{"id":84400,"date":"1952-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1952-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952"},"modified":"2018-04-01T21:28:20","modified_gmt":"2018-04-01T15:58:20","slug":"payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952","title":{"rendered":"Payyavula Vengamma vs Payyavula Kesanna And Others on 29 October, 1952"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Payyavula Vengamma vs Payyavula Kesanna And Others on 29 October, 1952<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 21, \t\t 1953 SCR 119<\/div>\n
Author: N H Bhagwati<\/div>\n
Bench: Bhagwati, Natwarlal H.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPAYYAVULA VENGAMMA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPAYYAVULA KESANNA AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n29\/10\/1952\n\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nAIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA\n\nCITATION:\n 1953 AIR   21\t\t  1953 SCR  119\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1990 SC1426\t (22)\n\n\nACT:\nArbitration--Arbitrator\t takiny statement from one party  in\nthe absence of the other-Legal misconduct-Validity of award-\nQuestion of prejudice,\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n      Where,  in  an arbitration under s. 21 of\t the  Indian\nArbitration Act, the arbitrator took statements from each of\nthe  parties in the absence of the other and made an  award:\nHeld,  that  it is one of the elementary principles  of\t the\nadministration\t of  justice,  whether\tby  courts   or\t  by\narbitration by lawyers or merchants, that a party should not\nbe allowed to use any means whatsoever to influence\n120\nthe  mind of the judge or arbitrator, which means,  are\t not\nknown to and capable of being met and resisted by the  other\nparty;\tthe  arbitrator\t was  accordingly  guilty  of  legal\nmisconduct;  and  this was sufficent to vitiate\t the  award,\nirrespective of the fact whether this misconduct bad  caused\nprejudice to any one.\nHarvey v. Shelton (1844) 7 Beav. 455, Ganesh Narayan Singh\nv.   Malida  Koer  (1911) 13 Cal.  L.J. 399,  and  Haigh  v.\nHaigh (1861)\n31   L.J. Ch. 420, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
\n37 of 1952.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\t from  the  Judgment  and  Decree  dated  the\t24th
\nSeptember,  1948, of the High Court of Judicature at  Madras
\n(Menon and Mack, JJ.) in A.A.O.No. 688\tof. 1945 arising out
\nof  Judgment  and Decree dated the 1st October 1945  of\t the
\nCourt  of  the’\t District Judge\t of  Anantapur\tin  Original
\nPetition No. 15 of 1945.\n<\/p>\n
D.  Munikanniah\t (J.   B. Dadachandji”\twith  him)  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
S.  P.\tSinha(M.   O. Chinnappa Reddi and  K.  B.  Chowdhury
\nwithhim) for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
1952.\tOctober 29.  The Judment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nBHAGWATI J.-The plaintiff filed 0. P. No. 15 of 1945 in\t the
\nCourt  of the District Judge of Anantapur for setting  aside
\nan award   the ground inter alia of legal misconduct of\t the
\narbitrator.  The trial Court set aside the award.  The\tHigh
\nCourt\tappeal reversed the judgment of the trial Court\t and
\ndismissed  the plaintiffs suit.\t This appeal has-been  filed
\nby  the\t plaintiff with the certificate of  the\t High  Court
\nagainst that decision.\n<\/p>\n
One  P.Narayanappa  died in 1927 leaving him  surviving\t the
\nplaintiff his widow, the defendant I his undivided  brother,
\nthe defendant 2 a son -of his another pre-deceased  brother,
\nand  defedant  3 his son by his pre-  deceased\twife.\t‘The
\ndeceased  had purported to make a will dated 1st  May,\t1927
\nunder\twhich  he  had\tmade  certain  provision  -for\t her
\nmaintenance  , and residence, The plaintiff stayed with\t the
\nfamily for
\n121<\/span>
\n\tsome  time but had to leave the family house  owing
\nto  disputes which arose between her and the senior wife  of
\ndefendant 1. She lived with her mother for eleven years\t and
\nultimately  filed a suit in forma pauperis 0. S. No.  19  of
