{"id":124698,"date":"1962-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962"},"modified":"2015-10-12T11:27:48","modified_gmt":"2015-10-12T05:57:48","slug":"vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962","title":{"rendered":"Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another &#8230; on 19 January, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another &#8230; on 19 January, 1962<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR  941, \t\t  1962 SCR  Supl. (2) 675<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S C.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nVIJAY PRATAP SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDUKH HARAN NATH SINGH AND ANOTHER (And ConnectedAppeal)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n19\/01\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nDAS, S.K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR  941\t\t  1962 SCR  Supl. (2) 675\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1972 SC2379\t (4)\n E\t    1973 SC2508\t (10,13)\n\n\nACT:\n     Suit-Application to  sue in  forma\t pauperis-\nCourts\t  jurisdiction-Application    for    being\ntransposed as  plaintiff-If could  be rejected\ton\nthe  ground   that  the\t claim\tmade  in  original\npetition  is  personal-Code  of\t Civil\tProcedure,\n1908: (V of 1908) O. 1 rr. 1, 10, 0, 35, r. 5(a).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The Estate\t of Maharaja  Man Singh of Ayodhya\nRaj devolved  on his death successively on his two\nwidows\tand   thereafter,  according   to  V   the\nplaintiff a  minor on  his grandfather G, who died\nin 1942.  Respondent claimed the estate as adopted\nson of the junior widow of the Maharaja. V filed a\npetition for  leave to\tsue in\tforma pauperis for\ndeclaration of\ttitle to  the  estate  making  his\nfather R  a party.  The plaintiff's  petition  was\nrejected by  the Subordinate  Judge, on the ground\nthat  it   disclosed  no   cause  of  action.  R's\napplication to\tbe transposed  as  petitioner  was\nalso  rejected.\t  V  and   R  preferred\t  revision\napplications to\t the High  Court of Allahabad. The\nplaintiff's application\t was rejected  by the High\nCourt holding inter alia that there was nothing in\nthe petition  to show that succeeded to the estate\nas the\tnearest male  reversioner of the last male\nholder. R's  application was  rejected by the High\nCourt on  the ground that relief in an application\nto sue\tin  forma  pauperis  is\t personal  to  the\napplicant and  nobody  else  can  be  made  a  co-\napplicant, because  1, R.  10 of the Code of Civil\nProcedure does\tnot  apply  to\ta  proceeding  for\npermission to sue as a pauper.\n^\n     Held, that\t O. XXXIII  of the  Code of  Civil\nProcedure lays\tdown the procedure for institution\nof a  suit by  pauper. By  cl. 5  (d) the court is\nrequired to  ascertain whether the allegation made\nin the\tpetition show  a cause\tof action,  but it\ndoes  not   enter  upon\t a  trial  of  the  issues\naffecting the  merits of  the claim  made  by  the\npetitioner. By\tthe statute,  the jurisdiction\tof\nthe Court is restricted to ascertaining whether on\nthe allegations\t a cause  of action  is shown: the\njurisdiction does  not extended to trial of issues\nwhich must  fairly be  left for\t decision  at  the\nhearing of the suit.\n     An application  to sue  in forma pauperis, is\nbut  a\t method\t prescribed   by  the\tCode   for\ninstitution of\ta suit by a pauper without payment\nof Court  fee; and  there is  nothing personal\tin\nsuch an application. The suit commences from the\n676\nmoment an  application for  permission to  sue\tin\nforma pauperis as required by O. 33 of the Code is\npresented, and\tO. 1  r. of  the Code  would be as\nmuch applicable\t in such  a suit  as in\t a suit in\nwhich court  fee had  been duly paid. A person who\nclaims to  join a  petitioner praying for leave to\nsue in\tforma pauperis\tmust himself  be a pauper.