{"id":214314,"date":"1965-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965"},"modified":"2019-03-17T09:31:38","modified_gmt":"2019-03-17T04:01:38","slug":"ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965","title":{"rendered":"Ram Charan Das vs Girjanandini Devi And Ors on 20 April, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ram Charan Das vs Girjanandini Devi And Ors on 20 April, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 323, \t\t 1965 SCR (3) 841<\/div>\n
Author: M R.<\/div>\n
Bench: Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAM CHARAN DAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGIRJANANDINI DEVI AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n20\/04\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nBENCH:\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR  323\t\t  1965 SCR  (3) 841\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1971 SC1041\t (8)\n R\t    1972 SC1279\t (10)\n F\t    1976 SC 807\t (14,17,40)\n\n\nACT:\n    U.P.  Court\t of  Wards Act, 1912 (Act  4  of  1912),  s.\n37(a)--Family'\tSettlement  whether amounts to\ttransfer  or\ncreation  of  interest\tin property within  the\t meaning  of\nsection.\n    Compromise\t in  suit--Document   recording\t  compromise\nwhether amounts to family settlement--Monies paid by one  of\nthe   parties  under  the  document-Other  parties   whether\nestopped  from\tchallenging  its  validity--Party  receiving\nbenefit under document--Whether can challenge its validity.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n   C's\tproperty passed under his Will, drawn in 1883, to  K\nand  M\twho  were  brothers.  M\t died  and  K  entered\tinto\npossession  of\this  share also. On K's death  in  1922\t his\nmother\tentered into possession of the whole  property.\t She\ngave  over  the management of the property to the  Court  of\nWards under s. 10 of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912.\t The\ndaughter of M however with the consent of K's mother got her\nfather's share released from the management of the Court  of\nWards  in her favour. In 1932 G, sister's son of K, filed  a\nsuit  in  which he challenged the release of  M's  share  in\nfavour\tof  his\t daughter. Two other  suits  were  filed  in\nrespect of the property by descendants of C's brother who as\ncollaterals claimed to be next reversioners to the property.\nThe  plaintiff\tin  one\t of  these  suits  was\tthe  present\nappellant; in the other suit the plaintiff was his  brother.\nIn  these  suits  a declaration was sought that\t G  and\t M's\ndaughter had no rights in the properties in question. G, M's\ndaughter.  K's\tmother\tand the Court  of  Wards  were\tmade\nparties to these suits. Both these suits were  cornpromised.\nThe  suit  of the present appellant was\t compromised  by  ,a\ndocument Ex. Y-13, to which, among others, the appellant, G,\nand  K s mother were parties. G had withdrawn his  own\tsuit\nshortly\t before.  Acting  on the document Ex.  Y-13  G\tpaid\nmonies\tto the Court of Wards to clear his  liabilities\t and\nget released from its management the properties in question.\nC,  M's\t daughter,  K's mother and  the\t Court\tof  promise.\nHowever,  subsequently, the appellant filed a suit in  which\nhe challenged the validity of Ex. Y-13. Having failed in the\ntrial  court  as 'well as in the High Court he\tappealed  to\nthis Court by special leave.\nThe questions that fell for determination were: (1)  whether\nEx. Y-13 was binding on the parties as a family\t arrangement\nor  settlement, (2) whether certain reservation in the\tsaid\ndeed,  leaving\tit  open to the\t parties  to  challenge\t its\nrecitals  in certain contingencies had the effect  that\t the\ndeed  was  not\tintended to be final, and  (3)\twhether\t the\nfamily\tsettlement fell within the mischief of s. 37(a.)  of\nthe U.P. Court of Wards Act.\n    HELD:  (i)\tThe  document Ex. Y-13 was  in\tsubstance  a\nfamily 'arrangement and therefore binding on all the parties\nto  it. On the face of it, the document was a compromise  of\nconflicting claims. The\n842\nparties\t recognised each others' rights to  property,  which\nthey had earlier disputed. The suit filed by G was withdrawn\nshortly before the document was executed and those filed  by\nthe appellant and his brother were compromised on the day of\nits execution. All these transactions were part of one\tmain\ntransaction  which  was\t the settlement by  members  of\t the\nfamily\tof  all their property disputes once  and  for\tall.