\n1943  in the Court of the District Judge of  Anantapur,\t for
\nmaintenance, arrears of maintenance, residence and household
\nutensils as also recovery of some jewels and clothes as\t her
\nstridhanam  properties.\t The defendants contested the  claim
\nof the plaintiff contending that sufficient arrangement\t bad
\nbeen  made for her maintenance and residence under the\twill
\ndated  the 1st May, 1927, that she had accordingly  been  in
\npossession and enjoyment of the property and that her  claim
\nwas unsustainable.  The defendants also denied her claim for
\njewels and clothes.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe  suit  came\t  for hearing  and  final  disposal
\nbefore\t the  Subordinate  Judge  of-Anantapur.\t  When\t the
\nplaintiff  was being examined as P.W. 1, in the\t suit\t the
\n27th February, 1945, all the parties filed a petition  under
\nsection\t 21 of the Arbitration Act agreeing to\tappoint\t Sri
\nKonakondla Rayalla Govindappa Garu as the ‘sole\t arbitrator’
\nfor  settling the disputes in the suit and to abide  by\t his
\ndecision,  and asking the Court to send the plaint,  written
\nstatement  and\tother  records to  the\tarbitrator  for\t his
\ndecision.   A reference to arbitration was accordingly\tmade
\nby the Court.  The arbitrator entered upon the reference and
\nthe 6th March, 1945, examined the plaintiff and got from her
\na  statement  which  is Exhibit No. 4  in  the\trecord.\t  He
\nsimilarly  examined the defendant I   the 10th March,  1945,
\nand got from him the statement which is Exhibit No. 5 in the
\nrecord.\t After obtaining the two statements, the  arbitrator
\nmade and published his award   the 12th March, 1945.  It was
\nthis award that was challenged by the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
\t   The\tlegal misconduct which was alleged  against
\nthe  arbitrator\t was  that he examined\teach  party  in\t the
\nabsence of the other.  It was contended\t  behalf of
\n122<\/span>
\nthe plaintiff that even though the petition for reference to
\narbitration  as\t also  the statements Exhibits Nos.  4\t&  5
\nauthorised  the arbitrator to settle the disputes  according
\nto law after perusing the plaint and the written statements,
\nthe  arbitrator examined defendant I in the absence  of\t the
\nplaintiff and also perused what was called the settlement of
\nthe  1st  May, 1927, without giving an\topportunity  to\t the
\nplaintiff to have her say in the matter and was thus  guilty
\nof  legal misconduct.  It was contended\t  the other hand  by
\nthe  defendants\t that what was done by\tthe  arbitrator\t was
\nmerely\tto  obtain from the parties a reiteration  of  their
\nrequest\t contained in the petition that he should  give\t his
\naward\t the basis of the pleadings, that not a single\tfact
\nwas  recorded by the arbitrator from the defendant  1  which
\ndid  not  find\ta place in his written\tstatement  and\tthat
\ntherefore the arbitrator was not guilty of legal misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t petition  filed by the parties\t  the  27th
\nFebruary,  1915,did  not  give any  special  powers  to\t the
\narbitrator.   The arbitrator was appointed for settling\t the
\ndisputes in the suit and the parties agreed to abide by\t his
\ndecision.  The plaint, the written, statement and the  other
\nrecords were agreed to be sent to him for his decision,\t and
\nif the arbitrator was thus directed to make his award  after
\nperusing  the plaint and the written statements\t which\twere
\ngive to him by the Court along with the order, we do not see
\nwhy the arbitrator went to the plaintiff and defendant 1 and
\nrecorded  their\t statements.   The statement  given  by\t the
\nplaintiff to the arbitrator did not mention anything  beyond
\nthe  request  that be should peruse the plaint\tand  written
\nstatement  and\tgive  his  decision  according\tto  law\t and
\njustice.    The\t statement  which  was\tobtained  from\t the
\ndefendant  1 however did not merely repeat this request\t but
\ncontained several statements of facts, which did not find  a
