{"id":149160,"date":"2011-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011"},"modified":"2016-07-18T21:52:05","modified_gmt":"2016-07-18T16:22:05","slug":"smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Sudha Devi vs Siv Prasad Bishwash @ Siv Pras on 28 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Sudha Devi vs Siv Prasad Bishwash @ Siv Pras on 28 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Mungeshwar Sahoo<\/div>\n
                              FIRST APPEAL No. 174 OF 2001\n\n\n      Against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 25.01.2001\n      passed by Sri Lakshman Ram, Subordinate Judge 4th, Purnea in Title\n      Suit No.192 of 1997.\n\n\n      SMT. SUDHA DEVI                              .......... Plaintiff-Appellant\n                                             Versus\n      MOSTT. CHINTAMANI & ORS.                     ......... Defendants-Respondents\n\n\n\n                                            ********\n\n\n      For the Appellant      : Mr. Rabindra Nath Kanth, Advocate\n\n\n      For the Respondent     : Mr. Sidheswari Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate\n                               Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, Advocate\n\n\nDated : 28th day of April, 2011\n\n                                         PRESENT\n\n                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO\n\n                                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Mungeshwar                   The plaintiff has filed this First Appeal against the
\n     Sahoo, J.\n<\/p>\n
                  impugned judgment and decree dated 25.01.2001 passed by Sri<\/p>\n
                  Lakshman Ram, the learned Subordinate Judge 4th, Purnea in title suit<\/p>\n
                  no.192 of 1997 dismissing the plaintiff-appellant’s partition suit.<\/p>\n
                  (2)     The plaintiff-appellant, Smt. Sudha Devi filed the aforesaid<\/p>\n
                  partition suit being title suit no.192 of 1997 claiming 1\/6th share in<\/p>\n
                  Schedule-A land of the plaint.     She claimed 1\/6th share alleging that
\n                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
Sitaram Bishwash had three sons and three daughters namely Siv<\/p>\n
Prasad Bishwash, the defendant no.1, Jagdish Prasad Bishwash who<\/p>\n
died in 1993 leaving behind heirs defendant nos.6 to 10, Hari Prasad<\/p>\n
Bishwash      who   died   in   1986   leaving   behind   heirs   defendant<\/p>\n
nos.2,3,4,5,12 and 13, Sudha Devi, the plaintiff, Urmila Devi who died<\/p>\n
in 1982 leaving behind her heirs defendant nos. 14 to 16 and Kamla<\/p>\n
Devi, defendant no.17.       Sitaram Bishwash died on 22.12.1974.       His<\/p>\n
widow, Fulkumari Devi died much before the death of Sitaram<\/p>\n
Bishwash. All the sons of late Sitaram Bishwash separated themselves<\/p>\n
in mess and worship only in the year 1955. The suit land is still joint<\/p>\n
and the parties have got unity of title and possession. The plaintiff used<\/p>\n
to come seasonally and receive her proportionate crops.           Defendant<\/p>\n
no.1 is the karta of the joint Hindu family. For last 5 years, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
is not being given her proportionate share. Some lands situate at Mauja<\/p>\n
Siyarkham comprised within khata nos.44 to 47, area 28.28 acres. Out<\/p>\n
of the joint family fund, three brothers have purchased the lands of<\/p>\n
Mauja Kohila comprised within khata no.42 measuring 16.55 acres<\/p>\n
which is also joint family property and the parties are in joint<\/p>\n
possession.    Out of the joint family fund, late Hari Prasad Bishwash<\/p>\n
purchased land of khata nos.62 and 90 in Mauja Balwa which is also<\/p>\n
joint family property.     In the month of December, 1996, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
was given only 30 monds of crops instead of 150 monds which<\/p>\n
compelled the plaintiff to demand for partition. The defendants refused<\/p>\n
to partition the suit property.     The plaintiff further alleged that her<\/p>\n
father, Sitaram Bishwash owed Rs.20,000 to the plaintiff for last 20
\n                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
years and in lieu of the said amount, her father had donated a small<\/p>\n
chunk of land at Nayatola, Purnea for residential purpose through a<\/p>\n
punchnama.      This land is not the suit property which belongs to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff exclusively.   On these grounds, the plaintiff prayed for 1\/6th<\/p>\n
share in the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       (3)     On being noticed, the defendants appeared and filed a joint<\/p>\n
written statement.       Besides taking various legal pleas, their main<\/p>\n
defence is that Jashodhar Bishwash, husband of Urmila Devi and<\/p>\n
Poonam Devi, daughter of late Hari Prasad Bishwash have not been<\/p>\n
made party in the suit and, therefore, the suit is bad for defect of<\/p>\n
parties.     They admitted that because of dispute in the family, Hari<\/p>\n
Prasad Bishwash and Jagdish Prasad Bishwash separated from their<\/p>\n
father in April, 1955 in mess only.     The three brothers had got their<\/p>\n
separate earning and income out of their separate milk business and<\/p>\n
earning from other paddy, jute and crop business. Out of their personal<\/p>\n
fund and earning, the three brothers acquired some of the suit lands in<\/p>\n
their own names which are detailed in Schedule of the written<\/p>\n
statement. Sitaram Bishwash gifted his property to the three brothers.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the plaintiff has got no right, title and possession over the<\/p>\n
properties which were acquired by the three brothers out of their own<\/p>\n
income and over the lands of Sitaram Bishwash which was gifted by the<\/p>\n
