{"id":167030,"date":"1961-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961"},"modified":"2017-08-27T22:04:08","modified_gmt":"2017-08-27T16:34:08","slug":"raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961","title":{"rendered":"Raja Rameshwar Rao And Another vs Raja Govind Rao on 28 March, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Raja Rameshwar Rao And Another vs Raja Govind Rao on 28 March, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1442, \t\t 1962 SCR (1) 618<\/div>\n
Author: K Wanchoo<\/div>\n
Bench: Wanchoo, K.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAJA RAMESHWAR RAO AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAJA GOVIND RAO\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n28\/03\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR 1442\t\t  1962 SCR  (1) 618\n\n\nACT:\nJagir-Grant   made  by\tNizam-Adverse  possession-Claim\t  of\nlimited\t right\tas  permanent  lessee-Maintainability-Indian\nLimitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), art. 144.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nAlthough  title\t to a limited interest in  property  can  be\nacquired  by adverse possession, no limited interest in\t the\nnature of a permanent lease can be ordinarily acquired in  a\njagir  which  must initially be presumed to  enure  for\t the\nlife-time  of  the  grantee unless the\tgrant  itself  shows\notherwise.\nSankaran  v. Periasami, (1890) I.L.R. 13 Mad.  467,  Thakore\nFatehsingji  Dipsangji\tv. Bamanji  Ardeshir  Dalal,  (1903)\nI.L.R.\t27  Bom.  5I5,\tShrimat\t Daivasikhamani\t  Ponnambala\nDesikar\t v. Periayanan Chetti, (1936) L.R. 63 I.A.  261\t and\nGulabdas,Jugjivandas v. The Collector of Surat, (1878)\tL.R.\n6 I-A 54, referred to.\nAlthough  in  the former State of Hyderabad a son  might  in\nnormal\tcourse be allowed to succeed to the father's  jagir,\nit  could not be said that jagirs granted by the State\twere\ntherefore  permanent  and hereditary in character,  for\t the\nState generally .had the right to resume the grant.\nRaje   Vinaykrao  Nemiwant  Brahmin  v.\t Raje\tShriniwasrao\nNemiwant Brahmin, I.L.R. [1942] Nag. 526 and  Ahmad-un-Nissa\nBegum v. State, A.I.R. 1952 Hyd. 163, referred to.\nWhere,\ttherefore,  a grant was continued in a\tfamily\tfrom\ngeneration to generation, each grantee must be taken to hold\nit for his life and limitation against each must start\tfrom\nthe date of his title.\nSince a jagirdar could not grant a lease beyond his lifetime\nunless specifically empowered by the sanad or the law of the\nState, the period of adverse possession against one jagirdar\ncould not be tacked to that against another for the  purpose\nof art.\t I44 Of the Indian Limitation Act.  In this  respect\na  jagirdar  stood on a different footing from that  of\t the\nmanager of a temple.\nJagdish Narayan v. Nawab Saeed Ahmed Khan, A.I.R. 1946\tP.C.\n59, referred to.\nShrimat\t Daivasikhamani\t Ponnambala  Desikay  v.  Periyannan\nChetti, (1936) L.R. 63 I.A. 26i, distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 399 of 1957.
\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and decree dated July 27, 1954  of
\nthe  High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Civil  Appeals
\nNos.  I and 2 of 1954-55.\n<\/p>\n
619<\/span><\/p>\n
S.   T.\t Desai, C. Krishna Reddi, T. Ramachandra Rao and  M.
\nS. K. Sastri, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Sadashiv  Rao,\tJ. B. Dadachanji and S. N. Andley,  for\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
1961.  March 28.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nWANCHOO,  J.-This is an appeal on a certificate\t granted  by
\nthe  former High Court of Hyderabad.  A suit was brought  by
\nthe  respondent\t in 1920 with respect to  village  Timmapet.
