{"id":170172,"date":"1979-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979"},"modified":"2016-09-13T13:31:45","modified_gmt":"2016-09-13T08:01:45","slug":"state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979","title":{"rendered":"State Of Rajasthan vs Raghuveer Singh & Ors on 5 February, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Rajasthan vs Raghuveer Singh & Ors on 5 February, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 852, \t\t 1979 SCR (3)\t 6<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAGHUVEER SINGH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT05\/02\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR  852\t\t  1979 SCR  (3)\t  6\n 1979 SCC  (3) 102\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1988 SC1520\t (22)\n\n\nACT:\n     Interest Act  1839 (32  of 1839)-Suit  for recovery  of\namount due  in respect\tof building contract-Claim if a \"sum\ncertain\" under the Act.\n     Notice of\tdemand for  payment claiming \"loss by way of\ninterest\"-If valid  and sufficient-Notice not to be strictly\nconstrued.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The Interest  Act, 1839 (32 of 1839) empowers the Court\nto allow  interest to the plaintiff if the amount claimed is\na sum  certain which  is payable at a certain time by virtue\nof a written instrument at la rate not exceeding the current\nrate of\t interest from\tthe  time  when\t such  amounts\twere\npayable and  if the  amount is\tpayable otherwise, then from\nthe time  when the demand of payment shall have been made in\nwriting.\n     As the  amounts due  in respect  of  a  building  works\ncontract remained  unpaid despite  demands and\tnotices, the\nrespondent  (plaintiff)\t  filed\t a  suit  for  its  recovery\ntogether with  interest. Decreeing the suit, the trial court\naward ed interest at 4 1\/2 per cent. But in appeal, the High\nCourt enhanced the rate of interest pendente life from 4 1\/2\nper cent to 6 per cent.\n     In the  further appeal  to this  Court it was contended\nthat the  Interest Act\t1839, was  not applicable  as no sum\ncertain was  payable and  there was no demand for payment of\ninterest.\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The claim  was for a \"sum certain\" within the\nmeaning of the Act. [9F]\n     The claim\twas ascertainable  on a\t calculation made in\nterms of  the agreement\t and was  therefore  a\tsum  certain\nwithin the  meaning of\tthe Act. It is \"a sum of money which\nis now\tplayable or  will become  payable in  the future  by\nreason of  a present  obligation\" and in any case it was not\nfor the\t payment of  any unliquidated  damages\tor  for\t the\npayment of any amount arising out of an inchoate obligation.\n[9E-F]\n     2. The  respondent issued\ttwo notices.  In the  second\nnotice a  definite claim  of interest had been made by them.\nThe term  \"loss by  way of  interest\" mentioned in the first\nnotice\tsuggested   that  what\t was   being   claimed\t was\ncompensation for  the damages  suffered by  them. The notice\nshould\tnot  be\t construed  literally  or  technically.\t The\nmention of  loss was only explanatory. Without any manner of\ndoubt the  respondents were  claiming interest as such. [9G-\n10D]\n     3. Nor again can it be said that there was no claim for\nfuture interest. A claim for past interest would necessarily\nimply a claim for future interest.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       [10E]\n7\n     Kuppusami Pillai  v. Madras  Electric Tramway Co. Ltd.,\nILR 23\tMad. 41; Sita Ram & Ors. v. Mrs. S. Sullivan, [1901]\n2 Punjab Law Reporter 464; referred to.\n     Mahabir Prashad  Rungta v. Durga Datt,<\/a> [1961] 3 SCR 639\nand Union  of India  v. A.  L. Rallia Ram,<\/a> [1964] 3 SCR 164;\ndistinguished.\n     4. Having\tregard to  the various\tcontinuous  defaults\ncommitted by  the appellant  and its officers the High court\nwas justified  in enhancing  the rate  of interest  to 6 per\ncent. [11E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2008 of
\n1969.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order  dated  7-4-1965  of\t the
\nRajasthan High\tCourt in  D. B.\t Civil\tRegular\t Appeal\t No.
\n67\/53.\n<\/p>\n
     S. M. Jain for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     B. D.  Sharma, Ramesh  Chandra and B. P. Maheshwari for
\nthe Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J.-The State  of Rajasthan, defendant
\nin Civil Suit No. 9 of 1963 in the Court of the Senior Civil
\nJudge, Udaipur,\t is  the  appellant  in\t this  appeal  filed
\npursuant to  a certificate  granted under Article 133(1) (a)
\nof the\tConstitution of India (as it stood prior to the 30th
\namendment). The plaintiff respondent took a building work on
\ncontract from  the erstwhile  Government  of  the  State  of
\nUdaipur. He  completed the  work on  6th June, 1950. Despite
\ndemands and  notices issued  by the plaintiff a considerable
\namount due  to him remained unpaid. He, therefore, filed the
\nsuit out  of which the appeal arises to recover a sum of Rs.