gift deeds to his sons separately.    The defendants denied that out of<\/p>\n
joint family fund, the land of Mauja Kohila measuring 16 acre 55<\/p>\n
decimals was purchased. They also denied that out of joint family fund,<\/p>\n
the land of Mauja Balwa was purchased.         They also denied to have
\n                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
given 30 monds of paddy to the plaintiff in December, 1996. Their case<\/p>\n
is that the plaintiff has got no interest in the suit property and she has<\/p>\n
no right to demand partition.    The share demanded by the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
wrong. They also denied the allegation of the plaintiff that her father<\/p>\n
owed Rs.20,000 for last 20 years and in lieu of that, he donated small<\/p>\n
chunk of land at Nayatola, Line Bazar, Purnea.     They also stated that<\/p>\n
the punchnama is forged and fabricated document.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (4)    Denying all the allegations made by the plaintiff, the<\/p>\n
defendants have given full facts regarding acquisition of the suit lands<\/p>\n
mentioned in detail in Schedule-A of the plaint.       According to the<\/p>\n
defendants, Schedule-I of the written statement was acquired by Siv<\/p>\n
Prasad Bishwash through registered deed of gift executed by the father<\/p>\n
of Sitaram Bishwash on 05.09.1962.     Since the date of gift, Siv Prasad<\/p>\n
Bishwash came in exclusive possession over the gifted land and he i.e.<\/p>\n
defendant no.1 sold 22 decimals of plot no.268, Mauja Kohila to Dharam<\/p>\n
Chand Mandal and put him to possession. The said vendee has not been<\/p>\n
made party in the suit and, therefore, the suit cannot proceed.       The<\/p>\n
plaintiff and defendant nos.2 to 17 have got no interest or possession<\/p>\n
over the gifted land mentioned in Schedule-I of the written statement.<\/p>\n
The defendant no.1 is the exclusive owner and is in possession thereof.<\/p>\n
      (5)    Schedule-II of the written statement were the lands<\/p>\n
acquired by defendant no.1 out of his personal income and fund and he<\/p>\n
has also been mutated with respect to the said land and out of the said<\/p>\n
land, he has sold some of the lands to Yogendra Bishwash and he is
\n                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
coming in possession of the purchased land.       The said purchaser is<\/p>\n
necessary party but he has not been made party.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (6)    Schedule-III of the written statement are the self-acquired<\/p>\n
land of Hari Prasad Bishwash out of his own income and fund and out of<\/p>\n
the said land, he has also sold some land to Hiralal Bishwash on<\/p>\n
31.03.1975 and since after purchase, the vendee is in possession<\/p>\n
thereof.    He has also sold land by registered sale deed dated<\/p>\n
17.06.1974 to Godai Bishwash out of the said self-acquired property<\/p>\n
detailed in Schedule-III. He also sold 24 decimals on 17.06.1974 again<\/p>\n
to Godai Bishwash and put him in possession.      The remaining land is<\/p>\n
coming in possession of Hari Prasad Bishwash and after his death, the<\/p>\n
defendant nos.2 to 5 are coming in possession as exclusive owner.<\/p>\n
      (7)    Schedule-IV land of the written statement was acquired by<\/p>\n
Hari Prasad Bishwash by virtue of a registered gift deed executed by<\/p>\n
Sitaram Bishwash, his father on 05.09.1962 and out of the said land, he<\/p>\n
has also sold some lands to Sri Chhutahru Mahto and Sunder Mahto on<\/p>\n
17.03.1990 and to Anil Yadav and others on 11.05.1992. He has also<\/p>\n
sold land on 17.03.1990 to Satyanarain Bishwash, on 28.11.1974 to<\/p>\n
Domai Bishwash and the remaining lands are coming in possession of<\/p>\n
the defendant nos.2 to 5. The others have got no interest in the said<\/p>\n
property. The purchasers are not made party in the suit.<\/p>\n
      (8)    Schedule-V lands of written statement was acquired by late<\/p>\n
Hari Prasad Bishwash out of his own income and fund and the lands<\/p>\n
mentioned in detail in lot nos.1 to 4 of Schedule-VI were jointly
\n                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
acquired by defendant no.1, Siv Prasad Bishwash and Jagdish Prasad<\/p>\n
Bishwash ancestors of defendant nos.6 to 10 in equal share from their<\/p>\n
personal fund through 4 registered sale deeds dated 09.12.1967 and<\/p>\n
28.02.1968 from Rabi Bishwash and others. After purchase, they were<\/p>\n
in exclusive possession thereof and they also sold jointly to Yogendra<\/p>\n
Prasad Bishwash some of the said acquired land. They also sold some<\/p>\n
land to Saheblal Mahto on 21.12.1995. The vendees are in possession<\/p>\n
of the purchased lands but they have not been made party in the suit.<\/p>\n
They have also sold lot no.2 of the Schedule-VI of the written statement<\/p>\n
by registered sale deeds dated 23.06.1997 to Bind Lal Mahaldar. They<\/p>\n
have also sold some land of lot no.2 of Schedule-VI of written statement<\/p>\n
on 09.12.1967.   The others have got no title, interest and possession<\/p>\n
over the said lands.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (9)    The further defence is that out of the said Schedule-VI of<\/p>\n
the written statement land, the defendant no.1 and defendant nos.5 to<\/p>\n
10 have sold to other persons also on 22.12.1990 to Mohan Mahaldar,<\/p>\n
10.12.1996 to Manik Chand Mahto. Therefore, the plaintiff has got no<\/p>\n
title, interest and possession over the Schedule-VI lands.          The<\/p>\n
remaining lands are in possession of the acquired persons.<\/p>\n
      (10)   So far Schedule-VII of the written statement is concerned,<\/p>\n
the case is that the said land has been acquired by Jagdish Prasad<\/p>\n
Bishwash through registered gift executed by Sitaram Bishwash on<\/p>\n
05.09.1962. After gift, Jagdish Prasad Bishwash also sold some of the<\/p>\n
