{"id":123201,"date":"1962-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-12-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962"},"modified":"2018-03-29T08:10:28","modified_gmt":"2018-03-29T02:40:28","slug":"pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962","title":{"rendered":"Pearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Pearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1703, \t\t 1963 SCR Supl. (2) 834<\/div>\n
Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n
Bench: Subbarao, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPEAREY LAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAMESHWAR DAS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n10\/12\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nKAPUR, J.L.\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR 1703\t\t  1963 SCR  Supl. (2) 834\n\n\nACT:\nHindu  Will-Widow devisee-Construction of will-Use  of\tword\n'Malik',  if conveyed absolute ownership--Indian  Succession\nAct, 1925 (39 of 1925), ss. 75, 82, 86.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn  the\t year  1897,  one  Girdhari  Lal  executed  a\twill\nbequething  his\t property to his wife Mst.  Kishen  Dei\t and\nadopted\t son.\tThe adopted son\t predeceased  Girdhari\tLal.\nAfter the death of Girdhari Lai his wife executed a will be-\nquething  the  property in dispute i. e. the  house  to\t her\nbrother's grandson, the respondent, The appellant who was in\noccupation of a portion of the said house refused to execute\na lease deed in favour of the respondent or pay him the rent\nafter the death of Mst.\t Kishen Dei.  The respondent filed a\nsuit  for  eviction against the\t appellant.   The  appellant\ndenied\tthe title of the respondent as Mst.  Kishen Dei\t did\nnot  get an absolute interest under the will of her  husband\nand  pleaded that Girdhari Lal; dedicated the said house  to\none  Shiv Temple by executing a will and appointed him as  a\ntrustee.   The\tSubordinate  judge  decreed  the   plaintiff\nrespondent suit.  On appeal the District judge set aside the\ndecree\tof  the Subordinate judge and  dismissed  the  suit,\nholding\t that under the will of 1897, Kishen Dei got only  a\nlimited estate.\t The plaintiff-respondent preferred a second\nappeal\tto  the High Court and the decree  of  the  District\njudge  was set aside and that of the Subordinate  judge\t was\nrestored  and  on construction of the will of 1897  it\theld\nthat  as  the gift over failed, the life  estate  became  an\nabsolute  estate  and she got an absolute  interest  in\t the\nproperty.   The appellant preferred a Letters Patent  appeal\nbefore the Division Bench of the High Court and the judgment\nof the Single judge was confirmed.\nHeld,  that  in construing a will the court should  try\t its\nbest  to  get  at : (i) the intention  of  the\ttestator  by\nreading\t  the  will  as\t a  whole  and\tif  possible,\tsuch\nconstruction  as would give to every expression some  effect\nrather\tthan that which could render any of  the  expression\ninoperative  must be accepted;(ii) another rule is that\t the\nwords  occurring more than once in a will shall be  presumed\nto be used always in the same sense\n 835\nunless a contrary intention appears from the will; (iii) all\nparts  of  a will should be construed in  relation  to\teach\nother; (iv) the court will - look at the circumstances under\nwhich the testator makes his will, such as the state of\t his\nproperty,  of his family and the like; (v) where  apparently\nconflicting  dispositions can be reconciled by\tgiving\tfull\neffect to every word used in a document, such a construction\nshould\tbe accepted instead of a. construction\twhich  would\nhave  the  effect of cutting down the clear meaning  of\t the\nwords  used  by\t the testator; (vi) where  one\tof  the\t two\nresonable construction would lead to intestacy, that  should\nbe  discarded  in favour of a construction  which  does\t not\ncreate any such hiatus.\nOn  the above rule of construction, under the  present\twill\nthe  gift  over\t in favour of the son was  only\t by  way  of\ndefeasance and the widow had got an obsolute interest in the\nproperty.\nSubbamma  v.  Ramanaidu,  A.  1.  R.  1937  Mad.  476,\tdis-\ntinguished.\nHeld,  further,\t that the expression 'Malik' has  been\tcon-\nsistently  understood  by courts as conveying  the  idea  of\nabsolute ownership and therefore, the testator used the word\n'Malik' to describe his absolute interest in the property.\nSasiman\t Chowdhurain v. Shiv Narain Chaudhury, (1921) L.  R.\n49 I. A. 25 and Ram Gopal v. Nand Lal,<\/a> [1950] S. C. R.\t766,\nrelied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTICN : Civil Appeal No. 338\/1960.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nAugust 31, 1951, of the Punjab High Court in Letters  Patent
