{"id":141917,"date":"1978-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1978-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978"},"modified":"2018-11-17T04:04:32","modified_gmt":"2018-11-16T22:34:32","slug":"chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978","title":{"rendered":"Chandrasekhar Singh & Ors vs Siya Ram Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chandrasekhar Singh & Ors vs Siya Ram Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1978<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR, 1\t\t 1979 SCR (1) 947<\/div>\n
Author: P Kailasam<\/div>\n
Bench: Kailasam, P.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHANDRASEKHAR SINGH & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSIYA RAM SINGH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT26\/09\/1978\n\nBENCH:\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nBENCH:\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nSINGH, JASWANT\nKOSHAL, A.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR    1\t\t  1979 SCR  (1) 947\n 1979 SCC  (3) 118\n\n\nACT:\n     Code  of\tCriminal  Procedure,   1898-Section  146-The\nfinding\t of  the  Civil\t Court\tunder  this  Section  as  to\npossession is final.\n     Code of  Criminal Procedure,  1898, Sections 435 & 439-\nRevisional  powers  of\tthe  High  Court-High  Court  cannot\ninterfere with\tthe findings of fact of the Civil Court in a\nproceeding under s. 146 Criminal P.C.-Constitution of India,\n1950 Art.  227-Power of superintendence of the High Court is\nlimited.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In\t the   145  proceedings\t  converted  from   the\t 144\nproceedings on\ta police  report dated\t29-2-1968, both\t the\nappellants-second parties  and the respondents first parties\nclaimed title  as well\tas possession  of the  disputed land\nwith  them  and\t filed\tin  support  documents\tand  several\naffidavits. The\t magistrate referred  he matte\tto the Civil\nCourt for  a finding  on the issue. On a consideration of he\nmaterials placed  before him,  the munsif  by an order dated\n22-12-1975 found  that the appellants-second parties were in\npossession. The magistrate passed an order dated 7-4-1976 in\naccordance with\t the findings  on the issue as to possession\nby the\tmunsif holding\tthat the  appellants-second  parties\nwere  in  possession.  The  High  Court\t in  revision  under\nsections 435  and 439  of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898,\nwas of\tthe view  that the  finding as\tto possession on the\nbasis of  documents alone  without applying  the mind to the\naffidavits cannot  be sustained\t and set  aside\t the  orders\npassed by the magistrate.\n     Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court.\n^\n     HELD :  (1) The  finding of the Civil Court given under\ns. 146(1B)  of the  1898 Code  regarding possession is final\nand cannot  be\tchallenged  by\tway  of\t appeal,  review  or\nrevision, though  the Civil  Court acting  under section 146\n(IA) and  (IB) of the Criminal Procedure Code has not ceased\nto be  a Civil\tCourt. Neither an appeal nor a revision lies\nagainst the  finding of\t the Civil  Court in  the  reference\nbecause of  the express provision in section 146(1D) and not\nbecause the proceeding before the Civil Court is not a civil\nproceeding [951C-D, E]\n     State of  U.P. v. Ramachandra Aggarwal [1966] Supp. SCR\n393 followed.\n     (2) An  order passed  by the  magistrate in  conformity\nwith the  decision of  the Civil  Court cannot be challenged\nunder sections\t435 and\t 439 of\t the code.  Sub-section (1B)\nrequires the  magistrate on  receipt of\t the findings by the\nCivil Court  to proceed and dispose of the proceedings under\ns. 145\tin conformity  with the decision of the Civil Court.\nIf the\torder of  the magistrate  is in\t conformity with the\ndecision  of   the  Civil  Court,  the\tmagistrate  will  be\ncomplying with\tthe requirements of section 146 (1B) and the\norder thus passed cannot be challenged. It will of course be\nopen to\t the High  Court to  interfere if  the order  of the\nmagistrate is  not in  conformity with\tthe finding  of\t the\nCivil  Court.  When  the  order\t of  the  magistrate  is  in\nconformity with\t the finding  of the  Civil Court,  the High\nCourt has  no jurisdiction  to interfere  under sections 435\nand 439 of\n948\nthe Criminal  Procedure\t Code.