\nFurther, all those who could be said to be interested in the\nproperty were made parties to the transaction. [845H-846A]\nIn these circumstances, the appellant who had taken  benefit\nunder  the  transaction was not entitled to turn  round\t and\nchallenge its validity'. He was also estopped from doing  so\nbecause\t G,  acting on the document had paid monies  to\t the\nCourt of Wards to get his property released. [850G]\n   Ramgouda Annagouda v. Bhausaheb, L.R. 54 I.A. 396, relied\n   (ii)\t Courts give effect to a family settlement upon\t the\nbroad  and  general   round that its  object  is  to  settle\nexisting  or  future  disputes\tgeneral\t regarding  property\namongst\t members  of  a family. The  word  family   in\tthis\ncontext\t is  not to be given a narrow meaning.\tIn  Ramgouda\nAnnagouda's case, of the three parties, to the settlement of\na  dispute concerning the property of a deceased person\t one\nwas  his  widow,  another her brother,\tand  the  third\t her\nson-in-law.  The two latter were not heirs of the  deceased,\nyet  bearing  in mind their relationship to  the  widow\t the\nsettlement of the dispute was regarded as the settlement  of\na family dispute. The consideration for such a settlement is\nthe  expectation that it will result in amity  and  goodwill\namongst\t persons bearing relationship to one  another.\tThat\nconsideration  having passed by each of the disputants,\t the\nsettlement  consisting of recognition of the right  asserted\nby   each  other  cannot  be  permitted\t to   be   impeached\nthereafter. [850F-H, 851A-B]\n   (iii)  No doubt the parties to Ex. Y-13  recognised\teach\nothers relationship to K only for the purposes of the  deed,\nand  also reserved to themselves the right to challenge\t the\nrecitals  to the deed, in certain contingencies. Thereby  it\nis not established that the document was not intended to  be\nfinal.\tRead as a whole the document left no doubt  that  it\nwas  intended to be a final settlement. If it were  intended\notherwise  there  would have been express  mention  to\tthat\neffect in the deed. [848A-B]\n   Moreover  what  was\tpermitted was  a  challenge  to\t the\nrecitals only. What the appellant's suit challenged. however\nwas not the recitals but the terms of the deed which none of\nthe parties was given liberty to derogate from. [849B-C]\n   (iv) A family settlement is not a transfer or creation of\ninterest  in the property within the meaning of s. 37(a)  of\nthe  U.P.  Court of Wards Act, 1912. It is in  no  sense  an\nalienation by a limited owner of family property. Apart from\nthat the two suits which were pending were compromised\twith\nthe  full knowledge of the Court of Wards which was  also  a\nparty  to  both\t the suits and the Court of  Wards  in\tfact\naccepted  monies  from\tG which were due  to  it.  In  these\ncircumstances the appellant was not entitled to press in his\nfavour the provisions of s. 37(a) of the U.P. Court of Wards\nAct. [851C-852H]\n   Mst.\t Hiran Bibi v. Mst. Sohan Bibi, A.I.R.\t1914  (P.C.)\n44, Khunni Lal v. Govind Krishna Narain, I.L.R. 33 All.\t 35,\nMan  Singh  v. Nowlakhbati, L.R. 46 I.A.  72  and  Sureshwar\nMisser\t v..   Nachiappa  Gounden,  L.R.  46  I.A.  72,\t and\nSureshwar  Misser v.  Maheshrani Misrainn L.R. 47 I.A. 233,\n843\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JUPRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 520 of 1961
\n    Appeal  by\tspecial leave from the\tjudgment  and  order
\ndated  September  23, 1958, of the Allahabad High  Court  in
\nFirst Appeal No. 392 of 1944.\n<\/p>\n
    S.P.  Sinha, E.C. Agarwala, S. Shaukat Hussain and\tP.C.
\nAgarwala, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      Niren   De,  Additional  SolicitOr-General,   Yogeshwar
\nPrasad\tand A.N. Goyal, for respondent No. 1.
\n    Mudholkar,\tJ. The substantial question which falls\t for
\ndecision in this appeal iS as tO the legal effect of a deed,
\nEX. Y. 13, dated March 31. 1933 described in the  paper-book
\nas  a deed of partition., A subsidiary question also  arises
\nfor  consideration  which is, whether the  validity  of\t the
\ntransaction  evidenced by the deed is affected by reason  of
\nthe fact that the property comprised therein was at the time
\nof  its\t execution,  under the management of  the  Court  of
\nWards.\tAccording to the plaintiff the deed was invalid\t and
\ndid  not affect his right to a share in the property in\t the
\nsuit. His contention failed both in the trial court as\twell
\nas in the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t property  covered  by\tthe  deed  belonged  t9\t one
\nKanhaiyalal  who  died on June 10, 1922\t without  leaving  a
\nwidow  or  any issue. This property, along with\t some  other
\nproperty  originally belonged to  Kanhaiyalal’s\t grandfather
\nChunnilal. It is said by some of the parties that by a\twill
\nexecuted by him in the year 1883 he devised his property  in
\nfavour\tof Kanhaiyalal and his brother Madho  Prasad.  Madho
\nPrasad, died during the life-time of Kanhaiyalal, leaving  a
\ndaughter   Maheshwari  Bibi.  After  Madho  Prasad’s   death
\nKanhaiyalal  entered  into possession  of the property which
\nhad  been  bequeathed to Madho Prasad  by  Chunnilal.  After
\nKanhaiyalal’s  death  Kadma Kuar,  his mother, entered\tinto
