{"id":142148,"date":"1968-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968"},"modified":"2015-11-08T10:40:14","modified_gmt":"2015-11-08T05:10:14","slug":"sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968","title":{"rendered":"Sk. Piru Bux & Ors vs Kalandi Pati Rao & Ors on 29 October, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sk. Piru Bux & Ors vs Kalandi Pati Rao & Ors on 29 October, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1885, \t\t 1969 SCR (2) 563<\/div>\n
Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSK. PIRU BUX & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKALANDI PATI RAO & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n29\/10\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR 1885\t\t  1969 SCR  (2) 563\n CITATOR INFO :\n E\t    1973 SC  87\t (29)\n\n\nACT:\nReligious  procession--Right  to take out  and\trestrictions\nthereon.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t respondents, who were Hindus filed a  suit  against\nthe appellants who were Muslims, for a declaration that\t the\nHindu residents of their villages had the right to take\t out\nreligious  and non-religious processions.  with\t appropriate\nmusic along the roads and public highways in the:  villages,\nincluding those by the side of two mosques in the  villages.\nThe appellants contended that in 1931, in proceedings  under\ns.  107,  Criminal Procedure Code, there  was  a  compromise\nbetween\t the  Hindus and  the Muslims of the  two  villages,\nwhereby\t it  was agreed\t that Hindus would  not\t play  music\nbetween\t two  land marks near the mosques, and that  such  a\nrestriction  was  necessary  to enable\tthem  to  say  their\nprayers\t  in  the.  mosques.   The  trial  court  held\t the\nrespondents  were  bound  by  the  compromise.\t The   first\nappellate court also held that the respondents were bound by\nthe  compromise,  but that the respondents  could  take\t the\nprocessions between the landmarks with 'music in a low sound\nexcept drumbeating. Both parties appealed to the High Court.\nThe High Court held, that the respondents were not bound  by\nthe compromise, that no restriction could be imposed on\t the\nright  of  the\trespondents'  community (Hindus) to take out\nprocessions with appropriate music, and that the restrictive\norder of the first appellate court that only low sound music\ncould be played should be set aside.\nIn appeal to this Court.\n    HELD: (1) As the compromise was not arrived at in a suit\nfought. in a respresentative capacity, it did not debar\t the\nparties from asserting, their legal rights in a civil court.\n[567 D]\nBabu  Ram  Singh  v. Subban Mochi,  A.I.R.  1929  All.\t519,\nexplained.\n    (2)\t The  respondents have the right to  take  out\tboth\nreligious and' non-religious processions with  accompaniment\nof music on the roads and highways subject only to (a)\tan.y\norder  of the local authorities regulating the traffic;\t (b)\nany directions of the Magistrate  under any law fOE the time\nbeing in force; and (c) the rights of the public. [568 G]\nManzur Hasan v. Muhammad Zaman, (1924) 52 I.A.61, applied.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 25 1966.
\nAppeal by special leave from the judgment and decree  dated’
\nJanuary\t 2, 1963  of the Orissa High Court in Second  Appeal
\nNo. 365\t of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
V.D. Misra, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
N.C. Chatterjee and Sukumar Ghose, for the respondents\tNos.
\n1 to 3 and 5 to 12.\n<\/p>\n
564<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    Sikri,  J.\tThis  appeal by special\t leave\tis  directed
\nagainst\t the judgment of the Orissa High Court in  a  second
\nappeal whereby the High Court affirmed the decree and  order
\npassed\tby  the First Additional  Sub-Judge,  Cuttack,\twith
\nmodifications.\t The High Court held that  “the\t restrictive
\norder of the lower appellate court directing the  plaintiffs
\nto  take  out  processions with a ‘low\tsound  music  except
\ndrumbeating, is not justified” and directed the deletion  of
\nthis portion from the order of the lower appellate court.
