{"id":174644,"date":"2002-10-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002"},"modified":"2017-11-05T16:52:11","modified_gmt":"2017-11-05T11:22:11","slug":"savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"Savitri Sahay vs Sachidanand Prasad on 31 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Savitri Sahay vs Sachidanand Prasad on 31 October, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.N. Variava, Arun Kumar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1472 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nSAVITRI SAHAY\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSACHIDANAND PRASAD\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/10\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nS.N. VARIAVA &amp; ARUN KUMAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2002 Supp(4) SCR 1<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n<p>S.N. VARIAVA, J. The Appeal is against a Judgment dated 24th September,<br \/>\n1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>Briefly stated the facts are as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appellant is the owner of premises bearing No. 29A, Police Line Road<br \/>\nWard No. 10, Bhagalpur Kutchery Road, Bhagalpur, U.P. The Respondent is a<br \/>\ntenant in one of the flats in the said building. The Appellant filed Title<br \/>\nEviction Suit No. 15 of 1991 against the Respondent on the ground that the<br \/>\nsaid flat was required by her for her own occupation. The Appellant claimed<br \/>\nthat she was staying in premises belonging to her son and that her son had<br \/>\nasked her to vacate the premises,. The Appellant claimed that she wanted<br \/>\nthe flat occupied by the Respondent as it was on the ground floor and on<br \/>\nthe northern side of the building and contiguous to the ancestral building<br \/>\nwhere she was presently residing, i.e. Shiva Bhawan. The Appellant also<br \/>\nclaimed that the said flat faced an open piece of land which belonged to<br \/>\nher husband. The Appellant claimed that she being old could not climb to<br \/>\nthe first floor and the ground floor flat on the south side of the building<br \/>\nwas not suitable as it faced a crowded road and was noisy.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the written statement filed by the Respondent, the Respondent claimed<br \/>\nthat there were three other flats in the same building, that after the<br \/>\nfiling of the Suit those flats had fallen vacant and the Appellant had let<br \/>\nout those flats at higher rents. The Respondent also claimed that Shiva<br \/>\nBhawan, in which the Appellant presently resides, is a palatial bungalow<br \/>\nand that the Appellant comes from a very affluent and dignified family and<br \/>\nwould not reside in the small flat. The Respondent claimed that the<br \/>\nAppellant was claiming possession merely to get the Respondent out and then<br \/>\nto let it out at a higher rent.\n<\/p>\n<p>At this stage it would be convenient to set out the relevant provisions of<br \/>\nthe Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1982 (hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as the said Act). Sections 11(1) (c), 14(8) and 17 of the said<br \/>\nAct read as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>11. Eviction of tenants.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any<br \/>\ncontract or law to the contrary but subject to the provisions of the<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947), and to those of section<br \/>\n18, where a tenant is in possession of any building, he shall not liable to<br \/>\neviction therefrom except in execution of a decree passed by the Court on<br \/>\none or more of the following grounds:-\n<\/p>\n<pre>XXX                      XXX                         XXX\n\nXXX                      XXX                         XXX\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>(c) where the building is reasonable and in good faith required by landlord<br \/>\nfor his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose<br \/>\nbenefit the building is held by the landlord:\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that where the Court thinks that the reasonable requirement of<br \/>\nsuch occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from<br \/>\na part only of the building and allowing the tenant to continue occupation<br \/>\nof the rest and the tenant agrees to such occupation, the Court shall pass<br \/>\na decree accordingly, and fix proportionately fair rent for the portion in<br \/>\noccupation of the tenant, which portion shall henceforth constitute the<br \/>\nbuilding within the meaning of clause (b) of section 2 and the rent so<br \/>\nfixed shall be deemed to be the fair rent fixed under section 5:\n<\/p>\n<p>Explanation I.- In this clause the word &#8220;landlord&#8221; shall hot include an<br \/>\nagent referred to in clause (f) of section 2 .\n<\/p>\n<p>Explanation II.- Where there are two or more premises let out by the<br \/>\nlandlord, it will be for the landlord to choose which one would be<br \/>\npreferable to him and the tenant or tenants shall not be allowed to<br \/>\nquestion such preference.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. Special procedure for disposal of cases for eviction on ground of<br \/>\nbonafide requirement- (I) Every suit by a landlord for the recovery of<br \/>\npossession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (c) or (e) of<br \/>\nsub-section (I) of section 11 shall be dealt with in accordance with the<br \/>\nprocedure specified in this section.