\npossession   of the  entire  property  which  was   in\t the
\npossession of Kanhanyalal till his death. Kadma Kuar died on
\nOctober\t  14,  1937  and  shortly thereafter the  suit\t out
\nof  which  this appeal arises was instituted by\t Ram  Charan
\nDas, the appellant. It may be mentioned that Kanhaiyalal and
\nMadho Prasad had a sister by name Mst. Pyari Bibi. She had a
\nson  named  Gopinath  who died in the year  1934  leaving  a
\nwidow,\tGirja Nandini, the first defendant to the suit.\t The
\nplaintiff is the sixth son of Diwan Madan Gopal. Diwan Madan
\nGopal  was one of the two sons of Brij lal and\tBrijlal\t was
\nthe  only son of Deoki Nandan. Deoki Nandan himself was\t the
\neider  brother\tof  Chunnilal.\tThe  plaintiff\twho  is\t the
\nappellant before us is thus a collateral of Kanhaiyalal.  It
\nis  not\t disputed  that he and his brothers  were  the\tnext
\nreversioners entitled to succeed to Kanhaiyalal’s property
\n L\/P(D)5SCI-15
\n844<\/span>
\nafter  the death of his mother Kadma Kuar. To this  suit  he
\njoined\tGirja Nandini Devi, widow of Gopinath  as  defendant
\nNo. 1 and it is she who is the contesting respondent  before
\nus.\n<\/p>\n
    Soon  after\t Kadma Kuar entered into possession  of\t the
\nestate\tof  Kanhaiyalal,  she  applied\tto  the\t appropriate
\nauthority  for taking Over possession of management  of\t the
\nproperty  which was in the possession of Kanhaiyalal at\t the
\ntime of his death whereupon the Court of Wards took over its
\nmanagement under s. 10 of the U.P. Court of Wards Act,\t1912
\n(IV  of\t 1912).\t This property consisted  not  only  of\t the
\nproperty  which Kanhaiyalal had obtained under the  will  of
\nChunnilal but also of the property which had been bequeathed
\nin  that will to Madho Prasad and of which  Kanhaiyalal\t had
\nobtained  possession during his life time. Maheshwari  Bibi,
\nthe  daughter of Madho Prasad laid a claim to  the  property
\nwhich  had been bequeathed by Chunnilal on the\tground\tthat
\nthe two brothers who took these properties under Chunnilal’s
\nwill  took  them  not as joint tenants\tbut  as\t tenants  in
\ncommon.\t The claim made by her in this respect was  examined
\nby  the\t Court of Wards and upon Kadma\tKuar  agreeing,\t the
\nCourt  of  Wards  released  half of  the  estate  under\t its
\nmanagement, that is, the share in the property which iS said
\nto have been bequeathed to Madho Prasad.\n<\/p>\n
    It is necessary to refer to three suits which came to be
\ninstituted during the life time of Kadma Kuar, the first  of
\nwhich  is  30 of 1932. This was instituted by  Gopinath\t who
\nclaimed\t to be the next reversioner upon the ground that  he
\nbeing  the sister’s son of Kanhaiyalal, had become  an\their
\npreferential  to the present appell-. ant and  his  brothers
\nbecause\t of  the  passing of the Hindu\tLaw  of\t inheritance
\n(Amendment)  Act of 1929. To this suit Maheshwari  Bibi\t and
\nKadma Kuar and the Court of Wards were made defend. ants. He
\nsought therein a declaration to the effect that the Court of
\nWards had no right to release half the property in favour of
\nMaheshwari   Bibi.  This  suit,\t however,   was\t  eventually
\nwithdrawn.  Two other suits, suit No. 53 of 1932 and  54  of
\n1932, came to be filed’ shortly thereafter. In the first  of
\nthese the present plaintiff was himself the plaintiff  while
\nin the second, his broher Hanuman Prasad (defendant No. 6 in
\nthe present suit) was the plaintiff. Both of them claimed to
\nbe the nearest reversioners upon the ground that the Act  of
\n1929  did not affect their right to the properties  left  by
\nKanhajyalal.   Each  of\t them  sought  a  declaration\tthat
\nMaheshwari  Bibi  and Gopinath had no right of any  kind  in
\nrespect\t of these properties. These suits were\trounded’  on
\nthe  ground among others that Maheshwari Bibi had  no  right
\nbecause Chunnilal could not by his will devise the  property
\nto her father Madho Prasad and Gopinath had none because  he
\nwas  not  in  fact  Kanhaiyalal’s  sister’s  son.  Gopinath,
\nMaheshwari  Bibi, Kadm.a Kuar and the Court of Ward’s,\twere
\nmade  parties to these suits. It is common ground’ that\t the
\nclaims\tin both these suits were compromised. Under  one  of
\nthe compromises the dispute with Maheshwari Bibi was
\n845<\/span>
\nsettled\t and  we are no longer concerned with  that  matter.
\nUnder  the  other compromise the dispute with  Gopinath\t and
\nKadma Kuar was settled. Decrees were drawn up in these suits
\nembodying  the terms of each of the compromises\t arrived  at
\namongst the parties. The latter compromise was entered\tinto
\nin suit No. 53 of 1932 and’ its date was March 31, 1933. The
\ndocument,  Ex. Y-13 embodies the terms of the compromise  in
\nsuit  No. 53 of 1932. To that document, amongst\t other,\t the
\nappellant, Gopinath and Kadma Kuar were parties.
