{"id":77240,"date":"1962-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962"},"modified":"2019-01-26T13:24:37","modified_gmt":"2019-01-26T07:54:37","slug":"gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962","title":{"rendered":"Gondumogula Tatayya vs Penumatcha Ananda Vijaya … on 20 February, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gondumogula Tatayya vs Penumatcha Ananda Vijaya … on 20 February, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 647, \t\t 1962 SCR (3) 324<\/div>\n
Author: S Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, S.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGONDUMOGULA TATAYYA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPENUMATCHA ANANDA VIJAYA VENKATARAMA TIMMA JAGAPATHIRAJU(AND\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n20\/02\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR  647\t\t  1962 SCR  (3) 324\n\n\nACT:\nInam  Lands-Leases-Right  of occupancy\tMinor  inams-Whether\nestates-Test-Madras  Estates Land Act, 1908 (Mad.1 of  1908)\nas amended, s. 3(2) (d) and Explanation (1).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondents were holders of inams in a  village  called\nGoteru,\t one of the Mokhasa villages which were included  in\nthe  assets of the Zamindari at 'the time of  the  permanent\nsettlement   in\t 1802.\t The  inams  themselves\t were\tpre-\nsettlement inams and were riot included in the assets of the\nZamindari.   The  respondents had leased out  seine  of\t the\nlands comprised in their inams to the appellant for a  fixed\nperiod, and in the suits instituted against the latter after\nthe  expiry  of the period of the leases for  ejecting\tthem\nfrom the Holdings in their possessions, they pleaded,  inter\nalia,  that they had got occupancy rights in the suit  lands\ninasmuch  as  the  inams were part of an  estate  and  that,\ntherefore,  they  were\tnot  liable  to\t be  ejected.\tThey\ncontended  that\t by  reason of the  amendments\tmade  in  s.\n3(2)(d)\t of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. in  1936\t and\n1945,  these minor inams being within the village of  Goteru\nwere estates under s. 3(2)(d), read with Explanation (1)  of\nthe  Act.   It\twits not disputed that\tGoteru\tvillage\t was\nincluded  in the Mokhasa sanad of 1802 and that the  Mokhasa\ngrant was an estate.\nHeld,  that  the minor inams in the present  case  were\t not\ngrants\tof  whole villages and were not,  therefore  estates\nwithin the meaning of s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land,\n1908.\nThe crucial test to find out whether a grant amounted to  an\nestate as defined under s. 3(2)(d) of the Act was whether at\nthe time of the grant the subject matter was a whole village\nor  only a part of it.\tIf it was only a part of a  village,\nthen  the  amending Act made no difference and such  a\tpart\nwould not be an estate within the meaning of the term ;\t but\nif the grant was of the whole village and a named one,\tthen\nit would be an estate.\nDistrict  Board,  Tanjore  v. M. K.  Noor  Mohamed  Rowther,\nA.I.R.<\/a> 1953 S.C. 446 and Mantravadi Bhavanarayana v.  Mervgu\nVenkatadu, I.L.R. [1954) Mad. 116, relied on and applied.\n 325\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : C. As. Nos. 631 to  645  of
\n1960.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and,decree  dated
\nApril  20, 1954, of the Madras High Court in Second  Appeals
\nNos. 1228 to 1242 of 1949.\n<\/p>\n
R.   Mahalingier and Ganpat Rai, for the appellants.
\nA.   V.\t Viswanatha Sastri and T. V. R. Tatachari,  for\t the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
1962.  February 20.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nS.K.  DAS,  J.-These are fifteen appeals by  special  leave.
\nThey have been heard together as they arise common  question
\nof law and fact and this judgment will govern them all.
\nThese  appeals arise out of fifteen suits filed\t by  certain
\ninamdars (respondents herein) of a village called Goteru for
\nejecting the tenants, who are the appellants before us, from
\nvarious holdings in their possession after the expiry of the
\nperiod\tof  their  leases and for other\t reliefs,  such\t as,
\narrears\t of  rent and damages.\tThe lands  lie\tin  ‘village
\nGoteru,\t one  of  the  villages\t in  the  Nuzvid  zamindari.
