JAISRI SAHU Vs. RAJDEWAN DUBEY
LAWS(SC)-1961-4-78
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on April 28,1961

JAISRI SAHU Appellant
VERSUS
RAJDEWAN DUBEY Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

NIRMAL KUMAR CHAKRABORTY VS. DULAL CHANDRA BHATTACHARJEE [LAWS(CAL)-1996-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
RACHAKONDA NAGAIAH VS. GOVT. OF A.P. REP BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(APH)-2012-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
THE ANDHRA PRADESH MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. POTTEM BROTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
SMT RADHI RANEY VS. NANKI FEROZE [LAWS(APH)-2017-11-60] [REFERRED TO]
T. MURALIDHAR RAO AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (UC II), HYDERABAD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2017-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
MAZDOOR CONGRESS VS. N L BHALCHANDRA MEMBER INDUSTRIAL COURT BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-1993-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATIYA JANATA PARTY & ANR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNARAJAN VS. DORASWAMY CHETTIAR [LAWS(KER)-1966-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
THAMBI VS. MATHEW [LAWS(KER)-1987-10-48] [REFERRED TO]
BALAKRISHNA PILLAI VS. V ABDULLAKUTTY [LAWS(KER)-1994-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
CHEMBRA ORCHARD PRODUCE LIMITED VS. NIL [LAWS(KAR)-2004-1-84] [REFERRED TO]
MOOLCHAND VS. MAGANLAL [LAWS(MPH)-1964-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
PRITHI PAL SINGH VS. MILKA SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1975-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
M.LOGANATHAN VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-1002] [REFERRED TO]
A.GLORY MARRY VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-196] [REFERRED TO]
THAMBUSAMY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-588] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHORE VS. SHANKAR LAL [LAWS(SC)-2002-1-35] [REFERRED]
SHYAM SINGH TOMAR VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2023-1-113] [REFERRED TO]
GOPALAKRISHNA VS. NARAYANAGOWDA [LAWS(SC)-2019-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
KASHI PRASAD VS. DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD [LAWS(MPH)-1992-5-23] [REFERRED TO]
BADRI PRASAD AND ANOTHER VS. GANESH PRASAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-239] [REFERRED TO]
A; AKKULAMMA VS. G PAPI REDDY [LAWS(APH)-1994-12-56] [REFERRED TO]
D BALAJI VS. REGISTRAR KAKATIYA UNIVERSITY WARANGAL [LAWS(APH)-1996-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2000-2-163] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH MONDAL VS. BASANTA MANDAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-9-132] [REFERRED TO]
S S PHOTOGRAPHIC LAB PVT LTD VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2006-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
CARLSBERG BREWERIES A/S VS. SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-166] [REFERRED TO]
NINGAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1999-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
I.D. SHARMA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-1981-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
A. GURUVAMMAL VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-371] [REFERRED TO]
MEHTA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-1998-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
M. MAHALINGAM VS. ENGINEER IN CHIEF, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-399] [REFERRED TO]
BALRAM SINGH YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2005-4-44] [REFERRED TO]
SYED MOHIDEEN VS. GOVT OF T N [LAWS(MAD)-1984-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
K GANESAN VS. SPECIAL OFFICER SALEM CO OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD [LAWS(MAD)-1992-2-58] [REFERRED TO]
S.MENAKA VS. K.S.K NEPOLIAN SOCRATIES [LAWS(MAD)-2024-3-77] [REFERRED TO]
UMRAO DEVI ALIAS AMRAO DEVI VS. HULAS MAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-3-154] [REFERRED TO]
S DHARMARAJ VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-818] [REFERRED TO]
P. SHANTHI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-1028] [REFERRED TO]
PARKASH KAUR VS. JASWANT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2012-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
VELLANKI FRAME WORKS, A SOLE PROPRIETORY CONCERN VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHINAWALTAIR CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
LANKA BABU SURENDRA MOHANA BENARJI VS. CANARA BANK, UNGUTURU AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-55] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA BALI SINGH VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GHAZIPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1992-1-83] [REFERRED]
KISAN RAMCHANDRA KOKANE & ORS. VS. ANJANILAXMAN KAPASE & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-6-139] [REFERRED TO]
MAZDOOR CONGRESS VS. N L BHALCHANDRA [LAWS(BOM)-1993-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH SCHEDULED TRIBES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. ADITYA PRATAP BHANJ DEV [LAWS(APH)-2001-11-85] [REFERRED TO]
