{"id":192660,"date":"1961-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-02-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961"},"modified":"2015-03-23T08:50:24","modified_gmt":"2015-03-23T03:20:24","slug":"ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961","title":{"rendered":"Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1067, \t\t 1961 SCR (3) 813<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGANGA DUTT MURARKA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKARTIK CHANDRA DAS AND OTHERS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n10\/02\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nKAPUR, J.L.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR 1067\t\t  1961 SCR  (3) 813\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1969 SC1187\t (8)\n R\t    1972 SC 819\t (7,8,12)\n RF\t    1975 SC1111\t (12)\n RF\t    1977 SC2262\t (11)\n RF\t    1978 SC1518\t (6,7,13)\n\n\nACT:\nTenant,\t Eviction  of-Determination of lease  by  efflux  of\ntime-Tenant  continuing\t in Possession on  Payment  of\trent\nfixed  by rent control Acts-Landlord accepting the  same-New\ntenancy,  if  created-Transfer of Property Act, 1882  (4  of\n1882), ss. 106, 116.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant was a contractual tenant of certain  premises\nin  the town of Calcutta of which the respondents  were\t the\nowners.\t The respondents called upon the appellant to vacate\nand deliver possession of the premises on the expiration  of\nthe  period of tenancy but possession was not delivered\t and\nthe respondents were unable to obtain possession in view  of\nthe  protection\t afforded to the tenants by  the  successive\nrent control Acts passed by the State.\tIn the meantime the\n814\nappellant continued to pay every month amounts equal to\t the\ncontractual  rent,  and later the rent declared\t to  be\t the\nstatutory  rent and the respondent accepted the\t same.\t The\nquestion arising for decision was whether the acceptance  of\nthe amounts by the respondents conferred upon the  appellant\nthe right of a tenant holding over within the meaning of  s.\n116 of the Transfer of Property Act.\nHeld,  that  where a contractual tenancy to which  the\trent\ncontrol\t legislation applied, had expired by efflux of\ttime\nor  by\tdetermination  by  notice to  quit  and\t the  tenant\ncontinued in possession of the premises, acceptance of\trent\nfrom  the  tenant by the landlord after\t the  expiration  or\ndetermination  of  the contractual tenancy will\t not  afford\nground\tfor holding that the landlord had assented to a\t new\ncontractual tenancy.\nKai Khushroo v. Bai Jerbai [1949] F.C.R. 262, followed.\nAcceptance  by\tthe  landlord from  the\t tenant\t of  amounts\nequivalent to rent after the contractual tenancy had expired\nor amounts which were fixed as standard rent did not  amount\nto acceptance of rent from a lessee within the meaning of s.\n116 of the Transfer of Property Act.\n  Occupation  of  the appellant after the  determination  of\ntenancy\t was  not in pursuance of any  contract\t express  or\nimplied\t but  was  by virtue of protection  granted  by\t the\nsuccessive statutes and such occupation was not required  to\nbe  determined\tin the manner prescribed by s.\t106  of\t the\nTransfer of Property Act.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 82 of 1957.
\nAppeal from the judgment and decree dated April 4, 1955,  of
\nthe Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree\t No.
\n1224 of 1953.\n<\/p>\n
G.   S. Pathak and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
\nH.   N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India and P.
