{"id":172697,"date":"1962-05-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-05-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962"},"modified":"2015-05-12T02:20:45","modified_gmt":"2015-05-11T20:50:45","slug":"dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962","title":{"rendered":"Dahya Lal And Others vs Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim on 3 May, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dahya Lal And Others vs Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim on 3 May, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1320, \t\t 1963 SCR (3)\t 1<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N., Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDAHYA LAL AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRASUL MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHIM\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n03\/05\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1964 AIR 1320\t\t  1963 SCR  (3)\t  1\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1967 SC1793\t (5,6)\n R\t    1974 SC2051\t (3)\n R\t    1981 SC1881\t (6,16,17)\n RF\t    1987 SC2146\t (8)\n RF\t    1987 SC2392\t (2)\n R\t    1987 SC2429\t (8)\n RF\t    1989 SC 436\t (39,42)\n\n\nACT:\nAgricultural  Land-Tenant  inducted  by\t  mortgagee--Whether\ncould  be  evicted,  or\t deemed\t to,  be  tenant  under\t the\nmortgagor-The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948\n(Bom. 67 of 1948), ss. 4 cls. (a), (b), (c), 29-Constitution\nof India, Art. 227.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn 1891 the ancestors of the appellant mortgaged the land to\nU.  who\t inducted  one\tR. as a tenant\ton  the\t land.\t The\nappellant  as owners of the equity of redemption applied  to\nthe Court,constituted under the, Bombay Agricultural Debtors\nRelief Act for adjustment of the debt due under the mortgage\nand for redemption of the land mortgaged.. An award was made\non  this application by compromise and in execution  of\t the\naward  R was evicted, R applied to the Mahalkari under\ts.29\nof  the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands-Act, 1948\t for\nan order restoring possession of the land.  The\t application\nwas  rejected  and  the order was confirmed  by\t the  Deputy\nCollector  and the Revenue Tribunal, In a petition Art.\t 227\nof  the Constitution, the High Court of Bombay it set  aside\nthe order passed by the Tribunal and ordered that possession\nof the land be restored to the respondent and declared\tthat\nthe respondent was entitled to. continue in occupation as  a\ntenant\ton the same terms. on which he was a tenant  of\t the\nmortgagee.\nHeld  , that the Act affords protection to all\tpersons\t who\nhold agricultural lands as contractual tenants, and  subject\nto the exceptions specified all persons lawfully cultivating\nlands\tbelonging  to  others,\tand  it\t would\t be   unduly\nrestricting  the intention of the Legislature to  limit\t the\nbenefit\t of the Bombay Tanancy and Agricultural Land Act  to\npersons\t who derive their authority from the  owner,  either\nunder  a  contract of tenancy, or  otherwise.\tAll  persons\nother than those mentioned, in cls. (a), (b) and (c) of s. 4\nof the,, Act who lawfully cultivate land belonging to other\n2\npersons whether their authority is derived directly from the\nowner of the land or not must be deemed to be tenants of the\nland.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 516 of 1960.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nJuly  19,  1957, of the Bombay High Court in  Special  Civil
\nApplication No. 809 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
 W. S. Barlingay and Ganpat Rai for the appellants.
\nC.   B. Pai, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar\tNath
\nand P. L. Vohra, for the respondents 1-5.\n<\/p>\n
B.   Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent No.
\n6 and for the State of Maharashtra (Intervener).
\n1962.  May 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSHAH, J.-Survey No. 126 admeasuring 11 acres and 20  gunthas
\nof Mouje Telod, District Broach belonged to the ancestors of
\nthe  appellants.   By deed dated July 24, 1891,\t the  owners
\nmortgaged  the\tland  to one  Umiyashanker  with  possession
\nshortly\t after\tthe  mortgage,\tthe  mortagee  inducted\t one
\nMohammed Abdul Rahim as a tenant on the land.
\nThe appellants as owners of the equity of redemption applied
\nto  the\t Court\tconstituted under  the\tBombay\tAgricultural
\nDebtors\t Relief Act, 28 of 1947, for adjustment of the\tdebt
\ndue  under the deed dated July 24, 1891, and for  redemption
\nof  the land mortgaged.\t On February 19, 1954, an award\t was
\nmade  in this application by compromise between the  parties
\ndeclaring that Rs. 3,000\/- were
\n3<\/span>
\ndue  to mortgagee under the deed dated July 24,\t 1891,\tthat
\nthe land in dispute was in the possession of Mohammed  Abdul
\nRahim as tenant of the mortgagee, and that the mortgagor had
\nthe  right  to\ttake possession of the land  from  the\tsaid
\ntenant.”   In  execution  of  the  award,   Mohammed   Abdul
\nRahim–who   will   hereinafter\t be  referred  to   as\t the
\nrespondent-  was evicted.  On June 7, 1954,  the  respondent
\napplied to the Mahalkari of Hansot for an order under s.  29
\nof  the\t Bombay\t Tenancy  &  Agricultural  Land\t Act,  1948,
\nrestoring  possession of the land.  The\t Mahalkari  rejected
\nthe  application and that order was confirmed in  appeal  by
\nthe  District  Deputy collector, and by the  Bombay  Revenue
\nTribunal in revision from the order of the Deputy Collector.