\n    According  to the plaintiff the compromise\tin  question
\nwas not in law a surrender nor a family arrangement and that
\nin  any\t case Kadma Kuar was not entitled to make  a  family
\nsettlement and that what she did’ does not amount in law  to
\na  surrender. Also according to him Kadma Kuar was a  person
\nunder disability being at the relevant time a ward under the
\nCourt of Wards and, therefore, the transaction was void.
\n    On\tbehalf of the contesting defendant it was  urged  in
\nthe courts below that the transaction amounted to  surrender
\nof her estate by Kadma Kuar and alternatively that it was  a
\nfamily\tsettlement  to which the plaintiff was\tone  of\t the
\nparties and, therefore, he is estopped from challenging\t the
\nvalidity of the compromise, particularly so as he has  taken
\nbenefit\t  thereunder  and  also\t because  in  view  of\t the
\ncompromise Gopinath had discharged the debts of\t Kanhaiyalal
\nwhich at law were recoverable from the property in question.
\nAlternatively the defendants contended that the\t transaction
\nevidenced  by  the document was an  effective  surrender  by
\nKadma  Kuar  in favour of Gopinath who was  the\t presumptive
\nreversioner at that time.\n<\/p>\n
    At\tthis stage it is desirable to point out that out  of
\nthe  properties described in List A of the Schedule  to\t the
\nplaint the plaintiff-appellant lays no claim to items 1\t and
\n2  which are respectively described as properties at  Hewett
\nRoad,  Allahabad, and Goshain Tola, Allahabad’ nor  to\titem
\n7(1) described as 8 anna share in a Zamindari village.\tSuch
\na  concession was made before this Court by Mr. S.P.  Sinha,
\ncounsel for the appellant, when the matter was argued before
\nthis Court on April 14, 1964, when the hearing was adjourned
\nto  enable  the\t parties  to  arrive  at  a  settlement.  No
\nsettlement  was\t arrived  at and the  matter  was  re-argued
\nbefore this Court on March 8 and 9, 1965. Mr. Sinha has\t not
\nwithdrawn  the\tconcession  made  by  him  on  the   earlier
\noccasion.  We may also make a mention of the fact  that\t Mr.
\nNiren  De, the Additional Solicitor General has\t not  argued
\nthat  Ex. Y-13 purports to show that Kadma Kuar\t surrendered
\nthe  widow’s  estate. In the circumstances  we\tproposed  to
\nconfine\t ourselves to the consideration of only\t one  matter
\nand  that  is  whether\tthe deed  (Ex.\tY-13)  is  a  family
\narrangement and’ as such binding upon the plaintiff.
\n    It\tseems to us abundantly clear that this document\t was
\nin  substance  a  family  arrangement  and,  therefore,\t was
\nbinding on all
\n(D) 5SCI–16
\n846<\/span>
\nthe parties to it. Moreover it was acted upon by them.\tFor,
\nunder  certain terms thereof one of the\t parties,  Gopinath,
\npaid off certain liabilities to which the property which was
\nallotted to his share was subjected. According to Mr. Sinha,
\nhowever, the transaction evidenced by the document was not a
\nfamily settlement but only a surrender by Kadma Kuar  though
\nin  law it could not operate as a surrender firstly  because
\nit  was\t not  of  the entire estate  of\t which\tshe  was  in
\npossession  as a limited owner and secondly because  of\t the
\ntwo  sets of persons between whom she divided  the  property
\nonly one could be said to be her reversioner or reversioners
\nand  the other a stranger or strangers. In our\topinion\t the
\ndocument  on its face appears to effect a compromise of\t the
\nconflicting  claims  of\t Gopinath on the one  hand  and\t the
\npresent\t plaintiff  Ram Charan Das and his brothers  on\t the
\nother  to the estate of Kanhaiyalal. In the  document  Kadma
\nKuar  is referred to as ‘first party’. Gopinath\t as  ‘second
\nparty’\tand Ram Charan Das, the appellant before us and\t his
\nbrothers as the ‘third party’. In cl.(1) of the document  it
\nis stated “That the first party renounces all her claims  to
\nthe  estate of her son M. Kanhaya Lal deceased according  to
\nthe  provisions\t of this deed in favour of the\tSecond’\t and
\nThird  party  out  of which the second party  shall  be\t the
\nabsolute  owner and possessor of the properties detailed  in
\nList  “A” annexed hereto; and the third party shall  be\t the
\nabsolute owner and possessors of the properties detailed  in
\nthe  List  “B”\tannexed hereto”. These\trecitals,  taken  in
\nconjunction with the surrounding circumstances indicate that
\nKadma  Kuar  purported to recognise thereby  the  rights  of
\nthese  parties\tto her son’s properties though\tearlier\t she
\ndisputed them. Similarly the recitals “that the first  party
\nshall remain in de facto management of Arrah Kalan  property
\nfor her life without any interference from the second or the
\nthird party to whom she shall in no case be liable to render
\nany  accounts and that after her death the second  party  or
\nhis heirrs representatives, assigns or transferees and\tBabu
\nSehat  Bahadur Advocate Allahabad as representing the  third
\nparty\tor   their  heirs,   representatives,\tassigns\t  or
\ntransferees  shall manage and enter into possession  of\t the