\nClaim to  join by  transposition as  an\t applicant\nmust be\t investigated; it  is  not  liable  to\tbe\nrejected on  the ground that the claim made by the\noriginal applicant is personal to himself.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeals Nos.<br \/>\n253 and 254 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeals by\t special leave\tfrom the  judgment<br \/>\nand order  dated May 2,1955, of the Allahabad High<br \/>\nCourt in Civil Revision Nos. 881 and 882 of 1952.\n<\/p>\n<p>     S. F. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra,<br \/>\nfor the\t appellant in  C. A.  No. 253  of 1961 and<br \/>\nrespondent No. 2 in C. A. No. 254 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n<p>     S. P.  Varma, for\tthe appellant  in C.A. No.<br \/>\n254 of\t61 and respondent No. 2 in C.A. No. 253 of<br \/>\n1961.\n<\/p>\n<p>     C. B.  Aggarwala  and  C.\tP.  Lal,  for  the<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 in both the appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>     1962. January  19. The  Judgment of the Court<br \/>\nwas delivered by<br \/>\n     SHAH,   J.-Vijay\tPratap\t Singh(hereinafter<br \/>\ncalled the  plaintiff) a  minor-by his next friend<br \/>\nPandit Brij  Mohan Misir  filed a  petition in the<br \/>\nCourt of the Subordinate Judge, Faizabad for leave<br \/>\nto sue\tin forma pauperis for declaration of title<br \/>\nto the\tAjodhya Raj and accretions thereto and for<br \/>\npossession and mesne profits for three years prior<br \/>\nto the\tsuit. The  petition was\t rejected  by  the<br \/>\nSubordinate  Judge   because,  in   his\t view,\tit<br \/>\ndisclosed no  cause of\taction. An  application by<br \/>\nRamjiwan Misir\tfather of  the plaintiff  who  was<br \/>\nimpleaded  as\tthe  second   defendant,   to\tbe<br \/>\ntransposed as  a petitioner  was also  rejected by<br \/>\nthe Subordinate\t Judge. The plaintiff and Ramjiwan<br \/>\nMisir applied  to the  High Court of Judicature at<br \/>\nAllahabad  in\tthe  exercise  of  its\trevisional<br \/>\njurisdiction against the orders rejecting<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">677<\/span><br \/>\ntheir respective  petitions but\t without  success.<br \/>\nThey have  with special\t leave\tappealed  to  this<br \/>\nCourt against the orders passed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The case  set up  by  the\tplaintiff  in  his<br \/>\npetition was  briefly this. Maharaja Sir Man Singh<br \/>\nholder of  the Ajodhya Raj was a Taluqdar in lists<br \/>\nI, II  and V  of the Oudh states set I of 1869. He<br \/>\ndied  in  1870\tand  the  Raj  devolved\t upon  his<br \/>\ndaughter&#8217;s son\tMaharaja Pratap\t Narain Singh, who<br \/>\ndied on\t November 9,  1906, leaving  him surviving<br \/>\ntwo widows  Suraj Kumari  and Jagdamba Devi and no<br \/>\nlineal descendant.  A will  alleged to be executed<br \/>\nby Maharaja  Pratap Narain Singh on July 20, 1891,<br \/>\nwas  set  up  but  it  was  void  and  ineffective<br \/>\nbecause,  firstly,   it\t was   procured\t by  undue<br \/>\ninfluence, coercion  and fraud\tpractised upon the<br \/>\ntestater, and,\tsecondly  it  created  a  line\tof<br \/>\nsuccession contrary  to law.  Accordingly  on  the<br \/>\ndeath of  Maharaja Pratap  Narain  Singh  the  Raj<br \/>\ndevolved upon  Maharani Suraj  Kumari  the  senior<br \/>\nwidow and  on her  death  in  1927  upon  Maharani<br \/>\nJugdamba Devi,\tand on\tthe death of the latter on<br \/>\nJune 18,  1928 upon Ganga Dutt Misir, grand father<br \/>\nof the plaintiff Ganga Dutt Misir died in 1942 and<br \/>\nthe estate  devolved upon his son Ramjiwan and his<br \/>\ngrandson, the plaintiff as co-parceners in a Hindu<br \/>\njoint family.  