{"id":205710,"date":"1990-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990"},"modified":"2017-09-26T14:14:17","modified_gmt":"2017-09-26T08:44:17","slug":"indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990","title":{"rendered":"Indira Bai vs Nand Kishore on 5 September, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Indira Bai vs Nand Kishore on 5 September, 1990<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1055, \t\t 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 349<\/div>\n
Author: R Sahai<\/div>\n
Bench: Sahai, R.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nINDIRA BAI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNAND KISHORE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT05\/09\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nSAHAI, R.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nSAHAI, R.M. (J)\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR 1055\t\t  1990 SCR  Supl. (1) 349\n 1990 SCC  (4) 668\t  JT 1990 (4)\t163\n 1990 SCALE  (2)445\n\n\nACT:\n    Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section\t115--Estoppel--Basis\nof  the principle--Applicability in regard to right of\tpre-\nemption----Exception  in  case it involves public  right  or\ninterest.\n    Rajasthan  Pre-emption Act,\t 1966: Section\t8-Rights  of\npreemptor-Operation  of rule of estoppel or  waiver  against\nsuch rights-Non-service of notice by vendor--Effect of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t appellant  purchased certain properties by  way  of\nregistered sale deeds. She constructed therein a godown\t and\na two-storeyed building with the knowledge and assistance of\nthe  respondent, who did not say anything about\t the  common\npassage\t and had never expressed his intention\tto  pre-empt\nthe sales.\n    Soon  after\t the construction was over,  the  respondent\nsent  a notice to the appellant claiming his right  to\tpre-\nempt  the  sale. The appellant gave a reply to\tthe  notice.\nHowever, respondent filed a suit for preemption in  relation\nto  the\t said  properties. The appellant  pleaded  that\t the\nrespondent  was\t estopped  from\t claiming  the\tpre-emption.\nPrinciple  of waiver was also pleaded. The Trial Court\tdis-\nmissed\tthe  suit  of the respondent, and  he  preferred  an\nappeal before the District Judge which was also dismissed.\n    Respondent preferred a regular second appeal before\t the\nHigh  Court. The High Court allowed the appeal holding\tthat\nthe  principles\t of estoppel and waiver had  no\t application\nagainst\t the pre-emptor to preempt the suit, and  set  aside\nthe orders of the Courts below.\n    Aggrieved  against the High Court's order the  appellant\nhas preferred this appeal, by special leave.\nAllowing the appeal, this Court,\n    HELD:  1.1 Estoppel is a rule of equity flowing  out  of\nfairness  striking on behaviour deficient in good faith.  It\noperates as a check on\n350\nspurious  conduct  by  preventing the  inducer\tfrom  taking\nadvantage and assailing forfeiture already accomplished.  It\nis  invoked and applied to aid the law in administration  of\njustice.  But  for  it great many injustice  may  have\tbeen\nperpetrated. [162D-E]\n    1.2\t Legal approach of the High Court, that no  estoppel\ncould  arise unless notice under Section 8 of the  Rajasthan\nPre-emption  Act  was  given by the  seller  and  pre-emptor\nshould have had occassion to pay or tender price ignores the\nfallacy\t that Estoppel need not be specifically provided  as\nit can always be used as a weapon of defence. [162G-H]\n    2.\tThere  can be no estoppel  against  statute.  Equity\nusually follows law. Therefore, that which is illegal cannot\nbe enforced by resorting to rule of estoppel. Such an exten-\nsion  may be against public policy. The distinction  between\nvalidity  and  illegality or the transaction being  void  is\nclear and well known. The former can be waived by express or\nimplied\t agreement or conduct. But not the latter.  [163D  &\nF-G]\n    Shalimar  Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C. Sharma, AIR<\/a> 1988  SC\n145;  Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United  States\nv.  Reed, 14 AC 587; Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh, AIR<\/a>\t1958\nSC  838\t and  Radha Kishan v. Shridhar, AIR  1960  SC  1369,\nreferred to.\n    3.