\nsaid village Arrah Kalan jointly”, indicate that the 2nd and
\n3rd  party were disputing and interfering with the right  of
\nKadma  Kuar to the management of one of the  properties\t but
\nultimately, under the document in question, they agreed\t not
\nto  do\tso. Further, as we have already pointed\t out,  three
\nsuits  had been instituted in the year 1932 concerning\tthis
\nvery  property,\t one by Gopinath and the other\ttwo  by\t the
\nplaintiff  and\this  brother Hanuman  Prasad.  In  his\tsuit
\nGopinath  claimed to be the next reversioner. The  plaintiff
\nappellant  Ram Charan Das claimed that he and  his  brothers
\nwere the next reversioners and not Gopinath. A similar claim
\nwas made by Hanuman Prasad in his suit. It is worthy of note
\nthat the plaintiff’s suit was compromised on the very day on
\nwhich  this  document, Ex. Y-13, was executed and  that\t the
\nterms  of  the\tsettlement were recited in  Ex.\t Y-13.\tThis
\ndocument  further  makes express mention of  the  two  suits
\nwhich were
\n847<\/span>
\ncompanion  suits,  suit No. 53 of 1932 and suit\t No.  54  of
\n1932,  and  says, categorically that these  suits  shall  be
\ndeemed\tto  be\tcompromised  in\t terms\tof  this  deed.\t  By
\ncompromising  those two suits the plaintiff and his  brother
\nHanuman\t Prasad\t withdrew their challenge to the  claim\t put
\nforward\t by Gopinath to the estate of Kanhaiyalal. Prior  to
\nthis Gopinath had withdrawn his suit in which he had claimed
\nto  be\tthe next reversioner to the  estate  of\t Kanhaiyalal
\nafter  the death of Kadma Kuar. All these  transactions\t are
\nquite  evidently part of one main transaction which  is\t the
\nsettlement  by\tthe  members  of the  family  of  all  those
\ndisputes once and for all. No doubt according to the  plaint
\nallegation this\t was  merely a temporary arrangement but  no
\nreasons\t have been given nor any material was placed  before
\nthe  Court from which it could be inferred that it  was\t not
\nthe intention of the parties that the disputes amongst\tthem
\nshould be finally settled’.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.\t Sinha, however, places reliance upon the  following
\nrecital\t in Ex. Y-13 and contends that the  arrangement\t was
\nnot final. The recital runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     “That  in\tpursuance  of  and  for\t the
\n\t      purpose  of this deed the First and the  Third
\n\t      Party  do admit and recognise Babu Gopi  Nath,
\n\t      the  Second  party to be the son\tof  Musammat
\n\t      Peari  Bibi the own sister of the late  Munshi
\n\t      Kanhaya Lal and the daughter of Musammat Kadma
\n\t      Kuar  the First Party; and similarly  for\t the
\n\t      purposes of and in pursuance of this deed, the
\n\t      First and the Second party admit and recognise
\n\t      the  Third  party as the sons of\tDewan  Madan
\n\t      Gopal  a\tgreat-grandson\tof  M.\tLalji,\t the
\n\t      greatgrand  father  of  M-Kanaya\tLal  as\t per
\n\t      pedigree\tset up by them in suits Nos. 53\t and
\n\t      54 of 1932–referred to above. Provided always
\n\t      that if the rights of the second or the  third
\n\t      party to the ownership and possession of their
\n\t      respective properties as detailed in List\t ‘A’
\n\t      items Nos. 1 to 5 and seven, in List ‘B’\titem
\n\t      Nos.  1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 respectively  are\tever
\n\t      questioned  they shall not be  precluded\tfrom
\n\t      setting\tup  any\t claim,\t right\t or   title,
\n\t      propositions  of\tlaw or\tfact  consistent  or
\n\t      inconsistent  with the recital of\t this  deed,
\n\t      and  if the rights of ownership or  possession
\n\t      of the second party to item No. 6 in List\t ‘A’
\n\t      annexed  hereto or the rights of ownership  or
\n\t      possession  of the third party to\t items\tNos.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.6 and 9 in List ‘B’ annexed hereto are\tever
\n\t      questioned they shall only be entitled to\t set
\n\t\t\t    up\tclaims\tonly consistent with the
\nterms  of
\n\t      this deed.”\n<\/p>\n
  No doubt, the recognition of relationship claimed’ by\t the
\nsecond\tpary  to Kanhaiyalal was admitted by the  first\t and
\nthird parties in pursuance and for the purposes of the deed.
\nSimilarly  recognition\tof the relationship  of\t the.  third
\nparty by the first and the second parties to Kanhaiyalal was
\nadmitted  by  the  first and’ second parties  and:  also  in
\npursuance and for the purposes of the
\n848<\/span>
\ndeed.  This,  however,\tdoes not show  that  the  settlement
\narrived at and sought to be given effect to by the deed\t was
\nnot  intended to be final. As already stated,  the  document
\nread as a whole leaves no doubt that it was intended to be a
\nfinal settlement of the disputes amongst the parties. If  it
\nwere intended to be otherwise it would have been natural  to
\nfind an express statement somewhere in the document to\tshow
\nthat it was intended to be a temporary settlement only.\t The
\nproviso\t to the aforesaid clause was pressed in aid  by\t Mr.