Even if\tthe  will  was\tvalid  and<br \/>\neffective &#8220;the\tterms thereof  alongwith  Maharaja<br \/>\nPratap Singh&#8217;s\tother acts  and declarations&#8221;  had<br \/>\nthe effect of taking the estate out of the purview<br \/>\nof Act\tI of  1869 with\t the result  that Maharani<br \/>\nJagdama Devi  enjoyed the  property in suit with a<br \/>\nlife estate  therein, and on her death on June 18,<br \/>\n1938, the  entire property in suit vested in Ganga<br \/>\nDutt on\t whose death  the plaintiff  and defendant<br \/>\nNo. 2 became owners of the entire property in suit<br \/>\nas their joint ancestral property&#8221;. Defendant No.1<br \/>\nDukh Haran Singh Claimed to be adopted as a son by<br \/>\nJagdamba Devi  on February  12, 1909 but the claim<br \/>\nwas &#8220;utterly false, fictitious and untrue&#8221; for the<br \/>\nreasons set out in the partition, and the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">678<\/span><br \/>\nRaj was\t in the\t wrongful possession  of the first<br \/>\ndefendant Dukh Haran Singh.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  plaintiff   alleged  that   his   father<br \/>\nRamjiwan Misir\twas &#8220;detained and confined&#8221; by the<br \/>\nfirst  defendant   and\twas  unable  to\t join  the<br \/>\nplaintiff in the petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The first defendant Dukh Haran Singh resisted<br \/>\nthe petition inter alia contending that it did not<br \/>\ndisclose a cause of action and that, in any event,<br \/>\nthe claim  made by the plaintiff was barred by law<br \/>\nof limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Initially Ram  Jiwan Misir supported the will<br \/>\nand the\t plea of  adoption set\tup  by\tthe  first<br \/>\ndefendant, but\tby an  application dated April 21,<br \/>\n1951, prayed that he be transposed as a petitioner<br \/>\nsubmitting  that   his\tprevious   statement   was<br \/>\nprocured by coercion and contained averments which<br \/>\nwere untrue.  Ramjiwan was  directed  to  pay  the<br \/>\ncourt fee  payable on  the plaint  within ten days<br \/>\nand in\tdefault of payment, his application was to<br \/>\nstand dismissed.  Ramjiwan did\tnot pay\t the court<br \/>\nfee as\tdirected but  on July  23, 1951,  he again<br \/>\napplied for  being transposed  as a  petitioner in<br \/>\nthe petition  for leave\t to sue\t in forma pauperis<br \/>\nfiled by  the plaintiff.  Holding that\tit did not<br \/>\ndisclose a  cause of  action the Subordinate Judge<br \/>\nrejected  the\tpetition  of  the  plaintiff.  The<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge  observed that there was nothing<br \/>\nin the\tpetition to  show how  the disputed estate<br \/>\ncame to\t be governed  by the  rule of  inheritance<br \/>\nunder the  Hindu Law  and, in any event, there was<br \/>\nnothing in  the petition  to support the plea that<br \/>\nthe estate  had lost its impartible character, and<br \/>\nthat even  if in view of the allegations contained<br \/>\nin para\t 12 of\tthe petition  it be  held that the<br \/>\nestate came  to be  governed by the ordinary Hindu<br \/>\nLaw, it did not become a partible estate which the<br \/>\nplaintiff could\t inherit, so  long at  his  father<br \/>\nRamjiwan was alive. The petition filed by Ramjiwan<br \/>\nMisir was then taken up for<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">679<\/span><br \/>\nhearing and was also rejected because, in the view<br \/>\nof the\tlearned Judge, &#8220;no useful purpose would be<br \/>\nserved&#8221; by  transposing Ram  Jiwan  Misir  as  co-<br \/>\nplaintiff  when\t  the  application  filed  by  the<br \/>\nplaintiff was  held to\tbe defective and liable to<br \/>\nbe rejected  under O.  33, r. 5(d), of the Code of<br \/>\nCivil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Against  the   two\t orders\t  passed  by   the<br \/>\nsubordinate Judge the plaintiff preferred Revision<br \/>\nApplication  No.   881\tof   1952  and\tRam  Jiwan<br \/>\npreferred Revision  Petition 882 of 1952. The High<br \/>\nCourt  rejected\t the  petition\tof  the\t plaintiff<br \/>\nholding that  on the  death of\tGanga Dutt in 1942<br \/>\nthe estate  would devolve  upon\t Ram  Jiwan  Misir<br \/>\nalone according to the rule of impartibility which<br \/>\ngoverned the  devolution of  the estate.  