\nThe  case  of the respondent was that the village  had\tbeen
\ngranted\t to  his ancestor Harinarayan  alias  Raja  Nemiwant
\nBahadur\t by  the  Nizam\t in 1787.   On\tthe  death  of\tRaja
\nHarinarayan,  the village was conferred by another sanad  on
\nhis  son Raja Govind Narayan in 1811.  Ever since  then\t the
\nvillage\t had continued in the possession of the\t descendants
\nof  Raja  Govind  Narayan.  In\t1817,  Raja  Govind  Narayan
\ngranted\t this  village on Tahud (i.e., lease) to  Raja\tRama
\nKrishna\t Rao,  ancestor of the defendants.   Inam  inquiries
\nwith  respect  to this village started in 1901 and  then  an
\nobjection  was\tmade on behalf of the  appellants  that\t the
\nvillage had been granted to their ancestors by the Nizam and
\nthe  respondent\t was only entitled to the pan mukta  of\t the
\nvillage\t and no more.  Pan mukta means a fixed sum which  is
\npayable\t in perpetuity for any land granted by the Ruler  or
\nthe  jagirdar to any person.  The respondent’s case  further
\nwas  that the lease money was being regularly  paid,  though
\nsome  time  before  the suit there was\tsome  default.\t The
\nrespondent  had\t to file a suit to recover the\tlease  money
\nwhich was decreed and the decretal amount was recovered.  In
\n1917 disputes arose between the parties and consequently  in
\n1918  the  respondent  asked the appellants  to\t vacate\t the
\nvillage.   They, however, refused to do so.   Thereupon\t the
\npresent suit was filed in 1920 and the respondent’s case was
\nthat the lease granted to the appellants was not a permanent
\nlease  and could only enure for the lifetime of the  grantor
\nand  therefore the respondent was entitled to possession  of
\nthe
\n620<\/span>
\nvillage, particularly as the appellants had begun to  assert
\na title adverse to the respondent. The suit was resisted  by
\nthe appellants, and their main defence was that the  village
\nhad  been  granted  as bilmakta with a fixed  pan  makta  in
\ntheir  favour by the Nizam and therefore the respondent\t was
\nonly entitled to the fixed pan makta per year and could\t not
\nclaim\tto  dispossess\tthem  from  the\t village.    As\t  an
\nalternative, defence of limitation was also pleaded,  though
\nthe written statement did not make it clear whether the\t bar
\nof  limitation\twas  under  art. 142  or  art.\t144  of\t the
\nLimitation  Act.  There were other defenses also with  which
\nwe are however not concerned in the present appeal.
\nThe trial court framed a large number of issues, which\twere
\nanswered  in  favour  of the respondent\t and  the  suit\t was
\ndecreed\t and  the  plaintiff was  held\tentitled  to  obtain
\npossession  of\tthe  village as well  as  to  recover  mesne
\nprofits at the rate of Rs. 931-12-0 0. S. per year.  On\t the
\ntwo main defenses, the trial court held that the village had
\nnot  been granted by the Nizam to the appellants as  claimed
\nby them and the appellants were liable to ejectment as\tthey
\ncould  not claim the rights of a permanent losses under\t the
\nlease  granted to their ancestor by the respondent’s  ances-
\ntor.  Further on the question of limitation, the trial court
\nheld that the suit was not barred by art. 142.\tIt does\t not
\nappear\tthat the case of adverse possession was put  forward
\nin the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
There were two appeals to the High Court; one of them was by
\nthe  appellants\t and  the  other  by  the  respondent.\t The
\nrespondent’s  appeal was confined only to the rate of  mesne
\nprofits\t while\tthe  appellants reiterated  their  two\tmain
\ncontentions as to the nature of their right and\t limitation.
\nThe  appeals  were  heard by a Division Bench  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\tthe Judges composing Which however differed.   Schri
\nRan, J., agreed with the trial court as to the nature of the
\nrights\tof  the ‘respondent as well as on  the\tquestion  of
\nlimitation  and\t was of the opinion that the appeal  of\t the
\nappellants should be dismissed.\t It appears that in the High
\nCourt a plea
\n621<\/span>
\nof  adverse  possession\t was also raised in  the  matter  of
\nlimitation;  but  that plea was also negatived\tby  Schripat
\nRau,  J. Further Schripat Rau, J., was of the View that\t the
\nappeal\tof the respondent -should be allowed and the  amount
\nof  mesne  profits  per\t year should  be  _  raised  to\t Rs.
\n4,381-12-11.\tThe  other  learned   Judge,   Khalilulzaman
\nSiddiqu, J., seems Lo have held in favour of the  appellants
\nboth  on the questions of title and adverse  possession\t and
\nwas  of the view that the suit should be dismissed in  toto.
\nThere was then a reference to a third learned Judge, Ansari,
\nJ.  He\tagreed with Schripat Rau, J., on  the  questions  of
\ntitle and limitation; but as by the time he came to  deliver
\njudgment the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, No.
\nLXIX of 1358-F had come into force from 1951 and  possession
\ncould  not  be granted to the respondent, Ansari,  J.,\theld
\nthat  the respondent would be entitled to  the\tcompensation
\npayable on the abolition of jagirs.\n<\/p>\n
As  Ansari, J., had per force to differ from  Schripat\tRau,
\nJ.,  as\t to  the part of the relief to\tbe  granted  to\t the
\nrespondent because of the abolition of jagirs, the case\t was
\nreferred to a Full Bench of three Judges in view of s. 8  of
\nthe  Hyderabad High Court Act.\tThe Full Bench held that  as
\nAnsari\tand  Schripat  Rau, JJ., were in  agreement  on\t the
\nquestions  of  title and limitation these matters  did\triot
\nfall-to be decided before them and would be concluded by the
\njudgment of Ansari, J. But on the nature of relief on  which
\nAnsari,\t J.,  per  force  had to differ\t from  the  view  of
\nSchripat Rau, J., the Full Bench upheld the view of  Ansari,
\nJ.  Thereafter the appellants applied for a certificate\t for
\nleave  to appeal to this Court, which was granted; and\tthat
\nis how the matter has come up before us.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the appellants has urged only two points
\nbefore\tus.   In the first place, lie submits  that  on\t the
\nevidence  it  has  been\t proved that  the  Nizam  granted  a
\nbilmakta sanad to the appellants which included this village
\nalso  and  therefore  the appellants were  entitled  to\t the
\npossession  of the village permanently subject only  to\t the
\npayment of pan
\n622<\/span>
\nmakta  to the respondent.  In the second place,\t he  submits
\nthat  even  if\tit be held that the Nizam did  not  grant  a
\nbilmakta  sanad including this village, the  appellants\t had
\nperfected  their title by adverse possession to the  limited
\nright  of  being  permanent  lessees  under  the  respondent
\nsubject to payment of a fixed amount of rent per year.