\nGotera, Komaravaram and Surampudi are three Mokhasa villages
\nin  the said zamindari.\t It was admitted that  the  Mokhasas
\nwere included in the assets of the zamindari at the time  of
\nthe permanent settlement in 1802.  The case of the  inamdars
\nrespondents  was that in eight of the suits the land  was  a
\nKarnam\tservice\t inam  and  in\tseven  suits  the  land\t was
\nSarvadumbala inam.  These inams lands were settlement  inams
\nand  enfranchised by the Government on the basis  that\tthey
\nwere  excluded from the assets of the zamindari at the\ttime
\nof  the permanent settlement and separate title\t deeds\twere
\nsubsequently  issued  to  the inamdars.\t  According  to\t the
\ninamdars these inam lands were not “estates”\n<\/p>\n
326<\/span><\/p>\n
within\tthe meaning of s. 3 (2) of the Madras Estates  Lands
\nAct,  1908  (Madras Act I of 1908), and\t the  inamdars\twere
\nentitled  to  both  Melvaram and  Kudivaram  therein  ;\t the
\nrespondents  leased out these lands to the appellants for  a
\nfixed period under an express contract with the\t appellants,
\nwho  were  the lessees concerned, that they would  quit\t and
\ndeliver\t possession at the end of their lease  periods;\t the
\nappellants, however, did Dot vacate the lands, but continued
\nto be in possession.  Twelve acres and 52 cents of the\tsuit
\nlands  were  Karnam service inam and the  rest\tSarvadumbala
\ninam.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellants\t contended inter alia that  the\t suit  lands
\nformed\tpart  of  the Mokhasa of  village  Goteru  and\twere
\nincluded  in  the  assets of the zamindari at  the  time  of
\npermanent settlement. that the inams were part of an  estate
\nand  the appellant had acquired rights of occupancy  in\t the
\nlands  in  suit under the provisions of the  Madras  Estates
\nLand  Act.  They also raised certain other pleas with  which
\nwe  are\t not  now  concerned.\tThe  main  defence  of\t the
\nappellants was that they had got permanent occupancy  rights
\nin the suit lands and therefore, they were not liable to  be
\nejected\t and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try\t the
\nsuits.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned District Munsif of Tailuku who tried the  suits
\nin the first instance dealt with them in three batches.\t  He
\nheld  in three separate judgments that the suit\t lands\twere
\npre-settlement\tminor inams, that they were not included  in
\nthe  assets  of the zamindari at the time of  the  permanent
\nsettlement  and\t that  they were not  “estates”\t within\t the
\nmeaning\t of the provisions of the Madras Estates  Land\tAct.
\nThe  learned  Munsif also’ held that as there  was  a  clear
\nundertaking to vacate the lands at the expiry of the  period
\nof  the\t leases, no notice to quit was\tnecessary.   In\t the
\nresult\the  decreed  the  suits.   The\ttenants.  appellants
\nherein, then preferred fifteen appeals against the judgments
\nand
\n\t\t\t    327<\/span>
\ndecrees\t of  the learned Munsif.  These appeals\t were  heard
\ntogether  by the learned Subordinate Judge of Eluru.   By  a
\ncommon\tjudgment  delivered on March 29, 1948,\tthe  learned
\nSubordinate Judge agreed with the learned Munsif in  respect
\nof all the findings and dismissed the appeals.\tThen,  there
\nwere  second  appeals  to the High Court  of  Judicature  at
\nMadras.\t In these second appeals only two points were  urged
\non  behalf of the appellants.  The first point was that\t the
\nfinding\t of  the  courts  below that  the  suit\t lands\twere
\nexcluded  from the assets of the zamindari was\tvitiated  by
\nreason\tof the burden of proof being wrongly placed  on\t the
