{"id":121370,"date":"1980-07-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-07-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980"},"modified":"2016-03-11T10:12:34","modified_gmt":"2016-03-11T04:42:34","slug":"sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980","title":{"rendered":"Sada Kaur vs Bakhtawar Singh And Ors on 24 July, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sada Kaur vs Bakhtawar Singh And Ors on 24 July, 1980<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 2138, \t\t 1981 SCR (1)\t 85<\/div>\n
Author: A Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Gupta, A.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSADA KAUR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBAKHTAWAR SINGH AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT24\/07\/1980\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR 2138\t\t  1981 SCR  (1)\t 85\n 1980 SCC  (4) 174\n\n\nACT:\n     Hindu Law-Dhaliwal\t Jat Sikhs of Muktsar-Widow marrying\nher late  husband's brother-If forfeits life interest in the\nestate of  her deceased\t husband-Riwaj-i-am  and  Rattigan's\nDigest of  customary law in Punjab-In case of conflict which\nshould prevail.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The first three respondents and the deceased husband of\nthe appellant  who were\t Dhaliwal jats\tof Muktsar Tehsil in\nFerozepur District  of Punjab were brothers. After the death\nof her\thusband the appellant married the younger brother of\nher late  husband in  Karewa form. The first two respondents\nfiled a\t suit for  a declaration that having married for the\nsecond time, the appellant had forfeited her interest in her\ndeceased husband's  estate and\tthat they  were entitled  to\ntwo-third share of the land in her possession.\n     The appellant  on the other hand claimed that they were\ngoverned by  customary law  and according  to their custom a\nwidow  marrying\t her  deceased\thusband's  brother  did\t not\nforfeit her  interest in the estate of her deceased husband.\nIn replication\tthe respondents stated that according to the\ncustom governing  Dhaliwal jats\t of Tehsil  Muktsar a  widow\nremarrying even her deceased husband's brother forfeited her\nright in the estate.\n     The trial\tCourt declined to grant the declaration, but\nthe District  Judge allowed the plaintiffs' appeal. The High\nCourt did  not accept the appellant's claim that there was a\nspecial custom.\n     Dismissing the appeal\n^\n     HELD: The\tHigh Court  was right  in holding that there\nwas no\tspecial custom among Dhaliwal jats of Tehsil Muktsar\nwhich permitted\t a widow,  on remarriage  with her  deceased\nhusband's brother,  to retain  her interest in the estate of\nher deceased husband.\n     It is well-known that custom in the Punjab changes from\ndistrict to  district,\ttehsil\tto  tehsil  and\t pargana  to\npargana. [88A]\n     It has  been held\tby this\t Court that  entries in\t the\nriwaj-i-am compiled  in 1915  by Currie, Settlement Officer,\nare relevant  evidence under section 35 of the Evidence Act.\n[88F-G]\n     Mahant Salig  Ram v.  Mst. Maya Devi,<\/a> [1955] 1 SCR 1191\nand Jai\t Kaur and  others v. Sher Singh and others<\/a>, [1960] 3\nSCR 975 referred to.\n     Entry 47 of the riwaj-i-am states that whenever a widow\nre-marries, even  if she marries the brother of her deceased\nhusband, she  loses her\t right\tto  her\t deceased  husband's\nestate and that the estate reverts at once to his agnates.\n86\nAs regards  the effect of re-marriage, all tribes that admit\nwidow re-marriage  agree  that\tno  matter  whom  the  widow\nmarries she  forfeits all  rights to  her deceased husband's\nestate. [89D]\n     Another authoritative  compilation is Rattigan's Digest\nof Customary  Law in the Punjab. But when custom as recorded\nin the\triwaj-i-am is in conflict with the general custom as\nrecorded in  Rattigan's Digest or ascertained otherwise, the\nentries in  the riwaj-i-am would ordinarily prevail. On this\naspect of  the custom  there is\t no conflict between the two\nbecause Rattigan's Digest also states that in the absence of\ncustom, the  re-marriage of  a widow  causes a forfeiture of\nher life  interest in  her first husband's estate which then\nreverts to the nearest heir of the husband. [90E-F]\n     One of  the exceptions recorded to this general custom,\nhowever, is  that among\t certain tribes\t re-marriage in\t the\nKarewa form  with the  brother of  the deceased husband does\nnot cause  a forfeiture\t of the\t widow's life  estate in the\nproperty of  her first husband. But among the cases cited in\nsupport of  the special\t custom relating  to  Sikh  jats  of\ncertain districts  of Punjab there is no mention of Dhaliwal\njats of\t Tehsil Muktsar.  