\nThe  first  question therefore that arises  is\twhether\t the
\nappellants’  case  that\t this village  is  included  in\t the
\nbilmakta sanad granted to them by the Nizam and therefore by
\nvirtue of that sanad they are entitled to hold this  village
\npermanently  subject  only to the payment of a\tcertain\t sum
\nannually to the respondent, is proved.\tIt is now no  longer
\nin  dispute  that the village was granted in  jagir  to\t the
\nancestors of the respondent.  It is also not in dispute that
\nin 1817 Raja Govind Narayan granted a kowl in favour of\t the
\nappellants’  ancestor.\t Under the terms of  that  kowl\t the
\nvillage\t was granted on Tahud (lease) for the fixed  sum  of
\nRs. 1027-10-0 per year to the appellants’ ancestor.  No term
\nis  mentioned  in  the kowl as to its  duration;  but  after
\nreciting  that the village had been granted on Tahud  for  a
\ncertain fixed amount annually, the kowl goes on to say\tthat
\nthe  grantee should with entire confidence rehabilitate\t old
\nand  new riots and pay the amount of Tabud annually  as\t per
\nfixed installments, in every crop season.  As one reads\t the
\nkowl, on its plain terms it cannot be read to confer on\t the
\nappellants’ ancestor a permanent lease on a fixed sum  which
\nwas  not  liable to be varied at all.\tBut  the  appellants
\nclaim  that they had been in uninterrupted possession  since
\n1817 for over 100 years. on the same rent when the suit\t was
\nfiled and this shows that the village must have been granted
\nto  them  as  a\t permanent lease.   We\tcannot\taccept\tthis
\ncontention  and\t the  fact that\t the  appellants  and  their
\nancestors have continued in possession over 100 years on the
\nsame rent would not make the kowl of 1817 a permanent, lease
\nin  the\t face  of its plain terms.  The\t courts\t below\twere
\ntherefore  right in the view that the kowl does not  show  a
\ngrant of a permanent lease on a fixed annual payment to\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
623<\/span><\/p>\n
The  appellants however relied on what happened\t soon  after
\nthe  kowl was granted to them.\tIt appears that\t soon  after
\n1817  the  appellants’ ancestor made a\tvajab-ul-arz  (i.e.,
\napplication to the Nizam) with various prayers.\t One of\t the
\nprayers was for grant of bilmakta sanad.  This was obviously
\nwith   respect\tto  certain  Government\t lands,\t which\t the
\nancestors  of  the  appellants\theld.\tIn  para  6  of\t the
\nvajab-ul-arz it is said that “in these days your devotee has
\nregularly  paid Government dues and expects that  he  should
\nreceive\t sanads\t of bilmakta with the seal of  Diwani”.\t  In
\npara  3 it is said that “from out of the Government  Talukas
\nwhichever  is entrusted on Tahud, your petitioner  will\t pay
\nthe  Tahud  amount  and\t will look  after  and\timprove\t the
\nTaluka”.  On a fair reading of the vajabul-arz there can  be
\nlittle doubt that the ancestor of the appellants was praying
\nthat he should be granted a bilmakta sanad of lands held  by
\nhim from the Government.  To this vajab-ul-arz was  appended
\na  list\t of villages which apparently the  ancestor  of\t the
\nappellants hold.  This list contained 88 villages.  There is
\nno  difficulty\tabout  85  of  these  villages\twhich\twere
\napparently field by the ancestor of the appellants from\t the
\nGovernment; but about three villages there was\t  a  special
\nmention in the list.  These were:(1)\tTimmapet, Jagir Raja
\nNemivant, Makta of Zamindar   of Sugur.\t It may be mentioned
\nthat  the  ancestor of the appellants was  the\tZamindar  of
\nSugur and that is how he prayed for a sanad of bilmakta; (2)
\nthe  village  Korotkal,\t attached to  Jagir  Bahrami,  makta
\nZamindar   Sugur;   and\t  (3)\tPalmur,\t  including   hamlet
\nGattalpalli.  These three villages were obviously not of the
\nsame kind as the other 85 villages.  Village Timmapet was in
\nthe  jagir of the ancestor of the respondent and  Could\t not
\ntherefore  ordinarily  be  granted to the  ancestor  of\t the
\nappellants.   Village Korotkal was an attached\tjagir  which
\nhas  handed  over to one Bakhshi Ismail Khan  while  village
\nPalmur\thad been granted to the ancestor of the\t appellants.