\nappellants.  The, second point was that the inamdars  having
\nconcerned in the plaints that the tenants were holding\tover
\nafter  the  expiry of their leases, the\t inamdars  were\t not
\nentitled  to recover possession without issuing\t notices  to
\nquit as required by law.. With regard to the first point  of
\nthe  High Court pointed out that though it was\tsettled\t law
\nthat the burden was upon the landlord to make out his  right
\nto  evict a tenant from the holding, sarvadumbala  inams  or
\ninams granted for public services of a pre-settlement period
\nwere ordinarily excluded from the assets the of zamindari at
\nthe time of the permanent settlement except in some specific
\ncases,\twhere such lands were as ail exception\tincluded  in
\nthe  assets of the zamindari, the exceptions being found  in
\nthe four western Palayams of the zamindaries of Venkatagiri,
\nKarvetnagar, Kalahasti, and Sydapur and the Mokhasa in Masu-
\nIn patam district.  Therefore, with regard to pre-settlement
\nSarvadambala  inams or public service inams the\t person\t who
\nalleged\t that they were included in assets of the  zamindari
\nbad  to\t prove that they were so included.  The\t High  Court
\nthen  observed\tthat  the courts below did  not\t base  their
\njudgments on onus of proof, but came to their conclusions on
\na  consideration  of  the  evidence given  in  the  suits  ;
\ntherefore where the entire evidence was gone into,
\n328<\/span>
\nthe  question of burden of proof was immaterial.   The\tHigh
\nCourt pointed out that the question whether the predecessors
\nof  the respondents herein were granted both the  varams  or
\nMelvaram  only was not raised before it and the\t contentions
\nof  the\t parties in the High Court centered round  the\tonly
\nquestion  whether the suit lands were  pre-settlement  inams
\nexcluded  from the assets of the zamindari or  whether\tthey
\nwere  included in those assets.\t The High Court pointed\t out
\nthat this was really a question of fact and in second appeal
\nthe  High Court could not interfere with a finding  of\tfact
\nunless there were permissible grounds for such interference.
\nThe  High  Court held that there were  no  such\t permissible
\ngrounds.   However,  the High Court referred  again  to\t the
\ndocumentary  evidence  given in the case, namely,  Ex.\tA-1,
\nextract\t from the register of village service inams  in\t the
\nunenfranchised\tMokhasa\t village of Gotern,  Ex.   A-2,\t the
\ntitle  deed granted to the predecessors-in-intere,st of\t the
\ninamdars wherein it was specifically recited that the  inams
\nwere held for service Ex.  A-5, a settlement dated  December
\n13,  1942, Ex.\tA-7, a register of service inams  of  Goteru
\ndated  De-,ember  13,  1949, Ex.  A-6, public  copy  of\t the
\nvillage\t account  of Goteru, Ex. B-1, register of  inams  of
\nvillage\t Goteru prepared in 1859,Ex.A-27,  Bhubond  accounts
\nrelating to Goteru, Komaravaram and Surampudi\t  Mokhasas,
\nand Ex.\t A-28 Zamabandi Pysala Chitta, etc., and came to the
\nconclusion  that the inams in question, both Karnam  service
\ninams and the Sarvadumbala inams, were per-settlement  inams
\nand  the  documents  showed that they were  not\t taken\tinto
\nconsideration  in determining the assets of  the  zamindari.
\nOn the second question of notice, the High Court came to the
\nconclusion  that  the  appellants herein  were\tnot  tenants
\nholding\t over  but  were  persons who  continued  to  be  in
\npossession  without  the consent of the inamdars  after\t the
\ntermination
\n\t\t\t    329<\/span>
\nof  the\t tenancy;  that being the position,  no\t notice\t was
\nnecessary and the suits for eviction were maintainable.