\nThe High Court of judicature at Bombay was then moved by the
\nrespondent  under  Art. 227 of the Constitution.   The\tHigh
\nCourt following its earlier judgment in Jaswantrai Tricumlal
\nVyas v.\t Bai Jiwi set aside the order passed by the Tribunal
\nand  ordered that possession of the land be restored to\t the
\nrespondent and declared that the respondent was entitled  to
\ncontinue in occupation as tenant on the same terms on  which
\nhe  was\t a  tenant of the mortgagee.   The  mortgagors\thave
\nappealed to this Court against that order of the High  Court
\nwith special leave.\n<\/p>\n
The  Bombay  Tenancy  Act of 1939 was  enacted,\t to  protect
\ntenants of agricultural lands in the Province of Bombay\t and
\nfor certain other purposes.  That Act was repealed by s.  89
\nof  the\t Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural  Lands\t Act,  1948,
\nwhich  came  into operation on December 28,  1948.   By\t the
\nrepealing clause, certain provisions of the Act of 1939 with
\nmodifications were Continued.  By the Act of 1948, under  s.
\n2(18)  as  it  ,stood at the material times,  a\t tenant\t was
\ndefined
\n4<\/span>
\nas an agriculturist who holds land on lease and. includes  a
\nperson\twho is deemed to be tenant under the  provisions  of
\nthis  Act.” s. 14 of the Act provides  that  notwithstanding
\nany  agreement, usage, decree or order of a Court  of  ‘law,
\nthe  tenancy  of  any land held by a tenant  shall,  not  be
\ndetermined unless the conditions specified, in that  section
\nare fulfilled.\tIt was unnecessary to set out the conditions
\nbecause\t it  is\t common\t ground that,  the  tenancy  of\t the
\nrespondent  was\t not sought to be determined on any  of\t the
\ngrounds\t in s. 14, it was in execution of the award made  by
\nthe  Debt Relief Court that the respondent was\tdispossessed
\nSection\t 29, by sub-s. (2) provides that no  landlord  shall
\nobtain\tpossession of any land or dwelling house held  by  a
\ntenant except under an order of the Maltdar.  For  obtaining
\nsuch  order he shall make an application in  the  prescribed
\nform  x\t x  X”. Section 4 of the Act, in, so far  as  it  is
\nmaterial provides: “A person lawfully, cultivating any\tland
\nbelonging to an-other person shall be deemed to be a  tenant
\nif such land is not cultivated personally by the owner\tand’
\nif  such’ person is not (a) a member of the owner’s  family,
\nor (b) a servant on wages payable in cash or kind but not in
\ncrop  share or a hired labourer cultivating the\t land  under
\nthe  personal supervision of” the owner’s family, or  (c)  a
\nmortgagee  in  possession”” Section 4 seeks  to\t confer\t the
\nstatus of a tenant upon a person lawfully cultivating.\tland
\nbelonging  to another.\tBy that provision,  certain  persons
\nwho are not tenants under the ordinary law are, deemed to be
\ntenants for purposes of the Act.  A person who\tis deemed  a
\ntenant,\t by  S. 4 is manifest, in a clear  apart,  from\t the
\ntenant who holds lands on lease from the owner. ;Such person
\nwould  be  invested  with the Status of a  tenant  if  three
\nconditions  are\t fulfilled(a) that he  is  cultivating\tland
\nlawfully)  (b) that the land belongs to another person,\t and\n<\/p>\n
(c) that the is not within the excepted categories.\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
The  respondent,  was  on  December  28,  1948,\t undoubtedly
\ncultivating land which belonged to another persons ; he ;was
\nlawfully cultivating the land because he: derived his  right
\nto  cultivate it from the mortgagee of the land, and he\t did
\nnot  fall within the excepted categories.  Prima  facie,  he
\nwas a “deemed tenant” within the meaning of s. 4 of the Act.