\nVillage\t himself in lieu of seri.  Strictly  speaking  these
\nthree  villages\t which\tstood apart  should  not  have\tbeen
\nincluded in the list of villages for which bilmakta
\n624<\/span>
\nsanad was prayed for.  Anyhow the order of the Government on
\nthis  vajab-ul-arz  was\t that a sanad with  seal  of  Niabat
\nDiwani\tbe granted.  The actual sanad which was\t granted  by
\nvirtue of this order has  not been strictly proved, though a
\ncopy  of  it appears in a judgment copy of  which  has\tbeen
\nfiled.\t We do not therefore propose to refer to this  copy.
\nIt  appears however that in 1880 a bilmkta sanad  was  again
\ngranted\t by  the  Nizam\t himself  to  the  ancestor  of\t the
\nappellants on the death of the previous holder.\t The  amount
\nof  bilmakta (i.e., fixed annual payment) was fixed  at\t Rs.
\n1,05,412.   This  amount  is made up of the  revenue  of  85
\nvillages  out of the 88 villages which were included in\t the
\nlist  along  with  the vajab-ul-arz.   The  remaining  three
\nvillages  which we have mentioned above, were also shown  in
\nthe  schedule  to  this sanad under the\t heading  “Deduct  3
\nvillages of separate Jagir”.  The three villages under\tthis
\nheading\t are  Timmapet,\t Korotkal and  Palmur.\t It  is\t the
\nmeaning\t of  these words under the heading  of\twhich  these
\nvillages  appear  which;  required  interpretation  in\t the
\npresent suit.  The contention of the respondent was that the
\nheading showed that the bilmakta sanad granted by the  Nizam
\nexcluded  these villages, for the revenue of these  villages
\namounting  to  Rs. 2,101 was not included  in  the  bilmakta
\namount\tof Rs. 1,05,412.  It is further contended on  behalf
\nof the respondent that the, reason why these three  villages
\nwere  mentioned in this manner in the schedule\tattached  to
\nthe  bilmakta  sanad was that the appellants’  ancestor\t had
\nwrongly included these’ villages in his list filed with\t the
\nvajab-ul-arz  and  ever,  since\t then  these  villages\twere
\nincluded in the schedule to the sanads but were always shown
\nas deducted from the bilmakta.\tWe are of opinion that\tthis
\ncontention of the respondent is correct and the courts below
\nwere right in accepting the respondent’s contention in\tthis
\nbehalf.\t The very fact that the revenue of these villages is
\nnot  included in the bilmakta amount of Rs.  1,05,412  shows
\nthat  they  could not be part of the bilmakta grant  by\t the
\nNizam.\t We  cannot  accept the argument on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellants that the revenue of these villages was
\n625<\/span>
\nnot  included because the ancestor of the appellants had  to
\npay  the amount of this revenue in the case of Timmapet\t and
\nKorotkal  to  the jagirdars and the revenue  of\t Palmur\t was
\ngiven  to him free in seri.  The very fact that these  three
\nvillages appear under the heading “‘deduct three villages of
\nseparate  jagir” along with the fact that their\t revenue  is
\nnot  included  in the bilmakta grant of Rs.  1,05,412  shows
\nthat  they were not part of the bilmakta sanad.\t It is\ttrue
\nthat they have been mentioned in the schedule, and  strictly
\nspeaking  they should not have been so mentioned there;\t but
\nthe  reason for that in our opinion is that the\t appellants’
\nancestor had included them in his list and they seem to have
\nbeen  put down in the schedule to the sanad from that  list.
