{"id":185011,"date":"2008-06-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008"},"modified":"2017-01-25T06:13:14","modified_gmt":"2017-01-25T00:43:14","slug":"prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Prabhu Singh & Ors vs Hira Ram & Ors on 30 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Prabhu Singh & Ors vs Hira Ram & Ors on 30 June, 2008<\/div>\n
                              1.\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n                             AT\n                         JODHPUR\n\n\n                      JUDGMENT\n\n      Prabhu Singh & Ors.          vs. Hira Ram & Ors.\n\n\n        S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 235\/2002\n\n\n        against    the   judgment     and award\n        dated 05.01.2002 passed by the learned\n        Judge, Motor         Accident     Claims\n        Tribunal, Jodhpur in Motor Accident Claim\n        No.95\/1999.\n\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT             ::         30th June, 2008\n\n                          PRESENT\n\n\n          HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANAK MOHTA\n\n\nMr. G.L. Khatri, for the appellant.\nMr. Devilal Vyas for respondent No.3.\n\n\nBY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
           The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-<\/p>\n
appellants against the judgment and award dated 05.01.2002<\/p>\n
passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
\n                                 2.<\/span><\/p>\n
Jodhpur (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in Motor Accident Claim No.<\/p>\n
95\/1999 whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the<\/p>\n
claim petition   in favour of the claimant-appellants and against<\/p>\n
the non-claimant No.1, 2 and 4 and they         have jointly and<\/p>\n
severally been held liable to pay         total compensation of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,20,000\/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of<\/p>\n
filing of the claim petition i.e. 08.02.1999. The claim petition<\/p>\n
against previous owner of the vehicle, that is, Ajit Singh, non-<\/p>\n
claimant No.3, has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal.<\/p>\n
            The brief facts of the case which are relevant for<\/p>\n
the disposal of the appeal are that on 07.09.98       Smt. Belu<\/p>\n
Kanwar ,(deceased),      was going    from   Jodhpur to village<\/p>\n
Peelwa in Jeep bearing No. R.J.19-C- 3903 . The jeep was<\/p>\n
being driven by Hira Ram, respondent No.1. Due to rash and<\/p>\n
negligent driving of the jeep at about 6.30 PM the jeep went<\/p>\n
from the tarred road towards ‘Kutcha’ and turned turtled near<\/p>\n
village Kirmasariya Raikon-ki Dhani, as a result of which Smt.<\/p>\n
Belu Kanwar received several injuries .    While she was being<\/p>\n
taken to the hospital, on the way she succumbed to her<\/p>\n
injuries. It was averred that the accident took place due to the
\n                                 3.<\/span><\/p>\n
rash and negligent driving of the jeep by Hira Ram, respondent<\/p>\n
No.1.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station,<\/p>\n
Mathania and it is revealed from the record that after<\/p>\n
investigation a challan was filed against respondent No.1 . It<\/p>\n
was averred that the claimants are the legal heirs of deceased<\/p>\n
Smt.Belu Kanwar. Prabhu Singh is         husband of deceased<\/p>\n
Smt.Belu Kanwar, Maheshwar Singh and Jaswant Singh are<\/p>\n
the     sons of deceased Smt.Belu Kanwar, they      submitted a<\/p>\n
claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,<\/p>\n
Jodhpur on 08.02.99 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for<\/p>\n
awarding adequate compensation for the untimely death of<\/p>\n
Smt. Belu Kanwar in motor accident. Smt. Belu Kanwar, who<\/p>\n
lost her life in the accident, was stated to be aged 55 years<\/p>\n
and was earning Rs.24,000\/- per annum by doing labour in<\/p>\n
agriculture and animal breeding and she used to hand over<\/p>\n
this income to her husband. In the        claim petition it was<\/p>\n
submitted that if she had not died in accident, claimants<\/p>\n
would not have been       deprived from her income and her<\/p>\n
services . It was further averred that at the time of accident
\n                                4.<\/span><\/p>\n
Hira Ram ,non-claimant No.1 was the driver of the jeep and<\/p>\n
Raees Mohammed and Ajit Singh, non-claimants No.2 and 3<\/p>\n
were the owners of the offending jeep and the said jeep was<\/p>\n
insured with the New India Insurance Company, Ltd., Jalore ,<\/p>\n
non-claimant No.4. Thus, all the four respondents were stated<\/p>\n
to be jointly and severally responsible for making payment of<\/p>\n
compensation. A total sum of Rs.3,00,000\/- was claimed as<\/p>\n
compensation under various heads.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     Hira Ram,driver of the jeep, non-claimant No.1, in his<\/p>\n
