{"id":208865,"date":"1970-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970"},"modified":"2019-01-09T20:44:32","modified_gmt":"2019-01-09T15:14:32","slug":"jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970","title":{"rendered":"Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh vs Rajendra Kumar Poddar And Ors on 14 August, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh vs Rajendra Kumar Poddar And Ors on 14 August, 1970<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 342, \t\t 1971 SCR (1) 821<\/div>\n
Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nJAGAT KISHORE PRASAD NARAIN SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAJENDRA KUMAR PODDAR AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/08\/1970\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nSHAH, J.C.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR  342\t\t  1971 SCR  (1) 821\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1974 SC1185\t (12)\n RF\t    1980 SC 303\t (14)\n RF\t    1983 SC 558\t (36)\n F\t    1984 SC 305\t (12)\n R\t    1989 SC 100\t (16)\n\n\nACT:\nRepresentation\tof the People Act, 1951, Ss. 81, 82, 86\t and\n117--serious  discrepancies  between original  petition\t and\ncopy  supplied\tto  respondent--If  non-compliance  with  s.\n81(3)--Whether petition liable to be dismissed under s. 86.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nBy  an\telection  petition,  the  appellant  challenged\t the\nvalidity  of  the first respondent's election to  the  Rajya\nSabha  from  Bihar  held in March,  1968.   The\t grounds  of\nchallenge  included allegations of corrupt practice  by\t the\nfirst  respondent.   The High Court found  that\t there\twere\nserious discrepancies between the original petition filed in\nthe Court and the copy supplied to the first respondent.  It\ndismissed the petition on the ground, inter alia, that there\nwas non-compliance with the provisions of ss. 81, 82 and 117\nof the Representation of the People Act, 1951.\nOn appeal to this Court,\nHELD : Dismissing the appeal,\nOn a reference to only one of the discrepancies found by the\nHigh Court which related to allegations of corrupt  practice\nit was clear that this discrepancy was bound to mislead\t the\ncontesting   respondents   and\tprejudice   their   defence.\nPleadings  in a case have great importance and that is\tmore\nso  in\telection petitions particularly\t when  the  returned\ncandidate  is charged with corrupt practice.  He  must\tknow\nwhat  the charge against him is so that he may\tprepare\t his\ndefence.  If replying on the allegations in the copy of\t the\npetition  served on him, the first respondent had  collected\nevidence  to show that allegation was false then the  entire\nbasis  of  him is so that he may prepare  his  defence.\t  If\nrelying on the allegations to meet a totally different case.\nThe  law requires that a true copy of the election  petition\nshould\tbe served on the respondents.  That requirement\t had\nnot  been  either  fully  or  substantially  complied  with.\nTherefore  the election petition was liable to be  dismissed\nunder s. 86 of the Act.[825 A-C]\nMurarka\t Radhey\t Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh\tRathore\t and\nOrs.,<\/a>  [1964]  3 S.C.R. 573 and, Ch.   Subbarao\t v.  Member,\nElection Tribunal, Hyderabad,<\/a> [1964] 6 S.C.R. 213;  referred\nto\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION Civil Appeal  No.   1925-  of
\n1969.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tunder s. 116-A of the Representation of\t the  people
\nAct, 1951 from the judgment and order dated July 1969 of the
\nPatna High Court in Election Petition No. 1 of 1968.
\nM.   C.\t Chagla,  D. N., Mishra, and B. P.  Singh,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