It was  for the first time that in\nthe 12th  edition of  Rattigan's Digest published long after\nhis death  that an  exception was added that by custom among\nthe Sikh  jats of  the Punjab  a widow\tdoes not forfeit her\nlife estate  in her deceased husband's property by reason of\nher remarriage\tin Karewa  form with  her husband's brother,\nwhether he  be the sole surviving brother or there are other\nbrothers as  well of  the deceased.  Sant Singh\t v. Rari Bai\n(AIR 1924  Sindh 17=76\tIndian\tCases  408)  on\t which\tthis\nexception is  purported to  be based  does not\tlay down any\nsuch broad proposition to justify the statement added in the\n12th edition  of Rattigan's  book. In  Sant Singh's case the\nparties were Sikh jats from Jullundur District and Basant v.\nPratap (51  Punjab Record  1911) on  which the\tSant Singh's\ncase  relied  the  parties  were  Sikh\tjats  from  Ludhiana\nDistrict. But  the headnotes  in both cases stated it as the\ncustom \"among  Sikh jats  in the  Punjab\" which\t clearly  is\nwrong. Therefore,  it cannot  be said that there is any real\nconflict between  riwaj-i-am and  Rattigan's Digest  on this\npoint. The  statement in  Charan Singh v. Gurdial Singh, AIR<\/a>\n1961 Punjab  301 that  among  jats  governed  by  custom  in\nmatters\t of   succession  a   widow  marrying  her  deceased\nhusband's brother  remains entitled to collateral succession\nin the\tfamily is too wide having regard to the facts of the\ncase. [90H & 91A-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1057 of
\n1970.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  order dated  3-11-1969  of\t the
\nPunjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 1456\/64.\n<\/p>\n
     S. K. Sinha for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Hardev Singh,  S. K.  Bagga and  Mrs. S.  Bagga for the
\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     GUPTA, J.\tThis appeal  by certificate  granted by\t the
\nPunjab and Haryana High Court is from the judgment of a Full
\nBench  of   that  Court\t answering  the\t following  question
\nreferred to it:\n<\/p>\n
87<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “Whether by  universal custom\t among the Sikh Jats
\n     of the Punjab, a widow does not forfeit her life estate
\n     in her  husband’s property\t by reason of her remarriage
\n     in Karewa\tform with  her husband’s brother, and if so,
\n     whether the custom admits of exceptions among different
\n     tribes of\tSikh Jats  and in  particular among Dhaliwal
\n     Jats of Muktsar Tehsil of Ferozepur District.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The relevant  facts are\t these. The first three respondents,
\nBakhtawar Singh, Jit Singh and Chand Singh, and the deceased
\nhusband of  the\t appellant  Sada  Kaur\twere  brothers.\t The
\nappellant’s husband died sometime in the year 1937 and a few
\nmonths later  she married  the third  respondent Chand Singh
\nwho was a younger brother of her husband in Karewa form. The
\nsuit out  of which  this appeal\t arises was  brought by\t the
\nfirst two  respondents, Bakhtawar  Singh and  Jit Singh,  as
\nplaintiffs for a declaration that they were entitled to two-
\nthird share  of\t the  land  in\tpossession  of\tthe  present
\nappellant  Sada\t Kaur  which  belonged\tto  the\t appellant’s
\ndeceased husband. Appellant Sada Kaur and her second husband
\nChand Singh  were  impleaded  as  defendant  Nos.  1  and  2
\nrespectively. The plaintiffs’ case was that Sada Kaur having
\nmarried for  the second\t time had  forfeited her interest in
\nher deceased husband’s estate. The parties are Dhaliwal Jats
\nof Muktsar  Tehsil in  the Ferozepur  District of Punjab. In
\nher written  statement Sada  Kaur pleaded  that the  parties
\nwere governed by customary law and according to their custom
\na widow\t marrying her  deceased husband’s  brother  did\t not
\nforfeit her  interest in the estate of her deceased husband.