\nK. Chatterjee, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
1961.  February 10.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nSHAH,  J.—Of the premises relating to which  this  dispute
\narises\t No.  5,  Raja\tRajkissen  Street,   Calcutta\t-the
\nrespondents   are  the\towners\tand  the  appellant  was   a
\ncontractual  tenant from June 15, 1917, till June 15,  1947,
\nunder  three successive tenancies for 10 years each.   Under
\nthe  first tenancy, the appellant paid rent at the  rate  of
\nRs. 84,15,0,per month, under the second-tenancy at the\trate
\nof Rs. 180 per month
\n815<\/span>
\nand  under  the\t third tenancy at the rate of  Rs.  225\t per
\nmonth.\t The  tenancy was in respect of buildings  used\t for
\nmanufacturing ” tin canisters ” and open land.\tOn September
\n30,  1946, the Governor of Bengal issued the  Calcutta\tRent
\nOrdinance, V of 1946, making certain provisions for  control
\nof  rent of premises in the town of Calcutta.  By s.  12  of
\nthe  Ordinance, it was provided in so far as it is  material
\nthat notwithstanding, anything contained in the Transfer  of
\nProperty  Act, the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act or\t the
\nIndian Contract Act, no order or decree for the recovery  of
\npossession  of\tany premises shall be made as  long  as\t the
\ntenant\tpays  rent  to\tthe full  extent  allowable  by\t the
\nOrdinance  and performs the conditions of the  tenancy.\t  By
\nthe   proviso,\t the  landlord\twas,   notwithstanding\t the
\nprotection  granted  entitled, if the  conditions  specified
\ntherein\t  were\tfulfilled,  to\tobtain\tpossession  of\t the
\npremises.   This  Ordinance was replaced by Act\t I  of\t1947
\nwhich  contained substantially the same provisions.  By\t the
\nWest Bengal Act V of 1948, the provisions of Ordinance V  of
\n1946  and  Act\tI of 1948, were\t continued.   Thereafter  on
\nDecember  1,  1948  the West Bengal  Premises  Rent  Control
\n(Temporary Provisions) Act XXXVIII of 1948 was brought\tinto
\noperation and by this Act, the West Bengal Act V of 1948 was
\nrepealed, but the protection granted to the tenants was con-
\ntinued.\t  This Act was repealed by the West Bengal  Premises
\nRent  Control  Act,  1950, and by s. 12 of  the\t latter\t Act
\nprotection to tenants, including tenants whose tenancies had
\nexpired, against eviction was granted by prohibiting  courts
\nfrom passing decrees or orders for recovery of possession of
\nany  premises  in favour of landlords.\tIt was\tprovided  by
\nthat  Act  that the landlord shall be entitled to  obtain  a
\ndecree\tin  ejectment, inter alia, where  the  premises\t are
\nreasonably  required  by, him either 1 for  the\t purpose  of
\nbuilding or rebuilding or for his own occupation.
\nBy  letter dated May 15, 1957, the respondents\tcalled\tupon
\nthe  appellant.\t to  vacate and deliver\t possession  on\t the
\nexpiry of the period of tenancy.  Possession was however not
\ndelivered by the appellant
\n816<\/span>
\nand  he continued to pay the stipulated amount and the\tsame
\nwas accepted by the respondents.  In an application under s.
\n9  of  the  West Bengal\t Premises  Rent\t Control  (Temporary
\nProvisions)  Act,  1948, the Controller fixed  the  standard
\nrent  of  the  premises at Rs. 455  per\t month.\t  After\t the
\nenactment  of  the West Bengal Premises\t Rent  Control\tAct,
\n1950, another application was submitted by the appellant and
\nthe  standard rent was reduced to Rs. 247,8,0.\t On  October
\n10, 1950, the respondents served a notice upon the appellant
\nrequiring  him ” to quit, vacate and deliver  possession  of
\nthe  premises occupied “, which the appellant was  described
\nas holding as ” monthly tenant “, on the expiry of the\t31st
\nof  Chaitra, 1357 B. S., i.e., April 14, 1951.\t The  ground
\nfor  eviction,\tit was claimed, was that the  premises\twere
\nreasonably  required  by the landlords for  putting  up\t now
\nbuildings  thereon.  The appellant having failed  to  vacate
\nthe  premises,\tthe respondents sued in the Court  of  Small
\nCauses,\t Calcutta, for a decree in ejectment.  The Court  of
\nSmall Causes decreed the suit filed by the respondents.\t  In
\nappeal\tto  the Special Bench, Court of\t Small\tCauses,\t the
\ndecree\tpassed by the court of first instance was  reversed.
