{"id":11855,"date":"1968-07-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-07-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968"},"modified":"2017-08-24T02:28:36","modified_gmt":"2017-08-23T20:58:36","slug":"abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968","title":{"rendered":"Abdul Rahiman Khan vs Sadasiva Tripathi on 15 July, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Abdul Rahiman Khan vs Sadasiva Tripathi on 15 July, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 302, \t\t 1969 SCR (1) 351<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nABDUL RAHIMAN KHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSADASIVA TRIPATHI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/07\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1969 AIR  302\t\t  1969 SCR  (1) 351\n\n\nACT:\nRepresentation\tof  the\t People Act (43\t of  1951),  s.\t 9A-\nContract  with\tGovernment-Not\tentered\t with\tGovernor--If\ndisqualifies.\nConstitution  of India, Art, 229-Contract not  entered\twith\nGovernor--Whether disqualifies under s. 9A Representation of\nthe People Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant's tenders to carry out certain contracts\twith\nthe  State of Orissa were accepted but final contracts\twere\nnot  executed  on behalf of the\t Governor.   The  -appellant\ncarried\t on a part of the work and thereafter requested\t the\nauthorities to cancel the contract without any penalty.\t  No\nacceptance of this offer was communicated to the  appellant.\nThe  appellant wrote letters to the Superintending  Engineer\nfor extension of time and for permission to resume the, work\nand  finish it.\t Shortly thereafter the appellant filed\t his\nnomination  paper  for\ta  seat\t to  the  State\t Legislative\nAssembly,  which  was  rejected.   The\tappellant  filed  an\nelection  petition  for setting, aside the election  of\t the\nrespondent  on\tthe ground that\t the  appellants  nomination\npaper was improperly rejected.\tThe High Court rejected\t the\npetition.\nHELD : The appellant was rightly disqualified.\n(i)  The contract was not wholly performed by the appellant.\nUnless\the  proved  that he had completed  the\tcontract  or\nshowed that there was determination by mutual assent of\t the\ncontract,  the appellant could not claim that there  was  no\nsubsisting  contract  at  the  date of\tthe  filing  of\t the\nnomination  paper.  The conduct of the appellant in  writing\nthe two letters suggested that he did not treat the contract\nas cancelled, nor there was any clear evidence to show\tthat\nthe authorities bad treated the contract as cancelled.\t[356\nC-E]\n(ii) The  contract  resulting  from the\t acceptance  of\t his\ntender\tthough\tnot enforceable by suit\t against  the  State\nGovernment,  because it did not comply with Art. 299 of\t the\nConstitution  must  still be regarded as  disqualifying\t the\nappellant  under  the  Representation  of  People  Act\tfrom\nstanding   as  a  candidate  for  election  to\t the   State\nLegislature. [357 H]\nChatturbhuji   Vithaldas  Jasani V.  Moreshwar\tParashram  &\nOrs.,<\/a>  [1954]  S.C.R. 817 and Lalitesliwar  Prasad  Sahi  v.\nBateshwar Prasad & Ors.,<\/a> [1966] 2 S.C.R. 63, followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1723  of
\n1967.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tunder  section 116-A of the  Representation  of\t the
\nPeople Act, 1951 of the judgment and order dated October 14,
\n1967  of  the Orissa High Court in Election Petition  No.  1
\nof1967.\n<\/p>\n
D.   Goburdhun, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
352<\/span><\/p>\n
C.   B.\t Agarwala, Uma Mehta, S. K. Bagga and S. Bagga,\t for
\nthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShah,  J. At the last general elections, the respondent\t was
\ndeclared elected to the Legislative Assembly of Orissa\tfrom
\nthe Nowrangpur General Constituency.  The appellant filed an
\nelection  petition  before the High Court of Orissa  for  an
\norder setting aside the election of the respondent, on\tthe,
\nground that the appellant’s nomination paper was  improperly
\nrejected  and  he  was illegally deprived of  his  right  to
\ncontest the election.  The High Court rejected the petition.
