{"id":155425,"date":"1950-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1950-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2"},"modified":"2015-12-11T08:45:47","modified_gmt":"2015-12-11T03:15:47","slug":"in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2","title":{"rendered":"[In The Supreme Court Of India &#8230; vs Shankar And Others on 13 October, 1950"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">[In The Supreme Court Of India &#8230; vs Shankar And Others on 13 October, 1950<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR  419, \t\t  1950 SCR  754<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: N R.S.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Naik R.S.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\n[IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (HYDERABAD).]NARHARI AND OTHE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHANKAR AND OTHERS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n13\/10\/1950\n\nBENCH:\nNAIK R.S.\nBENCH:\nNAIK R.S.\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nSIDDIQUI KHALILUZZAMAN J.\n\nCITATION:\n 1953 AIR  419\t\t  1950 SCR  754\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1962 SC 338\t (8)\n RF\t    1966 SC1332\t (12)\n RF\t    1974 SC1320\t (7)\n\n\nACT:\n    Res\t judicata--Several  appeals  arising  out  of\tsame\nsuit--Appeal disposed of by same judgment--Separate  decrees\ndrawn up--Appeal from, one decree only--Maintainability--Res\njudicata--Limitation   Act,   1908,   s,   5--Extension\t  of\ntime--Sufficient cause --Conflict  of decisions.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n      A instituted a suit for possession of two-thirds\tshare\nin  an estate against B and C who claimed a one-third  share\neach in it. The suit was decreed by the trial court.  B\t and\nC preferred\n(1) I.L.R. 25 Mad. 658,\n755\nseparate   appeals,  These appeals  were heard together\t and\ndisposed  of by the same judgment but separate decrees\twere\nprepared.   A preferred an appeal from one of these  decrees\nin  time paying the full court fee and later on,  after\t the\nperiod\tof limitation had expired, preferred an appeal\tfrom\nthe  other  decree also, paying a court fee of Re.  1  only.\nThe  High  Court  held that  A should  have  filed  separate\nappeals\t within the period of limitation and that,  inasmuch\nas one of the appeals was time-barred, the first appeal\t was\nbarred by res judicata.\n    Held,  that, as there was only one suit and the  appeals\nhad been disposed of by the same judgment, it was not neces-\nsary  to file two separate appeals and the fact that one  of\nthe appeals was time-barred did not affect the maintainabil-\nity of the other appeal and the question of res judicata did\nnot at all arise in the case.\n    Held  further, that in the circumstances the High  Court\nwas wrong in not giving to the appellant the benefit of s. 5\nof the Limitation Act as there was a conflict of rulings  on\nthe subject.\n    Mst.  Lachmi  v. Mst. Bhuli (A.I.R. 1927 Lah.  289)\t ap-\nplied.\tAppa v. Kachai Bayyan Kutty (A.I.R- 1932  Mad.\t689)\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    APPEAL  from a judgment of the High Court  of  Hyderabad<br \/>\nunder  article 374 (4)\tof Constitution: Appeals Nos. 22 and<br \/>\n23 of 1950.\n<\/p>\n<p>Ghulam Ahmad Khan, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondents were not represented.\n<\/p>\n<p>    1950. October 13.  The judgment of the Court was  deliv-<br \/>\nered by<br \/>\n    NAIK  J.&#8211;The suit out of which these appeals arise\t was<br \/>\none  for  possession of two-thirds of the  land\t covered  by<br \/>\nsurvey No. 2 14 and for mesne profits. The plaintiffs  claim<br \/>\npossession  on\tthe ground that survey No. 214 was  an\tinam<br \/>\nland  and according to the family custom, belonged  to\tthem<br \/>\nexclusively  as\t members of the senior line as\tagainst\t the<br \/>\ndefendants who were of the junior lines. There are two\tsets<br \/>\nof  defendants:\t Nos.  1 to 4 belong to one  branch  of\t the<br \/>\nfamily and Nos. 5 to 8 to another. Each set claim that\tthey<br \/>\nare in possession of one-third of the land and maintain that<br \/>\nthey  are  entitled  &#8216;to it as their  share  of\t the  family<br \/>\nproperty.  They deny the custom of exclusive  possession  by<br \/>\nthe  senior  branch, alleged by the  plaintiffs.  The  trial<br \/>\ncourt  decreed\tthe  suit. From this  decree,  two  separate<br \/>\nappeals were taken by the two sets of the defendants to\t the<br \/>\nSadar Adalat, Gulbarga, each claiming one-third portion of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">756<\/span><br \/>\nthe land and each paid the court fee to the extent of  their<br \/>\nshare.\tThe first appellate court, i.e., the Sadar   Adalat,<br \/>\nallowed both the appeals and dismissed the plaintiffs&#8217;\tsuit<br \/>\nby one judgment dated 30th Bahman 1338 F. and ordered a copy<br \/>\nof  the judgment to be placed on the file of the other\tcon-<br \/>\nnected\tappeal. On the basis of this judgment,\ttwo  decrees<br \/>\nwere prepared by the first appellate court.  