\tThe  provision in the Pre-emption  Act\trequiring  a\nvendor\tto serve notice on persons having right of  pre-emp-\ntion  is condition of validity of transfer, and therefore  a\npre-emptor  could waive it. Failure to serve notice  as\t re-\nquired under the Act does not render the sale made by vendor\nin  favour of vendee ultra vires. The test to determine\t the\nnature of interest, namely, private or public is whether the\nright which is renunciated is the right of party alone or of\nthe public also in the sense that the general welfare of the\nsociety is involved. If the answer is latter then it may  be\ndifficult  to  put estoppel as a defence. The Act  does\t not\nprovide\t that  in case no notice is  given  the\t transaction\nshall  be void. The objective is to intimate the  pre-emptor\nwho  may  be interested in getting himself  substituted.  It\ndoes  not  debar the pre-emptor from giving up\tthis  right.\nRather in case of its non-exercise within two months, may be\nfor  financial\treasons, the right stands  extinguished.  It\ndoes not pass on to anyone. No social disturbance is caused.\nIt settles in purchaser. Giving up such right, expressly  or\nimpliedly  cannot therefore be said to involve any  interest\nof  community or public welfare so as to be in\tmischief  of\npublic policy. [163H; 164A-C]\nJethmal\t v.  Sajanumal, [1947] Mewar Law Reports  36,  over-\nruled.\n351\n    Atam  Prakash  v.  State of Haryana, AIR<\/a>  1986  SC\t859;\nBishan Singh v. Khazan Singh, AIR<\/a> 1958 SC 838; Radha  Kishan\nv.  Sridhar, AIR 1960 SC 1368; Naunihal Singh v. Ram  Ratan,\nILR  39 All. 127; Ram Rathi v. Mt. Dhiraji, [1947] Oudh\t 81;\nGopinath  v.  R.S. Nand Kishore, AIR 1952  Ajmer  26;  Abdul\nKarim  v. Babulal, AIR 1953 Bhopal 26 and Kanshi Ram  Sharma\nv. Lahori Ram, AIR 1938 Lah. 273, approved.\nPateshwari Partab Narain Singh v. Sitaram, AIR 1929 PC 259,\nreferred to.\n    4.\tIn  the instant case, the fact that  the  respondent\nknew of the sale deed, assisted the appellant in raising the\nconstruction and after the construction was completed in the\nmonth of June he gave notice in the month of July for  exer-\ncise  of  the  right and filed the suit\t in  January,  would\nitself\tdemonstrate that the conduct of the  respondent\t was\ninequitable  and the courts in this country which  are\tpri-\nmarily\tthe  courts of equity, justice and  good  conscience\ncannot\tpermit the respondent to defeat the right of  appel-\nlant  and  invoke a right which has been called a  weak\t and\ninequitable right. [164D-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 105  of
\n1990.\n<\/p>\n
     From  the\tJudgment and Order dated 10.3. 1988  of\t the
\nRajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 327  of
\n1976.\n<\/p>\n
C.M. Lodha, H.M. Singh and R.S. Yadav for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     S.K.  Ghose, M. Qamaruddin and Mrs. M.  Qamaruddin\t for
\nthe Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     R.M. SAHAI, J. Is Estoppel a good defence to ‘archaic’,
\nAtam Prakash v. State of Haryana, A.I.R.<\/a> 1986 SC 859,  right
\nof  Pre-emption\t which is a ‘weak right’,  Bishen  Singh  v.
\nKhazan Singh, A.I.R.<\/a> 1958 SC 838, and can be defeated by any
\n‘legitimate’ method Radha Kishan v. Sridhar, A.I.R. 1960  SC
\n1368.\n<\/p>\n
     Barring  High Court of Rajasthan and  erstwhile,  Mewar
\nState  Jethmal v. Sajanumal, [1947] Mewar Law  Reports,\t 36,
\nmost  of the other high courts, namely, Allahabad,  Naunihal
\nSingh  v.  Ram\tRatan, 39 ILR 127, Oudh, Ram  Rathi  v.\t Mr.
\nDhiraji, [1947] Oudh 81, Ajmer
\n352<\/span>
\nGopinath  v. R.S. Nand Kishore, AIR 1952 Ajmer\t26,  Bhopal,
\nAbdul Karim v. Babu Lal, AIR 1953 Bhopal, and Lahore  Kanshi
\nRam  Sharma & Anr. v. Lahori Ram & Anr., AIR 1938  Lab.\t 273
\nhave answered the issue in the affirmative. The Privy  Coun-
\ncil, [1929] PC AIR 259, too, applied this principle to\tnon-
\nsuit  a\t pre-emptor who knew that the property\twas  in\t the
\nmarket\tfor long but offered to purchase, only. one  out  of
\nmany blocs. It had:\n<\/p>\n
“Assuming that the prior completed purchase by the appellant
\nwould under other circumstances, have given him the right of
\npre-emption  in\t respect of the blocks in suit, he  must  be
\ntaken by his conduct to have waived this right, and that  it
\nwould be inequitable to allow him now to re-assert it.”