GEO MILLER & CO. PVT. LTD. VS. UP JAL NIGAM [LAWS(ALL)-2024-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
DEV RAJ VS. D.D.A [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-431] [REFERRED TO]
K. S. NANJEGOWDA VS. STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-11-107] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND TRUST VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2010-4-87] [REFERRED TO]
MOOLCHAND VS. MANGILAL [LAWS(MPH)-1964-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
NATHU PRASAD VS. SINGHAI KAPURCHAND [LAWS(MPH)-1976-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA RAO VS. SHANTIBAI [LAWS(MPH)-1976-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P. VS. VICCO PRODUCTS (BOMBAY) [LAWS(MPH)-2017-4-165] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA KUMAR VS. LALCHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-3-245] [REFERRED TO]
G.SEERALAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-243] [REFERRED TO]
EAST INDIA HOTELS LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-3-42] [REFFERED TO 25]
RAMASHREY ROY VS. PASHUPATI KUMAR PATHAK [LAWS(PAT)-1967-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
KALAWATIBAI VS. SOIRYABAI [LAWS(SC)-1991-5-21] [APPROVED]
DALEEP SINGH VS. SUKHDEO SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1973-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN GOVIND HEGDE VS. KAMALAKARA SHIVARAM HEGDE [LAWS(SC)-2001-10-142] [RELIED ON]
KULWANT KUMAR KALSAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-92] [REFERRED TO]
PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD VS. ANURADHA MASALA UDHYOG PVT LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2007-12-209] [REFERRED]
CHANDRA KALI VS. MANAGING COMMITTEE ARYASAMAJ MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-1987-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
J K KALRA VS. REGIONAL INSPECTRESS OF GIRLS SCHOOLS MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-1996-7-109] [REFERRED]
LALMUANA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1970-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
GOREGAON MALAYALEE SAMAJ VS. POPATLAL PRABHUDAS AND SONS [LAWS(BOM)-1987-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
MAST RAM VS. MAKHNU [LAWS(HPH)-1982-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
C C BASU VS. PATEL DAHYABHAI VAGHJIBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-1966-7-4] [REFERRED]
V MADHAVAN NAIR VS. M P GOPALA PANICKER [LAWS(KER)-1968-6-12] [REFERRED TO]
K. SELVADURAI AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-1199] [REFERRED TO]
V.SEKAR VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-442] [REFERRED TO]
P.PRIYA VS. DHARMAPURI COOP TOWN BANK LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-649] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA VERMA & ORS. VS. SAROJ DEVI & ORS [LAWS(PAT)-2015-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
P.VENKATACHALAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-316] [REFERRED TO]
V.KARUPPASAMY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-315] [REFERRED TO]
DHANKISTO MANDAL VS. RAM KISTO MANDAL [LAWS(PAT)-1963-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD VS. ROHTAS INDUSTRIES STAFF UNION [LAWS(PAT)-1966-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
SADHU SINGH CHAHAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1993-5-23] [REFERRED TO]
LAKH RAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DISTRICT OFFICER [LAWS(PAT)-2012-3-124] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI [LAWS(SC)-2017-10-44] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SHAILENDRA [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-88] [REFERRED TO]
NEELAM BHAGAVAN VS. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-11-90] [REFERRED TO]
RAM DULARE VS. BATUL BIBI [LAWS(ALL)-1975-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
BALBHADRA VS. BOARD OF REVENUE [LAWS(ALL)-1981-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
HAJI ABDUL HAMID VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(ALL)-1983-9-67] [REFERRED TO]
BELA BAI VS. ADHINRAM DIED [LAWS(CHH)-2019-11-172] [REFERRED TO]
NOBLE IMPORT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
ANNAPURNA CHAKRABARTY AND OTHERS VS. KALPANA DEBI AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-1972-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
PRABODH K. MEHTA VS. CHARUBEN K. MEHTA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH POPAT CHAVAN VS. SULOCHANA RAJIV [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-259] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATIYA JANATA PARTY AND ANR. VS. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2018-4-63] [REFERRED TO]
PANOLI INTERMEDIATE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-263] [REFERRED TO]
B. NAGARAJAN VS. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-372] [REFERRED TO]
P SUBRAMANIA CHETTIAR VS. AMIRTHAM [LAWS(MAD)-2002-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
SHARDULBHAI LAKHMANBHAI PANCHOLI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1989-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN GOPI VS. KUNJU RAMAN UTHAMAN [LAWS(KER)-2009-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA VS. SNEHALATA KAR [LAWS(ORI)-1982-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