\nBut  Dr.  Barlingay, on behalf of  the\tappellants,contended
\nthat  a person can be said to be lawfully  cultivating\tland
\nwithin\tthe meaning of s.4 only if he has derived his  right
\nto  cultivate directly from the owner of the land,  and\t not
\nfrom some other person who has a limited interest, such as a
\nmortgagee  from the owner.  Counsel also contended that\t the
\nexpression mortgagee in posession” in cl. of s. 4. includes,
\na person claiming a derivative right such as a tenant of the
\nmortgagee in possession.  We are unable to agree with  these
\nContentions.   The  Bombay  Tenancy Act\t of  1939  conferred
\nprotection  upon  tenants against  eviction,  converted\t all
\nsubsisting  contractual tenancies for less than\t ten  years,
\nrestricted  the rights of landlords to obtain possession  of
\nland  even  on surrender, granted the status  ,of  protected
\ntenants\t to all persons who had personally  cultivated\tland
\nfor  six  years prior to the date  specified,  provided\t for
\nfixation  of  maximum rates of rates of\t rent  abolition  of
\ncesses\tand  suspension and remission of  rents\t in  certain
\ncontingencies, and barred eviction of tenants, from,dwelling
\nhouses.\t The Act was found inadequate and was substituted by
\nthe Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1948.\t The
\nlatter\tAct preserves the essential features of the  Act  of
\n1939  provides\tfor  additional\t rights\t and  protection  to
\ntenants such as fixation of reasonable rent, commutation  of
\ncrop  share  into  cash, right\tto  procedure  of  naturally
\ngrowing trees on land, relief against termination of tenancy
\nfor non-payment of
\n6<\/span>
\nrent,  special rights and privileges of\t protected  tenants,
\nvesting of estates in Government for managment,\t restriction
\non  transfer  of agricultural land and the  constitution  of
\nSpecial Tribunals for deciding disputes relating to value of
\nland.  The two Acts were manifestly steps in the process  of
\nagrarian  reform launched with the object of  improving\t the
\neconomic  condition  of the peasants and ensuring  full\t and
\nefficient  use of land for agricultural purpose.   The\tpro-
\nvisions\t of  the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural  land\tAct,
\n1948  must  be\tviewed in the light  of\t the  social  reform
\nenvisaged thereby.\n<\/p>\n
The  Act 1948, it is undisputed, seeks to  encompass  within
\nits beneficent provisions not only tenants who held land for
\npurpose of cultivation under contracts from the land  owners
\nbut  persons who are deemed to the tenants also.  The  point
\nin controversy is whether a person claiming the status of  a
\ndeemed\ttenant\tmust  have been cultivating  land  with\t the
\nconsent\t or under the authority of the owner.\tCounsel\t for
\nthe  appellants submits that tenancy postulates\t a  relation
\nbased on contract between the owner of land, and the  person
\nin  occupation\tof  the land, and there can  be\t no  tenancy
\nwithout\t the  consent  or  authority of\t the  owner  to\t the
\noccupation  of\tthat  land.  But the Act  has  by  s.  2(18)
\ndevised a special definition of tenant and included  therein
\npersons who are not contractual tenants.  It would therefore
\nbe  difficult to assume in construing s. 4 that\t the  person
\nwho claims the status of a deemed tenant must be cultivating
\nland  with  the\t consent or authority  of  the\towner.\t The
\nrelevant  condition imposed by the statute is only that\t the
\nperson\tclaiming  the  status of a  deemed  tenant  must  be
\ncultivating land “lawfully”: it is not the condition that he
\nmust  cultivate land with the consent of or under  authority
\nderived directly from
\n7<\/span>
\nthe owner.  To import such a condition it is to rewrite\t the
\nsection,  and destory its practical utility.  A\t person\t who
\nderives\t his right to cultivate land from the  Owners  would
\nnormally  be a contractual tenant and he will obviously\t not
\nbe  a “deemed tenant”.\tPersons such as licensees  from\t the
\nowner may certainly be regarded as falling within the  class
\nof  perSODS lawfully cultivating land belonging\t to  others,
\nbut  is cannot be assumed therefrom that they are  the\tonly
\npersons\t who  are covered by the section.  The\tAct  affords
\nprotection  to\tall persons who hold  agricultural  land  as
\ncontractual tenants and subject to the exceptions  specified
\nall persons lawfully cultivating lands belonging to  others,
\nand  it\t would be unduly restricting the  intention  of\t the
\nLegislature  to\t limit\tthe benefit  of\t its  provisions  to
\npersons\t who derive their authority from the  owner,  either
\nunder a contract of tenancy, or otherwise.  In our view, all
\npersons other than those mentioned in cls. (a), (b) and\t (c)
\nof  S.\t4  who lawfully cultivate land\tbelonging  to  other
\npersons\t whether or not their authority is derived  directly
\nfrom  the  owner of the land must be deemed tenants  of\t the
\nlands.\n<\/p>\n
Under  the Transfer of property Act, the right of  a  tenant
\nwho   has  been\t inducted  by  a  Mortgagee  in\t  possession
\nordinarily  comes  to  an end with  the\t extinction  of\t the
\nmortgage by redemption, but that rule, in our judgment,\t has
\nno application in the interpretation of a statute which\t has
\nbeen  enacted with the object of the granting protection  to
\npersons\t lawfully cultivating agricultural lands.   Nor\t has
\nthe   contention   that\t the   expression   “‘mortgagee\t  in
\npossessions  includes  a tenant from such  a  mortgagee\t any
\nforce.\tA mortgagee in possession is excluded from the class
\nof  deemed  tenants on ground of public\t policy:  to  confer
\nthat-status  upon  a  mortgagee in possession  would  be  to
