true and  valid but not a nominal  one and  ganga raju executed a relinquishment deed before the birth of sons to him and consequently the entire estate has gone out  of the  original donee  and hence  the  gift in favour of  urban children has failed and the  present  suit is  not maintainable and liable  to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
4.  It is seen that the  result of the suit depends upon the  correct interpretation of S. 16 of the Transfer of propeprty Act and hence it is necessary to examine its terms which may be extracted in full.\n<\/p>\n
  ’16.  Where  by reason of any of the rules contained in Ss. 13 and 14,  an interest created for  the benefit  of a person or of a class of persons  fails in  regard to such person or the whole  of such class, any interest created in the same transaction and intended to take  effect after or upon failure of such prior interest also fails”.\n<\/p>\n
The section embodies the English law  that a limitation following  upon a limitation void for remotness is itself void even though it amy not of itself transgress the rule against perpetuity.  A reading of the  section discloses that three conditions must be present   before the said section is  attracted.  (1) there  should be an interest created for the  benefit  of a person or class of persons which must  fail by reason of the rules contained in Ss. 13 and 14.  (2)  There should be another interest created in the same  transaction.  (3) The other interest must intend to take  effect after or upon failure of the prior interest.  A gift made to an unborn person should not offend S. 13 or S. 14  S. 13 requires two conditions to be fulfilled.   (1)  the  transfer inter vivos  cannot be made directly  to an  unborn person but must  be  preceded by a  prior disposition in  favour  of a living  person.    (2)  the  interest given to the unborn person is the  whole of hte  interest remaining in the transferor.  S. 14  embodies the rule against perpetuity. So. S. 16 embodies the rule that  if any gift made in favour of unborn persons fails by reason of the rule contained in those two  sections, the subsequent  interest created in the  same  transaction also fails. So in order to attract S. 16 we must see whether the three conditions mentioned above are fulfilled or not before the principle  that the gift is void for  remoteness as embodied in the  said section can be  invoked.\n<\/p>\n
5.  Girish Datt.  V.  Datt  Din (AIR  1934 Oudh 35) (FB) furnishes a neat illustration for the principles embodied both in Ss. 13 and 76.  One “S’  made a gift of    property to his  daughter ‘R’ for  life and then  to R’ s’ daughter without power of alienation and  the  further  condition is if R has  no daughter the property has to go to D. The daughter died without issue.  It was ruled for the Full Bench that the  gift of the daughter failed under S. 13 of the Transfer of property Act as the  interest given to the  unborn person did not  comprise whole of the interest  remaining in the  transferor.  The gift to D also failed under S. 16 of the Transfer of property Act as the  prior  interest in favour of the unborn children of R  has  failed.\n<\/p>\n
6.  Section 16  must be compared with S. 27  where  the prior interest created in a deed is not invalid but subsequently fails because the  condition  upon which it  depends  is not fulfilled.  In such cases S. 27 applies and the subsequent interest in such cases can be sustained.  The said distinction is made in  Insmail Haji v. Umar Abdulla (AiR  1942  Bom 155) by Chagla, J. (As he then was ) and stated at page 158  the failure contemplated by S. 27 T.P. Act,  and S.129 succession Act, is the failre of a valid gift.  When the  gift is ab inito void.  The subsequent gifts must also fail as provided by S. 16, T.P. Act, and  S. 116, succession Act’.\n<\/p>\n
7.  Now if we apply these principles to  the facts of  this  case the  following  results can be arrived.  Firstly the gift of the unborn  children has not failed either because of the  rules contained in S. 13 or S. 14.  Secondly the prior interest created in favour of Ganga Raju is also not invalid.   Thirdly a valid  estate created in favour  of Ganga Raju was voluntarily transferred in favour of muthaiah and lastly when there is  no failure of prior interest and no question of failure of the subsequent interest arises as contemplated under section 16.  Further this is not a conditional transfer as contemplately under S. 27 and  consequently all the children of  Ganga Raju on their  birth acquire vested interest as contemplated under S. 20 of the Transfer of property Act.\n<\/p>\n
8.  The Court below misdirected themselves in thinking that a voluntary transfer made by ganga raju makes the subsequent gift to the  unborn  children  void.\n<\/p>\n
9.  The invalidity of the transfer must be judged with reference to the original settlement deed but not by the  voluntary Act of the donees under the     deed itself.  The person  who obtained the benefit of the  deed by his own volition cannot  defeat the  terms  of the deed  under  which  he obtained the interest.   The courts below committed  a serious mistake in holding that  as Ganga  raju renunciated his life estate   and  hence the original estate  created in favour of   unborn  persons   has failed.   Further  the courts below made a distinction that  Ganga Raju  made the relinquishment deed  before the birth of children to him but according to us it has  no legal consequence as once the  gift  to the unborn person is valid under S. 13, no one can defeat such interest and the unborn person  acquires vested interest on his birth.  The life estate  holder cannot defeat the interests of hte unborn person by transferring the   life estate to a  third person.  We are clearly  of the opinion that the relinquishment made by ganga Raju before    the birth  of  his children has not altered  the legal position in any way and the sons born to him acquire  vested interest as and when they  are born.   The view  of the courts below to the  contrary is clearly unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
10.  Sri B. L. N. Sarma, the learned counsel  for the  respondents having realised  the position that  the  gift to the unborn persons in this case is valid  and  the life estate holder cannot defeat the interests of the unborn persons by voluntarily transferring the estate to third parties relied upon some  observations in Rukhamanibai v. Shivram  stating that the unborn children have only contingent  interest and hence it was contended that the  transfer by the life estate holder may not defeat a vested remainder byt certainly it can put an end to the  contingent in terest.\n<\/p>\n