The High<br \/>\nCourt also  observed that there was nothing in the<br \/>\npetition to  show that Ganga Dutt succeeded to the<br \/>\nestate &#8220;on the basis of his being the nearest male<br \/>\nreversioner under  the Ordinary\t Hindu\tLaw&#8221;,  and<br \/>\nthat it\t was unnecessary  to consider  whether the<br \/>\nwill by Maharaja Pratap Narain took out the estate<br \/>\nfrom  the  operation  of  the  Act,  &#8220;because  the<br \/>\nplaintiff did  not rely upon the will and whatever<br \/>\nthe  plaintiff\thad  stated  in\t the  petition\tin<br \/>\nconnection with\t the will  was simply  by  way\tof<br \/>\nanswer to what might be contended by the defendant<br \/>\nin the\tsuit.&#8221; Dealing\twith the  petition of  Ram<br \/>\nJiwan Misir  the High  Court observed  that &#8220;By an<br \/>\napplication to sue in forma pauperis the applicant<br \/>\nprays  for   a\trelief\tpersonal  to  himself  and<br \/>\ntherefore nobody  else can  be properly made a co-<br \/>\napplicant. There  is  no  direct  provision  which<br \/>\nprovides that  a court\tshould transpose  a  party<br \/>\nfrom one  side to the other. Order 1, r. 10, gives<br \/>\nthe power  to the  court to  strike out or add the<br \/>\nnames of  parties when it appears that he has been<br \/>\nimproperly joined  or that  he ought  to have been<br \/>\njoined or  his presence\t before the court would be<br \/>\nnecessary in order to enable the court effectively<br \/>\nand completely\tto adjudicate  upon and settle all<br \/>\nthe questions involved in the suit. The provisions<br \/>\nof<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">680<\/span><br \/>\nthis rule  will not apply to the proceedings on an<br \/>\napplication for permission to sue as a pauper&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We are  unable to\tagree with the view of the<br \/>\nHigh  Court   that  the\t  petition  filed  by  the<br \/>\nplaintiff did  not disclose  a cause of action, or<br \/>\nthat O.\t 1, r.\t10 of  the Code of Civil Procedure<br \/>\ncannot properly\t be resorted  to for transposing a<br \/>\nparty in  a petition  for leave\t to sue\t in  forma<br \/>\npauperis. The  plaintiff had  by his plaint set up<br \/>\nan alternative\tcase. In  the  first  instance\the<br \/>\npleaded that  the will\talleged to  be executed by<br \/>\nMaharaja Pratap Narain on July 20, 1891, was &#8220;void<br \/>\nand ineffective&#8221;  and the estate devolved upon Ram<br \/>\nJiwan and  the\tplaintiff  as  members\tof  a  co-<br \/>\nparcenary: alternatively,  he pleaded that even if<br \/>\nthe will  was valid,  by the  terms thereof and by<br \/>\nthe other  acts and declaration of Maharaja Pratap<br \/>\nNarain Singh,  the estate  was taken  out &#8220;of  the<br \/>\npurview of  Act I  of 1869&#8221;  and on  the death\tof<br \/>\nMaharani Jagdamba  Devi the property devolved upon<br \/>\nGanga Dutt,  the  nearest  reversioner\tunder  the<br \/>\nHindu law  and on  his death  it devolved upon the<br \/>\nplaintiff and upon his father Ram Jiwan Misir.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Order XXXIII  of the  Code of Civil Procedure<br \/>\nprescribes the\tprocedure for institution of suits<br \/>\nby paupers.  Rule 2  provides that  particulars\t a<br \/>\npetition for  permission to  sue in forma pauperis<br \/>\nshall  contain\tand  r.3  sets\tout  the  mode\tof<br \/>\npresentation of\t the petition.