{"id":142279,"date":"1964-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964"},"modified":"2018-02-17T17:24:18","modified_gmt":"2018-02-17T11:54:18","slug":"aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964","title":{"rendered":"Aditya Narain Rai vs Ramasis Rai And Ors. on 28 April, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Aditya Narain Rai vs Ramasis Rai And Ors. on 28 April, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1964 Pat 538, 1964 CriLJ 707<\/div>\n
Author: N Untwalia<\/div>\n
Bench: N Untwalia<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
N.L. Untwalia, J. <\/p>\n
1. This is an appeal by the complainant on grant of special leave by this Court under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) from the order dated the 13th August, 1962, of Shri C. N. Tiwary, Magistrate 1st Class, Dinapore, acquitting all the twenty respondents tinder Section 2514(11) of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that there is a house on a piece of land bearing plot No. 410, khata No. 50, in village Lodipur Chandwari, Police station Dinapore. In the khatian, according to the evidence of the appellant (P. W. 5), the house was recorded in possession of one Mangar Gope. Pran Gope was his brother. The former died issueless, leaving behind Mt. Faguni as his widow. Pran had pre-deceased Mangar, leaving behind his widow Mt. Tileshwari and his daughter Sundri Devi. Girja and Ganga are sons of Sundri. On the 27th May, 1947, Mt. Faguni and Mt. Tileshwari executed a registered deed of gift in favour of Ganga Prasad in respect of the house in question. On the 30th January, 1960, a sale deed was executed by Ganga Prasad his brother Girja Prasad, and their mother Mt. Sundri, in favour of the appellant conveying the house to him. According to his case, Mangar Gope was in possession of the said house. Thereafter Faguni and Tileshwari were in its possession and Ganga came in possession after the property was gifted to him in the year 1947 and the appellant claims to be in possession after his purchase from Ganga and others in the year 1960.\n<\/p>\n
3. On the\t28th October, 1960, Assistant Sub-inspector (P. W. 8)\tsubmitted a report to the Sub-divisional
\nOfficer, Dinapore,\tfor action under Sections 144 and 107 of
\nthe Code against\tsix persons, who were described as the first party in the proceeding under Section 144 of Code and in which proceeding the appellant was shown as the second party. The proceeding under Section 144 of the Code was ultimately decided in favour of the aopellant by the Sub-divisional Officer on the 12th December, 1960. Thereafter the case of the appellant is that at 5 P. M. on that very date he went to the house in question and unlocked the room which had been locked up by the police before the start of the proceeding with a view to obviate the apprehension of the breach of the peace. Then the respondents and one more man named Basant, who was not traced and put on trial, appeared at the house in a mob variously armed, started breaking the locks, asked the appellant to get out of the house, threatened him with death or assault, assaulted him with fists and slaps, broke open the locks of the rooms, removed move ables belonging to the appellant and took them to their houses. A list of stolen properties was given in the complaint petition. With these allegations in brief the appellant filed a complaint petition before the Sub-divisional Officer, Dinapore, on the 13th December, 1960.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Sub-divisional Officer examined the appellant on solemn affirmation, as his order dated the 13th December, 1960, shows, and thereafter he passed the following order on that date:-\n<\/p>\n
  “…….. .Send this to O\/C Dinapore P. S. today for institution of a case and immediate necessary action. The 0\/C should visit the spot today and take such necessary action as is enjoined upon him by law.”\n<\/p>\n
Upon receipt of a copy of the complaint petition, first information report was drawn up by the Inspector of Police (P. W. 10) on the 14th December, 1960, and investigation, was started by him on that very date. After investigation the police submitted a charge sheet, which was received by the Sub-divisional Officer on the 5th January, 1961 (vide order sheet at page 119 of the paper book) upon which he passed the following order:-\n<\/p>\n
  “C. S. received No. 70\/60 under section 147\/448\/380 I. P. C. received, against the accused persons noted in column 3 of C. S. Coznizance taken. To Shri A. P. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class for disposal.”\n<\/p>\n
4. It will appear from the order sheet of the case, cognizance of which was taken on the 5th January, 1961, upon police report, that the case proceeded for enquiry under Chapter. XVIII of the Code as a police case under Section 207-A as contained in that Chapter, but ultimately when it was found that the evidence was not such as would Justify the committal of the case to the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate tried the case under Chapter XXI in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 251-A of the Code. Ultimately, as stated above, he recorded the order of acquittal. The defence was a denial of the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
5. Before I proceed to deal with the case on merits, I have to deal with the technical objection raised on behalf of the respondents and which objection has presented some difficulty before me, to the effect that no appeal lay to this Court under Section 417(3) of the Code, inasmuch as the case, in which the order of acquittal has been recorded by the learned Magistrate, was not a case instituted upon complaint by the appellant. It was a case Instituted upon police report, proceeded to trial as such and the order of acquittal was recorded under Sub-section (11) of Section 251-A of the Code. In reply to this technical objection reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant upon a recent decision of the Supreme .Court in Jamuna Singh v. Bhadai Shah,<\/a> 1964 BLJR 47 : (AIR 1964 SC 1541). This case was distinguished on behalf of the respondents with reference to the order dated the 2nd February, 1961, recorded in suit No. 395 of 1960 by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate in the case, cognizance of which was taken by him on the 13th December, 1960, on filing of the complaint petition and on examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation.\n<\/p>\n