\tWhen  there  is\t an  express\nprovision namely,  sub-section (1D)  in the Code against the\nchallenge  of\tthe  finding   of  the\tCivil  Court,  other\nprovisions of  the Criminal  Procedure Code cannot be relied\non for doing what is expressly prohibited. [952A-D]\n     (3) The  powers conferred\ton the High Court under Art.\n227 of\tthe Constitution  cannot in  any way be curtailed by\nthe provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore the\npowers of  the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution\ncan be\tinvoked in spite of the restrictions placed under s.\n146 (TD) of the Criminal Procedure Code. [952D-E]\n     But the  scope of\tinterference by the High Court under\nArt. 227 is restricted to seeing that the tribunal functions\nwithin its limits of authority. The power of superintendence\ncannot be  invoked to correct the error of fact which only a\nsuperior Court\tcan do in exercise of its statutory power as\nthe Court  of appeal  and that\tthe  High  Court  cannot  in\nexercise of  its jurisdiction  under Art. 227 convert itself\ninto a Court of appeal. [952F, G, 953A]\n     Waryam Singh  v. Amar Nath [1954] SCR 56; Nagendra Nath\nBora &\tAnr. v. Commissioner of Hills Division, and Appeals,\nAssam &\t Ors.,<\/a> [1958]  SCR 1240; Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v.\nLaxmibai R. Tarts, AIR 1975 SC 1297 reiterated.\n     Raja Singh\t v. Mahendra  Singh,  AIR  1963\t Patna\t243;\nDewani Choudhary  & Ors.  v.  Chaturi  Manjhi  &  Ors.\t1971\nB.L.J.R. 116;  Farzand Ali  v. Shaukat\tAli & Ors., AIR 1971\nAll. 12; discussed.\n     In the  instant case,  the Civil  Court has  taken into\naccount the  affidavits filed  on behalf  of the parties and\nrejected them  on finding  that no  weight could be given to\nthe  affidavits\t having\t been  sworn  by  persons  who\twere\ninterested and belonged to one party or the other. [953D-E]\nOBSERVATION :\n     [In view  of the coming into force of the Cr. P.C. 1973\n     (Act II  of 1974)\tand the amendment of Art. 227 of the\n     Constitution by  the 42nd\tAmendment, the\tquestion  as\n     dealt with in the Judgment will not any longer arise.]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION :\t Criminal Appeal No.
\n148 of 1977.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 10-1-77  of the  Patna High Court in Criminal Revision
\nNo. 765 of 1976.\n<\/p>\n
     R. K.  Jain, R.  L. Singh, R. P. Singh and Rajeev Datta
\nfor the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     Lal Narayan Sinha and M. P. Jha for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KAILASAM, J.  This appeal\tis by  special leave  by the
\nsecond party  in Section  145 of the Criminal Procedure Code
\nproceedings against  the judgment of the Patna High Court in
\nCriminal Revision No. 765 of 1976.\n<\/p>\n
949<\/span><\/p>\n
     On\t receipt   of  a   Police  Report  dated  29-2-1968,
\nproceedings under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code
\nwere started  on 18-3-1968. The appellants in this Court are
\nthe Second  Party and  the respondents\tthe First Party. The
\nproceedings were  converted  into  one\tunder  Section\t145,
\nCriminal Procedure  Code  and  the  lands  in  dispute\twere
\nattached on  14-5-1968. Both  the parties  claimed title  as
\nwell as possession of the disputed land with them. The First
\nParty,\trespondents,   filed  their   documents\t  and\tnine
\naffidavits in  support of their claims while the appellants,
\nSecond Party,  filed several  documents and 12 affidavits in
\nsupport of  their case. The Magistrate on a consideration of
\nthe material  placed before  him  found\t himself  unable  to
\ndecide as  to which of the parties had been in possession of
\nthe disputed  land, and\t referred the  matter to  the  civil
\ncourt for  a finding on the issue. On a consideration of the
\nmaterials placed before him the Munsif by an order dated 22-
\n12-1975 found  that the\t appellants, Second  Party, were  in
\npossession and\tsent back  the records to the Magistrate for
\ndisposal according  to law.  The Magistrate  passed an order
\ndated 7-4-1976\tin accordance  with the finding on the issue
\nas to possession by the Munsif, holding that the appellants,
\nSecond Party were in possession.\n<\/p>\n
     Aggrieved by  the order  of the  Magistrate, the  First
\nParty filed  a Revision Petition to the High Court. The High
\nCourt found  that the  Munsif had  failed  to  consider\t the