\nAppeal No. 64 of 1949.\n<\/p>\n
S. P. Verma, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Bishan Narain and A. D. .Mathur, for the respondent.
\n1962.  December 10.  The judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nSUBBA  RAO,  J.-This  appeal  raises  the  question  of\t the
\nconstruction  of a will executed by one Girdhari Lal in\t the
\nyear 1897.\n<\/p>\n
836<\/span><\/p>\n
Girdhari  Lal, a resident of Delhi.. executed a\t will  dated
\nFebruary 8, 1897, bequeathing his property, both movable and
\nimmovable,  to his wife, Mst.  Kishen Dei, and adopted\tson.
\nThe  adopted son predeceased Girdhari Lal.  After the  death
\nof  Girdhari  Lal in 1923, Mst.\t Kishen Dei exeuted  a\twill
\ndated  October 8, 1941, bequeathing the property in  dispute
\ni.  e., house No. 2045, situate in Delhi, to  her  brother’s
\ngrandson,  Rameshwar  Dass.   One  Peraeylal,  who  is\t the
\ndefendant in this case, has been in occupation of a  portion
\nof  the\t said house.  After the death of Mst.\tKishen\tDei,
\nPeareylal  refused  to\texecute a lease deed  in  favour  of
\nRameshwar Dass or pay him the rent in respect of the portion
\nof the house occupied by him.  Rameshwar Dass had  therefore
\nto file a suit in the Court of the Subordinate judge, Delhi,
\nfor  evicting  the defendant from the portion of  the  house
\noccupied  by him.  The defendant, inter alia,  pleaded\tthat
\nthe  plaintiff\thad no title to the said property,  as\tMst.
\nKishen\tDei did not get an absolute interest  therein  under
\nthe  will of her husband; he further pleaded  that  Girdhari
\nLal  during  his lifetime dedicated the said house  under  a
\nwill  executed by him to Shiv Temple in Gali  Patashe  Minor
\nand  appointed\thim to be trustee of the  said\thouse.\t The
\nlearned Subordinate judge found that under the will executed
\nby  Girdhari Lal, Mst.\tKishen Dei got an absolute  interest
\nin the house.  He further found that the will set up by\t the
\ndefendant whereunder he claimed that the house was dedicated
\nto  the said Minor had not been proved and on the date\twhen
\nit  was alleged to have been executed, Girdhari Lal was\t not
\nof sound mind.\tIn the result, he made a decree in favour of
\nthe  plaintiff.\t On appeal the learned District\t judge\theld
\nthat  tinder  the  will of 1897 executed  by  Girdhari\tLal,
\nKishen\tDei  got only a limited estate and,  therefore,\t she
\ncould not under a will confer any interest on the plaintiff.
