{"id":171780,"date":"2003-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003"},"modified":"2015-03-02T22:20:45","modified_gmt":"2015-03-02T16:50:45","slug":"kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"Kacha Kanti Seva Samity And Anr vs Shri Kacha Kanti Devi And Os on 28 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kacha Kanti Seva Samity And Anr vs Shri Kacha Kanti Devi And Os on 28 March, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6535 of 1997\n\nPETITIONER:\nKACHA KANTI SEVA SAMITY AND ANR.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHRI KACHA KANTI DEVI AND OS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/03\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nS. RAJENDRA BABU &amp; DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2003(3) SCR 99<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n<p>DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 1.4.1997 passed by a single Judge of the Gauhati High Court in<br \/>\nSecond Appeal No. 136 of 1985 filed by the appellants herein challenging<br \/>\nthe judgment and order dated 17.4.1985 passed by the Assistant District<br \/>\nJudge No. 11 at Silchar allowing Title Appeal No. 90 of 1983 filed by the<br \/>\nrespondents herein against the judgment dated 16.5.1983 of the Sadar Munsif<br \/>\nNo. II at Silchar dismissing Title Suit No. 88 of 1982 filed by the<br \/>\nrespondents herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondents herein filed Title Suit No. 88 of 1982 against the<br \/>\nappellants herein for declarations that deity Sri Sri Kachakanti Devi<br \/>\ninstalled in a temple at Udarband in Cachar District is their private deity<br \/>\ngifted to one of their forefathers 200 years ago by the then King of<br \/>\nCachar-Maharaja Krishna Chandra Dhevaj Narayan; that they are the shebaits<br \/>\nof the said deity which they inherited from their forefathers and that the<br \/>\ndefendants in the suit, namely, the appellants herein have no right to form<br \/>\nappellant No. 1 Samity. They also prayed for permanent injunction against<br \/>\nthe principal defendants.\n<\/p>\n<p>In support of their claim of shebaitship, the respondents\/plaintiffs<br \/>\nproduced two documents, Exhibits 1 and 2, executed by the said Maharaja in<br \/>\n1824 in favour of one Sonaram Sarma. The respondents\/plaintiffs further<br \/>\nstated that in 1970 general public of Udarband formed a Committee known as<br \/>\n&#8220;Mandir Construction Committee&#8221; and this Committee constructed boundary<br \/>\nwalls and temple for the deity and that the appellants\/defendants were<br \/>\ninterfering with the enjoyment of their rights as shebaits of the said<br \/>\ndeity.\n<\/p>\n<p>Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. the appellants herein, filed a joint written<br \/>\nstatement denying all material allegations in the plaint. According to<br \/>\nthem, the deity in question was dedicated to the public in general and<br \/>\nhence it was and still is a public endowment and that the documents filed<br \/>\nby the respondents\/ plaintiffs have been created for the suit and that the<br \/>\nseat of the deity is situated at a public place on a Government land and<br \/>\nthat the suit has been filed at the instigation of some disgruntled<br \/>\npoliticians.\n<\/p>\n<p>The learned Munsif dismissed the suit of the respondents herein holding<br \/>\nthat they were not shebaits and there was nothing to show that the deity<br \/>\nwas established by Cachar King or that forefather of the plaintiffs was<br \/>\nappointed as a shebait. The learned Munsif further held that the deity and<br \/>\nits temple were public endowments and the public used the same as a matter<br \/>\nof right.\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondents\/plaintiffs herein filed Title Appeal No. 90 of 1983 before<br \/>\nthe Assistant District Judge, Silchar against the judgment of the Trial<br \/>\nCourt. The learned Assistant District Judge allowed the appeal and set<br \/>\naside the judgment of the Munsif. The defendants\/appellants herein filed<br \/>\nSecond Appeal No. 136 of 1985 before the Gauhati High Court against the<br \/>\njudgment of reversal passed by the First Appellate Court. The High Court<br \/>\ndismissed the Second Appeal holding that since there was a finding of<br \/>\nshebaitship by the First Appellate Court, the impugned judgment required no<br \/>\ninterference. The respondents have examined as many witnesses while the<br \/>\ncontesting defendants have examined none.\n<\/p>\n<p>We heard Shri S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nappellants and Shri N.R. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondents. Both the learned counsel reiterated the contentions raised by<br \/>\nthe respective parties before the courts below. Our attention was also<br \/>\ndrawn to the pleadings and all the evidence both oral and documentary.