gifted land by registered sale deeds dated 23.11.1990 to Manoj Thakur<\/p>\n
and by registered sale deed dated 17.03.1990 and 10.06.1992 to Bind
\n                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
Lal Bishwash and others.     So far the land of Schedule-VII of written<\/p>\n
statement is concerned, the others have got no right, title, interest and<\/p>\n
possession. All the vendees have not been made party by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
      (11)   The   further   defence   is   that   the   lands    described   in<\/p>\n
Schedule-VIII to XII of the written statement belong to Ramcharan<\/p>\n
Bishwash father of Sitaram Bishwash which he had acquired and<\/p>\n
remained in possession till death.     Likewise, the lands mentioned in<\/p>\n
detail in Schedule- XIII and XIV was also the land of Ramcharan<\/p>\n
Bishwash who had purchased it in the name of Fulkumari Devi wife of<\/p>\n
Sitaram Bishwash.    The lands of Schedule-VIII to XIV of the written<\/p>\n
statement are concerned, according to the defendants, the said lands<\/p>\n
were amicably partitioned between the three brothers and the three<\/p>\n
sisters. The three daughters of Sitaram Bishwash orally relinquished<\/p>\n
their right, title and interest in lieu of cash and ornaments. The lands<\/p>\n
mentioned in detail in Schedule-VIII to XIV are the ancestral lands. Siv<\/p>\n
Prasad Bishwash, Jagdish Prasad Bishwash and Hari Prasad Bishwash<\/p>\n
had sold 79 decimals by registered sale deed dated 17.03.1990 to<\/p>\n
Mohan Malakar but he has not been made party.                    Therefore, the<\/p>\n
defendants admitted that the lands mentioned in Schedule-VIII to XIV<\/p>\n
are the ancestral land of Sitaram Bishwash but in the amicable oral<\/p>\n
partition, the three daughters of Sitaram Bishwash including the plaintiff<\/p>\n
relinquished their right, title and possession in favour of three sons of<\/p>\n
Sitaram Bishwash.     The defendants in the written statement have<\/p>\n
pointed out various defects in the area, plot number and khata number.
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
       (12)   In view of the above pleadings of the parties, the learned<\/p>\n
Court below framed the following issues:\n<\/p>\n
\nI. Has the plaintiff got any cause of action for the suit?<\/p>\n
II. Is the suit framed as maintainable?\n<\/p>\n
III. Is the suit barred by law of limitation?\n<\/p>\n
IV. Is the suit barred by adverse possession?\n<\/p>\n
V. Is the property valued and the court fee paid there on sufficient?<\/p>\n
VI. Is there any unity of title and possession between the plaintiff and
\ndefendants with regard to the suit land?\n<\/p>\n
VII. Is the plaintiff entitled to 1\/6 share over the suit land described in
\nschedule-A of the plaint and movable described in schedule-B?<\/p>\n
VIII. To what other relief or reliefs if any is the plaintiff entitled to?<\/p>\n
       (13)   After trial, the learned Court below came to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that the suit land has already been gifted by Sitaram Bishwash to his<\/p>\n
three sons and their father has not left any dhurs of land so the plaintiff<\/p>\n
cannot claim partition of 1\/6th share.       The three sons were separate<\/p>\n
from their father since 1955 and thereafter, they started their separate<\/p>\n
business and acquired the properties.         The plaintiff is not entitled to<\/p>\n
claim share in that property and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.<\/p>\n
       (14)   The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there<\/p>\n
are overwhelming evidences available on record which proves that the<\/p>\n
properties were acquired by the three sons out of the income from joint<\/p>\n
family property and, therefore, the properties acquired are joint family<\/p>\n
property but the learned Court below has wrongly held that those<\/p>\n
properties are self-acquired property of the three sons out of their
\n                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
separate earning from business. The learned counsel further submitted<\/p>\n
that the gift deeds were never acted upon and moreover, even if, the<\/p>\n
finding of the learned Court below to the effect that some of the<\/p>\n
properties are self-acquired property of the defendants and some of the<\/p>\n
properties have been acquired through gift deed of the year 1962<\/p>\n
executed by Sitaram Bishwash then also, the plaintiff is entitled for her<\/p>\n
1\/6th share in the ancestral property but the learned Court below has<\/p>\n
not at all decided this question as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for<\/p>\n
her 1\/6th share in the ancestral property or not. All the properties are<\/p>\n
standing in the name of Sitaram Bishwash and Fulkumari Devi and,<\/p>\n
therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for 1\/6th share.      Admittedly, the<\/p>\n
properties described in Schedule-VIII to XIV in the written statement<\/p>\n
are   ancestral   property   according   to   the   defendants-respondents<\/p>\n
themselves but the learned court below has not decreed the suit with<\/p>\n
respect to those properties also on the ground that there had been<\/p>\n
amicable family settlement without there being any evidence.            The<\/p>\n
plaintiff never relinquished her interest in the property. The admissions<\/p>\n
and\/or relinquishment if any, made by the other two sisters of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff will not bind the plaintiff.   On these grounds, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and<\/p>\n
decree are liable to be set aside and the plaintiff’s suit for partition be<\/p>\n
decreed to the extent of 1\/6th share.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       (15)   On the other hand, Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, the<\/p>\n
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted<\/p>\n
