{"id":110876,"date":"1950-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1950-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950"},"modified":"2017-01-26T10:51:20","modified_gmt":"2017-01-26T05:21:20","slug":"mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950","title":{"rendered":"Mangan Lal Deoshi vs Mohammad Moinul Haoque & Others on 1 December, 1950"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mangan Lal Deoshi vs Mohammad Moinul Haoque & Others on 1 December, 1950<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 11, \t\t 1950 SCR 833<\/div>\n
Author: M P Sastri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMANGAN LAL DEOSHI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMOHAMMAD MOINUL HAOQUE & OTHERS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n01\/12\/1950\n\nBENCH:\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI\nBENCH:\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI\nKANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1951 AIR   11\t\t  1950 SCR  833\n\n\nACT:\n    Indian Registration Act, 1908, 8.17 (1) (b) and (d),  s.\n17  (2)-\"Lease\t\"--Compromise decree  creating\tunder  lease\nbetween\t A and B on condition that A pays a sum of money  to\nC--Whether compulsorily registrable--Agreement to lease\t not\ncreating immediate interest land--Whether \"lease\".\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    An agreement for a lease, which a lease is by the Indian\nRegistration  Act  declared to include, must be\t a  document\nwhich effects an actual demise and operates as a lease.\t  It\nmust create present and immediate interest in land.\nWhere  a litigation between two persons A and B who  claimed\nto be tenants under C was settled by a compromise decree the\neffect of which was to create a perpetual underlease between\nA  and B which was to take effect only on condition  that  A\npaid Rs. 8,000 to C within a fixed period:\n    Held, that such a contingent agreement was not \"a lease\"\nwithin el. (a) of s. 17 (t) of the Indian Registration\tAct,\nand  even though it was covered by cl. (b) of the said\tsec-\ntion it was exempt from registration under el. (vi) of subs.\n(2) of s. 17.\n Hemanta  Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zamindari Co. (I  L.R.  47\nCal. 485 P.C.) relied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
 CIVIL\t APPELLATE   JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal  No.94\t  of
\n1949.\n<\/p>\n
107<\/span>
\n834<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judi-
\ncature\tat Patna in Appeal from Appellate Decree No.  97  of
\n1946   (Mannohar  Lall\tand Mukherji JJ.) dated 23rd  Decem-
\nber,  1947, confirming the judgment of the District    Judge
\nof Purulia in Appeal No. 159 of 1944.\n<\/p>\n
   S.P.\t Sinha (P. K. Bose,\twith  him)  for\t the  appel-
\nlant.\n<\/p>\n
    N.C.  Chatterjee  and Panchanan Ghosh  (Chandra  Narayan
\nNaik, with them) for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    1950.  December 1. The Judgment of the Court was  deliv-
\nered by
\n    PATANJALI  SASTRI J.–This appeal arises out of  a\tsuit
\nbrought\t by the respondent in the court of  the\t Subordinate
\nJudge, Dhanbad, for recovery of arrears of royalty and\tcess
\nfrom  the  appellant and another alleged to be due  under  a
\ncompromise decree passed on the 6th March, 1923, in a previ-
\nous  suit between the predecessors in interest of  the\tpar-
\nties.\tThe only plea which is material for the\t purpose  of
\nthis  appeal is that the compromise decree not\thaving\tbeen