\nIn the appeals before us learned Advocate for the appellants
\nhas not canvassed the question of notice.  He has  canvassed
\ntwo  points  only: firstly, he has argued  somewhat  faintly
\nthat the finding of the courts below that the service  inams
\nwere pre-settlement inams and were excluded from the  assets
\nof the zamindari was not a correct finding secondly, he\t has
\nargued that by reason of the amendments made in s. 3 (2) (d)
\nof the Madras Estates Land Act in 1936 and 1945, these minor
\ninams  constituted  an\testate within  the  meaning  of\t the
\naforesaid  provisions  and under s. 6 of the said  Act,\t the
\nappellants  had acquired a permanent right of  occupancy  in
\ntheir  holdings;  therefore,  they were\t not  liable  to  be
\nejected and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with
\nthe suits.\n<\/p>\n
As  to the first point urged before us, it is sufficient  to
\nstate  that it relates to a question of fact on which  there
\nis  a  concurrent  finding  by\tthe  courts  below  and\t the
\nappellants  have not been able to satisfy us that there\t are
\nany  special  reasons,\tsuch  a manifest  error\t of  law  in
\narriving  at  the finding, or a disregard  of  the  judicial
\nprocess\t or of principles of fair hiaring etc., which  would
\njustify\t us in going behind such it concurrent\tfinding.  We
\nmust,  therefore, proceed on the footing that the  inams  in
\nquestion  were\tpre-settlement inams. eight of\tthem  Karnam
\nservice inams and seven others Sarvadum. bala inams.
\nThis  brings  us to the second point urged before  us.\tThat
\npoint  does  not appear to have been agitated  in  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\t But  as  it relates to the  interpretation  of\t ‘s.
\n3(2)(d), and Explanation(]) appended thereto, of the  Madras
\nEstates\t Land Act, we have allowed learned Advocate for\t the
\napellants to argue the point before us.\t Section 3(2)(d) and
\n330<\/span>
\nExplanation (1) appended thereto, is in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3.  In this Act, unless there is\t some  thing
\n\t      repugnant in the subject or context-
\n\t      (2)   “Estate” means-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      ………………………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   any inam village of which the grant\t has
\n\t      been  made,  confirmed or\t recognized  by\t the
\n\t      Government,  notwithstanding that\t subsequent.
\n\t      to the grant, the village has been partitioned
\n\t      among the grantees or the successors in  title
\n\t      of the grantee or grantees.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Explanation  (1) Where a grant as an  inam  is
\n\t      expressed\t to be of a named village, the\tarea
\n\t      which  forms the subject-matter of  the  grant
\n\t      shall    be   deemed   to\t  be\tan    estate
\n\t      notwithstanding\tthat  it  did  not   include
\n\t      certain  lands  in the village  of  that\tname
\n\t      which have already been granted on service  or
\n\t      other  tenure  or been reserved  for  communal
\n\t      purposes..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is worthy of note here that when the Madras Estates\tLand
\nAct was enacted for the first time in 1908 s. 3(2)(d) was as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Any  village of which the land revenue  alone
\n\t      has  been\t granted  in inam to  a\t person\t not
\n\t      owning  the kudivaram thereof,  provided\tthat
\n\t      the   grant  has\tbeen  made,   confirmed\t  or
\n\t      recognized  by the British Government  or\t any
\n\t      separated part of such village.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Owing  to a variety of reasons which it is not necessary  to
\nstate  here, there was an amendment by which cl: (d)  as  it
\noriginally stood was removed
\n\t\t\t    331<\/span>
\nand  a\tfresh clause substituted by s. 2 (1) of\t the  Madras
\nEstates\t Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936 (Madras Act  XVIII
\nof 1936).  The old Explanations (1) and (2) were  renumbered
\nas   Explanations  (2)\tand  (3)  respectively\tand  a\t new
\nExplanation  was inserted as Explanation (1) by s.  2(1)  of
\nthe Madras Estates Land (Amendment) Act, 1945 (Madras Act II
\nof  1945).  The reasons why the amendments became  necessary
\nhave been explained in the Full Beach decision of the Madras
\nHigh   Court   in   Mantravadi\t Bhavanareyana\t v.   Merugu
\nVenkatadu(1).  In Narayanaswami Nayudu v. Subramanyam(2)  it
\nWas observed by the Madras High Court that the existence  of
\nservice\t inam was, very common in villages and\tthat.  where
\nthere  was a subsequent grant of the village, to  hold\tthat
\nsuch  grant  was not an estate as defined in s.\t 3(2)(d)  by
\nreason\tof the existence of minor inams would result in\t the
\nexclusion  of agraharams, shrotriyams and  mokhasa  villages
\nfrom  the operation of the Act and that could not have\tbeen
\nthe  intention\tof  the Legisla.  ture.\t  In  that  decision
\nSrinivasa Ayyangar J., observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  definition in sub-section 3, clause\t (d)
\n\t      was  obviously  intended to exclude  from\t the
\n\t      definition of ‘Estate’what are known as  minor
\n\t      inams, namely, particular extents of land in a
\n\t      particular  village  as  contrasted  with\t the
\n\t      grant of the whole village by its\t boundaries.