\nIn  that view, he did not give his finding on  the  question
\nwhether the will set up by the defendant
\n 837<\/span>
\nwas  true and valid.  The decree of the learned\t Subordinate
\njudge  was  set\t aside\tand the\t suit  was  dismissed.\t The
\nplaintiff  preferred  a second appeal to the High  Court  of
\nEast Punjab at Simla.  Khosla J. held, on a construction  of
\nthe will of 1897, that under the said will the testator give
\na life interest to Mst.\t Kishen Dei and made a gift over  to
\nthe  adopted  son;  but as the gift over  failed,  the\tlife
\nestate became an absolute estate under s. 112 of the  Indian
\nSuccession  Act.   Alternatively he also found that  on\t the
\nwording\t of  the  will\tMst.  Kishen  Dei  got\tan  absolute
\ninterest  in the property.  In the result he set  aside\t the
\ndecree\tof  the\t -District judge and restored  that  of\t the
\nSubordinate judge.  It may be nociced at this stage that  no
\nargument  was  made before Khosla, J.,\tthat  the  defendant
\nacquired  a  title  to\tthe portion of\tthe  house  under  a
\nsubsquent  will executed by Girdhari La]; presumbly in\tview
\nof  the finding given by the learned Subordinate Judge\tthat
\nthe executant was not of sound mind at the time the will was
\nalleged\t to  have  been executed, no  attempt  was  made  to
\nsustain its execution or validity.  The defendant  preferred
\na  Letters  Patent  Appeal against the said  judgment  to  a
\ndivision Bench of the same High Court.\tThe said appeal\t was
\ndisposed  of by Weston, C.J., and Falshaw, T. Weston, C\t J.,
\nwho delivered the judgment on behalf of the Bench, held on a
\nconstruction  of the will of 1897 that the intention of\t the
\ntestator  should be taken to be that at any rate on  failure
\nof  the\t bequest  to Nathi Mal, the  testator’s\t widow\tMst.
\nKishen Dei should take an absolute interest in his property.
\nThe  division Bench confirmed the judgment of Khosla, J.  It
\nmay again be noticed that even before the Division Bench the
\ndefendant  did not rely upon the will alleged to  have\tbeen
\nexecuted by Girdhari Lal in his favour.\t The present  appeal
\nhas been filed by special leave against the said judgment.
\nMr. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant,
\n838<\/span>
\nraised before us the following two points :
\n(1)On a true construction of the. will of 1897 executed by
\nGirdhari  Lal,\tMst.   Kishen Dei only\tgot  a\tlife  estate
\nthereunder  and,  therefore, the plaintiff did not  get\t any
\ntitle to the property under the will executed by her in\t his
\nfavour. (2) The High Court went wrong in not considering and
\ngiving\ta finding on the question of the truth and  validity
\nof the will alleged to have been executed by Girdhari Lal in
\ndefendant’s favour.\n<\/p>\n
As  the\t first question turns upon the construction  of\t the
\nwill excuted by Girdhari Lal in 1897, it will be  convenient
\nto read the relevant part thereof.Ex. P-1    is\t  the\twill
\nexecuted by him on February   8,  1897.\t  After\t the   usual
\npreamble that appears inwills,\t the  testor  proceeds\t to
\nstate-\n<\/p>\n
“Further, I have reached the age of nearly 50 years and with
\nmy  consent Nathi Mal a boy of 7 years has been adopted\t and
\nan agreement has been got written from his father Bega\tMal.
\nNow my wife Mst.  Kishen Dei daughter of Bega Mal is  living
\nand  I have got one storeyed house situated in the  City  of
\nDelhi,\tBazar  Khari Baoli, inside Gali\t Batashan  and\tsome
\ngoods,\tand  my\t belongings are\t in  my\t possession  without
\npartncrship with anybody else.\tAs long as I the testator am
\nalive, I shall remain malik of entire movable and  immovable
\nproperty and am entitled to do whatever I wish to do.\tWhen
\nI die then Mst.\t Kishen Dei, my wife, and after the death of
\nthe  said Mussammat, my adopted son Nathi Mal,\twill  become
\nMalik  of  all\tmy movable and\timmovable  property  without
\npartnership with anybody.  The said Mst.  Kishen Dei  should
\nlive  in  this\thouse and said Nathi Mal will  get  all\t the
\nproprietary rights just like
\n 839<\/span>
\nthe testator.  And no relation of mine has and will have any
\nkind  of claim to my movable and immovable property left  by
\nme.”\n<\/p>\n
It must be conceded that there is some conflict of ideas  in
\nthe  document; but in constructing a will executed  in\t1897
\nthe court should try its best to get at the intention of the
\ntestator by reading the will as a whole.  We must accept, if
\npossible,   such   construction\t as  would-give\t  to   every
\nexpression some effect rather than that which ‘Would  render
\nany  of the expression inoperative.  Another rule which\t may
\nalso  be useful in the context of the present will  is\tthat
\nthe  words  occurring  more than once in  a  will  shall  be
\npresumed  to  be  used always in the  same  sense  unless  a
\ncontrary intention appears from the will : see s. 86 of\t the
\nIndian\tSuccession Act.\t So too, all parts of a will  should
\nbe  construed in relation to each other : vide s. 82 of\t the
\nsaid Act.  It is also a well recognized rule of construction
\nthat  the court will look at the circumstances\tunder  which
\nthe  testator makes his will, such as the state of his\tpro-
\nperty,\tof his family and the like : see s. 75 of  the\tsaid
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
The  circumstances under which the will was executed by\t the
\ntestator may be gathered from the will itself.\tThe testator
\nhad  a\twife  and  an adoptcd son.  He\thad  no\t other\tnear
\nrelations  to  be  provided for.  The only  objects  of\t his
\nattachment and love were his wife and the minor adopted boy.