\n<\/p>\n<pre>XXX                        XXX                           XXX\n\nXXX                        XXX                            XXX\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery<br \/>\nof possession of any premises made in accordance with procedure specified<br \/>\nin this section:\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that on an application being made within sixty days of the date of<br \/>\nthe order of eviction the High court may for the purpose of satisfying<br \/>\nitself that an order under the section is according to law, call for the<br \/>\nrecords of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks<br \/>\nfit.\n<\/p>\n<pre>XXX                        XXX                           XXX\n\nXXX                        XXX                           XXX\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>17. When a tenant is entitled to restoration of possession and<br \/>\ncompensation.- Where the landlord recovers possession of any buildings from<br \/>\nthe tenant by virtue of a decree secured because of clauses (c) and (e) of<br \/>\nsub-section (1) of section 11 and the building is not occupied by the<br \/>\nlandlord, or by the person for whose benefit the building is held, within<br \/>\none month of the date of vacation of the building by such tenant or the<br \/>\nbuilding, having been so occupied, is re-let within six months of the date<br \/>\nof such occupation to any person other than such tenant with the permission<br \/>\nof the Controller, the Court may, on the application of such tenant, made<br \/>\nwithin one month of his vacating the building, and giving the landlord an<br \/>\nopportunity of being heard by order direct the landlord to put such tenant<br \/>\nin possession of the building or to pay him such compensation as may be<br \/>\nfixed by the Court or both.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus it is to be seen that, under the said Act, if there are two or more<br \/>\npremises the landlord could choose which one would be preferable to him or<br \/>\nher and the tenant cannot question such preference.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Trial Court held that Explanation II to Section 11(1) (c) permitted the<br \/>\nAppellant to prefer which premise she wanted. It was held that the<br \/>\nAppellant had proved that the same was required reasonably and in good<br \/>\nfaith for her own occupation. The Trial Court Therefore, passed a decree<br \/>\nfor eviction.\n<\/p>\n<p>As Section 14(8) barred an Appeal, the Respondent-tenant filed Revision in<br \/>\nthe High Court. The High Court after considering all the facts came to the<br \/>\nAppeal, conclusion that need of the Appellant cannot be said to be<br \/>\nreasonable and in good faith as she had let out, during the pendency of the<br \/>\nproceedings, three other flats in the same building even though they had<br \/>\nfallen vacant and she could have occupied those flats. The High Court,<br \/>\ntherefore, set aside the decree passed by the trial court and, by the<br \/>\nimpugned Judgment, dismissed the Suit of the Appellant. Hence this Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Sanyal submitted that under Section 14(8) the High Court only had<br \/>\nrevisional powers which were limited to satisfying itself that the order<br \/>\npassed by the Trial Court was in accordance with law. In support of this<br \/>\nsubmission, he relied upon the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1109064\/\">Hiralal Kapur v. Probhu Choudhury<\/a><br \/>\nreported in [1988] 2 SCC 172, wherein it has been held, in the context of<br \/>\nSection 25(B) (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, that even though the<br \/>\npowers were somewhat wider than similar powers under Section 115, yet the<br \/>\nHigh Court was not entitled to enter into merits of factual controversy<br \/>\nbetween the parties. Mr. Sanyal also relied upon the authority in the case<br \/>\nof Sarla Ahuja v, Untied Indian Insurance Company Ltd., reported in [1998]<br \/>\n8 SCC 119, wherein again, in the context of Section 25(B) (8) of the Delhi<br \/>\nRent control Act, 1958, it has been held that even though the word<br \/>\n&#8220;revision&#8221; is not used the powers of the Court under this Section are<br \/>\nrevisional in nature and a reappraisal of evidence can be made only for the<br \/>\nlimited &#8216;purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at by the<br \/>\nfact-finding Court is wholly unreasonable. Relying on these authorities,<br \/>\nMr. Sanyal submitted that the High Court erred in re-appreciating the<br \/>\nentire evidence and arriving at a different conclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>We are unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Sanyal. We have perused<br \/>\nthe impugned Judgment. The High Court did not re-appreciate evidence to<br \/>\narrive at a different conclusion. The High Court has merely set out the<br \/>\nadmitted facts and\/or facts which have been proved during the course of<br \/>\ntrial. On the admitted or proved facts the High Court felt that the<br \/>\nconclusion arrived at by the Trial Court was unreasonable and perverse.<br \/>\nTherefore, the High Court recorded its own finding. The High Court was<br \/>\nentitled to do once it concluded that the findings of the Trial Court were<br \/>\nperverse. The next question which, however, arises is whether the<br \/>\nconclusion of the High Court that the findings of the Trial Court were<br \/>\nperverse can be said to be correct. Under normal circumstances if a<br \/>\nlandlord during the trial gets vacant possession of some other premises<br \/>\nwhich are equally suitable and chooses to let them out on higher rent then<br \/>\nit may be arguable that the need of the landlord, made out in the Eviction<br \/>\nPetition, was not reasonable or in good faith. However, as seen above, the<br \/>\nsaid Act provides specifically, in Explanation II, that even though a<br \/>\nlandlord may have two or more premises which have been let out, it is for<br \/>\nthe landlord to choose which one would be preferable to him or her and the<br \/>\ntenant could not question such preference. In this case, the