\nSinha to support his contention that the settlement was only
\ntemporary.  The document itself was drawn up in English\t and
\nlooking\t at  the formal manner in which it is drawn  up\t and
\nbearing\t also in mind the fact that it came into being\twhen
\nlitigations  were, pending in court in which the parties  to
\nthe  deed  also\t figured  as parties  and  was\tintended  to
\ncompromise those suits, it would be legitimate to infer that
\nit  was drawn up or at least approved by a lawyer.  In\tthat
\nproviso at one place the word “recitals” and at another\t the
\nword “terms” were used. The expression “recitals” occurs  in
\nthe first part of the proviso and it is only with respect to
\nthem  that  a  party is given the liberty to  set  up  in  a
\ncertain\t  circumstance\t“any  claim  or\t right\t or   title,
\npropositions of law or fact consistent or inconsistent\twith
\nthe  recitals  in the deed”. Now the  expression  “recitals”
\nmeans, according to the Dictionary of English Law by Jowitt:
\n“Statements   in   a  deed’,  agreement\t or   other   formal
\ninstrument,  introduced\t to  explain  or  lead\tup  to\t the
\noperative part of the instrument.” It is stated further that
\nrecitals are generally divided into narrative recitals which
\nset  forth  the facts on which the instrument is  based\t and
\nintroductory  recitals\twhich  explain the  motive  for\t the
\noperative  part.  Where\t the  recitals\tare  clear  and\t the
\noperative   part  is  ambiguous\t the  recitals\tgovern\t the
\nconstruction. Normally a recital is evidence as against\t the
\nparties to the instrument and those claiming under them\t and
\nin  an action on the instrument itself the recitals  operate
\nas an estoppel, though that would not be so on a  collateral
\nmatter. It is not clear why this clause was put in. But even
\nif  we\tassume\tthat the parties did so\t because  they\twere
\napprehensive  that  the rights of the second  or  the  third
\nparty  to  the ownership and possession\t of  the  respective
\nproperties–that is items 1 to 5 and 7 in List A allotted to
\nthe  second  party  and items 1, 2, 4, 5 and  8\t in  List  B
\nallotted to the third party were liable to be challenged  by
\npersons not bound by the settlement the reservation was only
\nof  the\t right\tto challenge the  explanatory  or  narrative
\nrecitals in the documents but not of the right to  challenge
\nthe terms thereof. It therefore affords little assistance to
\nthe  plaintiff. The expression “terms” used in\ta  document,
\nwould,\taccording to webster’s New World’  Dictionary,\tmean
\n“conditions of a contract, agreement sale etc. that limit or
\ndefine\tits scope or action involved.” Those parts of  Ex-13
\nwhich prescribe the conditions upon which the disputes among
\nthe parties were settled would be the terms of this document
\nand  so\t far as these are concerned the proviso\t shows\tthat
\nnone of the parties was
\n849<\/span>
\ngiven  the  liberty to derogate from them.  Thus,  far\tfrom
\nshowing\t that the settlement arrived at was of\ta  temporary
\ncharacter the proviso read as a whole further fortifies\t the
\nconclusion  that the settlement was to be binding  upon\t the
\nparties\t for all time. We may add that the  contentions\t now
\nraised\ton  behalf of the plaintiff denying  the  rights  of
\nGopinath  and of those who claim through him are  not  based
\nupon  any challenge to the “recitals” in the  documents,  as
\nthat  expression is understood in law, but to the terms\t and
\nconditions  contained in that document. It may be  that\t the
\nproperties  to which the suit relates would’ fall under\t the
\nitems  allotted to Gopinath as specified in the first  part.
\nof  the proviso but no liberty has been reserved therein  to
\npermit\tany  of the parties to derogate from the  terms\t and
\nconditions upon which the settlement was arrived at.
\n    The view that the transaction is a family arrangement is
\nborne  out by the decision of the Privy Council in  Ramgouda
\nAnnagouda  v Bhausaheb(1). The facts of the case which\thave
\nbeen  correctly\t summarised  in the head  note\tare  briefly
\nthese:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “A Hindu died in 1846, leaving a widow who
\n\t      survived\tuntil 1912, and a daughter.  On\t the
\n\t      death  of the widow A was heir to the  estate.