\n    In order to appreciate the points raised before us it is
\nnecessary to give a few facts and the findings of the  court
\nbelow.\t  The\tplaintiffs,  respondents   before   us\t and
\nhereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, brought this suit
\nagainst\t   the\t defendants,   appellants  before   us\t and
\nhereinafter  referred  to as the defendants, praying  for  a
\ndeclaration that the Hindu villagers of the two villages had
\nthe   right   to  take\tout  religious\t and   non-religious
\nprocessions with appropriate music along the District  Board
\nand village roads and other public highways of the  locality
\nincluding  those  by  the side of  the\tdefendants’  mosques
\nwithout any interruption wherever the plaintiffs’  community
\nchose\tto  take  out  without\trestriction  and  that\t the
\ndefendants, viz., the Mohamedan villagers of villages Alkund
\nand Nuagaon, be permanently restrained from interfering with
\nthe  plaintiffs’  lawful  procession  as  aforesaid  in\t any
\nmanner.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t case  of  the plaintiffs, in brief,  was  that\t the
\nvillages  Nuagaon  and Alkund were contiguous  villages\t and
\nthey  had a common social, cultural and religious life,\t and
\nthey  were entitled to take out religious and  non-religious
\nprocessions with appropriate music.  It was alleged that the
\nMuslim\tvillagers  of the locality had two mosques,  one  in
\neach village, abutting the highway.  It was further  alleged
\nthat till the Kartick Purnima day of 1952 the plaintiffs had
\ntaken  out  their  religious and  social  processions  with’
\nappropriate  music  without  any  interruption\tbefore\t the
\nmosques in question; that the plaintiffs were prevented from
\nexercising  their lawful rights by orders of the  Magistracy
\nat the instance of the defendants; that the defendants\theld
\nout  threats to attack the plaintiffs’ peaceful\t processions
\nand accordingly it was necessary to clear the cloud  created
\nby the Magistracy and  the conduct of the defendants.
\n    We\tmay  mention that the District\tMagistrate  and\t the
\nState Government were not made parties to this suit.’
\n    The defendants’ main plea was that the right claimed  by
\nthe  plaintiffs could only be exercised as not to cause\t any
\ninterference  with  the\t exercise  of  the  rights  of\t the
\ndefendants.  It was alleged that the Muslim community of the
\ntwo mauzas also had inherent, natural and fundamental rights
\nto  offer  their prayers in complete  calmness\twithout\t any
\ninterference  whatsoever and  they  were entitled to  oppose
\nmusic being played near about the mosque in
\n565<\/span>
\norder  to  maintain the calmness inasmuch as  the  music  or
\nSankirtan really disturbed the calmness which was absolutely
\nnecessary   for\t concentration\tof  mind  in  prayer.\t The
\ndefendants also. relied on a compromise alleged to have been
\narrived\t at  between the  two communities in 1931.   It\t was
\nalleged that in pursuance of the compromise two pillars\t had
\nbeen  put up by the defendants on both sides of the  mosques
\nto indicate to the music players of the processionists where
\nto  stop the music, and\t the  pillars  bore   the  following
\nengraved inscriptions:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Baja bajaiba nishdha”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  The  following issues, among others,\twere
\n\t      framed by the Trial Judge:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (5)\t Is  the  right\t of  the   plaintiff
\n\t      villagers to take religious and  non-religious
\n\t      processions with appropriate music by the side
\n\t      of  the\tmosques\t  of   Nuagaon\t and  Alkund
\n\t      likely to infringe the rights of the defendant
\n\t      moslem  villagers\t to offer  their  prayer  in
\n\t      calmness ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (6)\t Are  the  plaintiffs  entitled\t to.
\n\t      enforce their fight in wanton disregard of the
\n\t      fundamental rights of the defendants ?
\n\t\t    (7) Are the plaintiff villagers estopped
\n\t      to re-agitate their lost fundamental right  to
\n\t      play music in front of the mosques ?
\n\t\t    (8)\t Are  the plaintiffs  bound  by\t the
\n\t      compromise  entered into between the  properly
\n\t      represented  leaders of both the\tcommunities.