\nplace  in his written statement.  These statements  were  as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
     (1)”She  felt glad with what was given to her  by\ther
\nhusband.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t   123<\/span><\/p>\n
(2)”It is seen from the Government accounts that as per the
\nsettlement made by her husband, the lands given to her\thave
\nbeen in her possession.”\n<\/p>\n
     (3)”Just  like  the plaintiff has her  jewels  in\ther
\npossession, the other females in the house have their jewels
\nin  their respective possession only.  The undivided  family
\nhas no manner of right therein.”\n<\/p>\n
and  (4) “Considering the domestic circumstances  our  elder
\nbrother\t provided  maintenance\tfor  the  third\t wife,\t the
\nplaintiff,  just  as  he had provided  maintenance  for\t his
\nsecond wife.”\n<\/p>\n
These statements constituted evidence given by the defendant
\nI  in  addition to the averments contained  in\this  written
\nstatement  and it is futile for the defendant 1\t to  contend
\nthat  in obtaining the statement Exhibit No. 5 from him\t the
\narbitrator merely obtained from him a narration of what\t was
\nalready found in his written statement:\n<\/p>\n
This position is confirmed when one turns to the award.\t The
\narbitrator  stated that the Court had directed him  to\tmake
\nthe  award  after  perusing  the  plaint  and  the   written
\nstatements  of the plaintiff and the defendants and that  it
\nhad  given him the plaint and the written  statements  along
\nwith  the  order.   He however proceeded to  state  that  in
\npursuance  of  -the  order  he\ttook  statements  from\t the
\nplaintiff as well as the defendant I who was the manager  of
\nthe  defendant’s  family.   He further stated  that  he\t bad
\nperused\t the  settlement which the defendant  1\t alleged  as
\nhaving been made   Ist May, 1927, in favour of the plaintiff
\nand proceeded to award to the plaintiff 8 acres 17 cents  of
\nland  bearing Survey No. 507 in addition to the 40 acres  of
\nland already given by the deceased to her.  It is clear from
\nthe  terms  of\tthis award that\t the  arbitrator  took\tinto
\nconsideration not only the plaint and the written statements
\nof the parties but also the statement which he had  obtained
\nfrom the defendant I and the will dated 1st May, 1927.
\nThere  is  thus\t no  doubt that\t the  arbitrator  heard\t the
\ndefendant 1 in the absence of the, plaintiff.  No
\n124<\/span>
\nnotice\tof this hearing was given by the arbitrator  to\t the
\nplaintiff nor had she an opportunity of having the  evidence
\nof  the defendant I taken in her presence so that she  could
\nsuggest\t cross-examination  or\therself\t cross-examine\t the
\ndefendant I and also be able to find evidence, if she could,
\nthat  would  meet  and\tanswer the  evidence  given  by\t the
\ndefendant  1.  As was, observed by Lord Langdale  M.  R.  in
\nHarvey v. Shelton(1),
\n“It  is\t so ordinary a principle in  the  administration  of
\njustice, that no party to a cause can be allowed to use\t any
\nmeans  whatsoever to influence the mind of the Judge,  which
\nmeans are not known to and capable of being met and resisted
\nby  the, other party, that it is impossible, for  a  moment,
\nnot  to see, that this was an extremely indiscreet  mode  of
\nproceeding, to say the very least of it., It is contrary  to
\nevery principle to allow of such a thing, and I Wholly\tdeny
\nthe difference which is alleged to exist between  mercantile
\narbitrations  and legal arbitrations.  The first  principles
\nof justice must be equally applied in every case.  Except in
\nthe  few cases where exceptions are unavoidable, both  sides
\nmust  be  heard and each in the presence of the\t other.\t  In
\nevery  case in which matters are litigated, you must  attend
\nto the representations made   both sides, and you must\tnot,
\nin the administration of justice, in whatever form,  whether
\nin  the\t regularly constituted Courts  or  in  arbitrations,
\nwhether before lawyers or merchants, permit one side to\t use
\nmeans  of influencing the conduct and the decisions  of\t the
\nJudge, which means are not known to the other side.