that the simple suit for partition is not maintainable. There had already
\n                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
been oral family settlement and the parties are coming in possession of<\/p>\n
the properties according to the settlement and the defendants have also<\/p>\n
sold many of the properties to different persons and those purchasers<\/p>\n
have not been made party to the suit and, therefore, the simple suit for<\/p>\n
partition in absence of the purchasers is not maintainable. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel further submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit clubbing all<\/p>\n
the properties which belong exclusively to the defendants which they<\/p>\n
either acquired through gift deed of the year 1962 or acquired out of<\/p>\n
their own income from business and, therefore, suit suffers from<\/p>\n
multifariousness of causes of action.       The learned counsel further<\/p>\n
submitted that the sale deeds have been executed by the defendants<\/p>\n
more than three years prior to institution of the suit and no prayer for<\/p>\n
setting aside the sale deeds have been made nor ad valorem Court fee<\/p>\n
have been paid by the plaintiff and, therefore, the suit for partition was<\/p>\n
not maintainable.    The learned counsel further submitted that so far<\/p>\n
ancestral property is concerned, in view of Section 6 of the Hindu<\/p>\n
Succession Act, the plaintiff will have only 1\/24th share as the plaintiff<\/p>\n
being the daughter will be entitled to inherit from the property of her<\/p>\n
father, Sitaram Bishwash only. Sitaram Bishwash died in the year 1974<\/p>\n
and, therefore, on his death there shall be a notional partition to find<\/p>\n
out the share of Sitaram Bishwash. In that partition, the three sons will<\/p>\n
get 1\/4th each and Sitaram Bishwash will also get 1\/4th share. This 1\/4th<\/p>\n
share of Sitaram Bishwash will devolved on his three sons and three<\/p>\n
daughters equally i.e. 1\/6th of 1\/4th = 1\/24th share will go to the three<\/p>\n
sons and three daughters. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to only
\n                               11<\/span><\/p>\n
1\/24th share if it is held that the partition suit is maintainable and not<\/p>\n
1\/6th share. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
intentionally not included the property given by Sitaram Bishwash to her<\/p>\n
for residential purpose. The learned counsel further submitted that the<\/p>\n
learned Court below has dealt with in great details with respect to all<\/p>\n
the evidences and has rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
not entitled to any share in the suit property and, therefore, has rightly<\/p>\n
dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.    On these grounds, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that the First Appeal is liable to be dismissed with cost.<\/p>\n
       (16)   In view of the above rival contentions of the parties, the<\/p>\n
points arise for consideration in this appeal is:\n<\/p>\n
\nI. Whether the plaintiff has been able to prove unity of title and<\/p>\n
possession over the suit property with the defendants?<\/p>\n
II. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1\/6th share or 1\/24th share in the<\/p>\n
suit property and whether the impugned judgment and decree are<\/p>\n
sustainable in the eye of law?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       (17)   Both the points are interconnected and, therefore, both the<\/p>\n
points are decided together.       From perusal of the pleadings of the<\/p>\n
parties, it appears that the parties have admitted the fact of separation<\/p>\n
of three sons of Sitaram Bishwash from their father in the year 1955.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff further pleaded at paragraph 10 of the plaint that the three<\/p>\n
brothers purchased land of Mauja Kohila measuring 16.55 acres out of<\/p>\n
the joint family fund and likewise, late Hari Prasad Bishwash had<\/p>\n
purchased the land of Mauja Balwa out of joint family fund.            Those
\n                              12<\/span><\/p>\n
properties are also joint property and the parties are in joint possession<\/p>\n
thereof which have also been included in Schedule-A of the plaint. In<\/p>\n
the written statement, it has been specifically pleaded that after<\/p>\n
separation in the month of 1955, the three brothers of the plaintiff were<\/p>\n
doing their separate business and out of their own income, they<\/p>\n
purchased jointly in their names and also separately in individual<\/p>\n
names.    In the written statement, the defendants have given 14<\/p>\n
Schedules. It has been specifically pleaded that Schedule-I, IV and VII<\/p>\n
of the written statement are the properties acquired by the three<\/p>\n
brothers through the gift deed executed by Sitaram Bishwash on<\/p>\n
05.09.1962 in favour of the three sons separately vide paragraph 27,33<\/p>\n
and 47 of the written statement. Likewise, in the written statement, it<\/p>\n
has been pleaded that the properties mentioned in detail in Schedule-II,<\/p>\n
III, V and VI of the written statement have been acquired by the three<\/p>\n
brothers out of their own personal income vide paragraph 28,30,38 and<\/p>\n
39 of the written statement.      It has further been pleaded specifically<\/p>\n
that out of the said properties acquired through gift and acquired out of<\/p>\n
their personal income i.e. self-acquired properties mentioned in detail in<\/p>\n
Schedule-I to VII of the written statement, the defendants have<\/p>\n
transferred many of the properties to different purchasers right from the<\/p>\n
year 1974 to 1997-98. Likewise, in the written statement according to<\/p>\n
the defendants, the properties mentioned in detail in Schedule-VIII to<\/p>\n
XIV are the ancestral property acquired by Ramcharan Bishwash but the<\/p>\n