\n\t      dated 2-3-31 and had the compromise been acted
\n\t      upon ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  Trial Court held that the\trights of the plaintiffs  to
\ntake out the processions with the accompaniment of music was
\nnot absolute and the plaintiffs could only exercise the same
\non  all\t occasions except near the mosques at  the  time  of
\ncongregational\tprayer of the defendant community  according
\nto  Islamic religion and subject to other lawful  orders  or
\ndirections    given   by   the\tMagistrate  or\tPolice\t for
\npreventing breach of peace or regulating traffic.  The Court
\nfurther held that a compromise was effected in 1931 and\t the
\nHindu  community had been acting according to the  terms  of
\nthe compromise so as not to disturb the religious sentiments
\nof  the\t Muslim\t community by  playing\tmusic  before  their
\nmosques\t while going in processions.  The Court\t accordingly
\nheld that the plaintiffs were estopped from re-agitating the
\nmatter\twhich  they  had  agreed  not  to  do.\t The   Court
\naccordingly   decreed  the  suit  and  gave  the   following
\ndeclaration:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     “That  the plaintiffs have a  right  to
\n\t      take  out both religious\t and   non-religious
\n\t      processions  with\t the
\n566<\/span>
\n\t      accompaniment of proper music for the occasion
\n\t      on the highways of Alkund and Nuagaon villages
\n\t      subject to the undermentioned restrictions (a)
\n\t      that they do not play music between the  space
\n\t      of  brick\t pillars situated on both  sides  of
\n\t      Alkund mosque and between the space  indicated
\n\t      by  two stones on either side of\tthe  Nuagaon
\n\t      mosques so as not to disturb the defendants or
\n\t      their   community\t in  their  offering   their
\n\t      prayers and (2) that the right also subject to
\n\t      any   lawful   order  or\tdirection   by\t the
\n\t      Magistrate   or  the  Police  for\t  preventing
\n\t      breaches\t of public peace or obstructing\t the
\n\t      highway and such other orders under any  other
\n\t      statutory\t provisions for regulating  traffic.
\n\t      The parties will bear their own costs.”
\n    On\tappeal by the plaintiffs, the First Additional\tSub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Judge  also  held  that the compromise was  binding  on\t the
\nplaintiffs.   He further held that it was manifest from\t the
\ninscription  on the two pillars (Baja bajaiba nishdha)\tthat
\nthe leaders of the Hindu community agreed to stop only drum-
\nbeating\t near  the  said  two  mosques.\t  In  view  of\tthis
\nconclusion he gave the following modified declaration:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t “That\t the   plaintiffs  both\t  in   their
\n\t      individual  capacities and as members  of\t the
\n\t      Hindu  Community\thave  a fight  to  take\t out
\n\t      religious\t and social processions\t accompanied
\n\t      by  music in a low sound\texcept\tdrum-beating
\n\t      along public roads while passing the two brick
\n\t      pillars  situated\t on either  side  of  Alkund
\n\t      mosque and the two stones fixed on either side
\n\t      of  Nuagaon Mosque, subject to any  orders  or
\n\t      directions issued by the magistrate or  police
\n\t      for  preventing  breaches of public  peace  or
\n\t      obstructions of the thoroughfares or for other
\n\t      matters mentioned in section 144 Criminal P.C.