\n\t      The latter ire known as ‘whole inam villages’.
\n\t      The  existence of ‘minor inams’ in whole\tinam
\n\t      villages\tis  very common and  if\t these\tinam
\n\t      villages do not come within the definition  of
\n\t      ‘Estate’ almost all the agrabaram,  shrotriyam
\n\t      and  mokhasa villaues will be excluded.\tThis
\n\t      certainly\t cannot have been the  intention  of
\n\t      the Legislature.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1) I.  L. R. [1954] Madras II6  (2) (1915) 1.
\n\t      L. R. 39 Madras 683.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
332<\/span><\/p>\n
This  interpretation  of  s. 3(2)(d)  was  accepted  without
\nquestion until the decision in Ademma v. Satyadhyana Thirtha
\nSwamivaru(1)  where for the first time a different note\t was
\nstruck.It was held therein that where portions of the estate
\nhad  previously\t been granted as minor inams,  a  subsequent
\ngrant of the rest of the village was not of an estate as  it
\nwas not of the whole  village. The    Legislature thereupon
\nintervened and enacted Explanation 1)  with  the  object  of
\nrestoring the view of the law which had been hold before the
\ndecision in    Ademma  v.  Satyadhyana Thirtha\tThe  crucial
\ntest to find out whether the subject matter of i grant falls
\nwithin\tthe definition of an estate under s. 3(2)(d) of\t the
\nAct  is whether at the time of the grant  the  subjectmatter
\nwas a whole village or only a part of a village.  If at, the
\ntime of the grant it was only a part of a village, then\t the
\namending  Act  makes no difference to this and such  a\tpart
\nwould not be an estate within the meaning of the term.\t But
\nif the grant was of the whole .village and a named one, then
\nit would be, an estate.\t Learned Advocate for the appellants
\nhas  referred us to the Mokhasa sanad of December  8,  1802.
\nThat  sanad gives a list% of villages which Goteru  is\tone.
\nThe argument of learned Advocate for the appellants is\tthat
\nthe  inam lands being within village Goteru, they  also\t are
\n“estates” within the meaning of s. 3(2)(d) read with  Expla-
\nnation (1).’It, appears to us that this argument is  clearly
\nerroneous, There is no doubt that the Mokhasa\t  grant\t  is
\nan  estate within the meaning of the s. 3 (2) of the  Madras
\nEstates Land Act, and that is riot,  disputed ,\t before\t us.