\nThe  appellant has appealed to this Court under s. 116-A  of
\nthe Representation of the People Act, 1951.
\nIt is common ground that the appellant was carrying on\tthe,
\nbusiness of a building contractor and that in pursuance of a
\nnotification  issued  by  the Government of  Orissa  he\t had
\nsubmitted  tenders  for\t construction of  buildings  of\t the
\nRental Housing Scheme at the rates specified therein.  Those
\ntenders\t were accepted and the appellant had carried  out  a
\npart  of the construction work, but had\t thereafter  stopped
\nthe   work  because  he\t suffered  serious  injuries   which
\nnecessitated  his  detention  in  a  public  hospital.\t The
\nappellant  claimed  that  at his request  the  contract\t was
\ncancelled, and on that account at the date of the filing  of
\nhis  nomination\t there\twas, between him and  the  State  of
\nOrissa\tno  subsisting\tcontract  for  execution  of   works
\nundertaken by him, and that in any event there was in law no
\ncontract between him and the State relating to the execution
\nof  works  which  disqualified\thim  from  standing  at\t the
\nelection as a candidate for a seat in the State\t Legislative
\nAssembly.\n<\/p>\n
In  January 1965 tenders were invited by the  Government  of
\nOrissa\tfor  construction  of  buildings  under\t the  Rental
\nHousing Scheme.\t The tenders submitted by the appellant were
\naccepted  and  on  March 30, 1965,  the\t appellant  and\t the
\nExecutive  Engineer  signed an agreement in Form  K-2.\t The
\nprincipal recitals in the agreements were :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “I   do\thereby\t tender\t  to   execute\t the
\n\t      undermentioned  description of work  by  piece
\n\t      work,  and in accordance with  the  conditions
\n\t      noted before in consideration of payment being
\n\t      made for the quantity of work executed at rate
\n\t      specified in the following schedule.”
\n\t      A schedule of items was appended thereto which
\n\t      was followed by the recital :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “Conditions as per F-2 contract which will  be
\n\t      finalised.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
353<\/span><\/p>\n
The  Executive\tEngineer  then made an\tendorsement  on\t the
\ntenders.   “Accepted by me for item 5 only,”  and  submitted
\nthem to the Superintending Engineer for approval of  “excess
\nitems”.\t Apparently sanction was given by the Superintending
\nEngineer but no formal contracts in Form F-2 were  executed.
\nAdvance\t payments were however made to the  appellant  after
\nexecution  of the agreements in Form K-2 and  the  appellant
\nproceeded  with\t the work of construction.  On\tOctober\t 13,
\n1965   the   appellant\tsuffered  serious   injuries   which
\nnecessitated  his  admission to a public  Hospital  and\t the
\nconstruction work was stopped.\tOn January 6, 1966, the Sub-
\nDivisional Officer, P.W.D. Nowrangpur, addressed a letter to
\nthe  appellant calling upon him to resume work on  or  about
\nthe  January 12, 1960, failing which, he was  informed,\t his
\ncontract  will\tbe  terminated\tand  “measurements  will  be
\nrecorded”.  On February 10, 1966, the appellant addressed  a
\nletter to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. stating that it was
\nnot possible for him to resume the work and to complete\t it,
\nand  he\t requested that the contract  be  cancelled  without
\nimposition of penalty.\tOn the letter of the appellant there
\nare  two endorsements at the foot of the letter\t which\thave
\nbeen marked Ext. 2 (a) and Ext. 2 (b) : Exhibit 2 (a) reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Submitted to the Executive Engineer,  Koraput
\n\t      Division.\t  The  reason  for  terminating\t the
\n\t      contract,\t as  mentioned by Shri A.  R.  Khan,
\n\t      contractor,  is correct.\tHis contract may  be
\n\t      terminated   without  imposing,  penalty\t and
\n\t      permission  given to fake up work through\t job
\n\t      work soon.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Exhibit  2(b) dated March 18, 1966, bears\t the
\n\t      initials of the Executive Engineer, and states
\n\t      :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “I  know of the unfortunate accident.  As\t the
\n\t      applicant\t is still in the Vizag Hospital\t his
\n\t      work  may\t be  finally  measured\tand   closed
\n\t      without penalty.\tThe balance of the work\t may
\n\t      be completed through job work.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nowran Nagpur, wrote a letter on
\nMarch 16, 1955, requesting one Harihar Bisoi pursuant to his
\napplication  dated  March  5, 1966, to take  up\t the  Rental
\nHousing\t Schedule building work at  Nowrangpur\t“immediately
\n,it   current  schedule\t of  rates  after  taking   detailed
\ninstructions  from  the Sectional Officer,  Nowrangpur.”  It
\nappears\t that Harihar Bisoi did some construction work,\t but
\nno payment was made to him and he also stopped the work.