\nThe plaintiffs filed a replication stating that according to
\nthe custom  governing Dhaliwal\tJats of\t Tehsil\t Muktsar,  a
\nwidow on  remarrying even  her\tdeceased  husband’s  brother
\nforfeited her  right in\t the estate.  The only question that
\narises for  consideration in  the present  appeal is whether
\nthere  is  a  custom  governing\t the  parties  to  the\tsuit
\naccording to  which on\tremarriage the\twidow  forfeits\t her
\ninterest in the estate of her deceased husband as claimed by
\nthe  plaintiffs.   The\ttrial  court  declined\tto  grant  a
\ndeclaration as\tasked for by the plaintiffs who preferred an
\nappeal to  the District\t Judge which  was allowed. Sada Kaur
\ntook a\tsecond appeal  to the  High  Court  challenging\t the
\ndecision of  the lower\tappellate court.  The learned single
\nJudge before  whom the second appeal came up for hearing was
\ninclined to  accept the\t plaintiffs’ case  and\tdismiss\t the
\nappeal but felt that a Full Bench of three learned Judges of
\nthe Punjab  High Court\tin an  earlier case, Charan Singh v.
\nGurdial Singh<\/a>(1)  appeared to  have taken a contrary view on
\nthe question  and referred  the appeal\tto a larger bench. A
\nDivision Bench\tof the\tHigh Court  thereafter referred\t the
\ncase to\t a Full\t Bench of five Judges and it is the Judgment
\nof this Full Bench that is under appeal before us.\n<\/p>\n
88<\/span><\/p>\n
     In Mara  and others  v. Nikko  and others<\/a>(1) this Court
\nobserved that  it is “well known” that “custom in the Punjab
\nchanges from  District to  District, Tehsil  to\t Tehsil\t and
\nPargana to Pargana”. The judgment under appeal relies mainly
\non the\triwaj-i-am of Ferozepur District compiled in 1915 by
\nM. M.  L. Currie,  Settlement Officer. The evidentiary value
\nof the\tentries in the riwaj-i-am has been discussed in more
\nthan one decision of this Court. In Mohant Salig Ram v. Mst.
\nMaya Devi<\/a>(2) it was held:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “There is  no doubt  or dispute as to the value of
\n     the entries  in the riwaj-i-am. It is well settled that
\n     though they  are entitled\tto an initial presumption in
\n     favour  of\t  their\t correctness   irrespective  of\t the
\n     question whether  or not the custom, as recorded, is in
\n     accord with the general custom, the quantum of evidence
\n     necessary to rebut that presumption will, however, vary
\n     with the facts and circumstances of each case. Whether,
\n     for instance,  the riwaj-i-am  lays down  a  custom  in
\n     consonance with  the general agricultural custom of the
\n     province,\tvery  strong  proof  would  be\trequired  to
\n     displace that  presumption; but  whether, on  the other
\n     hand, the\tcustom as  recorded  in\t the  riwaj-i-am  is
\n     opposed  to   the\tcustom\t generally  prevalent,\t the
\n     presumption will  be considerably\tweakened,  likewise,
\n     whether the  riwaj-i-am affects adversely the rights of
\n     the  families   who  had  no  opportunity\twhatever  of
\n     appearing\t before\t  the\trevenue\t  authorities,\t the
\n     presumption  will\tbe  weaker  still  and\tonly  a\t few
\n     instances would be sufficient to rebut it.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There is  however no material to suggest that the riwaj-i-am
\nin this case suffers from any such infirmity.\n<\/p>\n
     In Jai Kaur and others v. Sher Singh and others<\/a>(3) this
\nCourt has said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The\tvalue  of  entries  in\tthe  riwaj-i-am\t has
\n     ………. been  repeatedly  stressed.  That  they\t are
\n     relevant evidence\tunder section 35 of the Evidence Act
\n     is clear  and the fact that the entries therein are the
\n     result of careful research of persons who might also be
\n     considered to  have become\t experts in  these  matters,
\n     after an open and public inquiry has given them a value
\n     which should  not be  lightly under-estimated. There is
\n     therefore an  initial  presumption\t of  correctness  as
\n     regards the entries in the riwaj-i-am…..”