That order dated the 2nd February, 1961, reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
  “Let  this  be amalgamated   with   G.  R.   case   recorded with regard to this (illeg.) matter,”\n<\/p>\n
After referring to this order of amalgamation, reliance was placed on behalf of the respondents upon a Bench decision of this Court in Harbans Singh v. Daroga Singh, AIR 1962 Pat 27, to which I was a party, and it was submitted that the instant case is covered by the principle of law decided by the Bench decision of this Court and the decision of the Supreme Court cannot apply to and is distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand.\n<\/p>\n
6. In my opinion, it is just the other way about. On a careful examination of the facts of the instant case and the principles of law decided by the Bench of this Court in Harbans Singh’s case, AIR 1962 Pat 27 and the Supreme Court in Jamuna Singh’s case, 1964 BUR 47 : (AIR 1964 SC 1541), I am of the view that the case decided by the Supreme Court will govern the case in hand and the Bench decision of this Court is distinguishable. My reasons are these:\n<\/p>\n
In Jamuna Singh’s case, 1964 BLJR 47 : (AIR 1954 SC 1541) decided by the Supreme Court, it has been said by Das Gupta, J. at page 49:\n<\/p>\n
  “…… .when   a   Magistrate   takes cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, a case is instituted in the Magistrate’s Court and such a case is one instituted on a complaint. Again, when a Magistrate takes cognizance of any offence upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer it is a case instituted in the Magistrate’s Court on a police report.”\n<\/p>\n
In Jamuna Singh’s case, 1964 BLJR 47 : (AIR 1964 SC 1541) when a complaint was filed by the complainant, he was examined on solemn affirmation by the Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code and then the Magistrate stated in the order sheet that the offence was a cognizable one and he directed the Sub-Inspector of Police “for instituting a case and report by 12-12-56”. It was held by the Supreme Court that as soon as the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation, cognizance of the case was taken within the meaning of Section 200 of the Code and thereafter referring the case to the police was in substance directing the police officer to make an enquiry or investigation within the meaning of Section 202 of the Code, although the expression used in the order sheet was “instituting a case”. In that view of the matter, it was held that even though a cognizance of the case was purported to have been taken second time upon a police report, the case would be deemed to have been instituted upon a complaint and the complainant had a right to apply for special leave to appeal to the High Court under Section 417 (3) of the Code. The minor point of distinction, which was attempted to be made on behalf of the respondents with reference to the words in the order of the Magistrate of the Supreme Court case that the police was asked to report therein and in the instant case the police was asked to   take   immediate   necessary   action,   in   my   opinion,   has no substance.    In substance it meant the same thing.\n<\/p>\n
7. But the  point of distinction, which created  some difficulty in my way, is that whereas in the case before the Supreme Court there is nothing to indicate that there was any  order  of  amalgamation  made   amalgamating  the  complaint case with the  police  case,  if I  may use those expressions, in the instant case there is such an order dated the  2nd  February,   1961, which  I  have quoted  above, and in that view of the matter, it was submitted with reference to   the   Bench   decision   of  this   Court  in   Harbans  Singh’s case, AIR  1962 Pat 27 that the present case  is governed by the  principle  decided  in that case.     I  have therefore, to examine very briefly the facts of Harbans Singh’s case, AIR   1962   Pat  27.    Appellant  Harbans  Singh   first  lodged   a   first   information   report   at  the   police   station   on   the 12th January, 1956.    While the investigation by the police was going on, he filed a protest petition before the Sub-divisional   Officer who  treated   it as  a  complaint and  examined  him   on   solemn   affirmation   on   the   10th   February, 1956,  (on  which  date  the  protest petition  was filed).    A case  was  started   upon  the   basis  of the   complaint,  but instead  of  referring the  matter to  the  police  for enquiry or  investigation   or  for  institution    of  a  case   or  in  any other  language,   the  Sub-divisional   Officer,   after  examining the complainant on the  10th February,  1956, ordered the matter to  be put up  with the  connected  case  record  on the  14th  February,   1956.\n<\/p>\n
As  it appears,  the  complaint was  not a  direct complaint to the Magistrate but a protest petition was treated as a  complaint, which must have disclosed that the first information report had already been lodged with the police and   the   police   investigation  was  going  on.    After  sometime   charge-sheet   was   submitted   by   the   police   on   or about the  18th   May,  1956,  and  on  that basis the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case Upon the police report.     Subsequently,   the   case   started   on   treating   the protest petition of Harbans Singh as a complaint was amalgamated with the case started upon the submission of the charge sheet by the  police.    In view of this it was held by this Court:-\n<\/p>\n
  “The effect of the order of amalgamation, therefore, is that the complaint case was merged with the police case ……….. In   other words,  the   complaint  case   lost  its identity and separate existence as it merged with the police case which  retained  its  identity.”\n<\/p>\n
