{"id":95811,"date":"2008-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008"},"modified":"2017-04-04T09:58:11","modified_gmt":"2017-04-04T04:28:11","slug":"k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"K.V. Rami Reddi vs Prema on 20 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.V. Rami Reddi vs Prema on 20 February, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2551 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nK.V. Rami Reddi\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPrema\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/02\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; P. SATHASIVAM\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tHeard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tChallenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned<br \/>\nsingle Judge of the Madras High Court allowing the Civil<br \/>\nRevision petition filed highlighting the irregularities committed<br \/>\nby the learned Seventh Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai<br \/>\nwhile pronouncing the judgment in O.S. No. 584 of 1996. The<br \/>\ncontroversy in the suit need not be detailed, as the points in<br \/>\nissue in the present appeal lie within a very narrow compass.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe Suit was filed by the present respondent for specific<br \/>\nperformance to enforce a sale agreement dated 20.10.1988.<br \/>\nThe suit is stated to have been decided on 24.03.1999.<br \/>\nAccording to the present respondent, who was the petitioner in<br \/>\nthe Civil Revision petition, even without dictating the<br \/>\njudgment to the Stenographer, transcribing and signing the<br \/>\nsame, simply an endorsement in the plaint docket sheet was<br \/>\nmade to the effect that the plaintiff in the suit was not entitled<br \/>\nto the relief of specific performance to enforce a sale agreement<br \/>\nbut was entitled to refund of Rs.2,00,000\/-.  Stand in the<br \/>\nrevision petition was that there was no judgment in the eye of<br \/>\nlaw.  It was pointed out that only the operative portion was<br \/>\ndictated on 25.03.1999 during lunch time and, therefore, the<br \/>\ndecision rendered on 24.03.1999 was non est in the eye of law<br \/>\nand a nullity.  Learned counsel appearing for the respondent<br \/>\nin the Civil Revision petition i.e. the present appellant took the<br \/>\nstand that four issues and an additional issue had been<br \/>\nframed. The entire judgment had been dictated by learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge and the transcribed part covered the vital issues<br \/>\n1 to 3 and the Stenographer was half way through the fourth<br \/>\nissue and the additional issue.   Therefore, it was submitted<br \/>\nthat a reasonable inference should be drawn that all the<br \/>\nissues had been dictated to the stenographer and on the date<br \/>\nthe judgment was pronounced, i.e. 24.03.1999, the judgment<br \/>\nmust be deemed to have been completed.  Learned Single<br \/>\nJudge did not find substance in the stand taken by the<br \/>\npresent appellant.  It was held that since the learned Trial<br \/>\nJudge had not completed the judgment before he delivered his<br \/>\ndecision, it has to be held that there was no judgment in the<br \/>\neye of law.  Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition was allowed<br \/>\nand judgment dated 24.03.1999 was set aside and the matter<br \/>\nwas remitted to the present Seventh Assistant City Civil<br \/>\nJudge, Chennai who was to hear the arguments afresh and<br \/>\nrender a decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tLearned counsel for the appellant submitted that the<br \/>\ncourse adopted by learned City Civil Judge is permissible in<br \/>\nlaw in the background of Order XX, Rule-5 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure, 1908 (in short `the CPC&#8217;).\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tLearned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,<br \/>\nsubmitted that the Trial Judge has not decided the matter in<br \/>\nthe background of Order XX, Rule 5, CPC.  On the contrary,<br \/>\nthe provisions of Order XX, Rules-1 and 3 apply to the facts of<br \/>\nthe case.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tOrder XX, Rule-1 (1) of the CPC (Madras Amendment)<br \/>\nreads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;(1)\tThe Court, after the case has been heard,  shall<br \/>\npronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or on<br \/>\nsome future day, of which due notice shall be given to the<br \/>\nparties or their pleaders.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)\tThe judgment may be pronounced by dictation to a<br \/>\nshorthand-writer in open court, where the presiding<br \/>\nJudge has been specially empowered in that behalf by the<br \/>\nHigh Court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSimilarly, Order XX, Rule 3 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The judgment shall be dated and signed by the<br \/>\nJudge in open Court at the time of pronouncing it and<br \/>\nwhen once signed, shall not afterwards be altered or<br \/>\nadded to save as provided by Section 152 or on review.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tOrder XX, Rule 5 on which great emphasis was laid by<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the appellant says that in Suits in which<br \/>\nissues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or<br \/>\ndecision with the reason therefor, upon each separate issue,<br \/>\nunless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is<br \/>\nsufficient for the decision of the Suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tAs rightly submitted by learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent, this was not the view expressed by the learned<br \/>\nTrial Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tThe ultimate question is whether in the instant case the<br \/>\njudgment has been validly delivered? If it is a mere procedural<br \/>\nirregularity and the Judge concerned had not signed the<br \/>\njudgment, then the judgment thus rendered cannot be in-<br \/>\nvalidated.  Order XX Rule 1 CPC postulates that after the case<br \/>\nhas been heard, the court hearing the same shall pronounce<br \/>\nthe judgment in open court by dictation to the shorthand<br \/>\nwriter, wherever it is permissible.   It bears the date on which<br \/>\nit is pronounced.  The date of the judgment is never altered by<br \/>\nthe date on which the signature has been put subsequently.<br \/>\nThe mere fact that a major portion has been dictated by the<br \/>\nlearned Judge in the judgment already dictated, will not, by<br \/>\nitself, lead to the conclusion that the judgment had been<br \/>\ndelivered.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tIn Smt. Swaran Lata Ghosh Vs. Harendra Kumar<br \/>\nBanerjee and Anr. (AIR 1969 SC 1167), it was inter-alia held<br \/>\nas follows (at Para 6):\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Trial of a civil dispute in Court is intended to<br \/>\nachieve, according to law and the procedure of the Court,<br \/>\na judicial determination between the contesting parties of<br \/>\nthe matter in controversy.  