\n     Question No. 47 of Currie’s compilation reads:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
89<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “What is  the effect\tof unchastity upon the right
\n     of a widow to the estate of her deceased husband ? What
\n     is the effect of her remarriage ?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The answer  to the  question in\t so far\t as  it\t deals\twith
\nremarriage is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “At last settlement Mr. Francis wrote: `unchastity
\n     or remarriage  deprives a\twidow of  her right  to\t the
\n     property’. The  Muktsar Code  gives a  similar  answer.
\n     ……. Further (on page 124) it says: Whenever a widow
\n     remarries,\t even  if  she\tmarry  the  brother  of\t her
\n     deceased husband,\tshe loses  her right to her deceased
\n     husband’s estate,\twhich reverts at once to his agnates
\n     (mostly  Sikh   Jats,  Kumhar,  Khatri,  Lohar,  Bodla,
\n     Chishti, Wattu).  If a  son-less widow in possession of
\n     her husband’s  estate marries his brother, she is often
\n     allowed  to   remain  in  possession  of  her  deceased
\n     husband’s\testate\t for  her  life\t time  (Bagri  jats,
\n     Musalman jats and Rajputs) …… As regards the effect
\n     of remarriage,  all tribes\t that admit widow remarriage
\n     agree that\t no  matter  whom  the\twidow  marries,\t she
\n     forfeits all rights to her deceased husband’s estate.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The answer  is followed\t by a  note recorded by the compiler
\nsaying: “Despite  the rulings  to the  contrary ……\tI am
\nconvinced that\tthe above answer is a true exposition of the
\ncustom”. The rulings to the contrary which relate to jats of
\nFerozepur District  are: Didar\tSingh  v.  Mst.\t Dharmon(1),
\nPunjab Singh  v. Mst.  Chandi(2) and  Mst. Indi\t v.  Bhangra
\nSingh(3). Out  of these three cases again only Didar Singh’s
\ncase relates  to Dhaliwal jats. The impugned judgment points
\nout that  as against  these cases  the\triwaj-i-am  mentions
\nnumerous instances, 59 of them relate to Jats, which support
\nthe compiler’s\tnote that  on remarriage, no matter whom she
\nmarries, the  widow  forfeits  her  right  to  her  deceased
\nhusband’s estate.  There are  also three  instances  wherein
\nremarriage did\tnot result  in\tforfeiture  of\tthe  widow’s
\nright. Didar Singh’s case which relates to Dhaliwal jats was
\nof the\tyear  1888.  The  impugned  judgment  mentions\tfour
\ninstances  from\t  the  riwaj-i-am   of\tthe   years  1911-12
\nsupporting the\tcase of\t forfeiture. No\t instance  has\tbeen
\nfound  either  way  relating  to  Dhaliwal  jats  of  Tehsil
\nMuktsar. However,  these four  instances relate\t to Dhaliwal
\njats of\t Tehsil Mogha which is adjacent to Muktsar. On these
\nfacts and  figures gathered from the entries in the riwaj-i-
\nam, the\t High Court  did not find it possible to accept that
\nthere was a special custom among Dhaliwal
\n90<\/span>
\njats of\t Tehsil Muktsar\t which permitted a widow who married
\nher deceased husband’s brother to retain her interest in her
\ndeceased husband’s estate.\n<\/p>\n
     In reaching  this conclusion  the learned Judges had to
\ndeal with the earlier Full Bench decision of three Judges of
\nthe same  High Court,  Charan Singh v. Gurdial Singh<\/a> (supra)
\nin which  the view  taken by the majority, one learned Judge
\ndissenting, is apparently in conflict with that taken in the
\njudgment under\tappeal. In  Charan Singh’s  case it was held
\nthat as\t regards jats  governed\t by  custom  in\t matters  of
\nsuccession, a  widow on\t remarrying her\t deceased  husband’s
\nbrother remains\t entitled to  collateral succession  in\t the
\nfamily. The  parties in\t that case  were  jats\tfrom  Ambala