\nThe  appellate court held that by acceptance of\t rent  after
\ndetermination  of the tenancy in June, 1947,  the  appellant
\ncontinued to be ” a tenant holding over ” and as the purpose
\nof  the\t tenancy was manufacturing, it could  be  determined
\nonly  by a notice of six months, expiring with the  year  of
\ntenancy\t and as no such notice was served, the\ttenancy\t was
\nnot  determined and the suit was liable to fail.  In  appeal
\nto  the\t High Court of Judicature at  Calcutta,\t the  decree
\npassed\tby  the -Special Bench was reversed and\t the  decree
\npassed\tby the court of first instance was  restored.\tWith
\ncertificate   of  fitness  under  Art.\t133(1)(c)   of\t the
\nConstitution  this  appeal  is preferred  by  the  appellant
\nagainst the order of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
The  contractual  tenancy  in favour of\t the  appellant\t was
\ndetermined  by\tefflux of time on June 15, 1947,  and  since
\nthat  date  there  has been between  the  parties  no  fresh
\ncontractual tenancy.  The respondents were,
\n817<\/span>
\nit appears, anxious to obtain possession of the premises let
\nout  to\t the  appellant,  but they  were  unable  to  obtain
\nassistance  of the court in view of the protection  afforded
\nto  the appellant by the successive rent control  Acts.\t  In
\nthe  meanwhile, the appellant continued to pay\tevery  month
\namounts\t equal to the contractual rent, and later  the\trent
\ndeclared  to be the statutory rent.  Does the acceptance  of
\nthe amounts paid by the appellant confer upon him the  right
\nof a tenant holding over within the meaning of s. 116 of
\nthe Transfer of Property Act?\n<\/p>\n
Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act in so far as  it
\nis material provides that if a lessee of property remains in
\npossession  thereof  after the determination  of  the  lease
\ngranted\t to him and the lessor accepts rent from the  lessee
\nor  otherwise assents to his continuing in  possession,\t the
\nlease  is, in the absence of an agreement to  the  contrary,
\nrenewed\t from year to year or from month to month  according
\nto the purpose for which the property is leased as specified
\nin  s. 106.  It is, however, well settled that where a\tcon-
\ntractual  tenancy  to  which the  rent\tcontrol\t legislation
\napplies has expired by efflux of time or by determination by
\nnotice to quit and the tenant continues in possession of the
\npremises, acceptance of rent from the tenant by the landlord
\nafter  the  expiration or determination of  the\t contractual
\ntenancy will not afford ground for holding that the landlord
\nhas assented to a new contractual tenancy.  It was  observed
\nby B. K. Mukherjee, J. (as he then was), in Kai Khushroo  v.
\nBai Jerbai (1):\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t On the determination of a lease, it is\t the
\n\t      duty of the lessee to deliver up possession of
\n\t      the  demised premises to the lessor.   If\t the
\n\t      lessee or a sub-lessee under him continues  in
\n\t      possession even after the determination of the
\n\t      lease, the landlord undoubtedly has the  right
\n\t      to  eject him forthwith; but if he  does\tnot,
\n\t      and there is neither assent or dissent on\t his
\n\t      part to the continuance of occupation of\tsuch
\n\t      person, the latter becomes in the language  of
\n\t      English law a tenant on sufferance who has -no
\n\t      lawful title to
\n\t      (1)   [1949] F.C.R. 262, 270,273.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      818<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      the  land\t but  holds it\tmerely\tthrough\t the
\n\t      laches  of the landlord.\tIf now the  landlord
\n\t      accepts  rent  from such person  or  otherwise
\n\t      expresses\t assent\t to the continuance  of\t his
\n\t      possession, a new tenancy comes into existence
\n\t      as  is  contemplated by s.  116,\tTransfer  of
\n\t      Property Act, and unless there is an agreement
\n\t      to   the\tcontrary,  such\t tenancy  would\t  be
\n\t      regarded\tas  one from year to  year  or\tfrom
\n\t      month   to  month\t in  accordance\t  with\t the
\n\t      provisions of s. 106 of the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      It was further observed
\n\t      “………………  in  cases  of   tenancies
\n\t      relating to dwelling houses to which the\tRent
\n\t      Restriction Acts apply, the tenant may enjoy a
\n\t      statutory\t immunity from eviction\t even  after
\n\t      the  lease has expired.  The  landlord  cannot
\n\t      eject   him   except  on\t specified   grounds
\n\t      mentioned\t in  the Acts themselves.   In\tsuch
\n\t      circumstances,  acceptance  of  rent  by\t the
\n\t      landlord\tfrom a statutory tenant whose  lease
\n\t      has  already expired could not be regarded  as
\n\t      evidence of a new agreement of tenancy, and it
\n\t      would not be open to such a tenant to urge, by
\n\t      way  of  defence,\t in  a\tsuit  for  ejectment
\n\t      brought  against him, under the provisions  of
\n\t      Rent  Restriction\t Act that by  acceptance  of
\n\t      rent a fresh tenancy was created which had  to
\n\t      be determined by a fresh notice to quit.\t”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Under the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946, and the  subsequent
\nlegislation  which  culminated in the West  Bengal  Premises
\nRent  Control  Act,  1950, in the  expression  “tenant”\t was
\nincluded  any  person  who  continued  in  possession  after
\ntermination  of his tenancy.  Section 12 of the West  Bengal
\nPremises Rent Control Act, 1950, expressly protects a tenant
\nwhose lease has expired.  By the Rent Restriction  Statutes’
\nat the material time, statutory immunity was granted to\t the
\nappellant  against eviction, and acceptance of\tthe  amounts
\nfrom him which were equivalent to rent after the contractual
\ntenancy had expired or which were fixed as standard rent did
\nnot  amount to acceptance of rent from a lessee\t within\t the
\nmeaning\t of  s. 116, Transfer of Property Act.\t Failure  to
\ntake   action\twhich  was  consequent\tupon   a   statutory
\nprohibition
\n819<\/span>
\nimposed upon the courts and not the result of any  voluntary
\nconduct on the part of the appellant did not also amount  to
\n”   otherwise\tassenting  to  the  lessee   continuing\t  in
\npossession.  ” Of course, there is no prohibition against  a
\nlandlord  entering into a fresh contract of tenancy  with  a
\ntenant\twhose  right  of occupation is\tdetermined  and\t who
\nremains\t in occupation by virtue of the statutory  immunity.