\naffidavit of  either  party  but  decided  the\tquestion  of
\npossession only\t on the\t documents. As\tthe Munsif failed to
\nconsider the affidavits, the High Court was of the view that
\nthe finding as to possession on the basis of documents alone
\nwithout applying  its mind  to\tthe  affidavits,  cannot  be
\nsustained. The\tappellants, Second Party, being aggrieved by
\nthe order has come up to this Court by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
     The questions  that arise\tfor  consideration  in\tthis
\nappeal are  (1) whether\t the finding  of Civil\tCourt  under
\nsection 146 (1B) can be challenged by way of an appeal or by
\nreview or  revision, (2) whether an order which is passed by
\nthe Magistrate\ton the\treceipt of  the finding of the Civil
\nCourt, in  conformity with  the decision of the Civil Court,
\ncan be\tchallenged before  the High Court under Sections 435
\nand 439\t of the\t Criminal Procedure Code, and (3) whether an
\norder passed by the Magistrate under Section 146 (1B) can be
\ninterfered with\t by the High Court in exercise of its powers
\nunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
     There is  conflict of views between various High Courts
\nregarding the  points raised.  We would content ourselves by
\nreferring  to\tthree  full   bench  decisions\twherein\t the
\ndecisions of  all the  High Courts  are referred to. The two
\nfull Bench decisions of the Patna High Court
\n950<\/span>
\nare reported  in  A.I.R.  1963\tPatna  243  (Raja  Singh  v.
\nMahendra Singh), Dewani Choudhary and Ors. v. Chaturi Manjhi
\nand Ors.  (1971 B.L.J.R. p. 116). The full Bench decision of
\nthe  Allahabad\t High  Court  is  reported  in\tA.I.R.\t1971
\nAllahabad p. 12 (Farzand Ali v. Shaukat Ali & Ors.\n<\/p>\n
     In Raja Singh v. Mahendra Singh (supra), the Full Bench
\nof the Patna High Court by a majority of 2 to 1 held that in
\nexercise of its revisional powers under Sections 435 and 439
\nof the\tCode of\t Criminal Procedure,  the High Court can, in
\nsuitable cases,\t interfere with\t the decision  of the  Civil
\nCourt given  by it  under sub-Section (1-A) upon a reference
\nmade to\t it under sub-Section (1) of Section 146 of the Code
\nafter  the   referring\tMagistrate   has  disposed   of\t the
\nproceeding under  Section 145  under sub-Section  (1-B), and
\nthat the  bar as  to appeal,  review and revision imposed by
\nsub-Section (1-D)  operates only  so long  as the Magistrate
\nhas not\t passed his order under sub-section (1-B) of Section\n<\/p>\n
146. The majority view on the other hand, is that the bar of
\nsub-Section (1-D)  continues even  after the  Magistrate has
\ndisposed of  the proceeding  under sub-Section (1D). All the
\nthree learned  Judges constituting  the Full  Bench however,
\nagreed that  nothing in\t sub-Section (1-D) affects the power
\nof superintendence which the High Court enjoys under Article
\n227 of\tthe Constitution.  The correctness  of this decision
\nwas considered\tby a full Bench of five Judges in the Dewani
\nChoudhary’s  case   (supra).  The   Full  Bench\t upheld\t the
\nunanimous view in Raja Singh’s case (supra) that sub-Section
\n(1-D) does  not take away the power of judicial interference
\nwhich the  High Court  possesses under\tArticle 227  of\t the
\nConstitution with  the decision\t of the\t Civil\tCourt  given
\nunder sub-Section  (1A)\t of  Section  146  of  the  Criminal
\nProcedure Code\tin cases  involving  flagrant  violation  of
\nlegal principles or principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
     The second\t question that was considered in Choudhary’s
\ncase was  whether the  High Court was competent to interfere
\nwith the  findings of  the Civil Court under Section (1A) of
\nSection 146  in the  exercise  of  its\tpowers\tof  criminal
\nrevision; the  Full Bench  held that  there is\tno scope for
\ninterference  with  the\t findings  of  the  Civil  Court  in
\nexercise of the criminal revisional jurisdiction of the High
\nCourt, not  by reason of the bar enacted in sub-Sec. (1D) of
\nSection 146.  but upon\tthe express term of Sections 435 and
\n439 of\tthe Code.  The power  of the  High Court is confined
\nagainst the  final order which the Magistrate is enjoined to
\npass in\t conformity with the decision of the Civil Court. In
\ndoing so,  the High Court can examine whether the Magistrate