\nHe  was\t anxious to provide for both of\t them.\t His  object
\ncould be achieved in three ways, namely, (i) by conferring a
\nlife estate in his property on his wife and giving a  vested
\nremainder  in the same to his adpoted son; (ii) by making  a
\njoint bequest to both of them; and (iii) by making a bequest
\nof an absolute interest to his wife with a gift over to\t his
\nson operating by way of defeasance.  Learned counsel for the
\nappellant relies upon the following passage
\n840<\/span>
\nin the will : “The said Mst.  Kishen Dei should live in this
\nhouse and said Nathi Mal will get all the proprietary rights
\njust like the testator, in support Of the contention that in
\nthis senterce the testator made a clear distinction  between
\nthe nature of the estate given to the wife and that given to
\nthe  son.  He contends that the direction that Mst.   Kishen
\nDei  should  only  live\t in the\t house\tindicates  that\t her
\ninterest  was only a life interest in the house whereas\t the
\ndirection  that\t Nathi\tMal should be in the  place  of\t the
\ntestator  indicates  that he had absolute rights  which\t the
\nfather had.  If this sentence is disannexed from the rest of
\nthe document, it may lend some colour to the said  argument;
\nbut in the context of the other recitals in the document, it
\nfits  in  the scheme of bequest clearely  expressed  by\t the
\ntestator.   The\t testator  described  his  interest  in\t the
\nproperty thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “I  shall remain Malik of entire\tmovable\t and
\n\t      immovable\t property  and\tam  entitled  to  do
\n\t      whatever\tI wish to do.  When I die then\tMst.
\n\t      Kishen Dei, my wife and after the death of the
\n\t      said Mussammat, my adopted son Nathi Mal, will
\n\t      become  malik of all my movable and  immovable
\n\t      property without partnership with anybody.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is not disputed, and it cannot be disputed, that the said
\ndescription  of his right is that of an\t absolute  interest.
\nThe  expression “malik” has a well-known connotation and  it
\nhas found judicial recongnition in various decisions of High
\nCourts\tand the Privy Council.\tIt may not be a term of\t art
\nbut  is a word of definite content that has become  part  of
\nthe  vocabulary\t of  the  common  man  and  particularly  of
\ndocument  writers.  When the testator used the said word  he\n<\/p>\n
-must  have intended to convey the accepted meaning  of\t the
\nsaid word.  In Sasiman Chowdhurain v. Shib Narayan Chowdhury
\n(1) the
\n(1)(1921) L.R. 49 I.A 25, 35,
\n 841<\/span>
\nPrivy Council said that the term “malik” when used in a will
\nor  other  document is descriptive of the position  which  a
\ndivisee\t or donee is intended to hold and has been held\t apt
\nto describe an owner possessed of full proprietary  -rights,
\nincluding  a  full  right of  alienation,  unless  there  is
\nsomething in the context or in the surrounding circumstances
\nto  indicate  that  such full proprietary  rights  were\t not
\nintended to be conferred.  This Court, in Ram Gopal v.\tNand
\nLal<\/a> (1), accepted the said observations of the Privy Council
\nas a correct statement of la”,, but added that it should  be
\ntaken  with  the  caution  which  the  ..Judicial  Committee
\nuttered in the course of the same observation, namely,\tthat
\n“the meaning of every word in an Indian document must always
\ndepend\tupon the setting in which it is placed, the  subject
\nto which it is related and the locality of the grantor\tfrom
\nwhich  it  receives its true shade of meaning.”\t It  is\t not
\nnecessary to multiply decisions, as the expression  “‘malik”
\nhas been consistently understood by courts as conveying\t the
\nidea  of  absolute ownership.  It must, therefore,  be\theld
\nthat  the  testator used the word “malik”  to  describe\t his
\nabsolute  interest in the property.  Apart from the  meaning
\ngenerally given to this word, the testator himself furnished
\na  dictionary  for interpreting the said term in  the  will.