The  plaintiffs<br \/>\npreferred two appeals to the High Court. The first was filed<br \/>\non  23rd  Aban 1345 F. and with it was attached\t the  decree<br \/>\npassed\tin  the appeal of defendants No. 1 to 4.  Later,  on<br \/>\n17th  Azur 1346 F. another appeal was filed and with it\t the<br \/>\ndecree\tpassed in the appeal of defendants Nos. 5 to  8\t was<br \/>\nattached.   This latter appeal was twenty-nine\tdays  beyond<br \/>\nthe  period of limitation for appeals. It was filed on\tone-<br \/>\nrupee stamp paper and a note was made therein that the\tfull<br \/>\ncourt fee had been paid in the appeal filed  earlier,  which<br \/>\nhas  been  registered as Appeal No. 331 of 1346\t F.  At\t the<br \/>\nhearing\t of the appeals, a preliminary objection was  raised<br \/>\nby the defendants that as the other appeal, i.e., No. 332 of<br \/>\n1346 F. was filed beyond the period of limitation, it cannot<br \/>\nbe  maintained and that when the other appeal is  thus\tdis-<br \/>\nmissed,\t the  principle of res judicata would apply  to\t the<br \/>\nfirst appeal, i.e., No. 331 of 1346 and it should also fail.<br \/>\nThe  High Court held that the plaintiffs should\t have  filed<br \/>\ntwo separate appeals within the period of limitation and  as<br \/>\nthe  other  appeal  was admittedly  time-barred,  the  first<br \/>\nappeal\talso failed by the application of the  principle  of<br \/>\nres  judicata.\tThe High Court dismissed both  the  appeals.<br \/>\nAgainst\t this  judgment of the High Court two  appeals\twere<br \/>\npreferred  to the Judicial Committee of the State  and\tthey<br \/>\nare now before us under article 374(4) of the Constitution.<br \/>\n   The\tHigh  Court in its judgment relied on  the  decision<br \/>\ngiven in Jethmal v. Ranglal(1).\t That was a case of a  money<br \/>\nsuit  where the plaintiff&#8217;s claim was partially decreed\t and<br \/>\nfrom this judgment both the parties had appealed, the plain-<br \/>\ntiff  to the extent of the suit dismissed and the  defendant<br \/>\nto the extent of the<br \/>\n(1) 17 D.L.R.322<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">757<\/span><br \/>\nsuit  decreed.\t The  first appellate  court  dismissed\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff&#8217;s  suit  in toto, thus  allowing  the\t defendant&#8217;s<br \/>\nappeal and dismissing the plaintiff&#8217;s appeal, and two  sepa-<br \/>\nrate  decrees  were made.  The plaintiff appealed  from\t one<br \/>\ndecree\tonly, which was passed against him and it  was\theld<br \/>\nthat the principle of res judicata applied.<br \/>\n    Notwithstanding,  this ruling of the Judicial  Committee<br \/>\nof the State, the High Court, in several cases, i.e.,  Nand-<br \/>\nlal v. Mohiuddin Ali Khan(1), Nizamuddin v. Chatur  Bhuj(2),<br \/>\nGayajee\t Pant v. Habibuddin(3), and Jagannath v.  Sonajee(4)<br \/>\nhas held that when the suit is one and two appeals arise out<br \/>\nof  the same suit, it is not necessary to file two  separate<br \/>\nappeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tthe judgment of the High Court, though reference  is<br \/>\ngiven  to  some of these decisions, it is  merely  mentioned<br \/>\nthat  the appellant relies on these decisions.\tThe  learned<br \/>\nJudges perhaps thought that in the presence of the Hyderabad<br \/>\nJudicial  Committee decision in Jethmal v.  Ranglal(3)\tthey<br \/>\nneed not comment on these decisions at all.  There is also a<br \/>\nlater  decision\t of the Judicial Committee of the  State  in<br \/>\nBansilal v. Mohanlal(6), where the well known and exhaustive<br \/>\nauthority  of the Lahore High Court in Mst. Lachmi  v.\tMst.<br \/>\nBhuli (7) was followed.\t In the Lahore case, there were\t two<br \/>\ncross suits about the same subject-matter, filed  simultane-<br \/>\nously between the same parties, whereas in the present case,<br \/>\nthere  was only one suit and one judgment was given  by\t the<br \/>\ntrial  court and even in the first appeal to the Sadar\tAda-<br \/>\nlat,  there was only one judgment, in spite of\tthere  being<br \/>\ntwo appeals by the two sets of defendants.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t plaintiffs in their appeal to the High\t Court\thave<br \/>\nimpleaded all the defendants as respondents and their prayer<br \/>\ncovers\tboth  the appeals and they  have  paid\tconsolidated<br \/>\ncourt-fee  for the whole suit.\tIt is now well settled\tthat<br \/>\nwhere  there has been one trial, one finding, and one  deci-<br \/>\nsion, there need not be two appeals even though two  decrees<br \/>\nmay have been drawn up.\n<\/p>\n<p> (1) 22D.LR. 400. (3) 28 D.L.R. 1094.\t(5) 17 D.LR..322<br \/>\n(2) 93 D.L.R. 457. (4) 29 D.L R 108.  (6) 33 D.L.R. 603.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t      (7) A.I.R. 1927 Lah. 289.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">97<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">758<\/span><\/p>\n<p>As has been observed by Tek Chand J. in his learned judgment<br \/>\nin Mst. Lachmi v. Mst. Bhuli(1) mentioned above, the  deter-<br \/>\nmining factor is not the decree but the matter in controver-<br \/>\nsy.   