MOHMOOD HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2024-4-83] [REFERRED TO]
P.V.MURUGANANDAM VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-271] [REFERRED TO]
R.SHANKAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-317] [REFERRED TO]
S.ALIM BASHA VS. DEPUTY REGISTRAR/MANAGING DIRECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-460] [REFERRED TO]
PREMABAI VS. HUKUM CHAND [LAWS(MPH)-1986-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
AWADHESH SINGH KUSHWAH VS. M.P.POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION [LAWS(MPH)-1999-8-71] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA BALLABH HALDIYA VS. PUSHALAL AGARWAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1984-5-30] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA SWAMI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1993-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJEE RAI VS. GOPAL AHIR [LAWS(PAT)-1962-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH YADAV VS. SHANTI DEVI [LAWS(PAT)-1986-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH & ORS. VS. PARKASH KAUR & ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-104] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV MANCHANDA AND OTHERS VS. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2017-11-254] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2012-12-46] [REFERRED TO]
KABERI (DUTTA) SANTRA VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-11-87] [REFERRED TO]
ATAVA AKKULAMMA DIED VS. GAJJELA PAPI REDDY [LAWS(APH)-1994-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
USHODAYA ENTERPRISES LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES A P HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-1998-3-101] [REFERRED TO]
GAUR PRATIBHA (THAKUR PRATIMA JAGATSINGH ) AND ORS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2019-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ST CHARLES INTER COLLEGE VS. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS [LAWS(ALL)-2000-11-63] [REFERRED TO]
P S GM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1978-1-14] [REFERRED]
SHIVADEVIAMMA VS. SUMANAJI [LAWS(KAR)-1972-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI S.C. JAYACHANDRA S/O LATE CHIKKABORAIAH VS. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE [LAWS(KAR)-2017-2-121] [REFERRED TO]
S. RAJENDRAN VS. SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-969] [REFERRED TO]
S.THANGADURAI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-589] [REFERRED TO]
D.RAMESHKUMAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-609] [REFERRED TO]
R.KUMAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-428] [REFERRED TO]
Premchand Jain VS. Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior [LAWS(MPH)-1976-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
SAI UDYOG PVT LIMITED RAIPUR VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA RAIPUR [LAWS(MPH)-1997-10-13] [REFERRED]
AJAY SHARMA ALIAS PAPPU VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1988-8-64] [REFERRED TO]
BENI RAM VS. GANGA SAH [LAWS(PAT)-1967-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SAGAR PANDEY AND ANOTHER VS. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-1986-9-59] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL VS. STATE TAX OFFICER [LAWS(SC)-2023-10-91] [REFERRED TO]
BALJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
NASIR KHAN VS. RIZWANA SHEIKH [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-2-295] [REFERRED TO]
DANDUGULA SUSHEELA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-3-151] [REFERRED TO]
GAON SABHA IBRAHIMPUR DEH VS. MAHMOOD AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2010-12-134] [REFERRED TO]
JAI NAND D VS. SURYA DEV [LAWS(ALL)-2005-12-62] [REFERRED TO]
INDOFER SOCIETY VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE and ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2003-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN SINGH VS. JAYA WATI [LAWS(ALL)-1995-7-71] [REFERRED TO]
AJAB SINGH VS. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION SAHARANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1995-9-124] [REFERRED TO]
RAJPUTANA TRADING CO PVT LTD VS. MALAYA TRADING AGENCY [LAWS(CAL)-1970-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN KUMAR PATHAK VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-5-197] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR PATEL.R VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-352] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR PATEL.R VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-352] [REFERRED TO]
SRI DURGA THAKURANI BIJE NIJIGARH VS. CHINTAMONI SWAIN [LAWS(ORI)-1982-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
SYED MOHIDEEN VS. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1985-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
PHILIP JEYASINGH VS. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CHIDAMBARANAR REGION TUTICORIN [LAWS(MAD)-1992-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