\nregistered  was inadmissible in evidence.  The courts  below
\nheld that the document did not require registration and gave
\neffect\tto  its\t terms in decreeing the\t suit.\t The  second
\ndefendant has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t facts\tare not now in dispute and  may\t be  briefly
\nstated.\t  On  11th  March, 1921, one  Kumar  Krishna  Prasad
\nSingh (hereinafter  referred to\t as Kumar) granted a  perma-
\nnent  lease  of the right to the underground coal  in  5,800
\nbighas\tof  land  belonging to him to  Shibsaran  Singh\t and
\nSitaram\t Singh (hereinafter referred to as the Singhs) by  a
\nregistered  patta stipulating for a salami of Rs. 8,000\t and
\nroyalty at the rate of 2a. per ton of coal raised subject to
\na  minimum  of Rs. 8,000 and for certain  other\t cesses\t and
\ninterest.  On 7th June, 1921, Kumar executed another  perma-
\nnent  patta leasing the right to the coal in 500 bighas\t out
\nof  the 5,800 bighas referred to above to one Prayngji\tBal-
\nlavji  Deoshi  and his son  Harakchand\tDeoshi\t(hereinafter
\nreferred to as the Deoshis).  By this document.\n<\/p>\n
835<\/span><\/p>\n
the Deoshis agreed inter alia to pay royalty at the rate  of
\n2a.  per  ton  on all classes of coal raised  subject  to  a
\nminimum\t of  Rs. 750 a year. The Singhs\t feeling  themselves
\naggrieved  by  the latter transaction brought a\t title\tsuit
\n(No. 1291 of 1921) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge  of
\nDhanbad for a declaration of their title and for  possession
\nof the 500 bighas leased to the Deoshis under the  aforesaid
\npatta  of  7th June, 1921.  To that suit Kumar\twas  made  a
\nparty as defendant No. 3, the Deoshis being defendants 1 and\n<\/p>\n
2.  The suit was however cornpromised on 6th March, 1923, by
\nall  the  parties and a decree based on the  compromise\t was
\nalso passed on the same day.  The interest of the Singhs was
\nbrought\t to sale in 193S in execution of a  decree  obtained
\nagainst\t them and was purchased by the plaintiff who  insti-
\ntuted  the presnt  suit on 3rd October, 1942,  claiming\t the
\nroyalty\t and cesses payable under the compromise decree\t for
\nthe period from Pous 1345 to Asadh 1349 B.S. from defendants
\n1  and 2 as the representatives of the Deoshis\twho  entered
\ninto the compromise of March, 1923.\n<\/p>\n
    In\torder to appreciate the contentions of the  parties,
\nit is necessary to set out the relevant terms of the compro-
\nmise decree which are as follows :–\n<\/p>\n
    “The plaintiffs (the Singhs) within two months from this
\ndate  shall  pay  Rs. 8,000 as salami  to  defendant  No.  3
\n(Kumar).  Otherwise  all the terms of  the  compromise\tWill
\nstand cancelled and the plaintiffs shall not be competent to
\nclaim  any right to or possession over the.land\t covered  by
\nthe patta dated 11th March, 1921… The patta which  defend-
\nant No. 3 executed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of
\n5,800 bighas of coal land in village Rahraband shall  remain
\nin  force, and the plaintiffs will get a decree of  declara-
\ntion of their right and title to the 500 bighas of coal land
\nin  dispute but defendants 1 and 2 (the Deoshis) shall\thold
\npossession  as tenants.\t Besides the terms mentioned  below,
\ndefendants  1 and 2 shall remain bound by all the  remaining
\nterms under which they took settlement of the 500 bighas  of
\ncoal land from defendant No. 3 under
\n836<\/span>
\npatta  and Kabuliyat, and both the defendants 1 and 2  shall
\npossess\t the  same under the plaintiffs from  generation  to
\ngeneration and all the terms of the said patta and Kabuliyat