As he puts it later in his judgment, the\testoppel  is<br \/>\nnot created by the decree but it can only be created by\t the<br \/>\njudgment.   The\t question of res judicata arises  only\twhen<br \/>\nthere  are two suits. Even when there are two suits, it\t has<br \/>\nbeen  held that a decision given simultaneously cannot be  a<br \/>\ndecision  in the former suit.  When there is only one  suit,<br \/>\nthe  question of res judicata does not arise at all  and  in<br \/>\nthe present case, both the decrees are in the same case\t and<br \/>\nbased on the same judgment, and the matter decided  concerns<br \/>\nthe  entire  suit.   As such, there is no  question  of\t the<br \/>\napplication  of\t the principle of res  judicata.   The\tsame<br \/>\njudgment  cannot  remain effective just because it  was\t ap-<br \/>\npealed\tagainst with a different number or a copy of it\t was<br \/>\nattached  to  a different appeal.  The two decrees  in\tsub-<br \/>\nstance\tare one.  Besides, the High Court was wrong  in\t not<br \/>\ngiving\tto  the appellants the benefit of section 5  of\t the<br \/>\nLimitation  Act\t because  there was  conflict  of  decisions<br \/>\nregarding  this question not only in the High Court  of\t the<br \/>\nState but also among the different High Courts in India.<br \/>\n    The learned counsel for the appellants cited in  support<br \/>\nof his arguments the decision given in Appa v. Kachai Bayyan<br \/>\nKutti(2), which is on all fours with the present case.<br \/>\n    We\tare,  therefore, of the opinion that  these  appeals<br \/>\nshould\tbe allowed and the case remanded to the\t High  Court<br \/>\nfor  decision  on the merits of the case.   Costs  of  these<br \/>\nappeals will abide the result of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t Appeals allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(1) A.I.R. 1927 Lah. 289.\t(2) A.I.R. 1932 Mad. 689.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">759<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India [In The Supreme Court Of India &#8230; vs Shankar And Others on 13 October, 1950 Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 419, 1950 SCR 754 Author: N R.S. Bench: Naik R.S. PETITIONER: [IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (HYDERABAD).]NARHARI AND OTHE Vs. RESPONDENT: SHANKAR AND OTHERS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/10\/1950 BENCH: NAIK R.S. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-155425","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>[In The Supreme Court Of India ... vs Shankar And Others on 13 October, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"[In The Supreme Court Of India ... vs Shankar And Others on 13 October, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1950-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-11T03:15:47+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"[In The Supreme Court Of India &#8230; vs Shankar And Others on 13 October, 1950\",\"datePublished\":\"1950-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-11T03:15:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2\"},\"wordCount\":1297,\"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\\\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2\",\"name\":\"[In The Supreme Court Of India ... vs Shankar And Others on 13 October, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1950-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-11T03:15:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"[In The Supreme Court Of India &#8230; vs Shankar And Others on 13 October, 1950\"}]},{\"@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":"[In The Supreme Court Of India ... vs Shankar And Others on 13 October, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"[In The Supreme Court Of India ... vs Shankar And Others on 13 October, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1950-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-11T03:15:47+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"[In The Supreme Court Of India &#8230; vs Shankar And Others on 13 October, 1950","datePublished":"1950-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-11T03:15:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2"},"wordCount":1297,"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\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2","name":"[In The Supreme Court Of India ... vs Shankar And Others on 13 October, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1950-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-11T03:15:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-supreme-court-of-india-vs-shankar-and-others-on-13-october-1950-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"[In The Supreme Court Of India &#8230; vs Shankar And Others on 13 October, 1950"}]},{"@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\/155425","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=155425"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155425\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}