\nThe appellant strongly relies upon the endorsements made  on
\nthe  letter dated February 10. 1966, the letter Ext. 3,\t and
\nthe  evidence of Ram Mohan Patnaik-the\tExecutive  Engineer.
\nRam  Mohan  Patnaik stated that he by his  endorsement\tExt.
\n2(b) on
\n354<\/span>
\nthe  application  dated\t February  10,\t1966,  had   clearly
\ndirected  that the work of the contractor (appellant)  would
\nbe  finally  measured and his contract would be\t treated  as
\nclosed\tand no penalty would be charged from him;  that\t the
\nquestion of accounting had nothing to do with the closing of
\nthe  contract; and that on March 18, 1966, he had passed  an
\norder Ext. 2(b) that the contract was closed.  According  to
\nthe witness closure of the contract was not contingent\tupon
\nthe measurement of the work done by the appellant, and\tthat
\nby  his order dated March 18, 1966 Ext. 2(b)  the  appellant
\nwas  excused  from liability to complete the  work,  as\t the
\ncontract  was rescinded and by implication Ext.\t 2(b)  meant
\nthat the Sub-Divisional Officer would give intimation to the
\ncontractor  about  the cancellation of\this  contract.\t The
\nwitness could not say whether the Sub-Divisional Officer did
\ngive intimation to the contractor.  He asserted that it\t was
\nnot  his intention that job work should be entrusted to\t job
\nworkers\t only  after  the final bill of\t the  appellant\t was
\nsubmitted  : his clear intention was that after\t measurement
\nwas  taken,  the  work\tmay be\tentrusted  to  job  workers.
\nAccording  to  the  witness by Ext.  2(b)  he  accepted\t the
\nincomplete work of the appellant “as a complete satisfaction
\nof his contract.”\n<\/p>\n
This evidence prima facie supports the case of the appellant
\nthat  it  was  the intention of the  Executive\tEngineer  to
\nterminate the contract.\t But there is a mass of evidence  on
\nthe record which shows that no steps were taken to  intimate
\nto  the appellant about the determination of  the  contracts
\nand both the parties treated the contract as subsisting.  To
\nthat  evidence\twe  may\t advert.  On  April  15,  1966,\t the
\nappellant  wrote a letter in reply to a letter\tdated  April
\n13,  1966  from\t the Sub-Divisional  Officer  that  he\t“had
\ncompleted upto slab level the construction of Rental Housing
\nScheme”\t and  that  thereafter he was  lying  injured  in  a
\nhospital  and  that as he had no authorised agents  to\tlook
\nafter further work, early action may be taken to make  final
\nmeasurement  upto slab level and for payment of\t the  amount
\ndue  to\t him.  On December 20, 1966, the appellant  wrote  a
\nletter\tto the Superintending Engineer stating that  he\t had
\nrecovered and was in a position to leave the Hospital and to
\nattend\tto his normal avocation and that he had learnt\tthat
\nthe  Department wanted to cancel his contract and  call\t for
\nnew tenders and had taken some action towards that end.\t  He
\nrequested the Superintending Engineer to desist from such  a
\ncourse\tand to favorably consider his request for  extension
\nof  time  to  complete\tthe work.  He  stated  that  he\t had
\nadvanced  large\t sums of money to the laborers and  for\t the
\nsupply\tof  materials, and there were  large  quantities  of
\nbuilding materials belonging to him which had been lying  at
\nthe  site  of  the work and if his  contracts  “were  to  be
\ncancelled  he would sustain irreparable loss”; that  he\t had
\nalways been a very efficient