\nThis case of Harvey v. Shelton(1) is the leading case\tthis
\npoint  and it has been followed not only in England  but  in
\nIndia. (See Ganesh Narayan Singh v. Malida Koer(2).  She had
\nalso  no  opportunity to have her say in the matter  of\t the
\nsettlement  of the 1st May, 1927.  The course of  proceeding
\nadopted\t by  the arbitrator was obviously  contrary  to\t the
\nprinciples of ,natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
(i) (1844) 7 Beav 455\t at P. 462.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1911)    13 c.L. J. 399 at pages 401, 402,
\n\t\t\t   125<\/span>
\nShri  S. P. Sinha however urged before us that no  prejudice
\nwas  caused  to the plaintiff by reason\t of  the  arbitrator
\nhaving obtained the statement Exhibit No. 5 from defendant 1
\nand  that therefore the arbitrator was not guilty  of  legal
\nmisconduct.  This contention is unsound.  The arbitrator may
\nbe  a most respectable man; but even so, his conduct  cannot
\nbe reconciled to general principles.  “A Judge must not take
\nupon  himself to say, whether evidence\timproperly  admitted
\nhad  or had not an effect upon his mind The award  may\thave
\ndone perfect justice: but upon general principles it  cannot
\nbe supported.” Per Lord Eldon, Lord Chancellor, in Walker v.
\nFrobisher(1).\n<\/p>\n
To  the\t same effect are the observations  of  Lord  Justice
\nKnight Bruce in Haigh v. Haigh(1):\n<\/p>\n
       “It is true that he states in his affidavit that\t he
\ndid  not allow those explanations to influence him  in\t-his
\nreport\tupon the accounts, and I have no doubt\the  honestly
\nintended this to be the case; but it is impossible to  gauge
\nthe influence which such statements have upon the mind.\n<\/p>\n
\t    We\t must  hold,  without  meaning\tthe   least
\nreflection    the  arbitrator, that he was guilty  of  legal
\nmisconduct  and\t that was sufficient to vitiate\t the  award.
\n    Shri  S.  P. Sinha then urged that\tthe  plaintiff\thad
\nwaived her right if any to challenge the award\t the  ground
\nof  legal misconduct.  No waiver however was pleaded by\t the
\ndefendant  I  and it was not competent to him to  urge\tthis
\ncontention at this stage before us.\n<\/p>\n
The result therefore is that the judgment of the High  Court
\ncannot\tstand.\tWe allow the appeal, set aside the  judgment
\nand decree passed by the High Court and restore the judgment
\nand decree passed by the trial Court with costs throughout’
\n\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
‘Agent for the appellant: Naunit Lal.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the respondents     M. S. K. Aiyangar,\n<\/p>\n
(i)  (18o1) 6 Ves. 7o at page 72.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  (1861) 31 L.J. Ch. 420
\n17<\/span>
\n126<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Payyavula Vengamma vs Payyavula Kesanna And Others on 29 October, 1952 Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 21, 1953 SCR 119 Author: N H Bhagwati Bench: Bhagwati, Natwarlal H. PETITIONER: PAYYAVULA VENGAMMA Vs. RESPONDENT: PAYYAVULA KESANNA AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/10\/1952 BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. MUKHERJEA, B.K. AIYAR, […]<\/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-84400","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPayyavula Vengamma vs Payyavula Kesanna And Others on 29 October, 1952 - 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\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Payyavula Vengamma vs Payyavula Kesanna And Others on 29 October, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952\" \/>\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=\"1952-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-01T15:58:20+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Payyavula Vengamma vs Payyavula Kesanna And Others on 29 October, 1952\",\"datePublished\":\"1952-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-01T15:58:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952\"},\"wordCount\":1942,\"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\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952\",\"name\":\"Payyavula Vengamma vs Payyavula Kesanna And Others on 29 October, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1952-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-01T15:58:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Payyavula Vengamma vs Payyavula Kesanna And Others on 29 October, 1952\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Payyavula Vengamma vs Payyavula Kesanna And Others on 29 October, 1952 - 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\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Payyavula Vengamma vs Payyavula Kesanna And Others on 29 October, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1952-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-01T15:58:20+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Payyavula Vengamma vs Payyavula Kesanna And Others on 29 October, 1952","datePublished":"1952-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-01T15:58:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952"},"wordCount":1942,"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\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952","name":"Payyavula Vengamma vs Payyavula Kesanna And Others on 29 October, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1952-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-01T15:58:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/payyavula-vengamma-vs-payyavula-kesanna-and-others-on-29-october-1952#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Payyavula Vengamma vs Payyavula Kesanna And Others on 29 October, 1952"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/84400","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=84400"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84400\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84400"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84400"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84400"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}