\n\t      In  1868\tthe widow had alienated\t nearly\t the
\n\t      whole  property  by three deeds  executed\t and
\n\t      registered on the same day. By the first\tdeed
\n\t      she  gave\t a property to her brother,  by\t the
\n\t      second she sold half of another property to A,
\n\t      and  by the third she sold the other  half  of
\n\t      that property to her son-in-law. The signature
\n\t      of  each of the deeds was attested by the\t two
\n\t      other  aliences.\tA  who\tsurvived  the  widow
\n\t      for  six years, did not seek to set aside\t any
\n\t      of  the alienations. After his death  his\t son
\n\t      and  grandsons brought a suit to\trecover\t the
\n\t      whole property.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t Upon  these facts the Privy Council held  as
\n\t      follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  “Their   Lordships   consider\t  that\t the
\n\t      decision of this case depends upon how far the
\n\t      three  documents can be taken as separate\t and
\n\t      independent,  or so connected as to  form\t one
\n\t      transaction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  The\tlong  lapse  of\t time  between\t the
\n\t      execution of the deeds and the institution  of
\n\t      the  suit has rendered it impossible to  prove
\n\t      what actually occurred between the parties  on
\n\t      that  occasion.  There  is  not\tsufficiently
\n\t      definite\tevidence to come to a conclusion  as
\n\t      to  how  far  any\t of  those  properties\twere
\n\t      validly encumbered, or what was done with\t the
\n\t      purchase\tmoney alleged to have passed on\t the
\n\t      two  deeds  of sale. But the  parties  to\t the
\n\t      documents included, or after so great a  lapse
\n\t      of  time may be presumed in a very real  sense
\n\t      to have included, all persons who
\n\t      (1) L.R. 54 I.A. 396.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      LP(D)5SCI—17
\n\t      850<\/span>
\n\t      had  any\tactual or possible interest  in\t the
\n\t      properties-namely,  the  widow  herself,\t her
\n\t      brother,\twho  was  a natural  object  of\t her
\n\t      affection\t and bounty, her son-inlaw, who\t was
\n\t      the natural protector of the interests of\t her
\n\t      daughter and grandson, and the nearest kinsman
\n\t      on the husband’s side and the only person from
\n\t      whom any opposition might be apprehended\twith
\n\t      regard to dealings by the widow concerning her
\n\t      husband’s estate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  Their\t Lordships  conclude  that  all\t the
\n\t      circumstances  strongly  point  to  the  three
\n\t      documents\t  being\t part  and  parcel  of\t one
\n\t      transaction by which a disposition was made of
\n\t      Akkagouda’s  estate,  such as  was  likely  to
\n\t      prevent  disputes in the future and  therefore
\n\t      in the best interests of all the parties.\t The
\n\t      three  deeds  appear thus\t to  be\t inseparably
\n\t      connected together and in that view  Annagouda
\n\t      not  only consented to the sale  of  Shivgouda
\n\t      and the gift to Basappa but these dispositions
\n\t      formed parts of the same transaction by  which
\n\t      he himself acquired a part of the estate.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  our\t case,\thowever,  there\t is  fortunately  only\t one
\ntransaction and we have definite evidence to show that there
\nwere  disputes amongst the members of the family and it\t was
\navowedly for settling them that the transaction was  entered
\ninto. Further we have material to show that all the  persons
\nwho  can  be  said’ to be interested in\t the  property\twere
\njoined\tas  parties to the transaction. In that\t sense\tthis
\ncase is stronger than the one which the Privy Council had to
\nconsider.  We have therefore no hesitation in  holding\tthat
\nthe plaintiff who has taken benefit under the transaction is
\nnot now entitled to turn round and say that that transaction
\nwas of a kind which Kadma Kuar could not enter into and\t was
\ntherefore invalid.\n<\/p>\n
Moreover acting on the terms of that document Gopinath\tpaid
\nmonies to the Court of Wards for obtaining release from\t its
\nmanagement of the properties which were allotted to him. The
\nrule  of estoppel embodied in s. 115 of the Indian  Evidence
\nAct,  1872  would,  therefore, shut out such  pleas  of\t the
\nplaintiff.  Courts give effect to a family  settlement\tupon
\nthe  broad and general ground that its object is  to  settle
\nexisting  or  future  disputes\tregarding  property  amongst
\nmembers of a family. The word ‘family’ in the context is not
\nto  be\tunderstood  in a narrow sense of being\ta  group  of
\npersons\t who  are  recognised in law as having\ta  right  of
\nsuccession  or having a claim to a share in the property  in
\ndispute.   In  Ramgouda Annagouda’s(1) case,  of  the  three
\nparties\t to  the  settlement of\t a  dispute  concerning\t the
\nproperty  of a deceased person one was his widow, other\t her
\nbrother and the tlhird her son-in-law. The two latter  could
\nnot, under the Hindu Law, be regarded’ as the
\n(1)L.R. 54 I.A. 396.\n<\/p>\n
851<\/span><\/p>\n
heirs  of  the\tdeceased. Yet, bearing in  mind\t their\tnear
\nrelationship to the widow the settlement of the dispute\t was
\nvery properly regarded as a settlement of a family  dispute.