\n355<\/span>
\nand good contractor and was executing the works in time\t and
\ndiligently and well; and that he could not complete the work
\ndue to the unfortunate accident.  He then stated :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “I, therefore, request you to kindly grant  me
\n\t      time upto end of March 1967 and I shall resume
\n\t      the  work by about 15th January 1967 and\twill
\n\t      finish it by 31st March, 1967.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The cancellation of my contract at this  stage
\n\t      when nearly 75 % of the work was already\tdone
\n\t      by  me  and the roofing alone  remains  to  be
\n\t      completed and the stoppage of the work was due
\n\t      to  circumstances over which I had no  control
\n\t      due  to  more or less vis major will  be\tmost
\n\t      inequitable  if  not  unjust.  1,\t  therefore,
\n\t      earnestly\t appeal\t to you\t to  sympathetically
\n\t      consider this representation of mine and grant
\n\t      me  time\ttill  end of March  1967  and  order
\n\t      withdrawal   or  cancellation  of\t the   fresh
\n\t\t\t    tenders that might have been called fo
\nr by  the
\n\t      Executive Engineer Koraput.”\n<\/p>\n
At  the foot of the letter there is a notation that  tenders
\nhad  been  called  for\tthe balance  of\t the  work  “as\t per
\ninstructions  of the Executive Engineer, Koraput,  and\tthat
\nthe contract may be rescinded as instructed by the Executive
\nEngineer,  Koraput.  There is another notation : “It  is  an
\nold  case wherein Executive Engineer has already ordered  to
\nclose  the  contract  and do by job  (illegible)  order\t its
\nwithout\t penalty  (illegible)”. There is one  more  notation
\ndated  January\t4, 1967–‘Submitted for\t favour\t of  orders.
\nWhat  penalty is to be imposed in rescinding the  contract.”
\nExhibit\t 13  is a letter dated January 22,  1967,  from\t the
\nAssistant  Engineer,  P.W.D.  Nowrangpur  to  the  Returning
\nOfficer\t which sets out the circumstances in which the\twork
\nentrusted top the appellant was stopped.  The letter  states
\nthat  “the  balance work which was suggested to take  up  on
\njob-work  basis would not affect the accounts of Sri  A.  R.
\nKhan  for his work portion.  The final bills for  his  above
\ntwo works of the aforesaid contractor have been submitted to
\nDivision  Office  vide this office letter Nos. 120  and\t 121
\ndated  18-1-67\tand I have been\t intimated  vide  Divisional
\nletter No. 902 dated 20-1-67 that the said contractor has to
\nreturn 435 bags of cement and 7.954 quintals of rods to\t the
\nundersigned  to finalise his accounts.\tBut no material\t has
\nbeen  returned by the contractor yet and as such it  ensures
\nthat  his accounts have not yet been finalised.” Exhibit  14
\nis  a  letter  dated  January  22,  1967  addressed  to\t the
\nappellant  which also indicates that the P.W.D.\t authorities
\nhad  not  treated  the contract as  cancelled  and  had\t not
\nintimated to him the order made by the Executive Engineer.\n<\/p>\n
356<\/span><\/p>\n
In February 1966 the appellant requested cancellation of the
\ncontract.  The Executive Engineer was willing to accept\t the
\noffer  of  cancellation\t and made  an  endorsement  in\tthat
\nbehalf, but nothing was done thereafter.  Harihar Bisoi\t was
\napparently  asked  to  take up the  work-  “at\tthe  current
\nschedule  of rates”, but even thereafter the  contract\twith
\nthe appellant was not treated as canceled.