\nEven in Muslim Law which is the genesis of this right, as it
\nwas unknown to Hindu Law and was brought in wake of Mohamme-
\ndan  Rule,  it is settled that the right of  pre-emption  is
\nlost by estoppel and acquiescence.\n<\/p>\n
    Estoppel  is  a rule of equity flowing out\tof  fairness
\nstriking  on behaviour deficient in good faith. It  operates
\nas  a  check on spurious conduct by preventing\tthe  inducer
\nfrom  taking  advantage\t and  assailing\t forfeiture  already
\naccomplished.  It is invoked and applied to aid the  law  in
\nadministration\tof justice. But for it great many  injustice
\nmay have been perpetrated. Present case is a glaring example
\nof it. True no notice was given by the seller-but the  trial
\ncourt and appellate court concurred that the pre-emptor\t not
\nonly  came to know of the sale immediately but\the  assisted
\nthe  purchaser-appellant in raising construction which\twent
\non  for five months. Having thus persuaded,  rather  misled,
\nthe  purchaser by his own conduct that he acquiesced in\t his
\nownership  he  somersaulted to grab the property  with\tcon-
\nstructions by staking his own claim and attempting to unset-
\ntle  the legal effect of his own conduct by taking  recourse
\nto  law.  To curb and control such unwarranted\tconduct\t the
\ncourts have extended the broad and paramount  considerations
\nof  equity, to transactions and assurances, express  or\t im-
\nplied to avoid injustice.\n<\/p>\n
    Legal approach of the High Court, thus, that no estoppel
\ncould  arise unless notice under Section 8 of the  Rajasthan
\nPre-emption  Act  (In brevity ‘the Act’) was  given  by\t the
\nseller\tand  pre-emptor should have had occasion to  pay  or
\ntender\tprice ignores the fallacy that Estoppel need not  be
\nspecifically provided as it can always be used as a
\n353<\/span>
\nweapon\tof defence. In the Privy Council decision,  referred
\nearlier,  the court was concerned with Oudh Laws Act (18  of
\n1876) which too had an identical provision for giving notice
\nby  seller.  No notice was given but since  pre-emptor\tknew
\nthat  the  property was for sale and he\t had  even  obtained
\ndetails\t of lots he was precluded from basing his  claim  on
\npre-emption.\n<\/p>\n
    Exception, to this universal rule or its non-availabili-
\nty,  is not due to absence of any provision in the  Act\t ex-
\ncluding\t its operation but welfare of society or social\t and
\ngeneral well-being. Protection was, consequently, sought not
\non  the rationale adopted by the High Court that in  absence
\nof  notice  under Section 8 of the Act\testoppel  could\t not
\narise but under cover of public policy. Reliance was  placed
\non Shalimar Tar Products v. H.C. Sharma, AIR<\/a> 1988 SC 145,  a
\ndecision on waiver, and Equitable Life Assurance Society  of
\nthe  United States v. Reed, 14 Appeal Cases 587, which\tlaid
\ndown that there could be no estoppel against statute.  Equi-
\nty, usually, follows law. Therefore that which is statutori-
\nly  illegal and void cannot be enforced by resorting to\t the
\nrule  of  estoppel. Such extension of rule  may\t be  against
\npublic policy. What then is the nature of right conferred by
\nSection\t 9 of the Act? In Bishen Singh v. Khazan Singh,\t AIR<\/a>
\n1958 SC 838 this Court while approving the classic  judgment
\nof Mahmood, J. in Gobind Dayal v. Inayatullah, ILR 7 All 775
\n(FB).  ‘that the right of pre-emption was simply a right  of
\nsubstitution’  observed that, ‘courts have not\tlooked\tupon
\nthis  right  with great favour, presumably, for\t the  reason
\nthat  it  operated as a clog on the right of  the  owner  to
\nalienate his property. In Radha Kishan v. Shridhar, AIR 1960
\nSC 1369 this Court again while repelling the claim that\t the
\nvendor\tand vendee by accepting price and transferring\tpos-
\nsession without registration of sale deed adopted subterfuge
\nto  defeat  the right of pre-emption observed  that,  ‘there
\nwere  no  equities  in favour of a  pre-emptor,\t whose\tsole
\nobject\tis to disturb a valid transaction by virtue  of\t the
\nrights created in him by statute. To defeat the law of\tpre-
\nemption by any legitimate means is not fraud on the part  of
\neither the vendor or the vendee and a person is entitled  to
\nsteer clear of the law of pre-emption by all lawful  means’.