written statement has denied the averments made in the claim<\/p>\n
petition and stated that the police has falsely implicated him in<\/p>\n
that accident   and has wrongly filed challan against       him.<\/p>\n
Raees Mohammed , non-claimant No.2,          did not   appear in<\/p>\n
spite of service of notice, therefore, exparte proceeding was<\/p>\n
initiated against him. Ajit Singh, non-claimant No.3 in reply to<\/p>\n
the claim petition, denied most of the averments made in the<\/p>\n
claim petition and further stated that he had sold this jeep on<\/p>\n
18.08.98 before the day of accident      and handed over the<\/p>\n
possession thereof to      Raees Mohammed ,(non-claimant<\/p>\n
No.2) and registration of said jeep has been endorsed by the
\n                                5.<\/span><\/p>\n
concerned department in his name , the Insurance Company<\/p>\n
has also been already       intimated about the transfer of the<\/p>\n
vehicle. It was averred that he was, therefore, not liable to pay<\/p>\n
any compensation and prayed that his name may be struck off<\/p>\n
from the claim petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The Insurance Company, non-claimant No.4, in his reply<\/p>\n
has also denied most of the averments made in the claim<\/p>\n
petition for want of knowledge but admitted the factum of jeep<\/p>\n
insured with them in the name of     non-claimant No.3. It was<\/p>\n
further stated that the persons traveling in the jeep had not<\/p>\n
been insured nor Insurance Company had received any extra<\/p>\n
premium for the coverage of the risk of the gratuitous<\/p>\n
passengers. The jeep was registered and insured as a private<\/p>\n
vehicle,    whereas it was used as a taxi at the time of the<\/p>\n
accident.    It was    also stated that    the driver was not<\/p>\n
possessing a valid licence. It was submitted that since the<\/p>\n
terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy have been<\/p>\n
violated by the owner of the vehicle , therefore, the Insurance<\/p>\n
Company could not be held liable to pay any compensation.
\n                                 6.<\/span><\/p>\n
        The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the<\/p>\n
parties, framed five relevant issues. The claimants examined<\/p>\n
AW\/1 Prabhu Singh (the claimant as well as the husband of<\/p>\n
deceased)      and AW\/2 Shaitan Singh (an eye witness of<\/p>\n
occurrence) and their statements were        recorded and the<\/p>\n
claimants produced and got exhibited certain documents in<\/p>\n
support of their claim petition. In rebuttal, the respondents<\/p>\n
have examined NAW\/1 Mohammed Farooq, NAW\/2 Ajit Singh,<\/p>\n
NAW\/3 Padam Paniya and NAW\/4 Girish Gupta             and also<\/p>\n
produced and exhibited certain documents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        The learned Tribunal after hearing both the sides, held<\/p>\n
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of<\/p>\n
the driver of the jeep in which Smt.Belu Kanwar lost her life<\/p>\n
and vide its judgment and award dated 05.01.02 overruled the<\/p>\n
other     contentions raised by the respondents’ side. After<\/p>\n
considering the age      and the income of the deceased the<\/p>\n
learned tribunal      further awarded a total compensation of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,20,000\/- \/-    plus interest thereon @ 9% per annum in<\/p>\n
favour of claimants and against the non-claimants No.1,2 and<\/p>\n
4, as stated above.\n<\/p>\n
                                  7.<\/span><\/p>\n
           The claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with<\/p>\n
the quantum of compensation           as   awarded by the learned<\/p>\n
Tribunal, have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the<\/p>\n
compensation amount. Notices of appeal were given to the<\/p>\n
respondents. Record of the case was called and the parties<\/p>\n
were heard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           During the course of arguments learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the claimant-appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has<\/p>\n
not properly considered and appreciated the material available<\/p>\n
on   record,    for   awarding        adequate   and   reasonable<\/p>\n
compensation and has given an erroneous finding with regard<\/p>\n
to the quantum of compensation, therefore, the judgment and<\/p>\n
award is required to be modified to this extent.<\/p>\n
     It was contended by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants that it was proved by claimant side that Smt.Belu<\/p>\n
Kanwar (deceased) was helping in agriculture work and animal<\/p>\n
breeding and she was earning out of that job near about<\/p>\n
Rs.2,000\/- to Rs.2,500\/- per month and there was no rebuttal
\n                                8.<\/span><\/p>\n