\n3,19,458\/11\/-together with  interest at the rate of 12%. The
\nsuit was  contested by\tthe State  of Rajasthan.  An interim
\ndecree for a sum of Rs. 66,517\/- was passed on 7th November,
\n1955.  After   full  trial   a\tdecree\tfor  Rs.  1,67,619\/-
\n(including the\tsum of\tRs. 66,517\/- for which a preliminary
\ndecree had  already been passed) was passed on 11-6-1958\/30-
\n6-1958. The  decree also  awarded interest  at the rate of 4
\n1\/2% on\t the amount  decreed from  the date of suit till the
\ndate  of   realisation.\t The  plaintiff\t and  the  defendant
\npreferred appeals  to the  High Court of Rajasthan. The High
\nCourt reduced  the decreetal amount by a sum of Rs. 9,991\/-.
\nThe  High  Court,  however,  held  that\t the  plaintiff\t was
\nentitled to  interest from 1st January, 1951, and not merely
\nfrom the date of suit. The High Court also enhanced the rate
\nof interest  pendente lite  from 4 1\/2 to 6%. The High Court
\nhaving varied  the decree  of the  Trial Court, the State of
\nRajasthan
\n8<\/span>
\nsought and obtained a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of
\nthe Constitution and has filed this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     The controversy  in the High Court related primarily to\n<\/p>\n
(i) conveyance and lift charges; (ii) alleged double benefit
\nin regard  to bond-stones,  lintels and\t sills; (iii) use of
\nJodhpur slabs  and their  high cost;  (iv) charge  for C. P.
\nTeak wood  at the same rates as for Burma Teak. In regard to
\nconveyance and\tlift charges the High Court pointed out that
\nno question  was raised\t in the\t Memorandum  of\t grounds  of
\nappeal\tand  there  was,  therefore,  no  justification\t for
\npermitting the\tlearned Counsel\t for the State to assail the
\nfinding of  the Trial Court relating to those charges. We do
\nnot see\t any reason either why the learned Counsel should be
\npermitted to agitate this question in this appeal. Regarding
\ndouble-charge  for   bond-stone,  lintels   and\t sills,\t the
\ncomplaint of  the appellant  was that while separate payment
\nwas being  made for them, they had also been included in the
\nmeasurements of\t the walls  in which  they  happened  to  be
\nfixed. From the office circular issued by the Chief Engineer
\nof the\tPublic Works  Department  of  the  United  State  of
\nRajasthan on  12th July,  1948, it  appears that  it was the
\npractice uptill\t then  to  allow  payment  for\tbond-stones,
\nlintels and  sills separately  without deducting their cubic
\ncontents from the general wall masonry. This had always been
\nthe  practice\tand  this  was\tnever  objected\t to  by\t the
\nAccountant General.  In view  of the practice obtaining till
\nthen it could not be said that the contractor had wrongfully
\nclaimed double\tpayment for  bond-stones, lintels and sills.