\nSuch being the nature of right it is harsh to claim that its
\nextinction  by conduct would amount to statutory  illegality
\nor  would be opposed to public policy. The  distinction\t be-
\ntween validity and illegality or the transaction being\tvoid
\nis clear and well known. The former can be waived by express
\nor  implied  agreement or conduct. But not the\tlatter.\t The
\nprovision in the Act requiring a vendor to serve the  notice
\non  persons  having  right of pre-emption  is  condition  of
\nvalidity of transfer, and therefore a pre-emptor could waive
\nit. Failure to serve notice as
\n354<\/span>
\nrequired  under\t the Act does not render the  sale  made  by
\nvendor\tin favour of vendee ultra vires. The test to  deter-
\nmine  the nature of interest, namely, private or  public  is
\nwhether the right which is renunciated is the right of party
\nalone  or of the public also in the sense that\tthe  general
\nwelfare of the society is involved. If the answer is  latter
\nthen  it may be difficult to put estoppel as a defence.\t But
\nif  it is right of party alone then it is capable  of  being
\nabnegated either in writing or by conduct. The Act does\t not
\nprovide\t that  in case no notice is  given  the\t transaction
\nshall  be void. The objective is to intimate the  pre-emptor
\nwho  may be interested in getting himself  substituted.\t The
\nAct does not debar the pre-emptor from giving up this right.
\nRather in case of its non-exercise within two months, may be
\nfor the financial reasons. the right stands extinguished. It
\ndoes not pass on to anyone. No social disturbance is caused.
\nIt settles in purchaser. Giving up such right. expressly  or
\nimpliedly  cannot therefore be said to involve any  interest
\nof  community or public welfare so as to be in\tmischief  of
\npublic policy.\n<\/p>\n
    Even  otherwise on facts found that the respondent\tknew
\nof  the\t sale deed. assisted the appellant  in\traising\t the
\nconstruction and after the construction was completed in the
\nmonth of June he gave the notice in month of July for  exer-
\ncise of the right and filed the suit in January would itself
\ndemonstrate that the conduct of the respondent was inequita-
\nble  and the courts in this country which are primarily\t the
\ncourts of equity, justice and good conscience cannot  permit
\nthe respondent to defeat the right of appellant and invoke a
\nright which has been called a weak and inequitable right.
\n    In\tthe result this appeal succeeds and is allowed.\t The
\norder  of the High Court is set aside and that of the  First
\nAppellate Court is restored. The appellant shall be entitled
\nto his costs.\n<\/p>\n
G.N.\t\t\t\t    Appeal allowed.\n355<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Indira Bai vs Nand Kishore on 5 September, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1055, 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 349 Author: R Sahai Bench: Sahai, R.M. (J) PETITIONER: INDIRA BAI Vs. RESPONDENT: NAND KISHORE DATE OF JUDGMENT05\/09\/1990 BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) SHETTY, K.J. (J) CITATION: 1991 AIR 1055 […]<\/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-205710","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nIndira Bai vs Nand Kishore on 5 September, 1990 - 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\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Indira Bai vs Nand Kishore on 5 September, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990\" \/>\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=\"1990-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-26T08:44:17+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\\\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Indira Bai vs Nand Kishore on 5 September, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-26T08:44:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990\"},\"wordCount\":1428,\"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\\\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990\",\"name\":\"Indira Bai vs Nand Kishore on 5 September, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-26T08:44:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Indira Bai vs Nand Kishore on 5 September, 1990\"}]},{\"@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":"Indira Bai vs Nand Kishore on 5 September, 1990 - 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\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Indira Bai vs Nand Kishore on 5 September, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-26T08:44:17+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\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Indira Bai vs Nand Kishore on 5 September, 1990","datePublished":"1990-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-26T08:44:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990"},"wordCount":1428,"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\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990","name":"Indira Bai vs Nand Kishore on 5 September, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-26T08:44:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indira-bai-vs-nand-kishore-on-5-september-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Indira Bai vs Nand Kishore on 5 September, 1990"}]},{"@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\/205710","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=205710"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205710\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205710"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205710"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205710"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}