said property was orally partitioned between the three brothers after<\/p>\n
the death of their father and the three daughters relinquished their
\n                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
interest in the said property in favour of the brothers vide paragraph 48<\/p>\n
and 50 of the written statement.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (18)   In view of the above pleading, it appears that according to<\/p>\n
the plaintiff, total Schedule-A of the plaint property is the joint family<\/p>\n
property whereas the defendants divided Schedule-A of the plaint into<\/p>\n
three categories.    The first category is that out of the property<\/p>\n
mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint, the properties which are gifted<\/p>\n
by Sitaram Bishwash to three sons have been detailed in Schedule-I, IV<\/p>\n
and VII.   Likewise, the self-acquired properties have been detailed in<\/p>\n
Schedule-II, III, V and VI of the written statement.           The other<\/p>\n
Schedules i.e. Schedule VIII to XIV of the written statement are<\/p>\n
admitted to be the ancestral property.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (19)   Now, let us examine the evidences by the parties with<\/p>\n
respect to their respective claims. As stated above, it is admitted case<\/p>\n
that the three brothers were separate in mess in the year 1955. The<\/p>\n
defendants have produced sale deeds Exhibit-E\/9, E\/13 and E\/15 which<\/p>\n
are of the year 1959, 1967 and 1968 in the name of the brothers by<\/p>\n
which the properties mentioned in Schedule III to VI of the written<\/p>\n
statements were acquired by the three brothers. P.W.7 is the plaintiff<\/p>\n
herself who has been examined on commission on 25.07.1999. She has<\/p>\n
stated that when father was alive, all the brothers and sisters were joint<\/p>\n
and the landed properties were also joint. There are 500 to 600 Bighas<\/p>\n
of land in the joint family. She has denied that the brothers have given<\/p>\n
any money or ornaments and that the sisters have relinquished their<\/p>\n
interest in favour of the brothers.      She has also denied about self-
\n                              14<\/span><\/p>\n
acquisition by the brothers. However, in the cross-examination, she has<\/p>\n
stated that she cannot say how the lands have been acquired. She is<\/p>\n
also unable to say about the acquisition of the suit land.        On the<\/p>\n
contrary, D.W.15,16 and 24 examined on behalf of the defendants have<\/p>\n
stated that the properties have been purchased by the defendants i.e.<\/p>\n
three sons of Sitaram Bishwash after separation out of their income<\/p>\n
from separate business.    D.W.1, Sheela Devi wife of Hari Prasad who<\/p>\n
was also examined on commission has stated that the three sons of<\/p>\n
Sitaram Bishwash were separate during the life time of their father. The<\/p>\n
father executed gift deeds in favour of the three sons with respect to his<\/p>\n
entire lands. The sons of Sitaram Bishwash had separate business and<\/p>\n
separate income and out of that separate income, they purchased the<\/p>\n
land in their names. Likewise, the defendant witness, Pramila Devi who<\/p>\n
was also examined on commission has stated the same thing about<\/p>\n
acquisition through gift deed and acquisition of the properties out of<\/p>\n
income from separate business. D.W.18,23,25 and 34 are on the point<\/p>\n
of separate purchase of land out of personal income by the three sons<\/p>\n
of Sitaram Bishwash. D.W.9 and 12 have stated that Sitaram Bishwash<\/p>\n
had executed gift deeds in favour of his three sons. The three sons had<\/p>\n
separate income from their separate business and they purchased the<\/p>\n
lands out of their separate income in their names. Likewise, the D.W.<\/p>\n
27,29,31,37,40 and 41 have also stated the same thing.<\/p>\n
      (20)   In view of the above fact, the pleading of the plaintiff to<\/p>\n
the effect that the defendants have acquired some property as stated<\/p>\n
above in their own names out of the joint family fund is not supported
\n                              15<\/span><\/p>\n
by any evidence either oral or documentary. Except this pleading, there<\/p>\n
is nothing on record to come to the conclusion that the properties were<\/p>\n
acquired out of the joint family fund. When it is a case of the parties<\/p>\n
that the three sons of Sitaram Bishwash separated themselves from<\/p>\n
their father and they started living separately then there was no<\/p>\n
question of joint family fund arises.     Moreover, we have seen the<\/p>\n
evidence of the plaintiff herself who is unable to say that how the suit<\/p>\n
properties have been acquired.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (21)   Further, according to the defendants, the properties which<\/p>\n
were gifted by Sitaram Bishwash to the three sons in the year 1962 and<\/p>\n
the properties which they acquired out of their own income have been<\/p>\n
sold by them to different persons right from 1974 onwards and they put<\/p>\n
the purchasers in possession thereof.    The defendants have produced<\/p>\n
Exhibit-E, E\/1 to E\/8, E\/16 to E\/21 which are registered sale deeds<\/p>\n
executed by Siv Prasad Bishwash, Hari Prasad Bishwash, Sheela Devi<\/p>\n
wife of Hari Prasad Bishwash and Pramila Devi wife of Jagdish Prasad<\/p>\n
Bishwash out of khata no.42,53 and 56 Mauja Kohila and khata no.62 of<\/p>\n
Mauja Balwa.    From these registered sale deeds, it appears that the<\/p>\n
defendants were exercising their independent right over the same.<\/p>\n
Because it is admitted case that the sons were separate in 1955, there<\/p>\n
was no question of joint family fund or joint family.         It may be<\/p>\n
mentioned here that the plaintiff has not added any of the purchasers in<\/p>\n
the suit as defendants. Admittedly, the sale deeds are registered sale<\/p>\n