\nIt is true that by virtue of the Explanation to s. 9A of the
\nRepresentation of the People Act, where a contract has\tbeen
\nfully  performed by the person by whom it has  been  entered
\ninto with the appropriate Government, the contract Shall  be
\ndeemed\tnot to subsist by reason only of the fact, that\t the
\nGovernment has not performed its part of the contract either
\nwholly or in part.  In the present case the contract was not
\nwholly\tperformed  by  the  appellant,\tand  unless  he\t had
\ncompleted   the\t  contract   or\t showed\t  that\t there\t was
\ndetermination\tby  mutual  assent  of\tthe  contract,\t the
\nappellant cannot claim that there was no subsisting contract
\nat  the\t date  of the filing of the  nomination\t paper.\t  By
\nletter\twritten by the appellant on July 22, 1966, Ext.\t  C,
\nthe  appellant made a request for extension of time  by\t six
\nmonths to enable him to complete the work and by his  letter
\nExt.\tD   dated  December  20,  1966\the   requested\t the
\nSuperintending\tEngineer not to cancel the contract or\tcall
\nfor  new  tenders.  This conduct of  the  appellant  clearly
\nsuggests  that he did not treat the contract  as  cancelled,
\nnor   is  there\t any  clear  evidence  to  show\t “that\t the
\nauthorities had treated the contract as cancelled.  The High
\nCourt was, therefore, right in holding that the case did not
\nfall  within the explanation to s. 9A of the  Representation
\nof the People Act and there was no evidence of determination
\nof the contract by mutual agreement.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel\t for the appellant contended that the  contract\t for
\nexecution  of works was between the State and the  appellant
\nand Art. 299 of the Constitution applied thereto, and  since
\nthe contract was not shown to be executed in the name of the
\nGovernor,  and\tby  an authority competent  to\texecute\t the
\ncontract  on  behalf of the Governor,  the  disqualification
\nunder  s.  9A  did not apply.  By cl. (1) of  Art.  299\t all
\ncontracts  made in the exercise of the execute power of\t the
\nState  must be expressed to be made by the Governor  of\t the
\nState,\tand all such contracts made in the exercise of\tthat
\npower  must  be executed on behalf of the Governor  by\tsuch
\npersons\t and in such manner as he may direct  or  authorise.
\nIt  is true that agreements were executed by  the  Executive
\nEngineer in Form K-2 but no final contracts were executed in
\nForm F-2.  The appellant proceeded on the footing that there
\nwas  a\tbinding contract under which he had  undertaken\t the
\nwork  of  construction\tfor the State,\tand  the  State\t had
\nallowed him to work and had offered to pay him for the\twork
\ndone at the
\n357<\/span>
\nrates  set  out\t in Form K-2.  The appellant  could  not  by
\nvirtue of Art. 299 sue in a civil court on the agreement  in
\nForm  K-2 for compensation for breach of contract.   But  we
\nare  unable to hold that the appellant was not\tdisqualified
\nunder  s. 9A of the Representation of the People Act  merely
\nbecause the contracts were not enforceable against the State
\nbecause of Art. 299 (1) of the Constitution. In\t Chatturbhuj
\nVithaldas Jasani V. Moreshwar Parashram and others<\/a>(1),\tBose
\nJ.,  in\t dealing with a case of disqualification  under\t the
\nRepresentation\tof  the People Act 1951,  resulting  from  a
\ncontract  with the State which is not executed in  the\tform
\nand manner prescribed by Art. 299, observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  may be that Government will not be  bound
\n\t      by  the contract in that case, but that  is  a
\n\t      very  different  thing from  saying  that\t the
\n\t      contracts\t as such are void and of no  effect.