\nThe use\t of Jodhpur  slabs was not questioned in the written
\nstatement. All\tthat was said was that the rate was high but
\nat the\ttrial there  was no  evidence  worth  the  name,  as
\nobserved by  the High  Court to\t show that  the\t charge\t was
\nexcessive. Again  there was  no\t objection  to\tthe  use  of
\nC.P.Teak-wood instead  of Burma\t teak wood as the latter was
\nnot available. According to the letter of the Superintending
\nEngineer dated 6th February, 1950, where Burma teak wood was
\nnot available  and C.  P. Teak\twood  was  used,  the  rates
\nspecified for  Burma teak wood should be taken for C.P. Teak
\nwood. It  could not,  therefore, be said that the contractor
\nhad charged more than what he should for C.P. Teak wood.\n<\/p>\n
     The last  question which  was argued  before us by Shri
\nJain, learned Counsel for the State of Rajasthan was that no
\ninterest should\t have been awarded for the period before the
\nfiling of  the suit and that the rate of interest should not
\nhave  been  enhanced  by  the  High  Court  for\t the  period
\nsubsequent to the filing of the suit. It was
\n9<\/span>
\nsubmitted that the Interest Act, 1839, was not applicable as
\nno sum\tA certain  was payable\tand there  was no demand for
\npayment of interest. It was argued that what was demanded by
\nthe plaintiff  was damages  and not  interest. It  was\talso
\ncontended that\tthe Trial  Court having,  in exercise of its
\ndiscretion, awarded interest at the rate of 4 1\/2 % pendente
\nlite, the  High Court  ought not to have interfered with the
\ndiscretion of  the Trial Court. Reliance was placed upon the
\ndecision in Mahabir Prasad Rungta v. Durga Datt<\/a>(1) and Union
\nof India v. A. L. Rallia Ram<\/a>(2).\n<\/p>\n
     We are  unable to\tagree with  the\t submission  of\t the
\nlearned Counsel\t for the  appellant. Under the Interest Act,
\n1839, “upon  all debts\tor sums certain payable at a certain
\ntime or otherwise, the Court before which such debts or sums
\nmay be\trecovered may, if it shall think fit, allow interest
\nto the\tcreditor at a rate not exceeding the current rate of
\ninterest from  the time when such debts or sums certain were
\npayable, if  such debts or sums be payable by virtue of some
\nwritten\t instrument   at  a  certain  time;  or\t if  payable
\notherwise, then D from the time when demand of payment shall
\nhave been  made in  writing, so\t as such  demand shall\tgive
\nnotice to  the debtor that interest will be claimed from the
\ndate of such demand until the term of payment: provided that
\ninterest shall\tbe payable  in all  cases in which it is now
\npayable by  law”. The claim of the present plaintiff was not
\nfor the\t payment of  any unliquidated  damages\tor  for\t the
\npayment\t of  any  amount  arising  out\tof  an\tinchoate  or
\ncontingent obligation. It was for the payment of a sum which
\nwas ascertainable  on a\t calculation made in accordance with
\nthe terms  of the  agreement. It was clearly a “sum certain”
\nwithin the meaning of the Interest Act. In any case it would
\nbe a  debt, i.e.,  “a sum  of money  which is now payable or
\nwill become  payable in\t the future  by reason\tof a present
\nobligation”.  The  further  question  for  consideration  is
\nwhether the  plaintiff had  made a demand of payment, “so as
\nsuch demand  shall give notice that interest will be claimed
\nfrom the date of such demand until the term of payment”. The
\nplaintiff issued  two notices  to  the\tdefendant  demanding
\npayment. The  first was\t on-21st  December,  1950,  and\t the
\nsecond was  on 5th  April, 1953. There is no dispute that in
\nthe second notice of demand of payment of definite claim for
\ninterest had  been made. In the first notice it was said “by
\nwith-holding payment of his bills absolutely, the Government
\nhas put\t my client  to enormous loss by way of interest also
\n.. I intimate to you
\n     (1)[1961] 3 S.C.R. 639.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)[1964] 3 S.C.R. 164.\n<\/p>\n
2-196SCI\/79
\n10<\/span>
\nthrough this notice that the said Shri Ramsingh claims a sum
\nof Rs. 2,50,519\/- from the Rajasthan State as under:\n<\/p>\n
     1. Unpaid bills for work done:\t      Rs. 1,37,177\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. lnterest on the above.\t\t\t    11,511\/-\n     3.................\n     4................\n     5.................\n     6..................\n\t\t\t\t\t      --------------\n\t  Total:\t\t\t      Rs. 2,50,519\/-\n\t\t\t\t\t      --------------\n<\/pre>\n
     The learned  counsel submitted that what was claimed by
\nthe plaintiff  in this\tnotice was  damages and not interest
\nand that  too for  the past,  without  any  indication\tthat
\nfuture interest\t was also being claimed. It is true that the
\nplaintiff mentioned  “loss by  way of  interest”, suggesting
\nthat what  he was  claiming was\t compensation for the damage
\nsuffered by  him. We  are, however, not prepared to construe
\nthe notice  so literally or technically. The mention of loss
\nwas only  explanatory. The plaintiff was, without any manner
\nof doubt  claiming interest  as such.  Nor are\twe impressed
\nwith the  argument  that  there\t was  no  claim\t for  future
\ninterest. In  our opinion  a claim  for past  interest would
\nnecessarily  imply   a\tclaim\tfor  future  interest,\tvide
\nKuppuswami Pillai v. Madras Electric Tramway Co. Ltd.(1) and
\nSita Ram & Ors. v. Mrs. S. Sullivan(2).\n<\/p>\n
     In Mahabir\t Prasad Rungta v. Durga Datt<\/a>(3) interest was
\ndisallow ed  on the  ground that  the notice which was given
\ndid not\t specify the  sum which\t was demanded and therefore,
\nthe Interest  Act did  not apply.  On the  question  whether
\ninterest could\tbe awarded  on grounds of equity it was held
\nthat what  was claimed by Durga Datt was interest as damages
\nand that  it could  not, therefore,  be\t awarded.  The\tsuit
\nitself was one for damages for breach of contract. We do not
\nthink that  this case is of any assistance to the appellant.