\tRule 4\tauthorises<br \/>\nthe Court  to examine  the applicant  or his agent<br \/>\nregarding the  merits of the case and the property<br \/>\nof the applicant. Rule 5 provides:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;The Court  shall reject  an application<br \/>\n     for permission to sue as a pauper-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (a) where  it  is  not  framed  and<br \/>\n\t  presented in\tthe manner  prescribed\tby<br \/>\n\t  rules 2 and 3, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (b) where  the applicant\t is not\t a<br \/>\n     pauper, or<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">681<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (c) where he has, within two months<br \/>\n\t  next\tbefore\tthe  presentation  of  the<br \/>\n\t  application, disposed\t of  any  property<br \/>\n\t  fraudulently or  in order  to be able to<br \/>\n\t  apply for permission to sue as a pauper,<br \/>\n\t  or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (d) where  his allegations  do  not<br \/>\n\t  show a cause of action, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (e) where  he has  entered into any<br \/>\n\t  agreement with  reference to the subject<br \/>\n\t  matter of  the proposed suit under which<br \/>\n\t  any  other   person  has   obtained\tan<br \/>\n\t  interest in such subject matter.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Where the  application\tis  not\t rejected  on  the<br \/>\ngrounds set out in r. 5, the Court has under r. 6,<br \/>\nto proceed,  after giving  notice to  the opposite<br \/>\nparty  and  the\t Government  pleader,  to  receive<br \/>\nevidence as  the applicant  may adduce in proof of<br \/>\nhis pauperiam.\tBy r. 7 the Court is authorised to<br \/>\nconsider where the applicant is not subject to any<br \/>\nof the\tprohibitions specified\tin r. 5. The Court<br \/>\nis  enjoined   to  reject  a  petition\twhere  the<br \/>\nprohibitions mentioned in cls. (a) to (e) of r. 5.<br \/>\nexist. Even  if the petition is not so rejected at<br \/>\nthe hearing  of the  petition,\tif  the\t court\tis<br \/>\nsatisfied   as\t to   the   existence\tof   these<br \/>\nprohibitions it may be dismissed under r. 7.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It does  not appear  that any  objection  was<br \/>\nraised as to the existence of prohibitions (c) and\n<\/p>\n<p>(d) set\t out in\t r. 5,\tand the\t Subordinate Judge<br \/>\ndisallowed the objection that the petition was not<br \/>\nframed and  presented as prescribed by r. 2 and 3.<br \/>\nHe did\tnot  consider  the  question  whether  the<br \/>\nplaintff was a pauper. He rejected the application<br \/>\nonly on the ground that it did not show a cause of<br \/>\naction, and  the High  Court confirmed\tthe  order<br \/>\nalso on\t that ground. By the express terms of r. 5<br \/>\ncl. (d),  the  court  is  concerned  to\t ascertain<br \/>\nwhether the  allegations made in the petition show<br \/>\na cause\t of action.  The  court\t has  not  to  see<br \/>\nwhether the claim made by the petitioner is likely<br \/>\nto<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">682<\/span><br \/>\nsucceed: it  has merely to satisfy itself that the<br \/>\nallegations made  in the  petition, if accepted as<br \/>\ntrue, would  entitle the  petitioner to the relief<br \/>\nhe claims.  If accepting those allegations as true<br \/>\nno case\t is made  out for granting relief no cause<br \/>\nof action  would be shown and the petition must be<br \/>\nrejected. But in ascertaining whether the petition<br \/>\nshows a\t cause of  action the court does not enter<br \/>\nupon a trial of the issues affecting the merits of<br \/>\nthe claim  made by  the petitioner. It cannot take<br \/>\ninto  consideration   the   defences   which   the<br \/>\ndefendant may  raise upon  the merits;\tnor is the<br \/>\ncourt competent\t to make an elaborate enquiry into<br \/>\ndoubtful or  complicated questions of law or fact.<br \/>\nIf the\tallegations in\tthe petition, prima facie,<br \/>\nshow a\tcause of  action, the  court cannot embark<br \/>\nupon an\t enquiry whether  the allegations are true<br \/>\nin fact, or whether the petitioner will succeed in<br \/>\nthe claims  made  by  him.  By\tthe  Statute,  the<br \/>\njurisdiction  of   the\tCourt\tis  restricted\tto<br \/>\nascertaining whether on the allegations a cause of<br \/>\naction is  shown: the jurisdiction does not extend<br \/>\nto trial  of issues  which must fairly be left for<br \/>\ndecision at the hearing of the suit<br \/>\n     We do  not propose\t to express any opinion on<br \/>\nthe question whether on the death of Jagdamba Devi<br \/>\nthe estate  devolved under  s. 22(10)  of Act I of<br \/>\n1869 upon  Ramjiwan Misir  and\tthe  plaintiff\tas<br \/>\nmembers of  a co-parcenary.  