\nBut  the way in which they were put in the schedule  to\t the
\nsanad shows that they were not part of the sanad granted  by
\nthe Nizam.  Our attention was also drawn to the Avarja\tsaid
\nto  have  been prepared in 1836 in which  also\tthese  three
\nvillages  are  included.  But Avarja is merely\ta  paper  in
\nwhich a note of the sanads issued each day is mentioned. The
\nfact therefore that these; three villages were mentioned  in
\nthe  Avarja  can be easily explained by the fact  that\tthey
\nwere  mentioned in the sanads which were prepared  from\t the
\nlist of villages supplied by the appellants’ ancestor  along
\nwith his vajab-ul-arz.\tThe presence of these three villages
\nin  the\t Avarja would not establish that the  villages\twere
\ngranted\t as  bilmakta  by  the\tNizam  to  the\t appellants’
\nancestor,  unless the sanads granted by the Nizam  establish
\nit.  We have already examined the sanad of 1880 which is  on
\nthe  record  and  have no difficulty in\t agreeing  with\t the
\ncourts below that the bilmakta sanad excluded these villages
\nand  was only confined to the remaining villages  for  which
\nthe  appellants’ ancestor paid Rs. 1,05,412 to the Nizam  as
\nthe fixed annual amount.\n<\/p>\n
It was urged on behalf of the appellants that the Nizam\t was
\nan  absolute Ruler and -it Was open to him to take away\t any
\nland from a jagirdar and grant it to any other person.\tThat
\nis  undoubtedly so; but even where an absolute\tRuler  takes
\naway some land from
\n79<\/span>
\n626<\/span>
\na  jagirdar and gives it to another person, it seems  to  us
\nclear  that he would inform the jagirdar that he  had  taken
\naway  in  whole or in part what he had granted\tto  him\t and
\nwould  also  make  it clear by proper  words  in  the  sanad
\ngranted to the other person that he was giving him the\tland
\ntaken  away from the jagirdar.\tIn any case where  the\tland
\nwas  granted earlier to the jagirdar, there must be a  clear
\nindication in the sanad to another person that what had been
\ngranted\t to the jagirdar had been taken away and  was  being
\ngranted to this other person.  As we read the sanad of\t1880
\nwe  find  no  clear indication in it  that  the\t village  of
\nTimmapet  which\t was granted along with\t other\tvillages  as
\njagir  to the respondent’s ancestor was being taken  away-at
\nany  rate  in  part-and\t that  in  future  the\trespondent’s
\nancestor  would\t only be entitled to a fixed  sum  from\t the
\nappellants’  ancestor  with respect to this village  and  no
\nmore.\tOn  the\t other hand, in the  recital  of  the  sanad
\nunfortunately  there is nothing clear for the  words  “etc.”
\nappear\ttherein\t in  more  than one place  as  to  the\tland
\ngranted.   We  have therefore to turn to  the  schedule\t for
\nwhatever  help we can get from it. The schedule\t shows\tthat
\nthese  three villages were under the heading  “deduct  three
\nvillages  of separate jagir”.  From that the only  inference
\ncan be that these three villages were not being included  in
\nthe  bilmakta sanad.  In any case we cannot infer from\tthat
\nthe Nizam was intending to take away a part of the rights of
\nthe  respondent’s  ancestor in village Timmapet\t and  confer
\nthem on the appellants’ ancestor.  Further there is  nothing
\nto  show that the respondent’s ancestors were ever  informed
\nthat  the  Nizam  had taken away part  of  their  rights  in
\nvillage\t Timmapet.   If anything, as late  as  1918  village
\nTimmapet  along\t with others was  conferred  perpetually  in
\nfavour of the respondent as zat jagir subject to the payment
\nof  2  per  centum  of\thaq  malkana.\tAt  that  time\t the
\nappellants’  ancestor  had  raised some\t dispute  about\t his
\nright-\tas  bilmaktadar\t of  Timmapet  but  that  was\tleft
\nundecided.   On a review therefore of the evidence  in\tthis
\ncase  the  conclusion is inescapable  that  the\t appellants’
\nancestor  was  never granted bilmakata sanad  by  the  Nizam
\nwhich
\n627<\/span>
\nincluded  the  village of Timmapet.  Their  rights  in\tthis
\nvillage\t therefore  depend  entirely on the  kowl  of  1817,
\nwhich,\tas  we have already pointed out, did  not  confer  a
\npermanent lease.  The case of the appellants therefore based
\non  their title on the sanads granted to  them by the  Nizam
\nmust fail.\n<\/p>\n
We  now\t turn to the question of limitation.  The  case\t put
\nforward before us in that connection is that the  appellants
\nhave  prescribed  for the limited right of  being  permanent
\nlessees\t of this land by adverse possession and the  genesis
\nof this is traced to what happened in 1875.  It appears that
\nthere was trouble between the then ancestors of the  parties
\nabout  this  village about that time.  The ancestor  of\t the
\nrespondent  appears  to\t have made  an\tapplication  to\t the
\nGovernment  and\t the Revenue Member had\t issued\t orders\t for
\ndelivery  of possession of this village to  him.   Thereupon
\nthe ancestor of the appellants made a representation to\t the
\nPrime Minister against that order in which it was said\tthat
\nthe  ancestor  of  the respondent  had\tconferred  the\tsaid
\nvillage on the ancestor of the appellants by way of bilmakta
\n(i.e., on a fixed amount) more than eighty years ago and the
\nancestor of the appellants had been in possession all  along
\nand  had been regularly paying the amount due; the  ancestor
\nof  the\t appellants  therefore\tprayed\tthat  the  order  of
\ndelivery  of  possession  of the land  to  the\trespondent’s
\nancestor  be  set  aside.  It is  remarkable  that  in\tthis
\nrepresentation the case put forward was that the village had
\nbeen  granted bilmakta,by the ancestor of the respondent  to
\nthe  appellants’  ancestor  and\t not by\t the  Nizam  or\t the
\nGovernment  to the appellants’ ancestor.  However  that\t may
\nbe,  the Prime Minister ordered that as the ancestor of\t the
\nappellants had been in possession for a long time, no  order
\ncould be passed dispossessing him.  The ancestor of the res-
\npondent\t then tried to get this order of the Prime  Minister
\nchanged\t but  failed  and  in  consequence  the\t appellants’
\nancestor  remained in possession thereof.  It is urged\tthat
\nthis shows that the ancestor of the appellants asserted that
\nhe was entitled to possession as a permanent lessee  against
\nthe respondent’s ancestor and this claim was resisted by the
\nrespondents
\n628<\/span>
\nancestor  and the resistance failed.  Therefore it  must  be
\nheld  that  adverse  possession of  this  limited  kind\t was
\nasserted  to the knowledge of the respondent’s ancestor\t and
\nin  consequence twelve years after  1875 the  adverse  title
\nwould  be perfected and art. 144 would bar the present\tsuit
\nfor ejectment.\n<\/p>\n
There is no doubt that there can be adverse possession of  a
\nlimited interest in property as well as of the full title as
\nowner:\tsee  Sankaran v. Periasami(1);\tThakore\t Fatehsingji
\nDipsangji  v.  Bamanji\tArdeshir  Dalal\t (2);  and   Shrimat
\nDaivasikhamani Ponnambala Desikar v. Periayanan Chetti\t(9).