from the other side, in that position,     the learned tribunal<\/p>\n
should have accepted the said income. It was also contended<\/p>\n
that at the time of accident she was 55 years old that was also<\/p>\n
verified by postmortem report (Ex.4) and the learned tribunal<\/p>\n
itself has accepted the age of deceased as 55 years, in that<\/p>\n
position multiplier of 11 as shown in the schedule attached to<\/p>\n
M.V. Act should have been applied but the learned tribunal<\/p>\n
firstly has taken    the notional income as    Rs.15,000\/- per<\/p>\n
annum and wrongly        deducted 1\/3rd    of that amount for<\/p>\n
personal expenditure. It was urged that in a case of notional<\/p>\n
income , 1\/3rd of the income for her personal expenses was not<\/p>\n
required to be deducted as held in the judgments given in the<\/p>\n
case of Kamlesh & Ors. vs. R.S.R.T.C. & Ors. (RLR 2005 (2),<\/p>\n
590 and Shree Lal & Ors. vs. Surya Kant & Ors. (RLR 2005<\/p>\n
(2), 592). Secondly the multiplier of     8 has wrongly    been<\/p>\n
applied to determine the loss of dependence or loss of estate<\/p>\n
and in this way assessed the compensation under this head<\/p>\n
(15000x8x2\/3) Rs.80,000\/-, that was urged to be modified and<\/p>\n
enhanced. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.10,000\/- for loss<\/p>\n
of consortium, Rs.10,000\/- for general and funeral expenses<\/p>\n
and Rs.10,000\/- to    each for the loss of love and affection to
\n                                 9.<\/span><\/p>\n
sons . In this way a meagre amount of total compensation of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,20,000\/- has been awarded in a case of death of earning<\/p>\n
person.      It was   prayed that         reasonable amount of<\/p>\n
compensation may be enhanced and appeal may be allowed.<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel      for the respondents       refuted     the<\/p>\n
contentions placed by appellant side and submitted that the<\/p>\n
income of Smt.Belu Kanwar was not proved                  at all, her<\/p>\n
husband AW\/1 Prabhu Singh himself has not stated a single<\/p>\n
word in this respect. Thus the learned tribunal       has rightly,<\/p>\n
after taking into consideration notional income has determined<\/p>\n
the compensation as per provisions of law. The               learned<\/p>\n
Tribunal has also granted in all Rs.40,000\/- compensation on<\/p>\n
other grounds. Thus, there is no              scope for further<\/p>\n
enhancement. Thus it was prayed that the appeal may be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      I have considered the rival submissions       made by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the<\/p>\n
findings and conclusions drawn thereon. The question arises<\/p>\n
for   consideration   in   appeal    is   whether   the     awarded
\n                               10.<\/span><\/p>\n
compensation is not just, adequate      and reasonable and it<\/p>\n
deserves enhancement ?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     So far as the finding with regard to accident is concerned<\/p>\n
I have seen the findings. The learned tribunal, after a detailed<\/p>\n
discussion, rightly has held that it was caused due to the rash<\/p>\n
and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver and either of<\/p>\n
parties have not disputed it, that is maintained. The learned<\/p>\n
tribunal has also decided the other     defences taken by the<\/p>\n
respondent side and no appeal has been filed, therefore, the<\/p>\n
finding on other issues also become final. The learned tribunal<\/p>\n
further considering the     income of deceased, found that<\/p>\n
income of the deceased was not proved, therefore, assessed<\/p>\n
her notional income as Rs.15,000\/- per annum and proceeded<\/p>\n
accordingly. I have seen the main statement in this respect of<\/p>\n
her husband. He has simply stated that his wife used to help<\/p>\n
him in agriculture work but has not stated        any separate<\/p>\n
earning, as stated. In that position, statement of AW\/2 Shaitan<\/p>\n
Singh with regard to earning is not of much importance. Thus,<\/p>\n
the tribunal has rightly taken notional income of the deceased<\/p>\n
for the purpose of calculation of compensation of Rs.15,000\/-
\n                                 11.<\/span><\/p>\n
per annum. The further contention of the learned counsel in<\/p>\n
this respect that out of this amount 1\/3rd part for her personal<\/p>\n
expenditure should not have           been deducted. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel has also cited above mentioned judgments of this<\/p>\n
Court in this respect. Those judgments are based on           the<\/p>\n
judgment given in the case of Mangu Devi and another vs.<\/p>\n
Musafir Paswan and others (2005 (1) TAC 609). That was a<\/p>\n
case in which compensation was considered under section<\/p>\n
163-A   of the M.V.Act but that was not the position in the<\/p>\n