deeds and, therefore, there is presumption that everybody had the<\/p>\n
notice of transfer of the lands. In such view of the matter, the plaintiff
\n                                16<\/span><\/p>\n
cannot claim share in those properties in simple suit for partition<\/p>\n
without praying for setting aside the sale deeds.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (22)    The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the<\/p>\n
learned Court below has wrongly held that Sitaram Bishwash had gifted<\/p>\n
the entire property to his three sons because the gift deeds covers only<\/p>\n
31.40 acres. It may be mentioned here that so far this submission is<\/p>\n
concerned, the plaintiff has not specified in the pleading as to which<\/p>\n
part of the Schedule-A property was self-acquired property of Sitaram<\/p>\n
Bishwash and which property was the ancestral property. According to<\/p>\n
the defendants, Sitaram Bishwash had gifted his entire property to his<\/p>\n
three sons.    The said properties have been mentioned in detail in<\/p>\n
Schedule-I, IV and VII of the written statement.              After gift, the<\/p>\n
defendants    are   also   selling   independently   to   different   persons.<\/p>\n
Therefore, whatever property held and possessed by Sitaram Bishwash<\/p>\n
has been gifted to his three sons. So far this fact is concerned, there is<\/p>\n
no denial in the evidence of the plaintiff also. The gift deeds are of the<\/p>\n
year 1962. The plaintiff has not challenged these gift deeds.<\/p>\n
      (23)    In view of my above discussion, in my opinion, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
cannot be allowed to challenge the gift deeds now by submitting that<\/p>\n
those gift deeds were never acted upon.              As stated above, the<\/p>\n
defendants after accepting the gift deeds have also sold some of the<\/p>\n
properties as detailed in the written statement. This fact is not denied<\/p>\n
in the evidence by the plaintiff. Accordingly, I find that the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
got no unity of title and possession over the property acquired by the
\n                              17<\/span><\/p>\n
three sons of Sitaram Bishwash through the gift deeds of the year 1962<\/p>\n
executed by Sitaram Bishwash regarding his entire property.<\/p>\n
      (24)   The learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that<\/p>\n
since the property in suit mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint are<\/p>\n
recorded in the name of Sitaram Bishwash and Fulkumari Devi, the<\/p>\n
properties are not the ancestral property of Sitaram Bishwash rather<\/p>\n
Sitaram Bishwash was the exclusive owner of the property. So far this<\/p>\n
submission is concerned, it is not the case of the plaintiff either in the<\/p>\n
plaint or in the evidence.   On the contrary, the specific case of the<\/p>\n
defendant is that the father Sitaram Bishwash gifted entire property.<\/p>\n
Some properties have been acquired by the defendants after their<\/p>\n
separation in the year 1955 and the ancestral properties which were<\/p>\n
inherited by Sitaram Bishwash have been detailed in Schedule-VIII to<\/p>\n
XIV of the written statement.       So far this part of the pleading of the<\/p>\n
defendant regarding ancestral property is concerned, there is no denial<\/p>\n
in the evidence by the plaintiff.    In other words, it can safely be said<\/p>\n
that the properties mentioned in Schedule-VIII to XIV of the written<\/p>\n
statement which are part of the Schedule-A of the plaint are only the<\/p>\n
ancestral property.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (25)   As stated above, the plaintiff’s case is that the brothers<\/p>\n
separated in 1955 and, therefore, the plaintiff was getting proportionate<\/p>\n
crops in lieu of her share. This indicates that the produce from the land<\/p>\n
were being divided between the tenants in common and, therefore,<\/p>\n
there is no question of any joint family fund arises. As stated above,<\/p>\n
except this pleading that there was joint family fund, there is no
\n                              18<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence either oral or documentary in support of the said fact.        I,<\/p>\n
therefore, find that there was no joint family fund because the crops<\/p>\n
were being divided between the parties. The defendant witnesses have<\/p>\n
deposed to the effect that the three sons of Sitaram Bishwash had<\/p>\n
separate business and income. Considering these aspects of the matter<\/p>\n
and the evidences available on record to the effect that the defendants<\/p>\n
had separate business and income and they purchased the suit property<\/p>\n
in their own name and are dealing the same by transferring to different<\/p>\n
purchasers, I find that the properties mentioned in detail in Schedule-II,<\/p>\n
III, V and VI of the written statement are self-acquired properties of the<\/p>\n
defendants. The plaintiffs failed to prove that those properties are the<\/p>\n
joint family property and that she is in joint possession over the same.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the finding of the Court below regarding the gifted property<\/p>\n
and self-acquired property are hereby confirmed. Accordingly, it is held<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff has got no unity of title and possession over the<\/p>\n
properties mentioned in detail in Schedule-I to VII of the written<\/p>\n
statement and, therefore, she is not entitled to any share.<\/p>\n
      (26)   In the written statement, the defendants have however<\/p>\n
admitted the fact that the properties mentioned in detail in Schedule-<\/p>\n
VIII to XIV are the ancestral property.   With respect to this ancestral<\/p>\n
property, it is mentioned that there had been oral partition between the<\/p>\n
three sons and three daughters of Sitaram Bishwash and all the three<\/p>\n