\npassed the  final order\t in conformity\twith the decision of
\nthe Civil Court or not. But it cannot embark upon an enquiry
\nas to the legality or
\n951<\/span>
\npropriety of  the decision  of the  Civil Court which is the
\nbasis of  the Magistrate’s final order. On this question the
\nfull Bench  did not accept the majority view in Raja Singh’s
\ncase (supra).\n<\/p>\n
     The Allahabad  High Court\t(AIR 1971  All. 12 FB-Supra)
\nconsidering the\t question whether the bar contemplated under
\nSection\t 146  (1B)  is\ta  bar\tagainst\t the  finding  being
\ninterfered with\t in revision  even against  the order of the
\nMagistrate  who\t  decides  the\t proceeding  before  him  in
\naccordance with\t the finding  of the  Civil Court, held that
\neven in\t revision from\tthe ultimate order which disposes of
\nthe proceedings in accordance with the findings of the Civil
\nCourt, the  finding of\tthe Civil Court cannot be interfered
\nwith.\n<\/p>\n
     An examination  of the  provisions of  Section  146  of
\nCriminal Procedure  Code of 1898 would show that the finding
\nof  the\t Civil\tCourt  on  a  reference\t by  the  Magistrate
\nregarding  possession\tcannot\tbe   appealed\tagainst\t  or
\nchallenged by  way of  review or  revision. Though the Civil
\nCourt acting  under Section  146 (1A)  and (1B)\t of Criminal
\nProcedure Code,\t has not  ceased to  be a  Civil Court,\t the
\nfinding regarding possession given by the Civil Court cannot
\nbe challenged  by an  appeal, revision\tor review.  In other
\nwords, the  finding given  by the Civil Court is final. This
\nCourt in  State of  U.P. &  Anr. v.  Ramchandra Aggarwal and
\nAnr.<\/a>(1) held  that neither  an appeal  nor a  revision\tlies
\nagainst the  finding of\t the Civil  Court in  the  reference
\nbecause of the express provision in Section 146 (1D) and not
\nbecause the proceeding before the Civil Court is not a civil
\nproceeding. The\t wording of Section 146 (1D) puts the matter
\nbeyond any controversy. Sub-Section (1D) reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “No appeal\t shall lie  from any  finding of  the  Civil
\n     Court given on a reference under this Section nor shall
\n     any review or revision of any such finding be allowed”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The sub-Section makes it clear that the finding of the Civil
\nCourt cannot  be questioned  by way  of an  appeal. It\talso
\nprohibits any  challenge to  the finding by way of review or
\nrevision. The answer therefore to the first question is that
\nthe finding  of the civil court given under Section 146 (1B)
\nregarding possession  is final\tand cannot  be challenged by
\nway of appeal, review or revision.\n<\/p>\n
     The second\t question that\tarises is  whether when\t the
\nMagistrate passes an order on receipt of a finding, from the
\ncivil court  that order can be challenged by way of revision
\nbefore the High Court. The plea that was put forward was the
\nbar to\tthe challenge  of the  finding of the civil court is
\nlifted when the Magistrate passes his order after
\n952<\/span>
\nthe receipt  of the  finding of the civil court. Sub-section
\n(1B) requires  the Magistrate  on receipt of the findings by
\nthe civil  court to  proceed and  dispose of the proceedings
\nunder Section  145 in  conformity with\tthe decision  of the
\ncivil court. If the order of the Magistrate is in conformity
\nwith the decision of the civil court, the Magistrate will be
\ncomplying with\tthe requirements of Section 146 (1B) and the
\norder thus passed cannot be challenged. It will of course be
\nopen to\t the High  Court to  interfere if  the order  of the
\nMagistrate is  not in  conformity with\tthe finding  of\t the
\ncivil  court.  When  the  order\t of  the  Magistrate  is  in
\nconformity with\t the finding  of the  civil court,  the High
\nCourt has  no jurisdiction  to interfere  under Sections 435
\nand 439\t of the\t Criminal Procedure  Code. When\t there is an
\nexpress provision  sub-Section (1D)  in the Code against the
\nchallenge of the finding of the civil court other provisions
\nof the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be relied on for doing
\nwhat is\t expressly prohibited.\tThe answer  therefore to the
\nsecond question\t is that  an order  passed by the Magistrate
\nunder Section  146 (1B)\t in conformity\twith the decision of
\nthe civil  court cannot be challenged under Sections 435 and\n<\/p>\n
439.