Even if that claim is<br \/>\ninconsistent with  the words of s. 22(10) of Act I<br \/>\nof 1869 on which the plaintiff himself relies, the<br \/>\nplaintiff had an alternative claim that the estate<br \/>\nhad become non-taluqdari by virtue of the will and<br \/>\n&#8220;the acts  and\tdeclaration&#8221;  of  Maharaja  Pratap<br \/>\nNarain. In  support of\tthis claim, s. 15 of Act I<br \/>\nof 1869, before it was amended by U. P. Act III of<br \/>\n1910, is  relied upon.\tAt the\ttime when Maharaja<br \/>\nPratap Narain  died, s.\t 15 of\tthe Act\t stood\tas<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;If  any   taluqdar  or   grantee  shall<br \/>\n     hereto-before have transferred or bequeathed,<br \/>\n     or if<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">683<\/span><br \/>\n     any  taluqdar  or\tgrantee\t or  his  heir\tor<br \/>\n     legatee shall hereafter transfer or bequeath,<br \/>\n     to any person not being a taluqdar or grantee<br \/>\n     the whole\tor any\tportion of his estate, and<br \/>\n     such  person   would   not\t  have\t succeeded<br \/>\n     according to  the provisions  of this  Act to<br \/>\n     the estate\t or to\ta portion  thereof if  the<br \/>\n     transferor\t or   testator\thad  died  without<br \/>\n     having made  the transfer\tand intestate, the<br \/>\n     transfer of and succession to the property so<br \/>\n     transferred or  bequeathed shall be regulated<br \/>\n     by the  rules which  would have  governed the<br \/>\n     transfer of  and succession  to such property<br \/>\n     if the  transferee or legatee had brought the<br \/>\n     same from\ta person  not being  a taluqdar or<br \/>\n     grantee.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It is  true that  by s.\t 8 of Act III of 1910, the<br \/>\nsection has  been substantially modified and reads<br \/>\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;If any taluqdar or grantee, or his heir<br \/>\n     or legatee, shall heretofore have transferred<br \/>\n     or bequeathed, or if any taluqdar or grantee,<br \/>\n     or\t his  heir  or\tlegatee,  shall\t hereafter<br \/>\n     transfer or bequeath the whole or any portion<br \/>\n     of his  estate to\tany person  who did not at<br \/>\n     the time  when the\t transfer or  bequest took<br \/>\n     effect belong to any of the classes specified<br \/>\n     in section 14, the transfer of and succession<br \/>\n     to the  property so transferred or bequeathed<br \/>\n     shall be  regulated by  the rules which would<br \/>\n     have governed  the transfer of and succession<br \/>\n     to such property if the transferee or legatee<br \/>\n     had bought the same from a person not being a<br \/>\n     taluqdar or grantee, heir or legatee.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>By s. 21 of the Amending Act III of 1910 a partial<br \/>\nretrospective operation\t was given  to the amended<br \/>\nsection. The  retrospective operation  was limited<br \/>\nby  the\t  proviso  which   enacted  that   nothing<br \/>\ncontained in  the amending  section  shall  affect<br \/>\nsuits pending at the commencement of the amending<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">684<\/span><br \/>\nAct, or\t shall be deemed to vest in or confer upon<br \/>\nany person  any right  or title\t to any estate, or<br \/>\nany portion  thereof,  or  any\tinterest  therein,<br \/>\nwhich is, at the commencement of the Amending Act,<br \/>\nvested in  any other  person who  would have  been<br \/>\nentitled to  retain the\t same if  the amending Act<br \/>\nhad not\t been passed,  and the\tright or  title of<br \/>\nsuch  other   person  shall  not  be  affected\tby<br \/>\nanything contained in the said section.