\n\t      It  only\tmeans that the principal  cannot  be
\n\t      sued; but we take it there would be nothing to
\n\t      prevent  ratification, especially if that\t was
\n\t      for the benefit of Government. We\t accordingly
\n\t      hold  that the contracts in question here\t are
\n\t      not  void simply because the Union  Government
\n\t      could not have been sued on them by reason  of
\n\t      Article 299(1).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Undoubtedly  for  breach  of the terms\tof  a  contract\t not
\nexecuted in the manner prescribed by Art. 299 (1) a suit for
\nrelief in a civil court will not lie, but on that account it
\ncannot\tbe  said  That a contract  for\texecution  of  works
\nundertaken  by\ta  person  though  not\texecuted  in  manner
\nprescribed  by\tArt. 299, but which is treated by  both\t the
\nparties\t  thereto   as\tbinding\t will  not  operate   as   a
\ndisqualification.   In\ta recent judgment of this  Court  in
\nLaliteshwar Prasad Sahi v. Batteshwar Prasad and  others<\/a>(1),
\nthis  Court  held that where an agreement for  execution  of
\nwork had been entered into between the State Government\t and
\na private person by correspondence and the State  Government
\nhas  ratified  the agreement and has  treated  the  relation
\nbetween\t  the  parties\tas  contractual\t and  has   accepted
\nliability arising under the terms of the agreement as if  it
\nwere  a\t pending  contract,  a\tdisqualification  under\t the
\nrelevant provisions of the Representation of the People\t Act
\nresults.\n<\/p>\n
As  already  pointed out, the appellant had  commenced\texe-
\ncution\tof the work but had not completed it.\tPayment\t for
\nthe  work done was not made to the appellant.  The  contract
\nwas not determined by mutual agreement nor was it abandoned.
\nThe  contract  resulting from the acceptance of\t his  tender
\nthough not enforceable by suit against the State Government,
\nbe-\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1954] S.C.R. 817.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1966] 2 S.C.R.63
\n358<\/span>
\ncause  it  did\tnot  comply with Art.  299,  must  still  be
\nregarded   as\tdisqualifying  the   appellant\t under\t the
\nRepresentation\tof  the\t People\t Act  from  standing  as   a
\ncandidate for election to the State Legislature.
\nThe appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\t\t\t\t       Appeal dismissed.\n359<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Abdul Rahiman Khan vs Sadasiva Tripathi on 15 July, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 302, 1969 SCR (1) 351 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: ABDUL RAHIMAN KHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: SADASIVA TRIPATHI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/07\/1968 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA CITATION: 1969 AIR 302 1969 SCR […]<\/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-11855","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAbdul Rahiman Khan vs Sadasiva Tripathi on 15 July, 1968 - 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\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdul Rahiman Khan vs Sadasiva Tripathi on 15 July, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968\" \/>\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=\"1968-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-23T20:58:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdul Rahiman Khan vs Sadasiva Tripathi on 15 July, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-23T20:58:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968\"},\"wordCount\":2774,\"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\\\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968\",\"name\":\"Abdul Rahiman Khan vs Sadasiva Tripathi on 15 July, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-23T20:58:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdul Rahiman Khan vs Sadasiva Tripathi on 15 July, 1968\"}]},{\"@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":"Abdul Rahiman Khan vs Sadasiva Tripathi on 15 July, 1968 - 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\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdul Rahiman Khan vs Sadasiva Tripathi on 15 July, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-23T20:58:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdul Rahiman Khan vs Sadasiva Tripathi on 15 July, 1968","datePublished":"1968-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-23T20:58:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968"},"wordCount":2774,"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\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968","name":"Abdul Rahiman Khan vs Sadasiva Tripathi on 15 July, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-23T20:58:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rahiman-khan-vs-sadasiva-tripathi-on-15-july-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdul Rahiman Khan vs Sadasiva Tripathi on 15 July, 1968"}]},{"@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\/11855","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=11855"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11855\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11855"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11855"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11855"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}