\nDistrict, and remembering that custom in Punjab often varies
\nfrom district to district and tehsil to tehsil, it seems the
\nproposition was\t stated too  broadly in\t Charan Singh’s case
\nsuggesting as  if this\twas the custom among the jats in the
\nentire State  of Punjab. The basis of the decision in Charan
\nSingh’s case  is a  statement in Sir W. H. Rattigan’s Digest
\nof Customary  Law in  the Punjab. The authoritative value of
\nRattigan’s compilation\thas been  recognised  by  the  Privy
\nCouncil in  Mst. Subhani  v. Nawab(1) and also by this Court
\nin Mahant  Salig Ram  v. Mst. Maya Devi<\/a> (supra) and Jai Kaur
\nv. Sher\t Singh<\/a> (supra).\t In Jai\t Kaur’s case  however it was
\nheld that  “when the custom as recorded in the riwaj-i-am is
\nin  conflict   with  the   general  custom  as\trecorded  in
\nRattigan’s Digest  or ascertained  otherwise, the entries in
\nthe riwaj-i-am should ordinarily prevail……” Paragraph 32
\nof Rattigan’s  Digest on  which Charan\tSingh’s case  relies
\nstates: “In the absence of custom, the remarriage of a widow
\ncauses a  forfeiture  of  her  life-interest  in  her  first
\nhusband’s estate  which then  reverts to the nearest heir of
\nthe husband”.  It is  thus clear  that there  is no conflict
\nbetween the  statement in Rattigan’s Digest and the entry in
\nriwaj-i-am as  regards the general custom that remarriage of
\nthe widow  entails a forfeiture of her interest in her first
\nhusband’s estate.  However, a  number of  exceptions to this
\ngeneral custom have also been recorded. Exception 1 which is
\nrelevant for  the present  purpose  is\tas  follows:  “Among
\ncertain tribes\ta remarriage  in the  Karewa form  with\t the
\nbrother of  the deceased husband does not cause a forfeiture
\nof the\twidow’s life  estate in\t the property  of her  first
\nhusband.” The  cases cited  in support of the special custom
\nrelate to  Sikh jats  of certain districts of Punjab, namely
\nSirsa, Amritsar, Ferozepur and Ludhiana. There is no mention
\nin this catalogue of Dhaliwal jats of Tehsil Muktsar. It was
\nfor the\t first time  in the  12th edition of Rattigan’s book
\nwhich was  published long  after Sir  Rattigan’s death,\t the
\nfollowing statement was added: “By custom among the
\n91<\/span>
\nSikh jats  of the  Punjab a  widow does not forfeit her life
\nestate in  her deceased\t husband’s property by reason of her
\nremarriage  in\tKarewa\tform  with  her\t husband’s  brother,
\nwhether he  be the sole surviving brother or there are other
\nbrothers as  well of  the deceased.” A decision of the Sindh
\nJudicial Commissioner’s\t Court, Sant  Singh v.\tRani Bai(1),
\nhas been  cited there  in support  of the  statement. It has
\nbeen pointed  out very\tclearly by  the learned Judge in his
\norder by  which he  referred the case to a larger bench that
\nSant  Singh’s\tcase  does  not\t lay  down  any\t such  broad
\nproposition to\tjustify the  statement\tadded  in  the\t12th
\nedition of Rattigan’s book. The mistake results from relying
\non the\thead note  of the  case as  appearing in  the Indian
\nCases as  also in  the All India Reporter. Sant Singh’s case
\nin which  the parties were Sikh jats from Jullundur District
\nrelies on  a decision  of the Punjab Chief Court: “In Basant
\nv. Pratapa(2)  a judgment of Punjab Chief Court, it was held
\nthat among the Sikh jats in the District of Ludhiana a widow
\ndoes not  forfeit her  life estate in her deceased husband’s
\nproperty by reason of her remarriage in Karewa form with her
\nhusband’s brother  whether he  be the sole surviving brother
\nor there  are other  brothers as well of the deceased.” What
\nis found  there as  the custom\t“among the  Sikh Jats in the
\nDistrict of  Ludhiana” appears\tin the head notes of the two
\nreports as  the custom\t“among Sikh  Jats  in  the  Punjab”.