822<\/span><\/p>\n
K.   P. Verma, R. Goburdhun and D. Goburdhun, for respondent
\nNo. 1.\n<\/p>\n
S. Saukat Hussain, for respondent No. 13.
\nThe, Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHegde,\t j.-This  is  an  appeal  under\t S.  116A   of\t the
\nRepresentation\tof the People Act, 1951 (to  be\t hereinafter
\nreferred  to as the Act) from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nJuly  14, 1969 of the Patna High Court in Election  Petition
\nNo. 1 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n
A  biennial  election to the Rajya Sabha was held  in  March
\n1968.\tIn that election, Bihar Legislative Assembly had  to
\nelect  seven  members to the Rajya  Sabha.   Twenty  persons
\ncontested  for those seven seats.  The appellant is  one  of
\nthem.\tThe appellant failed to get the required  number  of
\nvotes.\t By  means of an election petition which  has  given
\nrise  to  this appeal, he challenged the  validity  of\tthe-
\nelection of the 1st respondent on two grounds viz.-(1)\tthat
\nthe  nomination of respondent No. 1 was improperly  accepted
\ninasmuch  as  he  was not qualified to\tbe  enrolled  as  an
\nelector\t in  the  electoral  roll  of  West  Patna  Assembly
\nconstituency for the time being in force on the ground\tthat
\nhe   was   then\t not  ordinarily  resident   in\t  the\tsaid
\nconstituency, but was on the other hand, ordinarily resident
\nin  Alipur  constituency  of  the  West\t Bengal\t Legislative
\nAssembly  and  (2) that he was guilty  of  corrupt  practice
\nwithin\tthe meaning of sub-s. (1) of S. 123 of the Act,\t in-
\nasmuch\tas he had not only made offers but also payments  of
\nmoney to various electors as motive or reward for voting  in
\nhis favour.\n<\/p>\n
The election petition was resisted by the 1st respondent  on
\nvarious\t grounds. One of the contention taken by  him  was
\nthat the petition was not in accordance with the  provisions
\nof  ss. 81, 82 and 117 of the Act and therefore it  was\t not
\nmaintainable.  The High Court has accepted that\t contention.
\nIt has also rejected the other pleas taken by the appellant.
\nAs we are in agreement with the High Court that the election
\npetition is liable to be dismissed under S. 8 6 of the\tAct,
\nwe  do not think it necessary to go into the merits  of\t the
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section 86(1) of the Act provides
\n\t      “The  High  Court shall  dismiss\tan  election
\n\t      petition\twhich  does  not  comply  with\t the
\n\t      provisions  of  section 81 or  section  82  or
\n\t      section 117.”\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 81(3)\trequires (1) that  every  election  petition
\nshall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there\t are
\nrespondents  mentioned in the petition and (ii)\t that  every
\nsuch copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his\t own
\nsignature to be a true
\n823<\/span>
\ncopy of the petition.  The contention of the 1st  respondent
\nis that the copy served on him which is marked Exh.  O’\t in
\nthe  trial  court  is  not the true  copy  of  the  election
\npetition filed in court.  In the High Court it was contended
\nthat Exh.  O’ is not a genuine document but that contention
\nwas not pressed before us.  Therefore we have to proceed  on
\nthe  basis  that  Exh.\tO is a copy  served  on\t the  1`st
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
The  discrepancies  between the election petition  filed  in
\ncourt  and  Exh.  O’  are set out by  the  High\t Court\tin
\nparagraph 15 of its judgment.  That paragraph to the  extent
\nmaterial for our present purpose reads\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   In paragraph 12, as also in paragraph 13
\n\t      of  the original, it has been stated that\t the
\n\t      total  number of elected members of the  Bihar
\n\t      Legislative  Assembly  at\t the  time  of\t the
\n\t      impugned election was 316, whereas in Ext.  O’
\n\t      this figure has been stated to be 317 in\tboth
\n\t      these paragraphs.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   In\tparagraph 16 of the original it\t has
\n\t      been stated that respondents 2 and 3 had\tbeen
\n\t      set  up as candidates in the election  by\t the
\n\t      Samyukta\t Socialist   Party,   and   as\t  to
\n\t      respondents  6 and 5, it was stated that\tthey
\n\t      had  been\t set up by the\tCommunist  Party  of
\n\t      India and the Jana Sangh respectively.  But in
\n\t      Ext.  O’\tit  has\t been  stated  that   the
\n\t      candidates  who were- set up by  the  Samyukta
\n\t      Socialist\t Party\twere, respondents 2  and  6,
\n\t      while  respondents 3 and 5 had been set up  by
\n\t      the  communist  Party of India  and  the\tJana
\n\t      Sangh respectively.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (c)   In\tparagraph  28 of the  original,\t the
\n\t      following passage occurs :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Particular  of the ON and  gratifications  in
\n\t      the form of bribe offered by respondent No.  8<\/span>
\n\t      and his election agent and his agent with\t the
\n\t      connivance and consent of the said  respondent
\n\t      No.  8 and his election agent are set  out  in
\n\t      Annexure D’ hereto annexed.,,
\n\t      But the passage in Ext. 10, reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Particulars  of the gifts and  gratifications
\n\t      in the form of bribe Offered by respondent No.