\nshall remain effective and in force between them.  Both\t the
\ndefendants  1 and 2 shall remain bound to pay to the  plain-
\ntiffs commission at the rate of 2a. 6p. per ton on all sorts
\nof  coal instead of 2a. a ton as stated before in the  patta
\nof  5,800  bighas of land settled  with\t the  plaintiffs.The
\nplaintiffs shall pay to defendant No. 3 in future the  mini-
\nmum royalty of Rs. 6,000 instead of Rs. 8,000 as  stipulated
\nin the original patta of 11 th March 1921 and commission  at
\nthe rate of la. 9p. a ton in place of 2a. a ton as stipulat-
\ned  in the patta of March 21  ……  Unless the  plaintiffs
\npay  to the defendant No. 3 Rs. 8,000 within 2\tmonths\tfrom
\nthis  day they shall not be competent to take out  execution
\nof this decree, nor shall they be competent to take  posses-
\nsion  of the land in dispute. The defendants 1 and 2  within
\none month from the date of payment of Rs. 8,000 as aforesaid
\nto  defendant No. 3 shall execute a new Kabuliyat in  favour
\nof  the\t plaintiff in respect of the modified  terms  stated
\nabove, i.e., on the condition to pay commission at the\trate
\nof 2a. 6p. per ton…In the new patta which defendant No.  3
\nwill execute in favour of the plaintiffs he shall embody the
\ncondition that the annual minimum royalty will be Rs.  6,000
\ninstead\t of Rs. 8,000 and commission will be at the rate  of
\nla. 9p. per ton in place of 2a. per ton as mentioned in\t the
\naforesaid  patta.  If the defendant No. 3 does\tnot  execute
\nthe  parts on the aforesaid modified terms in favour’of\t the
\nplaintiffs within the time aforesaid and both the defendants
\n1  and\t2 also do not execute a kabuliyat on  the  aforesaid
\nmodified terms, then this very rafanama shall be treated  as
\nthe  parts and kabuliyat, and the plaintiffs  in  accordance
\nwith the terms of the rafanama shall pay to defendant No. 3,
\nRs. 6,000 only as minimum royalty and commission at the rate
\nof  la. 9p. per ton with respect to 5,800 bighas  and  shall
\ncontinue  to realise commission at the rate of 2a.  6p.\t per
\nton  from defendants 1 and 2 who shall remain bound  to\t pay
\nthe same.”\n<\/p>\n
837<\/span><\/p>\n
The  answer to the question whether this  compromise  decree
\nrequires  registration\tdepends on the legal effect  of\t the
\nchanges in the status quo ante of the parties brought  about
\nby  the document.  A careful analysis reveals the  following
\nalterations :–\n<\/p>\n
    (1)\t In the lease to the Singhs, the rate of royalty  or
\ncommission  was reduced from 2a. per ton of coal  raised  to
\nla. 9p. per ton and the minimum royalty was reduced from Rs.
\n8,000 to Rs. 6,000 while the area of coal land in their khas
\npossession was reduced by 500 bighas.\n<\/p>\n
    (2)\t In the lease to the Deoshis the rate of royalty  or
\ncommission was enhanced from 2a. per ton to 2a. 6p. per\t ton
\nand tiffs was made payable to the Singhs.\n<\/p>\n
    The Singhs and the Deoshis were brought into a new legal
\nrelationship,  the  former accepting the latter\t as  tenants
\nholding the disputed 500 bighas under them in  consideration
\nof  the latter agreeing to pay the enhanced royalty  to\t the
\nformer.\n<\/p>\n
    (4)\t The whole arrangement was made conditional  on\t the
\nSinghs\tpaying Rs. 8,000 to Kumar within 2 months  from\t the
\ndate of the compromise, it being expressly provided that the
\nSinghs\twere not to be entitled to execute the decree or  to
\ntake  possession  of the disputed area of 503  bighas  which
\nevidently had not till then passed into their possession.