\n<\/p>\n<p>The question of law involved in this appeal which requires our<br \/>\nconsideration is, when there being no appointment as shebait by any<br \/>\nauthority, whether pujari of a deity can become a shebait of such deity<br \/>\nonly because of the fact that the pujari performed pujas and acted as<br \/>\npurohit for a long time. We have carefully gone through the pleadings, the<br \/>\nevidence adduced-both oral and documentary and the arguments advanced by<br \/>\nthe counsel appearing for the respective parties. Learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellants, while reiterating the contentions raised before the courts<br \/>\nbelow, has submitted that both the Appellate Court and the High Court have<br \/>\ncommitted a grievous error in interfering with the well-considered judgment<br \/>\nof the learned Munsif who for the cogent and convincing reasons recorded in<br \/>\nhis judgment has dismissed the suit. He would further submit that the claim<br \/>\nof the shebaitship of the deity made by the plaintiffs is quite unknown and<br \/>\nthat it is in evidence that the public in general are offering seva\/puja to<br \/>\nthe deity since its inception and there is absolutely no evidence to show<br \/>\nthat the public offered the puja with the permission of the<br \/>\nrespondents\/plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the appellants would<br \/>\nfurther urge that the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High<br \/>\nCourt is a result of total non-application of mind. According to him, the<br \/>\nevidence adduced in this case would show that the Durga Mandap and a<br \/>\nChowkidar shed, a charitable dispensary and an office building have been<br \/>\nconstructed by the defendants Samity by the donations of the public within<br \/>\nthe compound of the temple of the deity and, therefore, the respondents\/<br \/>\nplaintiffs have no manner of right of shebaitship to the temple in<br \/>\nquestion. Learned counsel for the respondents\/plaintiffs would submit that<br \/>\nthe findings rendered by the lower Appellate Court and also by the High<br \/>\nCourt are unassailable and that the plaintiffs have proved beyond any doubt<br \/>\nthat they were in enjoyment of the right of shebaitship for a considerable<br \/>\nperiod of time undisturbed and to the exclusion of all other claimants.\n<\/p>\n<p>The question as to whether a religious endowment is of a private nature or<br \/>\nof a public nature has to be decided with reference to the facts proved in<br \/>\neach case. It is difficult to lay down any test or tests, which may be of<br \/>\nuniversal application. In the context of their right to shebaitship, the<br \/>\nrespondents\/plaintiffs have two ancient documents, Exhibits 1 and 2. Both<br \/>\nthe documents have been produced from proper custody. The originals of<br \/>\nthese documents were also seen by the Appellate Court. The documents<br \/>\nExhibit 1(1) and Exhibit 2(1) show that the name of Sonaram Sarma<br \/>\nDeshmukhya appears to be there and that these are appointment letters<br \/>\nshowing the appointment of Sonaram Sarma in the post of Deshmukhya with<br \/>\nsome magisterial powers by the king. Since these two documents have been<br \/>\nproduced from proper custody, these two documents were admitted in<br \/>\nevidence. The presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act was also<br \/>\navailable to the respondents\/plaintiffs. It is proved in evidence that the<br \/>\nright claimed by the respondents\/plaintiffs to shebaitship is in exclusion<br \/>\nto all others. The respondents\/plaintiffs have adduced oral evidence of<br \/>\nwitnesses PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9. They are the persons from<br \/>\ndifferent walks of life residing in the locality where plaintiff No. 1 is<br \/>\nestablished. They have categorically stated that since the time of their<br \/>\nmaturity they have seen the present respondents\/plaintiffs performing the<br \/>\npuja and offering other services to the deity and were receiving the<br \/>\nofferings made to the Goddess by the devotees. PW-8 is a person from Muslim<br \/>\ncommunity who has also subscribed to the same view. Even in cross-<br \/>\nexamination nothing has been elicited from them to discredit their evidence<br \/>\nand, in particular, regarding possession and the services rendered by them<br \/>\nas shebaits.\n<\/p>\n<p>Exhibit No. 1 is dated 1731 Sakabda 25 Kartika which corresponds to 1819<br \/>\nAD. Exhibit No. 2 is dated 1746 Sakabda month of Jaistha corresponding to<br \/>\n1231 BS which again corresponds to 1824 AD. It is an admitted position on<br \/>\nthe basis of the oral evidence given by the PWs, that the King Krishna<br \/>\nChandra ruled Cachar from the year 1780 to 1813 AD. The defendants have<br \/>\nalso not adduced any evidence to show that the job of shebaitship was<br \/>\nperformed by any other individual or group of individuals as against the<br \/>\nclaim of the respondents\/plaintiffs. The defendants\/appellants could not<br \/>\nadduce evidence to show the accrual of rights in their favour rather they<br \/>\nadmitted the joint possession of the respondents\/plaintiffs till 1980,<br \/>\ni.e., about two years next before the date of the suit, as the suit, was<br \/>\nfiled on 5.5.1983. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the<br \/>\nrespondents\/plaintiffs are entitled to the relief prayed for as they were<br \/>\nin continuous possession and enjoyment of the property in question and<br \/>\noffering their services and pujas and it should be regarded in law as to de<br \/>\nfacto shebaitship. Under no circumstances they can be held as trespassers.<br \/>\nJustice, in our opinion, would demand protection of their rights aforesaid.<br \/>\nBut it is in evidence that all the movable properties and other<br \/>\nconstructions of the building, tanks, well and electrification, etc. were<br \/>\ndone by the public by receiving donations from various persons and the<br \/>\nproperties were donated by the public to the deity and, therefore, the<br \/>\ndeity has become the absolute owner of those properties as to be held by<br \/>\nthe respondents and defendants as caretakers. We are, therefore, of the<br \/>\nopinion that both the Appellate Court and the High Court have partially<br \/>\ndecreed the plaintiff suit by declaring that the respondents\/plaintiffs are<br \/>\nthe de facto shebaits of the temple in question and are entitled to<br \/>\nmaintain such position and status without any interruption unless held<br \/>\nguilty of any misconduct. As rightly held by the Appellate Court, the<br \/>\npublic in general including the contesting defendants\/appellants would,<br \/>\nhowever, have free access to the suit premises in order to offer worship in<br \/>\nthe temple and for other religious and spiritual activities. We make it<br \/>\nclear that the respondents\/plaintiffs have no right to restrain the<br \/>\ndefendants\/appellants and the public from offering worship in the temple<br \/>\nand from making incidental development works etc. in the temple in question<br \/>\nand offer the same as a gift to the temple.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the instant case, the respondents\/plaintiffs, as de facto shebaits, have<br \/>\nproved their possession of the endowed property and exercised all functions<br \/>\nof a shebait though the legal title to property is lacking.\n<\/p>\n<p>For all the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal in part and decreed the<br \/>\nsuit insofar as the respondents\/plaintiffs right to shebaitship of the suit<br \/>\ntemple is concerned. However, we order no costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Kacha Kanti Seva Samity And Anr vs Shri Kacha Kanti Devi And Os on 28 March, 2003 Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6535 of 1997 PETITIONER: KACHA KANTI SEVA SAMITY AND ANR. RESPONDENT: SHRI KACHA KANTI DEVI AND OS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/03\/2003 BENCH: 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-171780","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kacha Kanti Seva Samity And Anr vs Shri Kacha Kanti Devi And Os on 28 March, 2003 - 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\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kacha Kanti Seva Samity And Anr vs Shri Kacha Kanti Devi And Os on 28 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-02T16:50:45+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kacha Kanti Seva Samity And Anr vs Shri Kacha Kanti Devi And Os on 28 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-02T16:50:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1737,\"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\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003\",\"name\":\"Kacha Kanti Seva Samity And Anr vs Shri Kacha Kanti Devi And Os on 28 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-02T16:50:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kacha Kanti Seva Samity And Anr vs Shri Kacha Kanti Devi And Os on 28 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kacha Kanti Seva Samity And Anr vs Shri Kacha Kanti Devi And Os on 28 March, 2003 - 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\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kacha Kanti Seva Samity And Anr vs Shri Kacha Kanti Devi And Os on 28 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-02T16:50:45+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kacha Kanti Seva Samity And Anr vs Shri Kacha Kanti Devi And Os on 28 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-02T16:50:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003"},"wordCount":1737,"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\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003","name":"Kacha Kanti Seva Samity And Anr vs Shri Kacha Kanti Devi And Os on 28 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-02T16:50:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kacha-kanti-seva-samity-and-anr-vs-shri-kacha-kanti-devi-and-os-on-28-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kacha Kanti Seva Samity And Anr vs Shri Kacha Kanti Devi And Os on 28 March, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171780","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=171780"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171780\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}