\nWith  the knowledge of the meaning of the word\t“malik”\t the
\ntestator proceeded to describe the interest conferred on his
\nwife  in  the  same terms, namely, that\t she  should  become
\n“malik”\t without  partnership  with anybody.   If  the\twill
\nstopped there, there could not have been any controversy  as
\nregards\t the  nature  of  the  bequest.\t  But  the  testator
\nproceeded  to  state that after the death of his  wife,\t his
\nadopted\t son would become “malik” without  partnership\twith
\nanybody.   The\twords must bear the same meaning  i.e.,\t the
\ntestator  intended  that after the death of  his  wife,\t his
\nadopted\t son  should  become  the  absolute  owner  of\t the
\nproperty.   These  two\tbequests prima facie  appear  to  be
\ninconsistent with each other, for
\n(1)  [1950] S C,R. 766, 773.\n<\/p>\n
842<\/span><\/p>\n
there  are  two absolute bequests of the  same\tproperty  in
\nfavour\tof his wife and, after her death, in favour  of\t his
\nson.   Two constructions are possible, one is to accept\t the
\nfirst  and  negative  the second on the ground\tthat  it  is
\nrepugnant  to the first; the other is to make an attempt  to
\nreconcile  both in a way legally permissible.  Both  can  be
\nreconciled  and full meaning given to all the words used  by
\nthe  testator,\tif  it be held that there  was\tan  absolute
\nbequest in favour of the wife with a gift over to operate by
\nway  of defeasance, that is to say, if the son survived\t the
\nwife,  the absolute interest of the wife would be  cut\tdown
\nand the son would take an absolute interest in the same.  If
\nthat was the construction, the statement in the will  relied
\nupon  by  learned counsel for the appellant  could  also  be
\nreconciled  with such a bequest.  That statement recorded  a
\nwish on the part of the testator that his wife should reside
\nin  the\t house,\t for he wanted his minor  son  and  wife  to
\ncontinue  to  live  in his house.  The second  part  of\t the
\nstatement  also\t recorded a wish on his part that  his\twife
\nshould\tkeep the property intact and hand over the  same  to
\nhis son, who would also be a full owner like himself.  Be it
\nas  it\tmay, the said statement could not detract  from\t the
\nclear  words  used  earlier.  If  the  argument\t of  learned
\ncounsel\t for the appellant be accepted, this Court would  be
\nrewriting  the will for the testator and  introducing  words
\nwhich are not there: it would be cutting down the meaning of
\nthe  words  which the testator designedly used to  convey  a
\nlarger\tinterest to his wife.  Where apparently\t conflicting
\ndispositions  can  be reconciled by giving  full  effect  to
\nevery word used in a document, such a construction should be
\naccepted  instead  of a construction which  would  have\t the
\neffect\tof cutting down the clear meaning of the words\tused
\nby  the testator.  Further, where one of the two  reasonable
\nconstructions  would  lead  to\tintestacy,  that  should  be
\ndiscarded in favour of a construction which does not  create
\nany  such hiatus.  If the construction suggested by  learned
\ncounsel be
\n 843<\/span>
\nadopted, in the event of his son predeceasing the  testator,
\nthere  would be intestacy after the death of the  wife.\t  If
\nthe construction suggested by the respondent be adopted,  in
\nthe event that happened it would not bring about  intestacy,
\nas  the\t defeasance clause would not  come  into  operation.