\n\t      or  under\t other statutory provisions  or\t for
\n\t      regulation  of  traffic, provided\t  that\t the
\n\t      exercise\tof such right does not amount  to  a
\n\t      nuisance recognised by law.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The\t defendants  appealed  to the  High  Court  and\t the
\nplaintiffs  filed a cross appeal.   R.K. Das, J., held\tthat
\nno restriction order of the lower appellate court  directing
\nthe  plaintiffs\t to take out  processions  with\t appropriate
\nmusic  and  that the  restrictive could be  imposed  on\t the
\nright  of the plaintiffs’ community to take  out  procession
\nwith “low sound music except drum-beating” was not justified
\nand was liable to be set aside.\t He, however, maintained the
\nrest  of the declaration given by the First Additional\tSub-
\nJudge.\tThe High Court further held that the  compromise did
\nnot create an estoppel against the plaintiffs.\tHe  observed
\nthat   “there  is  nothing  on\trecord\tto  show  that\t the
\nsignatories  to\t the  said  compromise\thad  any   authority
\nwhatsoever to bind the com-\n<\/p>\n
567<\/span><\/p>\n
munity\tas  a whole.  It is well-settled that a\t few   self-
\nconstituted leaders or even leaders chosen by the  officials
\ndo not legally represent the entire community which includes
\nminors\talso  and  without proof  of  valid  authority\tsuch
\nleaders cannot bind the other members of the community.\t The
\nquestion  whether any valid authority was given or not is  a
\nquestion of fact in each case.”\n<\/p>\n
    The learned counsel for the defendants contends that  (1
\n)  the\tHigh  Court had no jurisdiction\t to  set  aside\t the
\nfinding that the compromise was effected in a representative
\ncapacity;  (2) that Babu Ram Singh v. Subhan  Mochi(1)\tlays
\ndown  good  law and should have been followed  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt;\tand  (3) that both the Hindus and the  Muslims\thave
\nfundamental  rights  and  in  case  of\tconflict  reasonable
\nrestrictions  on playing of music before the mosques  should
\nbe imposed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
    In our opinion the High Court was right in coming to the
\nconclusion that the compromise was not binding on the  Hindu
\ncommunity.  The learned Additional Sub-Judge had misdirected
\nhimself\t in law in coming to the contrary  conclusion.\t The
\ncompromise  was\t not  arrived  at in a\tsuit  fought  in   a
\nrepresentative capacity but was filed in a proceeding  under
\ns.  107, Criminal Procedure Code.  The signatories  declared
\ninter alia that “neither we, the Musalmans nor we the Hindus
\ncan  at any time in future create any  disturbance  towards.
\neach other’s religion and will deal with each other  amongst
\nourselves   ……   There is no apprehension of  breach  of
\npeace  as  we the  Hindus and the  Musalmans  have  amicably
\nsettled the matter nor will there occur any breach of  peace
\nin  future.   So we both parties having settled\t the  matter
\namicably hereby submit this petition and pray that the\tcase
\nbe disposed of in terms of this compromise petition.” It  is
\nsigned\tby  a number of persons but there is  no  indication
\nthat  they  represented the two communities. It may be\tthat
\nthese  persons,\t who signed the compromise,  were  important
\npersons\t in  the  communities and it may be  that  both\t the
\ncommunities should act according to the compromise  effected
\nby  the so-called important persons. But in law it does\t not
\ndebar  the  parties from asserting their legal rights  in  a
\ncivil court.  We need not decide what the compromise  means,
\nand particularly whether the words inscribed on the  pillars
\nwere part of the compromise effected by the leaders.