\n\t      8\t and his election agent and his\t agent\twith
\n\t      the   connivance\tand  consent  of  the\tsaid
\n\t      respondent  No. 1 and his election  agent\t are
\n\t      set out in Annexure D hereto annexed.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      (d)   In\tparagraph 3 of the  verification  at
\n\t      page  25 of the original, it has been  stated,
\n\t      inter alia, that the state-\n<\/p>\n
\t      824<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      ments  made  in. paragraph 3 of  the  election
\n\t      petition\t are   true  to\t  the\tpetitioner’s
\n\t      information, but in Exh.\tO’ no  verification
\n\t      has  been made with respect to the  statements
\n\t      made in paragraph 3 of the election  petition,
\n\t      and  instead verification has been made  twice
\n\t      with   respect  to  the  statements  made\t  in
\n\t      paragraph 2, once as true to the petitioner’s,
\n\t      knowledge\t  and\tagain\tas   true   to\t his
\n\t      information.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (e)  In paragraph 3 of Annexure “B” a list  of
\n\t      20  persons  has been given, one of  which  is
\n\t      Shri Brindaban Swana, M.L.A., in the  original
\n\t      and Shri Brindaban Swansi, M.L.A. in Ext. O’.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (f)   In\t Annexure C’  relating\t to   the
\n\t      particulars  of corrupt practice mentioned  in
\n\t      paragraph 25 of the election petition, it\t has
\n\t      been  stated in the original that Shri  Munshi
\n\t      Hansda, M.L.A. had offered money and  promised
\n\t      to  pay money to Shri Jetha Kiski, M.L.A.\t for
\n\t      casting his first preference vote in favour of
\n\t      respondent  No. 1 at the M.L.A. Flat on  19-3-
\n\t      1968,  but in Ext.  O’ mention has been  made
\n\t      of  the  name of Paul Hangda,  M.L.A.  as\t the
\n\t      alleged offerer of money to Shri Jethu  Kisku,
\n\t      M.L.A.; and\n<\/p>\n
\t      (g)   In\tAnnexure C’ again,  the,  original
\n\t      reads  that the offer of money and promise  of
\n\t      payment  of  money was made  to  Shri  Mahabir
\n\t      Paswan  by respondent No. 1 and  Shri  Balwant
\n\t      Nath  Singh, M.L.A. on 26-3-1968 but  in\tExt.
\n\t      O’ this date has been stated as 28-3-1968.”
\nMr.  M.\t C. Chagla, learned Counsel for the  appellant\tcon-
\ntended that s. 81(3) is merely directory and not  mandatory.
\nWe do not think it necessary to go into that question, as in
\nour  opinion that provision has not even been  substantially
\ncomplied with.\tThe requirements of s. 81(3) have been\tlaid
\ndown by this Court in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop
\nSingh Rathore and Ors.<\/a>(1) In that case this Court ruled that
\nthe  word copy’\t in s. 81(3) of the Act did  not  mean\tan
\nabsolutely  exact copy but a copy so true that nobody  could
\nby  any\t possibility  misunderstand it, and  that  the\ttest
\nwhether a copy was a true one was whether any variation from
\nthe  original was calculated to mislead an ordinary  person.
\nThe  same view was taken by this Court in Ch.\tSubbarao  v.