\nThat  was the intention of the testator is also\t clear\tfrom
\nthe  fact  that\t he  mentioned in the  will  that  no  other
\nrelation  except his wife and son should take  his  property
\nand  also  from the fact that though he lived  for  about  a
\nquarter\t of  a century after the execution of the  will,  he
\nnever  thought\tof  changing the will though  his  son,\t had
\npredeceased his wife.\n<\/p>\n
Learned\t counsel for the appellant relied upon the  decision
\nof  Varadachariar., J., in Subbamma V. Ramanaidu (1):  There
\nthe  testator  created a limited interest in favour  of\t the
\nwidow followed by gift over to grandchildren.  In describing
\nthe  bequest in favour of the widow, the testator  used\t the
\nword “Hakdar” meaning “owner”.\tStill the learned judge held
\nthat   the  widow  took\t only  a  woman’s  estate  and\t the
\ngrandchildren\ttook  the  remainder.\tThe  learned   judge
\nobserved :\n<\/p>\n
“To   avoid   such  a  possibility,  the  proper   rule\t  of
\nconstruction  has  been\t held to be to take the\t will  as  a
\nwhole; and the presence of a gift over, which is not a\tmere
\ngift by way of defeasance, has generally been held to be  an
\nindication that the prior gift was only a limited interest.”
\nThe  learned judge also relied upon the other  circumstances
\nof  the\t will in coming to that conclusion.   This  decision
\naccepted the same proposition which this Court has laid down
\nin  Ra\tit Gopal v. Nand Lal<\/a> (2), namely,  that\t the  entire
\ndocument  should be considered in arriving at the  intention
\nof the testator.  No decision on the construction of a\twill
\ncan be of use in construing another document, unless all the
\n(1) A.I.R. 1937 Mad. 476, 477.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1950] S.C.R. 766, 773.\n<\/p>\n
844<\/span><\/p>\n
important recitals are similar.\t A document will have to  be
\nconstrued  on  its own terms.  In the circumstances  of\t the
\npresent document, we have come to the conclusion that  under
\nthe  will the gift over in favour of the son is only by\t way
\nof defeasance.\n<\/p>\n
We  cannot  allow the learned counsel to  raise\t the  second
\ncontention, for it was not raised before the District Court,
\nbefore Khosla J., and before the division Bench of the\tHigh
\nCourt,\tIt was raised before the Subordinate judge  but\t the
\nlearned\t Subordinate judge held, on the evidence,  that\t the
\nwill  had  not\tbeen  proved  and  indeed  he  came  to\t the
\nconclusion  that the testator was not of sound mind  on\t the
\ndate  when the will was alleged to have been executed.\t The
\npoint  raises a mixed queston of fact and law and there\t are
\nno exceptional grounds for deviating from the usual practice
\nof this Court and allowing the appellant to raise this point
\nhere when he failed todo so in the two courts below.
\nIn theresult, the appeal fails and is dismissed
\nwith costs. The appellant will pay the Court fee
\non the memoof appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
845<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Pearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1703, 1963 SCR Supl. (2) 834 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Subbarao, K. PETITIONER: PEAREY LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: RAMESHWAR DAS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/12\/1962 BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. IMAM, SYED JAFFER KAPUR, J.L. MUDHOLKAR, J.R. CITATION: 1963 […]<\/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-123201","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962 - 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\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962\" \/>\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=\"1962-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-29T02:40:28+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-29T02:40:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962\"},\"wordCount\":3039,\"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\\\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962\",\"name\":\"Pearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-29T02:40:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962\"}]},{\"@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":"Pearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962 - 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\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-29T02:40:28+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962","datePublished":"1962-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-29T02:40:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962"},"wordCount":3039,"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\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962","name":"Pearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-29T02:40:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pearey-lal-vs-rameshwar-das-on-10-december-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962"}]},{"@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\/123201","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=123201"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123201\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}