\n    The\t facts in Babu Ram Singh v. Subhan  Mochi(1),  which
\nwas.  relied on by the learned counsel for  the\t defendants,
\nwere  different.  There\t the  Court  was  satisfied  from  a
\nconsideration  of the circumstances that the  agreement\t was
\nbinding on the parties.\t The Court observed:
\n(1) A.I.R. 1932 All. 519.\n<\/p>\n
568<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t    “It\t is  manifest that the\tparties\t did
\n\t      summon the leaders of the various\t communities
\n\t      and that they were summoned as representatives
\n\t      of their various communities  ….  We find it
\n\t      quite    impossible   to\t believe   in\t the
\n\t      circumstances  of\t the  case  that  the  other
\n\t      Mahomedans  of Rasra were not fully  aware  of
\n\t      the  meeting to which their leaders  had\tbeen
\n\t      summoned, and their subsequent conduct in\t the
\n\t      ensuing  years shows that during those  years,
\n\t      at any rate, they accepted the  representative
\n\t      capacity\tof  the leaders who had\t signed\t the
\n\t      agreement.   It is manifest that for at  least
\n\t      three  years  no\tsingle\tMahomedan  made\t any
\n\t      endeavor\tto repudiate the authority of  those
\n\t      leaders  ….  That it is right and proper  to
\n\t      infer  the  representative  character  of\t the
\n\t      signatories   to\t the  agreement\t  from\t the
\n\t      surrounding  circumstances is amply  supported
\n\t      by a reference to s. 187, Contract Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    We\tare not called upon to decide  whether\t that\tcase
\nwas  rightly decided or not as the facts in that  case\twere
\nquite  different.  As we have said, this  was  a  proceeding
\nunder s. 107 against particular parties and we are unable to
\nappreciate  how\t any  party in a proceeding  under  s.\t107,
\nCriminal Procedure Code, could represent the whole community
\nto which he belongs.\n<\/p>\n
    The law on the subject of rights of persons to take\t out
\nreligious  processions was settled by the Privy\t Council  in
\nManzur Hasan  v. Muhammad Zaman(1).  The learned counsel has
\nnot  challenged\t that  decision,  but  appeals\tto  us\t to.
\nincorporate   more  reasonable restrictions so as  to  fully
\npreserve  the  rights of the  appellants-defendants  to\t say
\ntheir prayers in peace in the mosques. In our opinion  there
\nis  no reason why we should not follow the decision  of\t the
\nPrivy  Council in Manzur Hasan\tv. Muhammad Zaman  (1),\t and
\nthe  form  of declaration given\t therein.   The\t declaration
\ngiven by the Privy Council paid due regard to the rights  of
\nboth communities.  We accordingly substitute the   following
\ndeclaration:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    “That  the\tplaintiffs have a  right  to
\n\t      take  out\t both  religious  and  non-religious
\n\t      processions with the accompaniment of music on
\n\t      the  highways of Alkund and  Nuagaon  villages
\n\t      (1)   subject  to\t the  order  of\t the   local
\n\t      authorities  regulating  the traffic  and\t (2)
\n\t      subject to. the Magistrate’s directions  under
\n\t      any  law for the time being in force  and\t the
\n\t      rights of the public.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The\t appeal accordingly fails and is  dismissed.   There
\nwill be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed.\n(1) [1924] 52 I.A. 61.\n569<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sk. Piru Bux & Ors vs Kalandi Pati Rao & Ors on 29 October, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1885, 1969 SCR (2) 563 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: SK. PIRU BUX & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: KALANDI PATI RAO & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/10\/1968 BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: […]<\/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-142148","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSk. Piru Bux & Ors vs Kalandi Pati Rao & Ors on 29 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sk. Piru Bux & Ors vs Kalandi Pati Rao & Ors on 29 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1968-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-08T05:10:14+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sk. Piru Bux & Ors vs Kalandi Pati Rao & Ors on 29 October, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-08T05:10:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968\"},\"wordCount\":2205,\"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\\\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968\",\"name\":\"Sk. Piru Bux & Ors vs Kalandi Pati Rao & Ors on 29 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-08T05:10:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sk. Piru Bux & Ors vs Kalandi Pati Rao & Ors on 29 October, 1968\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sk. Piru Bux & Ors vs Kalandi Pati Rao & Ors on 29 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sk. Piru Bux & Ors vs Kalandi Pati Rao & Ors on 29 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-08T05:10:14+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sk. Piru Bux & Ors vs Kalandi Pati Rao & Ors on 29 October, 1968","datePublished":"1968-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-08T05:10:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968"},"wordCount":2205,"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\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968","name":"Sk. Piru Bux & Ors vs Kalandi Pati Rao & Ors on 29 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-08T05:10:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sk-piru-bux-ors-vs-kalandi-pati-rao-ors-on-29-october-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sk. Piru Bux & Ors vs Kalandi Pati Rao & Ors on 29 October, 1968"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142148","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=142148"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142148\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142148"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142148"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142148"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}