\n    Now,  sub-section (1) of section 17 of the\tRegistration
\nAct, enumerates five categories of documents of which regis-
\ntration\t is  made compulsory which include”  (d)  leases  of
\nimmoveable  property  from  year to year, or  for  any\tterm
\nexceeding  one year, or reserving a yearly rent;”. Sub\tsec-
\ntion  (2) however provided that “nothing in clauses (b)\t and\n<\/p>\n
(c) of sub-section (1)applies to ……\t (vi) any decree  or
\norder  of court.” It may be mentioned in passing  that\tthis
\nclause was amended with affect from the 1st April, 1930,  by
\nthe  Transfer  of Property  (Amendment)\t Supplementary\tAct,
\n1929,  so  as  to exclude from the scope  of  the  exception
\ncompromise decrees comprising immovable property other\tthan
\nthat which is the subject-matter of the suit.  But
\n838<\/span>
\nthe  amendment cannot affect the document here\tin  question
\nwhich  came into existence in 1923.  Before  the  amendment,
\nthe  clause  was  held to  cover  even\tcompromise   decrees
\ncomprising   immovable\tproperty which was not\tthe  subject
\nmatter\tof the suit:  [Vide Hemanta Kumari Debi v.  Midnapur
\nZamindari  Co.\t(‘)]. That decision applies to\tthe  present
\ncase and obviates the objection that because the  compromise
\nin  question covered also the remaining 5,300  bighas  which
\nwere  not the subject-matter of the title suit of  1921,  it
\nwas  outside the scope of the exception in sub-section\t(2),
\nclause (vi).\n<\/p>\n
    The only question, therefore, is whether the  compromise
\ndecree is a “lease” [which expression includes “an agreement
\nto  lease”  by the definition in section 2 (7)]\t within\t the
\nmeaning of el. (d) of sub-section (1). It is obvious that if
\nthe compromise decree fails within clause (d) of sub-section
\n(1)  it\t would not be protected under clause  (vi)  of\tsub-
\nsection\t (2) which excepts only documents falling under\t the
\ncategories  (b) and (c) of sub-section (1).  The High  Court
\nwas  of opinion that, on a proper construction of the  terms
\nof the compromise, it did not fall under clause (d).   Mano-
\nhar  Lall J., who delivered the leading judgment,  observed:
\n“It was a tripartite agreement embodied in the decree of the
\ncourt and was, therefore, exempt from registration. It\twill
\nbe  oh.served also that so far as the defendants  were\tcon-
\ncerned,\t their possession of the 500 bighas was\t not  inter-
\nfered  with  and they still remained in\t possession  as\t the
\nlessees, but instead of paying the royalty to the plaintiffs
\nit  was agreed between all the parties that  the  defendants
\nwould  pay the royalty in future to Shibsaran  and  Sitcram.
\nIf the matter had stood there, the learned Advocate for\t the
\nappellant  could not have seriously contested the  position,
\nbut he vehemently argued that when the agreement was not  to
\npay  the same amount of royalty or commission as  previously
\nagreed\tto but an altered amount of royalty and\t commission,
\nthe  document should be held to fall within the mischief  of
\nsection 17 (1)(d)of the
\n(1) 47 Cal. 485: P.C.\n<\/p>\n
839<\/span><\/p>\n
Registration  Act.  The answer to this contention is,  as  I
\nhave stated just now, to be found in the Full Bench decision
\nof  this court :” [see Charu Chandra Mitra’s case  ()].\t  It
\nwas  there held that a mere alteration of the rent  reserved
\ndoes not make the transaction a new lease so as to bring  it
\nwithin clause (d)of subsection (1).\n<\/p>\n
    We are unable to share this view.  It oversimplifies the
\ncompromise transaction which, in our opinion, involves\tmuch
\nmore than a mere alteration of the royalties stipulated\t for
\nin the previous pattas executed by Kumar.  Nor can we accept
\nthe  suggestion of Mr. Chatterjee for the respondents  theft
\nthe  compromise operated as an assignment to the  Singhs  by
\nKumar of the latter’s reversion under the “lease granted  to
\nthe  Deoshis and all that the latter did was to\t acknowledge
\nthe Singhs as their landlords and attern to them.  On  tiffs
\nview  it was said that the transaction\t would\t  not\tfall
\nunder\t clause\t (d),  although it would fall under   clause\n<\/p>\n
(b)  but  then would  be  saved\t by the exception in  clause\n<\/p>\n
(vi)  of   sub-section\t(2).\tThe    argument,    however,
\noverlooks that Kumar had leased the area of 5,800 bighas  to
\nthe  Singhs  by his patta dated 11th March,  1921,  and\t the
\ncompromise  by\tproviding  that the Singhs  should  pay\t the
\nreduced\t royalty of 1a. 9p. per ton in respect of the  whole
\narea  preserved\t Kumar’s  reversion intact.   He  could\t not
\ntherefore be deemed to have assigned any part of his  inter-
\nest  in 5,800 bighas as landlord to the Singhs who  continue
\nto  hold the entire extent as tenants under him.   What\t the
\ncompromise  really did was. as stated already, to bring\t the
\nSinghs\tand  the Deoshis into a new  legal  relationship  as
\nunderlessor and under lessee in respect of 500 bighas  which
\nwere  the subject-matter of the title suit; in other  words,
\nits  legal effect was to create a perpetual  underlease\t be-
\ntween  the Singhs and the Deoshis which would  clearly\tfall
\nunder  clause  (d) but for the circumstance that it  was  to
\ntake  effect  only on condition float the  Singhs  paid\t Rs.