Appellant had<br \/>\nindicated a preference for the flat occupied by the Respondent. She had<br \/>\ngiven a reason why she preferred this flat. She was an old lady. She<br \/>\ntherefore could not climb to the first floor and thus the two flats on the<br \/>\nfirst floor were not suitable to her. The other flat on the Southern side<br \/>\nof this building faced a road which was a very busy road and would<br \/>\ntherefore be noisy. This particular flat faced the Bungalow in which she<br \/>\nhas been residing for so many years and also faced an open piece of land<br \/>\nbelonging to her husband. The Trial Court accepts these reasons. The High<br \/>\nCourt has merely set aside the decree on the ground that the Appellant had<br \/>\nchosen not to occupy the three other flats which became available in the<br \/>\nsame building. In our view, Explanation II to Section 11(1) (c) permitted<br \/>\nthe landlord to ignore other premises and to prefer a particular premise.<br \/>\nThe Appellant having made a preference cannot be forced to occupy other<br \/>\npremises which may become available. Further the Appellant was not required<br \/>\nto keep those premises vacant because her Eviction Suit was pending, nor<br \/>\nwas there any duty cast on the Appellant, under any provision of law, to<br \/>\noffer those other premises to the Respondent. If the Respondent had so<br \/>\ndesired, he could have offered to vacate the flat preferred by the landlady<br \/>\nand move into one of those other premises. If the Appellant had refused to<br \/>\naccept such an offer, it possibly could have been said that the landlady<br \/>\nwas merely seeking to get vacant possession in order to get higher rents.<br \/>\nIn that case it could have been inferred that the need of the Appellant was<br \/>\nnot genuine and\/or in good faith. No such case has been made out. In view<br \/>\nof the specific provision in the said Act the reasoning of the High Court<br \/>\ncannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>It was next urged that the Appellant was merely evicting the Respondent in<br \/>\norder to let out the premises at higher rent. It was urged that the<br \/>\nAppellant came from a very affluent and well known family in Bhagalpur and<br \/>\nwas therefore not likely to shift into the said premises. In our view,<br \/>\nSection 17 of the said Act, which has been set out hereinabove, is a<br \/>\ncomplete answer to this submission. In case the Appellant does not shift<br \/>\ninto the said premises, it will be open to the Respondent to apply, under<br \/>\nSection 17 of the said Act, for restoration of possession and for<br \/>\ncompensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the impunged<br \/>\nJudgment and restore the decree passed by the Trial Court. There will be no<br \/>\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Yadav requests that time be granted to the Respondent to vacate the<br \/>\nsaid flat. We grant to the Respondent time till 30th April, 2003 to vacate<br \/>\nthe said flat on his filing in this Court, within six weeks from today, the<br \/>\nusual undertaking.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Savitri Sahay vs Sachidanand Prasad on 31 October, 2002 Bench: S.N. Variava, Arun Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1472 of 1999 PETITIONER: SAVITRI SAHAY RESPONDENT: SACHIDANAND PRASAD DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/10\/2002 BENCH: S.N. VARIAVA &amp; ARUN KUMAR JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2002 Supp(4) SCR 1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by [&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-174644","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Savitri Sahay vs Sachidanand Prasad on 31 October, 2002 - 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\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Savitri Sahay vs Sachidanand Prasad on 31 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-05T11:22:11+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Savitri Sahay vs Sachidanand Prasad on 31 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-05T11:22:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2080,\"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\\\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002\",\"name\":\"Savitri Sahay vs Sachidanand Prasad on 31 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-05T11:22:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Savitri Sahay vs Sachidanand Prasad on 31 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Savitri Sahay vs Sachidanand Prasad on 31 October, 2002 - 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\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Savitri Sahay vs Sachidanand Prasad on 31 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-05T11:22:11+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Savitri Sahay vs Sachidanand Prasad on 31 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-05T11:22:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002"},"wordCount":2080,"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\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002","name":"Savitri Sahay vs Sachidanand Prasad on 31 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-05T11:22:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitri-sahay-vs-sachidanand-prasad-on-31-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Savitri Sahay vs Sachidanand Prasad on 31 October, 2002"}]},{"@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\/174644","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=174644"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174644\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174644"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174644"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174644"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}