\n     The only  other question  that remains to be considered
\nis whether an order under Section 146 (1B) can be interfered
\nwith by\t the High  Court in the exercise of its powers under
\nArticle 227  of the  Constitution. It  is admitted  that the
\npowers conferred  on the  High Court  under Art.  227 of the
\nConstitution  cannot   in  any\t way  be  curtailed  by\t the
\nprovisions of  the Criminal  Procedure Code.  Therefore, the
\npowers of  the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution
\ncan be\tinvoked in  spite of  the restrictions\tplaced under
\nSection 146(1D)\t of the\t Criminal Procedure  Code.  But\t the
\nscope of  interference by  the High  Court under Art. 227 is
\nrestricted. This  Court has  repeatedly held that “the power
\nof  superintendence  conferred\tby  Article  227  is  to  be
\nexercised most\tsparingly and  only in\tappropriate cases in
\norder to  keep the  subordinate courts\twithin the bounds of
\ntheir authority and not for correcting mere errors vide 1954
\nS.C.R. 565 (Waryam Singh v. Amar Nath). In a later decision,
\n(Nagendra Nath Bora and another v. The Commissioner of Hills
\nDivision, and  Appeals, Assam  and Others(1),  the view\t was
\nreiterated and\tit was\theld  that  the\t power\tof  judicial
\ninterference under  Article 227\t of the Constitution are not
\ngreater\t than\tthe  power   under  Article   226   of\t the
\nConstitution, and  that under  Art. 227 of the Constitution,
\nthe power  of interference  is limited\tto seeing  that\t the
\ntribunal functions  within the limits of its authority. In a
\nrecent decision,  (Babhutmal Raichand  Oswal v.\t Laxmibai R.