\n8,000 to Kumar within 2 months
\n(1) 3 P.L.J. 255
\n840<\/span>
\nthereafter.   As  pointed out by the Judicial  Committee  in
\nHemanta Kumar’s case (1)  “An agreement for a lease, which a
\nlease is by the statute declared to include, must, in  their
\nLordships’  opinion, be a document which effects  an  actual
\ndemise and operates as a lease\t……\tThe phrase which  in
\nthe  context where it occurs and in the statute in which  it
\nis  found,  must in their opinion relate  to  some  document
\nwhich  creates a  present  and\timmediate  interest  in\t the
\nland.” The compromise decree expressly provides that  unless
\nthe sum of Rs. 8,000 was paid within the stipulated time the
\nSinghs were not to execute the decree or to take  possession
\nof the disputed property.  Until the payment was made it was
\nimpossible  to determine whether there would be\t any  under-
\nlease  or not.\tSuch a contingent agreement  is\t not  within
\nclause\t(d)  and although it is covered by  clause  (b).  is
\nexcepted  by clause (vi) of sub-section (‘2).  We  therefore
\nagree  with the conclusion of the High Court though on\tdif-
\nferent grounds and dismiss the appeal with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  Appeal dismisseel.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the appellant: P.K. Chatterjee.
\nAgent for the respondent: Sukumar Ghose.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mangan Lal Deoshi vs Mohammad Moinul Haoque & Others on 1 December, 1950 Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 11, 1950 SCR 833 Author: M P Sastri Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali PETITIONER: MANGAN LAL DEOSHI Vs. RESPONDENT: MOHAMMAD MOINUL HAOQUE & OTHERS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/12\/1950 BENCH: SASTRI, M. PATANJALI BENCH: SASTRI, M. […]<\/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-110876","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMangan Lal Deoshi vs Mohammad Moinul Haoque & Others on 1 December, 1950 - 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\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mangan Lal Deoshi vs Mohammad Moinul Haoque & Others on 1 December, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950\" \/>\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=\"1950-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-26T05:21:20+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mangan Lal Deoshi vs Mohammad Moinul Haoque & Others on 1 December, 1950\",\"datePublished\":\"1950-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-26T05:21:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950\"},\"wordCount\":2351,\"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\\\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950\",\"name\":\"Mangan Lal Deoshi vs Mohammad Moinul Haoque & Others on 1 December, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1950-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-26T05:21:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mangan Lal Deoshi vs Mohammad Moinul Haoque & Others on 1 December, 1950\"}]},{\"@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":"Mangan Lal Deoshi vs Mohammad Moinul Haoque & Others on 1 December, 1950 - 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\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mangan Lal Deoshi vs Mohammad Moinul Haoque & Others on 1 December, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1950-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-26T05:21:20+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mangan Lal Deoshi vs Mohammad Moinul Haoque & Others on 1 December, 1950","datePublished":"1950-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-26T05:21:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950"},"wordCount":2351,"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\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950","name":"Mangan Lal Deoshi vs Mohammad Moinul Haoque & Others on 1 December, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1950-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-26T05:21:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangan-lal-deoshi-vs-mohammad-moinul-haoque-others-on-1-december-1950#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mangan Lal Deoshi vs Mohammad Moinul Haoque & Others on 1 December, 1950"}]},{"@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\/110876","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=110876"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110876\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110876"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110876"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110876"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}