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Agarwalla,  appearing on  behalf  of  the<br \/>\nfirst defendent\t Dukh Haran  Singh, has\t contended<br \/>\nthat in\t view of the retrospective operation given<br \/>\nto s.  15, as  amended, the claim of the plaintiff<br \/>\nthat the  taluqdari  character\tof  the\t state\tis<br \/>\ndestroyed has  no force\t and he\t has  invited  our<br \/>\nattention to two decisions of the Oudh Chief Court<br \/>\nin Kaur\t Nageshar Sahai\t v. Shiam  Bahadur (1) and<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/404030\/\">Mohammad Ali  Khan v.  Nisar Ali  Khan<\/a>(2). But\twe<br \/>\nneed express  no opinion  on  the  correctness\tor<br \/>\notherwise of  these decisions.\tAn enquiry whether<br \/>\nby virtue  of certain provisions of the statute on<br \/>\nwhich the  first defendant  relies, the\t plaintiff<br \/>\nmay not\t be entitled  to the estate is, as already<br \/>\nobserved,  not\t contemplated  to   be\t made\tin<br \/>\nconsidering a  petition for  leave to sue in forma<br \/>\npauperis. The  true effect  of the amended section<br \/>\n15 of  the  Oudh  Estates  Act\tI  of  1869  is\t a<br \/>\ncomplicated question  of law  which the Court will<br \/>\nnot proceed  to determine  in ascertaining whether<br \/>\nthe petition for leave to sue discloses a cause of<br \/>\naction.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High Court, in our judgment, was in error<br \/>\nin observing  that there was nothing in the plaint<br \/>\nto show\t that Ganga  Dutt succeeded  to the estate<br \/>\nbecause he  was the nearest male reversioner under<br \/>\nthe  ordinary\tHindu  law.   The  plaintiff   has<br \/>\nemphatically  made  that  assertion:  whether  the<br \/>\nclaim to relief on the basis of that assertion was<br \/>\njustified must\tbe adjudicated at the trial of the<br \/>\nsuit,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">685<\/span><br \/>\nand not\t in deciding  whether the plaintiff should<br \/>\nbe permitted to sue in forma pauperis.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We are  also of  the view that the High Court<br \/>\nwas in\terror in holding that by an application to<br \/>\nsue in\tforma pauperis,\t the applicant\tprays  for<br \/>\nrelief personal\t to himself. An application to sue<br \/>\nin forma  pauperis, is\tbut a method prescribed by<br \/>\nthe Code  for institution  of a\t suit by  a pauper<br \/>\nwithout payment\t of fee\t prescribed by\tthe  Court<br \/>\nFees Act.  If the claim made by the applicant that<br \/>\nhe is  a pauper\t is not\t establish the application<br \/>\nmay fail. But there is nothing personal in such an<br \/>\napplication. The suit commences from the moment an<br \/>\napplication  for   permission  to   sue\t in  forma<br \/>\npauperis as required by O. 33 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure is  presented, and  O. 1,  r. 10, of the<br \/>\nCode  of   Civil  Procedure   would  be\t  as  much<br \/>\napplicable in  such a  suit as\tin a suit in which<br \/>\ncourt fee  had been  duly paid.\t It is true that a<br \/>\nperson who claims to join a petitioner praying for<br \/>\nleave to  sue in  forma pauperis must himself be a<br \/>\npauper. But  his claim to join by transposition as<br \/>\nan applicant  must  be\tinvestigated;  it  is  not<br \/>\nliable to be rejected on the ground that the claim<br \/>\nmade by\t the original  applicable is  personal\tto<br \/>\nhimself. In  our view,\tthe orders  passed by  the<br \/>\nHigh Court  in both the revision applications must<br \/>\nbe set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Before parting  with the  case, we\t must take<br \/>\nnotice\tof   the  unsatisfactory   progress   this<br \/>\nlitigation had made since it was instituted nearly<br \/>\ntwelve years  ago. We  regret to  observe that the<br \/>\npetition filed\tin July\t 1950 for  leave to sue in<br \/>\nforma  pauperis\t  was  not   disposed  of  by  the<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge  for two  years and  it took the<br \/>\nHigh Court  three years to dispose of the revision<br \/>\npetitions against  the orders  of the  Subordinate<br \/>\nJudge. The  proceedings were  further held up even<br \/>\nafter special  leave was  granted by this Court in<br \/>\nMarch, 1957  for  nearly  five\tyears  before  the<br \/>\nappeal could be heard. This<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">686<\/span><br \/>\nCourt had  ordered that the hearing of the appeals<br \/>\nbe expedited  and heard\t on cyclostyled record but<br \/>\nthe record  was not made ready for a long time. We<br \/>\nalso find  that a  large number\t of documents were<br \/>\nincluded in  the books\tprepared for  use  of  the<br \/>\ncourt to  which no  reference was  made at the Bar<br \/>\nduring the  course of  the hearing.  We trust that<br \/>\nthe case  will be  taken up  for hearing  with the<br \/>\nleast practicable  delay and disposed of according<br \/>\nto law.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellants  in the  two appeals  will\tbe<br \/>\nentitled to their costs both in this Court and the<br \/>\nHigh Court.  The costs\tof the trial court will be<br \/>\nthe cost in the cause.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t  Appeals allowed. Cases remitted.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another &#8230; on 19 January, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 941, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 675 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: VIJAY PRATAP SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: DUKH HARAN NATH SINGH AND ANOTHER (And ConnectedAppeal) DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/01\/1962 BENCH: SHAH, [&hellip;]<\/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-124698","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another ... on 19 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another ... on 19 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-12T05:57:48+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another &#8230; on 19 January, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-12T05:57:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962\"},\"wordCount\":3319,\"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\\\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962\",\"name\":\"Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another ... on 19 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-12T05:57:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another &#8230; on 19 January, 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":"Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another ... on 19 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another ... on 19 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-12T05:57:48+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another &#8230; on 19 January, 1962","datePublished":"1962-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-12T05:57:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962"},"wordCount":3319,"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\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962","name":"Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another ... on 19 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-12T05:57:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-pratap-singh-vs-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-on-19-january-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another &#8230; on 19 January, 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\/124698","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=124698"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124698\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124698"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124698"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124698"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}