MOHASINIA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1993-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2024-4-88] [REFERRED TO]
NARBADA PRASAD VS. AWADESH NARAIN [LAWS(MPH)-1972-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
HAZARI LAL VS. JUGAL KISHORE [LAWS(MPH)-1998-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P. VS. SHIV SHANKAR [LAWS(MPH)-1999-7-96] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM KAUR VS. SURJIT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1983-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
K GNANAVEL VS. GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY, REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-388] [REFERRED TO]
P.VASANTHI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-478] [REFERRED TO]
G.BALASUBRAMANIAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-244] [REFERRED TO]
GURMEET SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2023-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
DR. BIPIN CHANDRA LAKHERA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SIK)-2004-3-6] [REFERRED]
SOMPRAKASH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-7-220] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA BAHADUR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-359] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA GUPTA VS. COLLECTOR KANPUR NAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-2002-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTA KUMAR ROY AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1981-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
V NARASIMHA RAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(APH)-2012-1-128] [REFERRED TO]
M/S GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
BASHIR AHMAD VS. SHRIMATI RASHIDA KHATOON [LAWS(ALL)-1974-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
EL NOIL HELLENIC PETROLEUM CO S A VS. M V ANNY L [LAWS(BOM)-1999-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORI ALIAS LALOO VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-1986-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
JAI NATH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1987-5-53] [REFERRED TO]
H L KAKA VS. KANHAYYALAL [LAWS(APH)-1979-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
A RAGHUNATHA RAO VS. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1998-11-101] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY MANMAL SANGHAVI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1989-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
PRAFULLA KUMAR DUTTA VS. GANESH CHANDRA BOSE [LAWS(CAL)-1972-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
SK BAFATULLA MUKHTEAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1972-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
MALTI DEVI VS. AMIRA DEVI & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-10-59] [REFERRED TO]
A.K. INTERNATIONAL VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(DLH)-2002-5-299] [REFERRED TO]
P. SANKAR VS. THE HOME SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-375] [REFERRED TO]
Pandu and others VS. Laxmibai C. Subhadra and others [LAWS(KAR)-2012-10-184] [REFERRED TO]
FERRO ALLOYS CORPORATION LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-1998-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-285] [REFERRED TO]
P.LALITHA VS. DEPUTY REGISTRAR/MANAGING DIRECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-461] [REFERRED TO]
Parmeshwari Devi VS. Thakur Natthu Singh [LAWS(MPH)-1996-9-92] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI MANORAMA SINHA W/O SRI RAMESH PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2009-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
BIJAL PASWAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2024-2-93] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Venkatarama Aiyar, J. - (1.)These are appeals against the judgment of the High Court of Patna in Second Appeals Nos. 2155 and 2156 of 1948 on certificates granted by the High Court under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution. The facts leading to this litigation lie in a narrow compass. One Prithi Dubey died on July 14, 1932, leaving him surviving, his widow Laung Kuer, who succeeded as heir to his estate. For the purpose of discharging debts due by the deceased Laung Kuer executed on June 21, 1935, a Zerpeshgi deed in favour of two reasons, Rajdewan Dubey and Kailash Dubey, who were also the next reversioners, for a sum of Rs. 1,100. It is not in dispute that this deed is binding on the reversioners. On June 17, 1943, Laung Kuer sold to the appellant a portion of the properties which were the subject-matter of the Zerpeshgi deed dated June 21, 1935, for a consideration of Rs. 1,600. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 1,100 was reserved with the purchaser for redemption of the Zerpeshgi, and the balance of Rs. 500 was paid in cash. It is recited in the deed of sale that a sum of Rs. 100 was required to effect repairs to the family dwelling house, a sum of Rs. 200 for purchasing two bulls for agricultural purposes, and a sum of Rs. 200 for repairing a well, which had been constructed by the deceased for user by the public and which was then in a ruined condition. It is to meet these expenses that Laung Kuer raised Rs. 500.