daughters orally relinquished their interests in favour of the three<\/p>\n
brothers. However, this fact has been denied by the plaintiff herself in<\/p>\n
her evidence that she never relinquished her share.           The learned
\n                               19<\/span><\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent submitted that all the defendants have filed<\/p>\n
joint written statement including the two other sisters of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
and, therefore, the defendant’s case is fully supported that there had<\/p>\n
been oral settlement and the two daughters of Sitaram Bishwash<\/p>\n
conceded to this fact by joining in the written statement. So far this<\/p>\n
submission is concerned, it may be mentioned here that the admission<\/p>\n
or relinquishment of the other two sisters will never bind the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel next submitted that after separation and partition,<\/p>\n
the defendants have been mutated which clearly supports the case of<\/p>\n
the defendants. So far this submission is concerned also, I find no force<\/p>\n
because the mutation or granting of rent receipts are not the documents<\/p>\n
of title and moreover, it is not denied that the plaintiff is not the<\/p>\n
daughters of Sitaram Bishwash or that she has no interest in the suit<\/p>\n
property. According to the defendants, she relinquished in favour of the<\/p>\n
brothers.    When the plaintiff herself is deposing before the Court that<\/p>\n
she never relinquished and further the suit has been filed for partition,<\/p>\n
there can be no presumption that there had been an oral partition<\/p>\n
between the parties and the plaintiff also relinquished her interest.<\/p>\n
Except this pleading and evidence of one witness that the plaintiffs and<\/p>\n
other two daughters relinquished their interest, there is nothing on<\/p>\n
record.     The learned counsel for the respondent next submitted that<\/p>\n
since more than 23 years after the death of father, the suit has been<\/p>\n
filed by the plaintiff and, therefore, she is estopped to claim partition<\/p>\n
and she is not in possession in the suit property. Unless she proves that<\/p>\n
she is in possession of the suit property, she cannot claim partition. So
\n                              20<\/span><\/p>\n
far this submission of the learned counsel is concerned, I find no force<\/p>\n
because possession of one co-sharer is possession of the other co-<\/p>\n
sharer. As stated above, it is admitted fact that the plaintiff is daughter<\/p>\n
of Sitaram Bishwash. She has got interest in the properties of her<\/p>\n
father. There is no pleading that she was ousted and also there is no<\/p>\n
evidence that since when she was ousted from the suit property. There<\/p>\n
is no pleading and evidence regarding adverse possession also.<\/p>\n
Therefore, on the ground that the plaintiff did not take any step for<\/p>\n
getting her name mutated or getting rent receipt, her title cannot be<\/p>\n
extinguished. Likewise, merely the defendants have been mutated with<\/p>\n
respect to the suit property, it cannot be held that they are the<\/p>\n
exclusive owner or that the title of plaintiff has been extinguished. It is<\/p>\n
well settled principle of law that the mutation papers or granting of rent<\/p>\n
receipts or the revenue records neither create title in favour of anyone<\/p>\n
nor extinguish title of any person.   The plaintiff cannot be denied her<\/p>\n
legal claim unless the defendant proves that she has been ousted and<\/p>\n
thereby the defendants prescribed their title by adverse possession.<\/p>\n
      (27)   The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since<\/p>\n
the properties are recorded in the name of Sitaram Bishwash or<\/p>\n
Fulkumari Devi which is evident from Exhibit-2 series the plaintiff will<\/p>\n
be entitled to 1\/6th share in the property.     So far this submission is<\/p>\n
concerned, it may be mentioned here that no such case is made out by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff in the plaint and in the evidence also. As stated above, she<\/p>\n
is unable to say how these properties have been acquired.              It is<\/p>\n
admitted case that father of Sitaram Bishwash died prior to survey and,
\n                               21<\/span><\/p>\n
therefore, it is quite natural that the ancestral properties were also<\/p>\n
recorded in the name of Sitaram Bishwash.            On the contrary, the<\/p>\n
defendants have specifically pleaded that the properties detailed in<\/p>\n
Schedule-VIII to XIV are the ancestral property which belonged to<\/p>\n
father of Sitaram Bishwash. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff will not be entitled to 1\/6th share rather she will only be entitled<\/p>\n
to 1\/6th share in the share of her father, Sitaram Bishwash i.e. 1\/24th<\/p>\n
share out of the Schedule-VIII to XIV of the written statement. From<\/p>\n
perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that learned Court below<\/p>\n
has not at all considered these aspects of the matter. The learned Court<\/p>\n
below has decided the question regarding the lands covered by gift<\/p>\n
deeds and the lands which have been acquired by defendants out of<\/p>\n
their own income.     The learned Court below has not at all dealt with<\/p>\n
regard to the ancestral property.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       (28)   In   A.I.R.    1978    Supreme       Court    1239(Gurupad<\/p>\n
Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum and others<\/a>),<\/p>\n
the Apex Court held that “in order to ascertain the share of heirs in<\/p>\n
the property of a deceased coparcener it is necessary in the very<\/p>\n
nature of things, and as the very first step, to ascertain the<\/p>\n
share of the deceased in the coparcenary property.                   For, by<\/p>\n