\nTarts(2) this Court reiterated the view stated in the
\n953<\/span>
\nearlier decisions  referred to\tand held  that the  power of
\nsuperintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot
\nbe invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior
\ncourt can do in exercise of its statutory power as the Court
\nof appeal  and that the High Court cannot in exercise of its
\njurisdiction under  Art. 227  convert itself into a court of
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court has  interfered with  the order  of the
\nMagistrate which  is in\t conformity with  the finding of the
\ncivil court  regarding possession  on the  ground  that\t the
\ncivil court  has failed\t to consider the affidavits filed by
\nthe parties. The High Court on a reading of a passage in the
\njudgment of  the civil court came to the conclusion that the
\nMunsif failed  to consider  the affidavits.  In dealing with
\nthe affidavits, the civil court observed that as persons who
\nhad sworn  to the affidavits, are highly interested persons,
\nundue importance  cannot be  attached upon their oath. After
\nreferring to  the person on both sides, who had sworn to the
\naffidavits, the civil court stated that “I do not think that
\nthese affidavits  and counter-affidavits will be of any help
\nto either  party”. We  find that  the civil  court has taken
\ninto account  the affidavits  filed on behalf of the parties
\nbut as\tthe persons  who had  sworn to\tthe affidavits\twere
\ninterested and\tbelonged to one party or the other, it found
\nthat no\t weight can  be given  to the  affidavits. We do not
\nagree  that  the  rejection  of\t the  affidavits  under\t the
\ncircumstances can  be termed  as  failure  to  consider\t the
\naffidavits. Apart  from finding that the reason given by the
\nHigh Court  is not  convincing, we  are of  opinion that the
\nHigh Court  has no  power under\t Sections 435 and 439 of the
\nCriminal Procedure  Code to  interfere with  the findings of
\nthe civil  court regarding  possession in  a reference under
\nSection 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the result we
\nhold that  the High  Court was in error in invoking Sections
\n435 and\t 439 for  interfering with  the finding of the civil
\ncourt. In  fact,  Mr.  Lal  Narain  Sinha,  learned  counsel
\nappearing  for\tthe  respondent,  with\this  usual  fairness
\nconceded that  he cannot  contend that the High Court can in
\nexercise of  its power\tunder Sections 435 and 439 interfere
\nwith the finding of the civil court regarding possession.\n<\/p>\n
     But Mr.  Lal Narain  Sinha submitted  that the order of
\nthe High  Court could  be sustained as the power of the High
\nCourt under Art. 227 cannot be questioned. While there could
\nbe no  dispute that  the power\tof the High Court under Art.
\n227 cannot  be curtailed  under Section\t 146 of the Criminal
\nProcedure Code,\t we do\tnot think that the facts of the case
\nwould justify the High Court to interfere under Art. 227.\n<\/p>\n
954<\/span><\/p>\n
     Before concluding\tthe judgment,  we may point out that
\nSection 146  of the  Code of  Criminal Procedure 1898, is no
\nlonger in force having been replaced by the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure of  1973 (Act\t 2 of  1974). Under the new Section,
\n146(1), if the Magistrate is unable to satisfy himself as to
\nwhich of  the parties  was in  possession of  the subject of
\ndispute he  may\t attach\t the  subject  of  dispute  until  a
\ncompetent Court\t has determined\t the rights  of the  parties
\nthereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession
\nthereof. Art.  227 has\talso  been  since  amended  by\t42nd
\nAmendment further  restricting the  powers of the High Court
\nto interfere under Art. 227. The question thus dealt with by
\nus can\tno longer  arise after\tthe coming into force of the
\nCode of\t Criminal Procedure  (Act 2  of 1974). In the result
\nthe appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set
\naside and that of the Magistrate is restored.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n955<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chandrasekhar Singh & Ors vs Siya Ram Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1978 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR, 1 1979 SCR (1) 947 Author: P Kailasam Bench: Kailasam, P.S. PETITIONER: CHANDRASEKHAR SINGH & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: SIYA RAM SINGH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT26\/09\/1978 BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. SINGH, […]<\/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-141917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChandrasekhar Singh & Ors vs Siya Ram Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1978 - 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\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandrasekhar Singh & Ors vs Siya Ram Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978\" \/>\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=\"1978-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-16T22:34:32+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandrasekhar Singh & Ors vs Siya Ram Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1978\",\"datePublished\":\"1978-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-16T22:34:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978\"},\"wordCount\":2597,\"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\\\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978\",\"name\":\"Chandrasekhar Singh & Ors vs Siya Ram Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1978-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-16T22:34:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandrasekhar Singh & Ors vs Siya Ram Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1978\"}]},{\"@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":"Chandrasekhar Singh & Ors vs Siya Ram Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1978 - 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\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandrasekhar Singh & Ors vs Siya Ram Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1978-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-16T22:34:32+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandrasekhar Singh & Ors vs Siya Ram Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1978","datePublished":"1978-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-16T22:34:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978"},"wordCount":2597,"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\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978","name":"Chandrasekhar Singh & Ors vs Siya Ram Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1978-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-16T22:34:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrasekhar-singh-ors-vs-siya-ram-singh-ors-on-26-september-1978#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandrasekhar Singh & Ors vs Siya Ram Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1978"}]},{"@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\/141917","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=141917"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141917\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}