\nThe  present however is a case where the original  kowl\t was
\ngranted by a jagirdar and the question arises whether in the
\ncase of a jagir there can be adverse possession of a limited
\ninterest  in  the  nature of a\tpermanent  lease.   In\tthat
\nconnection one has to look to the incidents of a jagir,\t and
\nthe first incident of a jagir is that it must be taken Prima
\nfacie  as an estate granted, for life: Gulabdas\t Jugjivandas
\nv. The Collector of Surat. (4) In the present. case also the
\nindication  is\tthat  the jagir that  was  granted  to\tRaja
\nHarinarayan  in 1787, was for life, for we find that on\t the
\ndeath  of Raja Harinarayan a fresh sanad was granted to\t his
\nson Raja Govind Narayan in 181 1. Similar conclusion can  be
\ndrawn  from the fact that as late as 1880 a  bilmakta  sanad
\nwas  granted  to  Raja Rameshwar Rao,  an  ancestor  of\t the
\nappellants  on the death of his father in spite\t of  certain
\nsanads\tin favour of previous holders of bilmakta.  But\t the
\nappellants  contend  that after 1811 no\t fresh\tsanads\twere
\ngranted\t to  the  descendants of  Raja\tGovind\tNarayan\t and
\ntherefore  it must be held that the jagir became  hereditary
\nand  -was not merely for the lifetime of the  grantee  after
\nRaja  Govind Narayan’s death.  There is no doubt that  there
\nare no sanads on the record which might have been granted to
\nthe descendants of Raja Govind Narayan; but there is equally
\nno evidence on behalf of the appellants that no such  sanads
\nwere in fact granted to the descendants of Raja Govind Nara-
\nyan, due to change in State Policy.  Reliance has been
\n(1)  (1890) I.L.R. 13 Mad. 467.\t (2) (1903) I.L.R.  27\tBom.\n<\/p>\n
515.
\n(3)  (1936) L.R. 63 I.A. 261; (1936) I.L.R. 59 Mad. 800.
\n(4)  (1878) L.R. 6 1.A. 54.\n<\/p>\n
629<\/span><\/p>\n
placed\ton behalf of the appellants on a publication of\t the
\nGovernment of Hyderabad called “Jagir Administration”,\tVol.
\nI, at P. 3, where the following passage appears.–\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Zaot   or  personal  grants-were\t  originally
\n\t      tenable  for lifetime only.  If, however,\t the
\n\t      Sanad conferring such grant contains any words
\n\t      indicative of permanency the grant was treated
\n\t      as  one in perpetuity.  Formerly on the  death
\n\t      of the grantee, the Jagir was attached and re-
\n\t      issued in favour of his eldest son by  another
\n\t      Sanad.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is\turged  on  the basis of\t this  that  the  system  of
\nattachment  of jagir and reissue of new sanads in favour  of
\nthe  eldest son fell into disuse in Hyderabad and  therefore
\njagirs\tbecame hereditary.  In the first place this  passage
\ndoes not show when the system of attachment of jagir and re-
\nissue of another sanad came to an end.\tIn the second place,
\neven  this passage shows that jagirs were tenable  only\t for
\nlife unless there was something in the terms of jagir  grant
\nto  show  that it was perpetual.  The jagir  grant  of\tRaja
\nGovind\tNarayan is on the record and there is nothing in  it
\nto show that it was granted perpetually, Therefore, it\tmust
\nbe held to be a grant for life-time only; at any rate it  is
\nclear that the system of granting sanads on each  succession
\nwas  certainly in force when Raja Govind Narayan  succeeded,
\nfor  he\t was  granted a fresh sanad.  In his  case  it\tmust
\ntherefore be held that the jagir was granted to him only for
\nlife.\tReliance was also placed on Raje Vinaykrao  Nemiwant
\nBrahmin\t v. Raje Shriniwasrao Nemiwant Brahmin (1)  where  a
\nletter\tof  1877  from\tthe  Government\t of  India,  Foreign
\nDepartment,, is quoted as saying that-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The Governor-General in Council also  accepts
\n\t      the   view  that\tthese  inams  are  held\t  in
\n\t      accordance  with the custom of  the  Hyderabad
\n\t      State,  which permits the continuance of\tsuch
\n\t      jagheers\tto  posterity,\tnotwithstanding\t the
\n\t      absence  of specific provision on\t the  point,
\n\t      but at the same time reserves to the State the
\n\t      right of resuming such grants at pleasure.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(1)  I.L.R. [1942] Nag. 526.\n<\/p>\n
630<\/span><\/p>\n
But even this letter shows that the State has got the  right
\nto resume the grant at pleasure and if that is so it  cannot
\nbe said that the jagirs granted in Hyderabad were  permanent
\nand  hereditary, though it may be that a son was allowed  to
\nsucceed\t to  “‘the father in the normal course.\t  The  State
\nhowever\t had  always  the  right  to  resume  the  grant  at
\npleasure.   The\t nature of jagirs in Hyderabad\tcame  to  be
\nconsidered  by\ta bench of five judges of  the\tformer\tHigh
\nCourt  of  Hyderabad in Ahmad-un-Nissa Begum v.\t State\t(‘).