\nThat does not however mean that the mirror inams would\talso
\nconstitute an estate within the meaning of s. 3 (2) (d).  As
\nwits  pointer  out  in Mantravadi  Bhavanrayanu\t v.  Merughu
\nVenkatadu (2)
\n(1) [1943] 2 M. L. J. 289.\n<\/p>\n
(2) I. L.  R . [1954] Madras 116.\n<\/p>\n
333<\/span><\/p>\n
the  crucial  test is whether at the time of the  grant\t the
\nsubject-matter\twas  a\twhole  village or  only\t part  of  a
\nvillage.  In District Board, Tanjore v. M. K. Noor  Mohammad
\nRowther<\/a>\t (1) this Court observed that “Any inam village”  in
\ns.  3(2)(d)  meant a whole village granted in inam  and\t not
\nanything less than a village however big a part it might  be
\nof  that  village.   In other Words the\t grant\tmust  either
\ncomprise the whole area of a village or must be so expressed
\nas is tantamount to the grant of a named village as a whole,
\neven though it does not compromise the whole of the  village
\narea, and the latter case in order to come within the  scope
\nof  the\t definition it must fulfil the conditions;  (a)\t the
\nwords of the grant should expressly (and not by implication)
\nmake it a grant of a particular village as such by name\t and
\nnot  a grant of a defined specific area only; and  (b)\tthat
\nthe  area excluded had already been granted for\t service  or
\nother tenure; or (c) that it had been reserved for  communal
\npurposes.   The\t Minor inams under  consideration  in  these
\nsuits were pre-settlement inams and the finding which cannot
\nnow be challenged is that they were excluded from the assets
\nof the zamindari at the time of the permanent settlement  in
\n1802, though the Mokhasas- were not so excluded.  That being
\nthe  position,\tthe  minor inams were not  grants  of  whole
\nvillages  and  were  not estates within the  meaning  of  s.
\n3(2)(d)\t of  the Madras Estates Land  Act.   Therefore,\t the
\nappellants cannot claim the benefit of s. 6 of the said Act.
\nLearned\t Advocate  for the appellants also addressed  us  at
\nsome  length on the, beneficent nature of the provisions  of
\nthe   Madras  Estates  Land  Act  and  submitted  that\t the
\nappellants herein should not be deprived of the benefits  of
\nthat  Act.   But the appellants must satisfy us\t first\tthat
\nthey come within the protection or benefits of the Act.\t  If
\nthe lands which they held were not an “estate”
\n(1)  A. I. R. [1953] S C. 446.\n<\/p>\n
334<\/span><\/p>\n
within\tthe  meaning,  of  the Act, then  there\t can  be  no
\nquestion  of  giving  them the benefit\tof  the\t Act.In\t our
\nopinion, there is no substance in the second  point urged on
\nbehalf of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with  cost;
\none hearing fee.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gondumogula Tatayya vs Penumatcha Ananda Vijaya … on 20 February, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 647, 1962 SCR (3) 324 Author: S Das Bench: Das, S.K. PETITIONER: GONDUMOGULA TATAYYA Vs. RESPONDENT: PENUMATCHA ANANDA VIJAYA VENKATARAMA TIMMA JAGAPATHIRAJU(AND DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/02\/1962 BENCH: DAS, S.K. BENCH: DAS, S.K. HIDAYATULLAH, M. SHAH, J.C. […]<\/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-77240","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGondumogula Tatayya vs Penumatcha Ananda Vijaya ... on 20 February, 1962 - 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\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gondumogula Tatayya vs Penumatcha Ananda Vijaya ... on 20 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962\" \/>\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=\"1962-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-26T07:54:37+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gondumogula Tatayya vs Penumatcha Ananda Vijaya … on 20 February, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-26T07:54:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962\"},\"wordCount\":2827,\"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\\\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962\",\"name\":\"Gondumogula Tatayya vs Penumatcha Ananda Vijaya ... on 20 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-26T07:54:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gondumogula Tatayya vs Penumatcha Ananda Vijaya … on 20 February, 1962\"}]},{\"@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":"Gondumogula Tatayya vs Penumatcha Ananda Vijaya ... on 20 February, 1962 - 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\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gondumogula Tatayya vs Penumatcha Ananda Vijaya ... on 20 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-26T07:54:37+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gondumogula Tatayya vs Penumatcha Ananda Vijaya … on 20 February, 1962","datePublished":"1962-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-26T07:54:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962"},"wordCount":2827,"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\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962","name":"Gondumogula Tatayya vs Penumatcha Ananda Vijaya ... on 20 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-26T07:54:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gondumogula-tatayya-vs-penumatcha-ananda-vijaya-on-20-february-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gondumogula Tatayya vs Penumatcha Ananda Vijaya … on 20 February, 1962"}]},{"@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\/77240","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=77240"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77240\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}