Opportunity to the parties<br \/>\ninterested in the dispute to present their respective cases<br \/>\non question of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts<br \/>\nby means of evidence tendered by the parties and<br \/>\nadjudication by a reasoned judgment of the dispute upon<br \/>\na finding on the facts in controversy and application of<br \/>\nthe law to the facts found, are essential attributes of a<br \/>\njudicial trial.  In a judicial trial, the judge not only must<br \/>\nreach a conclusion which he regards as just, but, unless<br \/>\notherwise permitted, by the practice of the Court or by<br \/>\nlaw, he must record the ultimate mental process leading<br \/>\nfrom the dispute to its solution.  A judicial determination<br \/>\nof a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or<br \/>\nfact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported<br \/>\nby the most cogent reasons that suggest themselves to<br \/>\nthe Judge; a mere order deciding the matter in dispute<br \/>\nnot supported by reasons is no judgment at all.<br \/>\nRecording of reasons in support of a decision of a<br \/>\ndisputed claim serves more purposes than one.  It is<br \/>\nintended to ensure that the decision is not the result of<br \/>\nwhim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in<br \/>\ncontest; it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the<br \/>\nmatter according to law and the procedure established by<br \/>\nlaw.  A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know<br \/>\nthe grounds on which the Court has decided against him,<br \/>\nand more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal.<br \/>\nThe Appellate Court will then have adequate material on<br \/>\nwhich it may determine whether the facts are properly<br \/>\nascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the<br \/>\nresultant decision is just.  It is unfortunate that the<br \/>\nlearned Trial Judge has recorded no reasons in support<br \/>\nof his conclusion, and the High Court in appeal merely<br \/>\nrecorded that they thought that the plaintiff had<br \/>\nsufficiently proved the case in the plant.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tThe declaration by a Judge of his intention of what his<br \/>\n`judgment&#8217; is going to be, or a declaration of his intention of<br \/>\nwhat final result it is going to embody, is not a judgment until<br \/>\nhe had crystallized his intentions into a formal shape and<br \/>\npronounced it in open court as the final expression of his<br \/>\nmind.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tThe CPC does not envisage the writing of a judgment<br \/>\nafter deciding the case by an oral judgment and it must not be<br \/>\nresorted to and it would be against public policy to ascertain<br \/>\nby evidence alone what the `judgment&#8217; of the Court was, where<br \/>\nthe final result was announced orally but the `judgment&#8217;, as<br \/>\ndefined in the CPC embodying a concise statement of the case,<br \/>\nthe points for determination, the decision thereon and the<br \/>\nreasons for such decision, was finalized later on.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tSection 2(9) of the CPC defines a &#8220;judgment&#8221; to mean the<br \/>\nstatement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tIn Balraj Taneja and Anr. Vs. Sunil Madan and Anr.<br \/>\n(1999 (8) SCC 396), it was inter-alia held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;There is yet another infirmity in the case which<br \/>\nrelates to the &#8220;judgment&#8221; passed by the single Judge and<br \/>\nupheld by the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Judgment&#8221; as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code of<br \/>\nCivil Procedure means the statement given by the Judge<br \/>\nof the grounds for a decree or order.  What a judgment<br \/>\nshould contain is indicated in Order 20 Rule 4(2) which<br \/>\nsays that a judgment &#8220;shall contain a concise statement<br \/>\nof the case, the points for determination, the decision<br \/>\nthereon, and the reasons for such decision&#8221;. It should be<br \/>\na self-contained document from which it should appear<br \/>\nas to what were the facts of the case and what was the<br \/>\ncontroversy which was tried to be settled by the Court<br \/>\nand in what manner.  The process of reasoning by which<br \/>\nthe Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed<br \/>\nthe suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\tUndisputedly, the Trial Judge had not completed the<br \/>\njudgment before he delivered his decision.  That being so, the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to<br \/>\nwarrant interference.  What the High Court has directed is to<br \/>\nhear only the arguments afresh.  While dismissing the appeal,<br \/>\nwe direct that the arguments shall be heard afresh and the<br \/>\nTrial Court shall deliver its judgment as early as practicable,<br \/>\npreferably within three months from today.  To avoid<br \/>\nunnecessary delay, let the parties appear before the Trial<br \/>\nCourt on 05.03.2008 so that the date for arguments can be<br \/>\nfixed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India K.V. Rami Reddi vs Prema on 20 February, 2008 Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2551 of 2001 PETITIONER: K.V. Rami Reddi RESPONDENT: Prema DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/02\/2008 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; P. SATHASIVAM JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-95811","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K.V. Rami Reddi vs Prema on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.V. Rami Reddi vs Prema on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-04T04:28:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.V. Rami Reddi vs Prema on 20 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-04T04:28:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1659,\"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\\\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008\",\"name\":\"K.V. Rami Reddi vs Prema on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-04T04:28:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.V. Rami Reddi vs Prema on 20 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"K.V. Rami Reddi vs Prema on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.V. Rami Reddi vs Prema on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-04T04:28:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.V. Rami Reddi vs Prema on 20 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-04T04:28:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008"},"wordCount":1659,"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\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008","name":"K.V. Rami Reddi vs Prema on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-04T04:28:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-rami-reddi-vs-prema-on-20-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.V. Rami Reddi vs Prema on 20 February, 2008"}]},{"@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\/95811","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=95811"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95811\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95811"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95811"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95811"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}