\nAnsari,\t J.,  after  referring to two  cases  of  the  Privy
\nCouncil\t of the former State of Hyderabad as it\t was  before
\n1947 and certain firmans of the Ruler observed as follows as
\nto the nature of jagirs in Hyderabad:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  cumulative\teffect\tof  the\t authorities
\n\t      referred to above is that the jagir tenures in
\n\t      this State consisted of usufructuary rights in
\n\t      lands  which were terminable on the  death  of
\n\t      each  grantee,  were  inalienable\t during\t his
\n\t      life, the heirs of the deceased holder got the
\n\t      estate  as  fresh grantees and  the  right  to
\n\t      confer the estate was vested in the Ruler\t and
\n\t      exercisable   in\this   absolute\t discretion.
\n\t      Nevertheless,  the Jagirdars had during  their
\n\t      lives   valuable\trights\tof  managing   their
\n\t      estates,\tenjoying  the  usufructs  and  other
\n\t      important\t   privileges\t which\t   conferred
\n\t      considerable monetary benefits on them.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This  view  of\tAnsari, J., as to the  nature  of  jagirdari
\ntenure\twas accepted by the other learned  Judges  composing
\nthe  Bench.  Therefore the mere fact that sanads granted  to
\nthe successors of Raja Govind Narayan have not been produced
\nin  this  case\tor even the fact that no  such\tsanads\twere
\ngranted\t lo them would make no difference to the  nature  of
\nthe  jagirdari tenure in Hyderabad.  It is only in 1918\t for
\nthe  first  time that we know that this village\t along\twith
\nother  villages was conferred in perpetuity on\tthe  respon-
\ndent.\tThere  is  nothing  to show  that  before  that\t the
\nrespondent’s  ancestors had permanent hereditary  rights  in
\nthe  jagir.  The initial presumption therefore\tthat  jagirs
\nare only for the lifetime of the grantee must prevail in the
\npresent\t case till we come to the sanad of 1918.   Therefore
\nupto that time it must be
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1952 Hyd. 163, 167.\n<\/p>\n
631<\/span><\/p>\n
held  that the jagirs were held by various ancestors of\t the
\nrespondent  only  for their lives.  In such a case  where  a
\ngrant is continued in a family from generation to generation
\nand  each  grantee  holds it for  his  life  the  limitation
\nagainst\t any  one grantee starts to run from  the  date\t his
\ntitle  arose.  This was recognized by the Privy\t Council  in
\nJagdish Narayan v. Nawab Saeed Ahmed Khan (1), where it\t was
\nobserved  that\twhere each grantee holds an estate  for\t his
\nlifetime  the limitation would start to run against an\their
\nfrom  the  date when his title accrued on the death  of\t the
\nprevious heir.\tFrom the very fact that the grant of a jagir
\nis  only for the life-time of the grantee and that  his\t son
\nwhen  he gets the jagir gets a fresh grant, it follows\tthat
\nit  was not open to a jagirdar to make an  alienation  which
\nwould  enure beyond his lifetime and thus a  jagirdar  could
\nnot  grant  a permanent lease, unless  he  was\tspecifically
\nentitled to do so, under the sanad or the law of the  State.
\nSimilarly in such cases limitation would only run against an
\nheir  from the date when his title accrued on the  death  of
\nthe previous heir.  Consequently the appellants cannot\ttake
\nadvantage  of  what  happened in 1875 in the  time  of\tRaja
\nRamarao as the starting point of adverse possession  against
\nthe  respondent.  So far as the respondent is concerned,  he
\napparently  succeeded to the jagir in 1910 and in  his\tcase
\nlimitation  would  start from 1910.  The  present  suit\t was
\nbrought\t in 1920 and therefore so far as the  respondent  is
\nconcerned,  there  is  no question of  perfecting  even\t the
\nlimited title by adverse possession as against him.’