doing that alone can one determine the extent of the claimant’s<\/p>\n
share.    Explanation 1 to S.6 resorts to the simple expedient,<\/p>\n
undoubtedly fictional, that the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara<\/p>\n
coparcener “shall be deemed to be” the share in the property<\/p>\n
that would have been allotted to him if a partition of that
\n                               22<\/span><\/p>\n
property had taken place immediately before his death. What is<\/p>\n
therefore required to be assumed is that a partition had in fact<\/p>\n
taken    place    between     the   deceased    and      his   coparceners<\/p>\n
immediately before his death.        That assumption, once made, is<\/p>\n
irrevocable.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        (29)   In view of the settled principle of law as laid down by the<\/p>\n
Apex Court, I find that the plaintiff is entitled only to the extent of<\/p>\n
1\/24th share in the ancestral property mentioned in the written<\/p>\n
statement of Schedule-VIII to XIV.     If any property has been sold by<\/p>\n
any party, the same may be allotted in the share of the vendor as there<\/p>\n
is no evidence of partition of the joint family property. Only as stated<\/p>\n
above, D.W.40 has stated that there had been oral partition.         Except<\/p>\n
this bald statement, there is no evidence of partition.        We have seen<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff has not been given any share and she is denying to<\/p>\n
have relinquished her interest. In such circumstances, the defendant’s<\/p>\n
case of oral partition is not reliable and acceptable.    I, therefore, find<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff has been able to prove that there is unity of title and<\/p>\n
possession, so far ancestral property is concerned.<\/p>\n
        (30)   In view of my above findings, the finding of the learned<\/p>\n
Court below with regard to Schedule-I to VII of the written statement is<\/p>\n
hereby confirmed and it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any<\/p>\n
share in those properties as those properties are either acquired<\/p>\n
through gift or the properties are self-acquired properties of the<\/p>\n
defendants.    I further find that the plaintiff is entitled to only 1\/24th
\n                                        23<\/span><\/p>\n
          share in the property mentioned in Schedule-VIII to XIV of the written<\/p>\n
          statement.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 (31)   In the result, this First Appeal is allowed in part. The<\/p>\n
          impugned judgment and decrees are modified and the plaintiff’s suit is<\/p>\n
          decreed to the extent of her 1\/24th share out of the suit property, the<\/p>\n
          details of which has been mentioned in Schedule-VIII to XIV of the<\/p>\n
          written statement.    In the facts and circumstances of the case, the<\/p>\n
          parties shall bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)<\/p>\n
Patna High Court, Patna
\nThe 28th April, 2011
\nSaurabh\/A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Smt. Sudha Devi vs Siv Prasad Bishwash @ Siv Pras on 28 April, 2011 Author: Mungeshwar Sahoo FIRST APPEAL No. 174 OF 2001 Against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 25.01.2001 passed by Sri Lakshman Ram, Subordinate Judge 4th, Purnea in Title Suit No.192 of 1997. SMT. SUDHA DEVI ………. Plaintiff-Appellant Versus […]<\/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-149160","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Sudha Devi vs Siv Prasad Bishwash @ Siv Pras on 28 April, 2011 - 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\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Sudha Devi vs Siv Prasad Bishwash @ Siv Pras on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-18T16:22:05+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=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Sudha Devi vs Siv Prasad Bishwash @ Siv Pras on 28 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-18T16:22:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":5960,\"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\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Smt. Sudha Devi vs Siv Prasad Bishwash @ Siv Pras on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-18T16:22:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Sudha Devi vs Siv Prasad Bishwash @ Siv Pras on 28 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Smt. Sudha Devi vs Siv Prasad Bishwash @ Siv Pras on 28 April, 2011 - 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\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Sudha Devi vs Siv Prasad Bishwash @ Siv Pras on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-18T16:22:05+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":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Sudha Devi vs Siv Prasad Bishwash @ Siv Pras on 28 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-18T16:22:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011"},"wordCount":5960,"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\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011","name":"Smt. Sudha Devi vs Siv Prasad Bishwash @ Siv Pras on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-18T16:22:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-siv-prasad-bishwash-siv-pras-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Sudha Devi vs Siv Prasad Bishwash @ Siv Pras on 28 April, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/149160","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=149160"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149160\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149160"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149160"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149160"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}