\nIn  Union  of  India  v.  A.  L.  Rallia  Ram,<\/a>\t(supra)\t the
\nArbitrator had awarded interest by way of compensation since
\nthe party  had to  borrow a  large amount  of money from its
\nbanker to  meet\t its  obligation  under\t the  contract.\t The
\nSupreme Court pointed out that interest could not be awarded
\nby way\tof damages.  The Supreme  Court also noticed that an
\nArbitrator was\tnot  a\tCourt  within  the  meaning  of\t the
\nInterest Act.  No question  arose before  the Supreme  Court
\nwhether interest could not be awarded under the Interest Act
\nmerely because the notice demanding payment
\n     (1) I.L.R. 23 Mad. 41.\n<\/p>\n
     (2) [1901] 2 P.L.R. 464.\n<\/p>\n
     (3) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 639.\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
mentioned that\tthe plaintiff  had suffered loss of interest
\nalso. In  our view  the condition prescribed by the Interest
\nAct that  such demand  shall give  notice to the debtor that
\ninterest shall\tbe  claimed  is\t fulfilled  if\tinterest  is
\nclaimed, notwithstanding  the fact that the notice of demand
\nexplains that  loss by\tway of\tloss of\t interest  has\tbeen
\nsuffered. Ta  take any\tother  view  would  be\tto  be\tover
\ntechnical  in\tthe  construction  of  pleadings,  including
\nnotices preceeding the action.\n<\/p>\n
     We must notice here an argument advanced by the learned
\ncounsel for  the appellant  that the contract prohibited the
\naward of  interest. He\trelied upon  the following  sentence
\noccurring in  paragraph 16  of the  Contract dated 11th May,
\n1947: “Neither\tthe earnest  money deposit nor the with-held
\namount shall  bear any\tinterest”. This\t sentence  far\tfrom
\nsupporting the\tcase of the appellant appears to support the
\ncase of\t the plaintiff.\t The  reference\t to  “the  with-held
\namounts” is  to the amounts represening five per cent of the
\nrunning bills which are required to be with-held at the time
\nof payment  of the  running bills.  The provision  that\t the
\ncontractor is  not entitled  to interest  on these with-held
\namounts appears to imply that interest is claimable on other
\namounts due to the contractor.\n<\/p>\n
     While awarding  interest pendente\tlite the Trial Court
\nadopted the rate of 4′ % but the Trial Court gave no reasons
\nfor so\tdoing. The  High Court considered the matter in some
\ndetail and  having regard to the various continuous defaults
\ncommitted by  the defendant and its Officers, the High Court
\nenhanced the  rate of  interest to  6%. The  High Court\t was
\njustified in  doing sol\t and we\t see no\t reason to interfere
\nwith the  discretion exercised\tby the\tHigh Court.  In\t the
\nresult the appeal is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n12<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan vs Raghuveer Singh & Ors on 5 February, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 852, 1979 SCR (3) 6 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: RAGHUVEER SINGH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT05\/02\/1979 BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. […]<\/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-170172","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Rajasthan vs Raghuveer Singh & Ors on 5 February, 1979 - 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\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Rajasthan vs Raghuveer Singh & Ors on 5 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979\" \/>\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=\"1979-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-13T08:01:45+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Raghuveer Singh & Ors on 5 February, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-13T08:01:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979\"},\"wordCount\":1958,\"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\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979\",\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Raghuveer Singh & Ors on 5 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-13T08:01:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Raghuveer Singh & Ors on 5 February, 1979\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Rajasthan vs Raghuveer Singh & Ors on 5 February, 1979 - 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\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Rajasthan vs Raghuveer Singh & Ors on 5 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-13T08:01:45+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Rajasthan vs Raghuveer Singh & Ors on 5 February, 1979","datePublished":"1979-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-13T08:01:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979"},"wordCount":1958,"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\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979","name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Raghuveer Singh & Ors on 5 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-13T08:01:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-raghuveer-singh-ors-on-5-february-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Raghuveer Singh & Ors on 5 February, 1979"}]},{"@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\/170172","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=170172"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170172\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170172"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}