\ninvest\thim  with  rights inconsistent\twith  his  fiduciary
\ncharacter.  A
\n8<\/span>
\ntransferee  of the totality of the rights of a\tmortgage  in
\npossession  may\t also  be  deemed  to  be  a  mortgagee\t  in
\npossession.  But a tenant of the mortgagee in possession if;
\ninducted  on the land in the ordinary course  of  management
\nunder  authority derived from the mortgagor and so  long  as
\nthe mortgage subsists, even under the ordinary law he is not
\nliable\tto  be evicted by the mortgagor.  It  appears\tthat
\nthe  Legislature by restricting the exclusion to  mortgagees
\nin possession from the claw of deemed tenants intended\tthat
\nthe  tenant  lawfully  inducted by the\tmortgagee  shall  on
\nredemption  of\tthe mortgage be deemed to be tenant  of\t the
\nmortgagor.  In our view, therefore, the High Court was right
\nin  holding that the respondent was entitled to\t claim\tthe
\nprotection of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
\n1948 as a deemed tenant.\n<\/p>\n
One more argument about the jurisdiction of the ‘High  Court
\nunder Art.227 of the constitution to set aside the order  of
\nthe  Bombay  Revenue Tribunal may be considered.   The\tHigh
\nCourt  in  setting aside the order of the  Revenue  Tribunal
\nexercised  jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the  Constitution,
\nand  it\t was urged by counsel for the appellants  that\tthis
\nwas. not a fit case for exercise of that jurisdiction.\t But
\nthe Legislature has expressly prohibited by s. 29 (2) of the
\nAct,  landlords\t from  obtaining  possession  of  any  lands
\notherwise  than\t under\tan  order  of  the  Mamaldar.\t The
\npossession  of\tthe  disputed  land  was  obtained  by\t the
\nappellants in execution of the award of the debt  adjustment
\nCourt  and without an order of the Mamlatdar.  “The  respon-
\ndent was therefore unlawfully dispossessed of the land,\t and
\nthe  Revenue Authorities in refusing to gig  him  assistance
\nillegally refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by
\nlaw.,-The question being
\n9<\/span>
\none  of\t jurisdiction,\tthe  High Court\t was  in  our  view,
\ncompetent to exercise the powers vested in it by Art. 227.
\nThe appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.
\nAppeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dahya Lal And Others vs Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim on 3 May, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1320, 1963 SCR (3) 1 Author: S C. Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N., Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: DAHYA LAL AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: RASUL MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHIM DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-172697","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDahya Lal And Others vs Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim on 3 May, 1962 - 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\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dahya Lal And Others vs Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim on 3 May, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962\" \/>\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=\"1962-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-11T20:50:45+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dahya Lal And Others vs Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim on 3 May, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-11T20:50:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962\"},\"wordCount\":2144,\"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\\\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962\",\"name\":\"Dahya Lal And Others vs Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim on 3 May, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-11T20:50:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dahya Lal And Others vs Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim on 3 May, 1962\"}]},{\"@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":"Dahya Lal And Others vs Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim on 3 May, 1962 - 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\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dahya Lal And Others vs Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim on 3 May, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-11T20:50:45+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dahya Lal And Others vs Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim on 3 May, 1962","datePublished":"1962-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-11T20:50:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962"},"wordCount":2144,"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\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962","name":"Dahya Lal And Others vs Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim on 3 May, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-11T20:50:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dahya-lal-and-others-vs-rasul-mohammed-abdul-rahim-on-3-may-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dahya Lal And Others vs Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim on 3 May, 1962"}]},{"@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\/172697","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=172697"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172697\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172697"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172697"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172697"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}