\nMember, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad<\/a>(2).  In our opinion, it
\nis  not necessary to refer to the discrepancies between\t the
\noriginal  petition  and\t the  copy  served  excepting\tthat
\nreferred to in cl. (f) of paragraph 15 of the trial  court’s
\njudgment.  Admittedly Shri Munshi Hansda and Paul Hansda are
\nmembers of the Patna Legislative Assembly.  In the  election
\npetition it was stated that
\n(1) [1964] 3 S. C. R.573.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1964) 6S.\tC. R. 213.\n<\/p>\n
825<\/span><\/p>\n
money  was  offered to Shri Jetha Kisku,  M.L.A.  by  Munshi
\nHansda but in Exh.  O’ it was stated that money was offered
\nto the said Jetha Kisku by Paul Hansda.\t This divergence was
\nbound  to mislead the contesting respondents and  prejudice,
\ntheir defence.\tPleadings in a case has great importance and
\nthat is more so in election petitions particularly when\t the
\nreturned  candidate  is charged with corrupt  practice.\t  He
\nmust  know  what the charge against him is so  that  he\t may
\nprepare\t his defence.  If relying on the allegations in\t the
\ncopy  of the petition served on him that the money was\tpaid
\nto  Jetha Kisku through Paul Hansda, the 1st respondent\t had
\ncollected evidence to show that allegation is false then the
\nentire\tbasis’\tof  his defence would have  fallen  to\tthe,
\nground\tbecause\t at a later stage he had to meet  a  totally
\ndifferent  case.  The law requires that a true copy  of\t the
\nelection petition should be served on the respondents.\tThat
\nrequirement  has  not, been either  fully  or  substantially
\ncomplied with.\tTherefore we have no doubt in our mind\tthat
\nthe election petition is liable to be dismissed under s. 8.6
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Chagla tried to extricate his client from the  difficult
\nposition  in which he had placed himself by urging that\t two
\ncopies\tof the election petition had been served on the\t 1st
\nrespondent as required by the rules of the Patna High Court,
\none  through the court and another through registered  post;
\nthe  1st respondent has produced, only one of those  copies;
\nit  is not known whether the other copy was  also  defective
\nand  therefore\tthere is no ground to reject  the election
\npetition at the very threshold.\t We are unable to  entertain
\nthis contention.  If it was the case of the appellant  that
\nthe  1st  respondent was, not prejudiced by the\t service  of
\nExh: ‘O’, he should have got summoned the other copy said to
\nhave been  served on him.  No such attempt appears  to\thave
\nbeen  made.   No explanation was offered how  several  wrong
\nstatements  came to be made,in Exh.  O’.  There\t is  hardly
\nany doubt that the relevant papers filed in court on  behalf
\nof the appellant were prepared in a callous manner.
\nFor  the  reasons mentioned above we agree  with  the  trial
\ncourt  that the petition is liable to be dismissed under  s.
\n86 of the Act.\tHence this appeal is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
R.K.P.S.\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n826<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh vs Rajendra Kumar Poddar And Ors on 14 August, 1970 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 342, 1971 SCR (1) 821 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: JAGAT KISHORE PRASAD NARAIN SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: RAJENDRA KUMAR PODDAR AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/08\/1970 BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: […]<\/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-208865","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh vs Rajendra Kumar Poddar And Ors on 14 August, 1970 - 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\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh vs Rajendra Kumar Poddar And Ors on 14 August, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970\" \/>\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=\"1970-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-09T15:14:32+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\\\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh vs Rajendra Kumar Poddar And Ors on 14 August, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-09T15:14:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970\"},\"wordCount\":1754,\"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\\\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970\",\"name\":\"Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh vs Rajendra Kumar Poddar And Ors on 14 August, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-09T15:14:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh vs Rajendra Kumar Poddar And Ors on 14 August, 1970\"}]},{\"@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":"Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh vs Rajendra Kumar Poddar And Ors on 14 August, 1970 - 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\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh vs Rajendra Kumar Poddar And Ors on 14 August, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-09T15:14:32+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\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh vs Rajendra Kumar Poddar And Ors on 14 August, 1970","datePublished":"1970-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-09T15:14:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970"},"wordCount":1754,"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\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970","name":"Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh vs Rajendra Kumar Poddar And Ors on 14 August, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-09T15:14:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagat-kishore-prasad-narain-singh-vs-rajendra-kumar-poddar-and-ors-on-14-august-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh vs Rajendra Kumar Poddar And Ors on 14 August, 1970"}]},{"@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\/208865","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=208865"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208865\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208865"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208865"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208865"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}