\nApart from art express contract, conduct of the parties\t may
\nundoubtedly justify an inference that after determination of
\nthe  contractual  tenancy, the landlord had entered  into  a
\nfresh  contract\t with the tenant, but  whether\tthe  conduct
\njustifies  such\t an inference must always  depend  upon\t the
\nfacts  of  each case.  Occupation of premises  by  a  tenant
\nwhose  tenancy is determined is by virtue of the  protection
\ngranted by the statute and not because of any right  arising
\nfrom the contract which is determined.\tThe statute protects
\nhis  possession\t so long as the conditions which  justify  a
\nlessor in obtaining an order of eviction against him do\t not
\nexist.\t Once  the  prohibition\t against  the  exercise\t  of
\njurisdiction  by the court is removed, the right  to  obtain
\npossession by the lessor under the ordinary law springs into
\naction and the exercise of. the lessor’s right to evict\t the
\ntenant\twill not unless the statute provides  otherwise,  be
\nconditioned.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court was in our judgment right in holding that  by
\nmerely\taccepting rent from the appellant and by failing  to
\ntake  action against him, the appellant did not acquire\t the
\nrights\tof  a tenant holding over.  It is true that  in\t the
\nnotice dated October 10, 1950, the appellant is described as
\na ” monthly tenant “, but that is not indicative of  conduct
\njustifying an inference that a fresh contractual tenancy had
\ncome into existence.  Within the meaning of the West  Bengal
\nPremises  Rent\tControl\t Act, 1950, the appellant  was\ta  ”
\ntenant\t”  and\tby  calling  the  appellant  a\ttenant\t the
\nrespondents  did not evince an intention to treat him  as  a
\ncontractual tenant.  The use of the adjective monthly ” also
\nwas  not indicative of a contractual relation.\tThe  tenancy
\nof  the\t appellant  was\t determined by\tefflux\tof  time  an
\nsubsequent occupation by him
\n820<\/span>
\nwas not in pursuance of any contract express or implied, but
\nwas  by\t virtue of the protection given\t by  the  successive
\nstatutes.   This occupation did not confer any\trights\tupon
\nthe  appellant\tand was not required to be determined  by  a
\nnotice\tprescribed  by is. 106 of the Transfer\tof  Property
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
In that view of the case, this appeal fails and is dismissed
\nwith costs.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1067, 1961 SCR (3) 813 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: GANGA DUTT MURARKA Vs. RESPONDENT: KARTIK CHANDRA DAS AND OTHERS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/02\/1961 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. KAPUR, J.L. […]<\/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-192660","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGanga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961 - 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\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961\" \/>\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=\"1961-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-23T03:20:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-23T03:20:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961\"},\"wordCount\":1999,\"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\\\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961\",\"name\":\"Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-23T03:20:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961\"}]},{\"@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":"Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961 - 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\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-23T03:20:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961","datePublished":"1961-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-23T03:20:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961"},"wordCount":1999,"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\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961","name":"Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-23T03:20:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-dutt-murarka-vs-kartik-chandra-das-and-others-on-10-february-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ganga Dutt Murarka vs Kartik Chandra Das And Others on 10 February, 1961"}]},{"@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\/192660","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=192660"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192660\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192660"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192660"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192660"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}