8. In that view of the matter, it was held that an appeal at the instance of the complainant to this Court was not maintainable. The point of distinction, which has to be noted between Harbans Singh’s case, AIR 1962 Pat 27 and the instant one, is that while in the former there was no order by the Magistrate indicating any enquiry or investigation by the police, in the latter since the complaint was filed first, the order directing the police to institute a case has the effect of directing it to investigate it as held by the Supreme Court in Jamuna Singh’s case, 1964 BUR 47 : (AIR 1964 SC 1541) and that being the charge sheet submitted by the police, as held by the Supreme Court, will be treated as a report by the police to the Magistrate, as if it was a report on an enquiry or investigation under Section 202 of the Code. Even though thereafter the procedure prescribed in Section 251-A was followed as if it was a case instituted upon police report, the procedure can be held to be merely irregular and cannot rob the case of its character of a complaint case.\n<\/p>\n
 As I have said above, there was no order in Harbans. Singh’s case, AIR 1962 Pat 27 by the Magistrate which by any stretch could be taken to be an order directing an enquiry or investigation under Section 202 of the Code and in that view of the matter if the complaint case was later on amalgamated with the police case, which had been started upon the submission of charge-sheet by the police with reference to the first information report lodged earlier, than the filing of the complaint, it can be held and was so held that the complaint case lost its identity and merged in the police case. If, on the other hand, the investigation by the police and submission of charge sheet by the police has got to be taken in effect and substance to be in pursuance of the order by the Magistrate under Section 202 of the Code, it is obvious that the complaint case never lost its identity, even though the order at amalgamation was passed on the 2nd February, 1961. I, therefore, hold that the technical objection raised on behalf of the respondents must be overruled.\n<\/p>\n
9-20. (Thereafter his Lordship, after examining the merits, concluded that although he differed from the finding of the magistrate against the appellant on the question of possession he agreed with him in the finding that the occurrence did not take place as alleged and then stated.) Before I part with this case, I would like to observe that in view of my finding on the question of possession in favour of the appellant, the respondents would be well advised to seek redress of their grievance, if any, as to their claim or title over the disputed house in the civil court and not to commit any offence by going upon the land. But since this finding has been given in a case which was mainly concerned with the finding as to whether an occurrence of the kind as alleged by the complainant had taken place or not, it may well be that they would be ill-advised in the matter and to create disturbance again, in that event it is needless to say that the Magistracy will be well advised either to start a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code against the respondents or such of them as may be creating any disturbance or if they so think fit and proper, to start a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code and to decide once for all the question of possession so far as the criminal courts is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
21. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Aditya Narain Rai vs Ramasis Rai And Ors. on 28 April, 1964 Equivalent citations: AIR 1964 Pat 538, 1964 CriLJ 707 Author: N Untwalia Bench: N Untwalia JUDGMENT N.L. Untwalia, J. 1. This is an appeal by the complainant on grant of special leave by this Court under Section 417(3) of the […]<\/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":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-142279","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAditya Narain Rai vs Ramasis Rai And Ors. on 28 April, 1964 - 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\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aditya Narain Rai vs Ramasis Rai And Ors. on 28 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964\" \/>\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=\"1964-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-17T11:54:18+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\\\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aditya Narain Rai vs Ramasis Rai And Ors. on 28 April, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-17T11:54:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964\"},\"wordCount\":2574,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964\",\"name\":\"Aditya Narain Rai vs Ramasis Rai And Ors. on 28 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-17T11:54:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aditya Narain Rai vs Ramasis Rai And Ors. on 28 April, 1964\"}]},{\"@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":"Aditya Narain Rai vs Ramasis Rai And Ors. on 28 April, 1964 - 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\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aditya Narain Rai vs Ramasis Rai And Ors. on 28 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-17T11:54:18+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\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aditya Narain Rai vs Ramasis Rai And Ors. on 28 April, 1964","datePublished":"1964-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-17T11:54:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964"},"wordCount":2574,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964","name":"Aditya Narain Rai vs Ramasis Rai And Ors. on 28 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-17T11:54:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aditya-narain-rai-vs-ramasis-rai-and-ors-on-28-april-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aditya Narain Rai vs Ramasis Rai And Ors. on 28 April, 1964"}]},{"@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\/142279","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=142279"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142279\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142279"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142279"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142279"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}