11.  In the above decision the question arose under the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act  (67 of 1948)  where the title of  the  landlord tot he land passes immediately to the  tenant on the tillers’ day as the landlord happened to be a life estate holder in that case.  Their  Lordships on the consturction of the said  provisions of the tenancy Act held that any person  lawfully cultivating any land  belonging  to another person shall be deemed to be a  teanant even if the life estate holder  leased out the property.  On a further contention that the life estate holder has no vested remainder and hence by virtue of the statutory transfer the  vested remainder has not passed  on to the tenatn they observed that the  life  estate holder has a vested interest in the  property during her lifetime and  the children  had only contingent interest during that period and consequently there is no legal  impediment  for  the  statutory transfer to the  tenant of the ownership.  The observation that the children have only contingent  interest must be understood in the context that the limited owner represents the landlord’s interest and the entire  interest in the land  passes on to the  tenant on statutory transfer.  Further  they made it clear  in that  case that the deed of settlement cannot be construed as a transfer  in  favour of unborn person yet it settles property on trust and the  unborn children under trust may be beneficiaries but they can claim interest only after the death of the appellant and no interest in her lifetime”.  And thus they construed the said settlement  deed as creating beneficial interest both  to the  life estate holder and the unborn children but  not as a transfer in favour of unborn children as contemplated under S. 13 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
12.  Once it is  admitted that the gift to unborn children in this case did not offend S. 13 or 14 of the Transfer of property Act and the  unborn children acquire vested interest the moment they are born under S. 20 there is no  possibility of defeating   the  interests of the unborn children as violative of the provisions of S. 16 of the Act. None of the requirements of S. 16 of the Transfer  of peoperty Act were satisfied and hence the  settlement  deed is  operative in respect of  both life interest and the  interest created in favour of unborn children.\n<\/p>\n
13.  In the  result  we allow the  appeal and  set aside the decree and judgments of the courts below and direct that a preliminary decree for partition should be passed in favour of the plaintiff as  he is entitled to two-thirds share and separate possession of the said  share with  future profits.  The plaintiff is  entitled to costs  throughout.\n<\/p>\n
14. Appeal allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court Javvadi Venkata Satyanarayana vs Pyboyina Manikyan And Ors. on 2 November, 1982 Equivalent citations: AIR 1983 AP 139 Author: Kodandaramayya Bench: P Choudary, Kodandaramayya JUDGMENT Kodandaramayya, J. 1. This appeal is referred by our learned brother Ramaujulu Naidu J., as it involves interpretation of S. 16 of the Transfer of property Act. […]<\/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":[10,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-70405","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-andhra-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJavvadi Venkata Satyanarayana vs Pyboyina Manikyan And Ors. on 2 November, 1982 - 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\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Javvadi Venkata Satyanarayana vs Pyboyina Manikyan And Ors. on 2 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982\" \/>\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=\"1982-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-07T14:25:12+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Javvadi Venkata Satyanarayana vs Pyboyina Manikyan And Ors. on 2 November, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-07T14:25:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982\"},\"wordCount\":1879,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Andhra High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982\",\"name\":\"Javvadi Venkata Satyanarayana vs Pyboyina Manikyan And Ors. on 2 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-07T14:25:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Javvadi Venkata Satyanarayana vs Pyboyina Manikyan And Ors. on 2 November, 1982\"}]},{\"@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":"Javvadi Venkata Satyanarayana vs Pyboyina Manikyan And Ors. on 2 November, 1982 - 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\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Javvadi Venkata Satyanarayana vs Pyboyina Manikyan And Ors. on 2 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-07T14:25:12+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Javvadi Venkata Satyanarayana vs Pyboyina Manikyan And Ors. on 2 November, 1982","datePublished":"1982-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-07T14:25:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982"},"wordCount":1879,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Andhra High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982","name":"Javvadi Venkata Satyanarayana vs Pyboyina Manikyan And Ors. on 2 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-07T14:25:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/javvadi-venkata-satyanarayana-vs-pyboyina-manikyan-and-ors-on-2-november-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Javvadi Venkata Satyanarayana vs Pyboyina Manikyan And Ors. on 2 November, 1982"}]},{"@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\/70405","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=70405"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70405\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70405"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70405"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70405"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}