\nClearly, the  head notes  are wrong  and do  not set out the
\ndecision correctly.  That being\t so, it\t cannot be said that
\nthere is  any  real  conflict  between\tthe  riwaj-i-am\t and
\nRattigan’s Digest  on this point. In any event the statement
\ncannot be attributed to Sir Rattigan.\n<\/p>\n
     Five learned  Judges of  the Punjab  and  Haryana\tHigh
\nCourt composing the Full Bench, after a close examination of
\nthe  available\t material  on  the  question  whether  among
\nDhaliwal jats  of Tehsil  Muktsar there\t is a special custom
\nwhich permits  a  widow\t on  remarriage\t with  her  deceased
\nhusband’s brother  to retain  her interest  in the estate of
\nthe deceased, have answered the question in the negative. On
\nthe material before us we find no reason to take a different
\nview. The facts and figures gathered from the entries in the
\nriwaj-i-am have\t not been  challenged by the appellant, that
\nthe statement  introduced in  the 12th edition of Rattigan’s
\nDigest is  wrong cannot\t also be  questioned.  We  therefore
\ndismiss the  appeal but\t in the\t circumstances of  the\tcase
\nwithout any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n92<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sada Kaur vs Bakhtawar Singh And Ors on 24 July, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 2138, 1981 SCR (1) 85 Author: A Gupta Bench: Gupta, A.C. PETITIONER: SADA KAUR Vs. RESPONDENT: BAKHTAWAR SINGH AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT24\/07\/1980 BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. UNTWALIA, N.L. CITATION: 1980 AIR 2138 1981 […]<\/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-121370","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSada Kaur vs Bakhtawar Singh And Ors on 24 July, 1980 - 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\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sada Kaur vs Bakhtawar Singh And Ors on 24 July, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980\" \/>\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=\"1980-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-11T04:42:34+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\\\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sada Kaur vs Bakhtawar Singh And Ors on 24 July, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-11T04:42:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980\"},\"wordCount\":2335,\"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\\\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980\",\"name\":\"Sada Kaur vs Bakhtawar Singh And Ors on 24 July, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-11T04:42:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sada Kaur vs Bakhtawar Singh And Ors on 24 July, 1980\"}]},{\"@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":"Sada Kaur vs Bakhtawar Singh And Ors on 24 July, 1980 - 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\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sada Kaur vs Bakhtawar Singh And Ors on 24 July, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-11T04:42:34+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\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sada Kaur vs Bakhtawar Singh And Ors on 24 July, 1980","datePublished":"1980-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-11T04:42:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980"},"wordCount":2335,"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\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980","name":"Sada Kaur vs Bakhtawar Singh And Ors on 24 July, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-11T04:42:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sada-kaur-vs-bakhtawar-singh-and-ors-on-24-july-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sada Kaur vs Bakhtawar Singh And Ors on 24 July, 1980"}]},{"@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\/121370","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=121370"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121370\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121370"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121370"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121370"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}