\nLearned counsel for the appellant drew our attention in this
\nconnection  to\tthe case of Daivasikhamani  (2),  where\t the
\nPrivy Council held that the suits were barred under Art. 144
\nof  the\t Limitation Act.  That was however a  case  where  a
\npermanent kowl of temple lands was granted by a manager.  It
\nwas  held in view of certain facts proved in that case\tthat
\nthe  lessee  had acquired permanent rights by  adverse\tpos-
\nsession,  even\tthough\tthe  manager  of  a  temple  has  no
\nauthority,  except  in\tcertain circumstances,\tto  grant  a
\npermanent lease.  That case is in our opinion clearly
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1946 P.C. 59.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  (1936) L.R. 63 L.A. 261: (1935)) 1 [I.L. R 59 Mad 809
\n632<\/span>
\ndistinguishable\t from the facts of the present case.  It  is
\ntrue that the manager of a temple has generally\t speaking no
\nauthority  except  in  certain\tcircumstances  to  grant   a
\npermanent  lease of temple property; there fore a  permanent
\nlease granted by the manager of a temple may be voidable but
\nis  not\t void ab initio and so unless it is avoided  by\t the
\nsucceeding  manager,  it may not  be  rendered\tinoperative.
\nFurther\t the  temple  in  that case was\t the  owner  of\t the
\nproperty  and there was no question of any  succession\tfrom
\nfather\tto son.\t In the case of a jagir on the\tother  hand,
\nthe  holder  for  the time being is not\t the  owner  of\t the
\nproperty;  his son when he succeeds holds the property as  a
\nfresh grantee and not on the basis of hereditary succession.
\nA  jagirdar has no right to make a permanent  alienation  of
\nany  part  of  the  jagir granted to  him;  if\the  makes  a
\npermanent alienation even by way of permanent lease the same
\nmay be good in his lifetime, but it is void and\t inoperative
\nafter his death; the succeeding jagirdar need not avoid\t it;
\nhe  can just ignore it as void.\t Therefore, while it may  be
\npossible  in  the case of a permanent lease  granted  -by  a
\nmanager\t of a temple which is the owner of the\tproperty  to
\nprescribe  for\ta  limited  permanent  interest\t by  adverse
\npossession it would be impossible to do so in the case of  a
\njagir, for the limitation in such a case would start to\t run
\nagainst the heir from the date when his title accrues on the
\ndeath of the previous heir and no advantage can be taken  of
\nany  running  of  time against the previous  holder  of\t the
\njagir.\t Besides,  in the case of such temple  grants,\tlong
\nlapse of time may sometimes give rise to the inference\tthat
\nthe alienation was in such circumstances as would justify  a
\npermanent  lease.  No such inference is however possible  in
\nthe case of permanent leases granted by jagirdars.  In\tthis
\nview  therefore\t the case of the appellants that  they\thave
\nprescribed  for the limited interest of a  permanent  lessee
\nagainst the respondent must fail.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal  therefore. fails and is hereby  dismissed\twith
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
633<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Raja Rameshwar Rao And Another vs Raja Govind Rao on 28 March, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1442, 1962 SCR (1) 618 Author: K Wanchoo Bench: Wanchoo, K.N. PETITIONER: RAJA RAMESHWAR RAO AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: RAJA GOVIND RAO DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/03\/1961 BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. […]<\/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-167030","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRaja Rameshwar Rao And Another vs Raja Govind Rao on 28 March, 1961 - 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\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raja Rameshwar Rao And Another vs Raja Govind Rao on 28 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961\" \/>\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=\"1961-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-27T16:34:08+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raja Rameshwar Rao And Another vs Raja Govind Rao on 28 March, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-27T16:34:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961\"},\"wordCount\":5349,\"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\\\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961\",\"name\":\"Raja Rameshwar Rao And Another vs Raja Govind Rao on 28 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-27T16:34:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raja Rameshwar Rao And Another vs Raja Govind Rao on 28 March, 1961\"}]},{\"@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":"Raja Rameshwar Rao And Another vs Raja Govind Rao on 28 March, 1961 - 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\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raja Rameshwar Rao And Another vs Raja Govind Rao on 28 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-27T16:34:08+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raja Rameshwar Rao And Another vs Raja Govind Rao on 28 March, 1961","datePublished":"1961-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-27T16:34:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961"},"wordCount":5349,"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\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961","name":"Raja Rameshwar Rao And Another vs Raja Govind Rao on 28 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-27T16:34:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raja-rameshwar-rao-and-another-vs-raja-govind-rao-on-28-march-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raja Rameshwar Rao And Another vs Raja Govind Rao on 28 March, 1961"}]},{"@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\/167030","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=167030"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167030\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167030"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167030"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167030"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}