(2.)After obtaining the sale deed, the appellant sought to redeem the Zerpeshgi, but the Zerpeshgidars refused to receive the amount and surrender possession of the properties The appellant deposited the mortgage amount in court under S. 83 of the Transfer of Property Act and then instituted Title Suit No. 69 of 1944 for redemption. Meantime the reversioners, the respondents herein, had filed Title Suit No. 126 of 1943 for a declaration that the sale deed in favour of the appellant was not binding on the reversioners. And both the suits were tried together. The parties were at issue on several questions of fact of which the only one material at this stage is whether the sale in favour of the appellant was supported by neccessity and binding on the reversioners. The District Munsif of Palama who tried the suits held on a review of the evidence that necessity was established in respect of all the four items of consideration and that the sale was binding on the reversioners. He accordingly, dismissed Title Suit No. 126 of 1943 filed by the respondents and granted a decree for redemption in Title Suit No. 69 of 1944 filed by the appellant. The respondents herein, the reversioners preferred appeals against both the decrees passed by the District Munsif of Palamau and they were heard by the Subordinate Judge of Palamau, who, agreeing with the findings given by the District Munsif, affirmed the decrees and dismissed the appeals. Against these decrees, the respondents preferred Second Appeals Nos. 2155 and 2156 of 1948 in the High Court of Patna. While these appeals were pending, Laung Kuer died on March 14, 1952, and on the application of the respondents, the plaint in Title Suit No. 126 of 1943 was amended by adding reliefs for possession and mesne profits. The appeals were then heard by a Bench consisting of Rai and Misra, JJ.), who in separate but concurring judgments held that the sale deed in favour of the appellant was not binding on the reversioners. Misra J., who delivered the leading judgment did not disagree with the finding of the courts below that all the four items of consideration were supported by necessity. Indeed, being a finding of fact, it would be binding on the court in Second Appeal. He, however, held, following the decision in Dasrath Singh vs. Damri Singh, 8 Pat LT 314 that a widow cannot by selling properties subject to usufructuary mortgage jeopardise the right of the reversioners to redeem, and that, therefore, the sale would not be binding on them. A different view was taken in Lala Ram Asre Singh vs. Ambica Lal, 11 Pat. LT 6 where it was held that a widow was not debarred from selling properties subject to mortgage where there was necessity for it merely by reason of the fact that they were subject to usufructuary mortgage which contained no personal covenant to pay. But the learned Judge declined to follow this decision and stated the reason thus:
"Following, therefore, the settled practice of this Court as laid down in a number of decisions, the only course left open to us in the circumstances would be either to follow the previous Division Bench Ruling in preference to the later or to refer the case to a larger Bench for settling the position, In my opinion, however, the present case it not one in which it is desirable to refer this case to a larger Bench. Following, therefore, the authority of this Court in Dasrath Singh's case (supra) which completelv covers the present case it must be held that the courts below were in error in relying upon the decision in Lala Ram Asre Singh's case' (supra)."
In the result the learned Judge held that the sale deed in favour of the appellant dated June I7, l943, was not binding on the reversioners. Rai,J., expressed the view that as the bona fides of the sale in favour of the appellant was questioned by the reversioners and is there had been no finding on that point by the Subordinate Judge, the matter might have to be remanded for a finding on that question, but that, as the sale deed was not supported by necessity, he agreed with the conclusion of Misra J. The Second Appeals were accordingly allowed and consequential reliefs granted. Thereafter the appellant applied in the High Court under Art. 133 for leave to appeal to this court, and in granting certificates, Ramaswami, C. J. and Raj Kishore Prasad J. observed in their Order dated November 27, 1956, that there being a conflict between the decisions in Dasrath Singh's case (supra) and Lala Ram Asre Singh's case, (supra) the point was one of sufficient importance for grant of leave to appeal to this court. They also stated that the question as to the practice to be followed, when there was a conflict of decisions, was likewise one of public importance, which ought to be settled by this court. They accordingly granted certificates under Art. 133 (1) (c) and that is how these appeals come before us.
(3.)Before considering the two questions referred to in the order of the High Court granting certificates, we shall deal with a contention raised on behalf of the respondents, which if well founded would necessitate a remand of these appeals. It was argued that the sale deed in favour of the appellant was not bona fide, that it had been so held by the District Munsif, but that the Subordinate Judge had failed to record a finding on this question, and that therefore there should be a remand for a decision on that point. As already stated, Rai, J. appears to have been impressed by this contention. But when the contention is further examined it will be found to be wholly without substance. What the District Munsif said was that "after the death of Pirthi Dubey the relatives of Laung Kuer had fallen on her property like vultures", and that it was quite possible "that the transaction in question was also brought at their instance and they were also benefited by it." This only, means that the relatives of Laung Kuer were guilty of spoliation of the estate. But that would not affect the rights of the appellant unless he was a party to it, which however, is not the case, and that is what the District Munsif himself observes with reference to this aspect:
"But in the present suit I have got to consider the interest of Jaisri Sahu who has in good faith already paid Rs. 500/- to the Mostt. and has deposited the balance of Rs. 1,100/- in court for the redemption of the Zarpeshgi."
This finding that the appellant himself acted bona fide was not challenged before the Subordinate Judge on appeal and the point is accordingly not open to the respondents.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.