present case.     Thus, those         judgments do not help    his<\/p>\n
contentions.    I have also considered      the other contentions.<\/p>\n
The learned tribunal in this case has applied the multiplier of 8<\/p>\n
for assessing the compensation, that is not found correct ,<\/p>\n
where the age of deceased has been accepted to be 55 years<\/p>\n
and that was further corroborated by the post mortem report<\/p>\n
(Ex.4) in which age of the deceased has been shown as 55<\/p>\n
years. Further her husband’s age has been recorded as 58<\/p>\n
years at the time of recording of statement given at least after<\/p>\n
2 years of the accident. Therefore, her age could not be taken<\/p>\n
above 55 years, thus, multiplier         of 11 should have been<\/p>\n
applied by the tribunal that is just reasonable. To this extent
\n                                 12.<\/span><\/p>\n
the finding of the learned tribunal is not found correct and is<\/p>\n
required modification. Thus,      taking into consideration the<\/p>\n
income assessed by the tribunal as , Rs.10,000\/- per annum<\/p>\n
after deducting 1\/3rd expenses on herself from total income of<\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/- per annum and multiplied by 11 compensation<\/p>\n
comes to (10,000×11) Rs.1,10,000\/-. Further the Tribunal has<\/p>\n
awarded under other heads the compensation of Rs.40,000\/-,<\/p>\n
that is reasonable and is maintained. Thus, total compensation<\/p>\n
amount comes to          Rs.1,50,000\/-, that   is enhanced by<\/p>\n
Rs.30,000\/-, The claimant -appellants are entitled to receive<\/p>\n
interest   @ 7.5% per annum on enhanced amount of<\/p>\n
compensation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      In the result,     the appeal is partly allowed and the<\/p>\n
awarded amount of compensation of Rs.1,20,000\/-is enhanced<\/p>\n
by Rs.30,000\/-         to Rs.1,50,000\/-. Further the claimant-<\/p>\n
appellants will be entitled to get 7.5% per annum interest on<\/p>\n
enhanced amount. The respondent No.1,2 and 4 being driver,<\/p>\n
owner and Insurance Company are held jointly and severally<\/p>\n
responsible for the payment of        compensation. Insurance<\/p>\n
Company is further directed to make payment         within two
\n                               13.<\/span><\/p>\n
months from the date of order, failing which appellants will be<\/p>\n
entitled to recover the same as per law. Rest of the judgment<\/p>\n
is maintained. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        ( MANAK MOHTA ),J.\n<\/p>\n
l.george\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Prabhu Singh & Ors vs Hira Ram & Ors on 30 June, 2008 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT Prabhu Singh & Ors. vs. Hira Ram & Ors. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 235\/2002 against the judgment and award dated 05.01.2002 passed by the […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nPrabhu Singh & Ors vs Hira Ram & Ors on 30 June, 2008 - 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\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prabhu Singh & Ors vs Hira Ram & Ors on 30 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-25T00:43:14+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\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prabhu Singh & Ors vs Hira Ram & Ors on 30 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-25T00:43:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2152,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Prabhu Singh & Ors vs Hira Ram & Ors on 30 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-25T00:43:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prabhu Singh & Ors vs Hira Ram & Ors on 30 June, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Prabhu Singh & Ors vs Hira Ram & Ors on 30 June, 2008 - 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\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prabhu Singh & Ors vs Hira Ram & Ors on 30 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-25T00:43:14+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\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prabhu Singh & Ors vs Hira Ram & Ors on 30 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-25T00:43:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008"},"wordCount":2152,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008","name":"Prabhu Singh & Ors vs Hira Ram & Ors on 30 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-25T00:43:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhu-singh-ors-vs-hira-ram-ors-on-30-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prabhu Singh & Ors vs Hira Ram & Ors on 30 June, 2008"}]},{"@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\/185011","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=185011"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185011\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}