\nThe  consideration for such a settlement, if one may put  it
\nthat  way,  is the expectation that such a  settlement\twill
\nresult in esablishing or ensuring amity and goodwill amongst
\npersons\t  bearing  relationship\t with  one   another.\tThat
\nconsideration  having been passed by each of the  disputants
\nthe  settlement\t consisting  of\t recognition  of  the  right
\nasserted  by each other cannot be permitted to be  impeached
\nthereafter.\n<\/p>\n
    The final contention of Mr. Sinha is based upon s. 37(a)
\nof  the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912. The relevant  portion
\nof this provision runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A ward shall not be competent-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   (a) to transfer or create any charge\t on,
\n\t      or interest in, any part of his property which
\n\t      is  under the superintendence of the Court  of
\n\t      Wards, or to enter into any contract which may
\n\t      involve\t     him\tin\t   pecuniary
\n\t      liability;  …………….  “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Here the transaction in question is a family  settlement
\nentered\t into  by the parties bona fide for the\t purpose  of
\nputting an end to the dispute among family members. Could it
\nbe said that this amounts to a transfer of or creation of an
\ninterest  in  property? For, unless it does, the  action  of
\nKadma  Kuar  would  not\t fall  within  the  purview  of\t the
\naforesaid clause of s. 37. In Mst. Hiran Bibi v. Mst.  Sohan
\nBibi(1)\t approving  the earlier decision in  Khunni  Lal  v.
\nGovind\tKrishna\t Narain(2)  the Privy Council  held  that  a
\ncompromise  by\tway of family settlement is in no  sense  an
\nalienation  by\ta limited* owner of  family  property.\tThis
\ncase,  therefore,  would  support the  conclusion  that\t the
\ntransaction  does  not\tamount to  a  transfer.\t Mr.  Sinha,
\nhowever,  contends that the transaction amounts to  creation
\nof  an interest by the ward in property which was under\t the
\nsuperintendence of the Court of Wards and in support of\t his
\ncontention  relies  on Man Singh v  Nowlakhbati(3).  In\t the
\nfirst  place  once it is held that the transaction  being  a
\nfamily settlement is not an alienation, it cannot amount  to
\nthe  creation  of  an interest. For, as\t the  Privy  Council
\npointed\t out  in  Mst.\tHiran Bibi’s(1)\t case  in  a  family
\nsettlement  each  party\t takes a share in  the\tproperty  by
\nvirtue\tof the independent title which is admitted  to\tthat
\nextent\tby the other parties. It is not necessary, as  would
\nappear\tfrom the decision in Rangasami Gounden v.  Nachiappa
\nGounden(4)  that every party taking benefit under a  family.
\nsettlement must necessarily be shown to have, under the law,
\na claim to a share in the property. All that is necessary is
\nthat the parties must be related to one another in some\t way
\nand have a possible claim to the property or a claim or
\n(1) A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 44.\n<\/p>\n
(2) IL..R. 33. An. 356. (3) L.R. 53 I.AII.\n<\/p>\n
(4) L.R. 46 I.A. 72
\n852<\/span>
\neven  a semblance of a claim on some other ground  as,\tsay,
\naffection.  In the second place, in the case relied upon  by
\nMr.  Sinha there was no question of the transaction being  a
\nfamily\tsettlement. It was sought to be supported  upon\t the
\nground that it was a surrender. The Privy Council,  however,
\nheld that it was not a bona fide surrender evidently because
\nthe  widow  was\t to  get  a  very  substantial\tamount\t for
\nmaintenance  from the reversioners in whose favour  she\t had
\npurported  to surrender the estate and also held that  there
\nwas in fact no necessity for a surrender of interest of\t the
\nwidow.\tSince  it  was\tnot a bona  fide  surrender  it\t was
\nregarded  as one creating only an interest in  the  property
\nwhich  was under the superintendence of the Court of  Wards.
\nHad’ it been a bona fide surrender s. 60 of the Bihar  Court
\nof  Wards  Act upon which reliance was placed in  that\tcase
\nwould  not have been attracted. Indeed, reliance was  placed
\nbefore the Privy Council on the decision in Sureshwar Misser
\nv.  Maheshrani\tMisrain(1)  in\tsupport of  the\t appellant’s
\ncontention   that   the\t  transaction\twas   valid.   While
\ndistinguishing this case the Privy Council observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “In that case there were serious  disputes
\n\t      in  the  family  as to  title,  and  the\tnext
\n\t      reversioners to the son sued the widow and her
\n\t      daughters to set aside the will of her husband
\n\t      under  which  the daughters were\tentitled  to
\n\t      succeed to the immovable property on the death
\n\t      of the son without issue. A family  compromise
\n\t      was  agreed to, and in performance of  it\t the
\n\t      widow surrendered all her rights of  sucession
\n\t      to  the immovable property, and the  plaintiff
\n\t      the  next reversioner and her  daughters\tgave
\n\t      her  for her life a small portion of the\tland
\n\t      for  her maintenance. The Board held that\t the
\n\t      compromise  was a bona fide surrender  of\t the
\n\t      estate and not a device to divide it with\t the
\n\t      next  reversioner,  the  giving  of  a   small
\n\t      portion of it to the widow for her maintenance
\n\t      not  being  objectionable,  and’\tconsequently
\n\t      that  the\t transaction  was  valid  under\t the
\n\t      principles laid down by the board in Rangasami
\n\t      Gounden  v  Nachiappa Gounden (L. R.  46\tI.A.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      72)”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We  may further point out that this decision does not  refer
\nto  their decisions in Mst. Hiran Bibi v Mst. Sohan  Bibi(2)
\nand Khunni Lal v. Govind Krishna Narain(3) and it cannot  be
\nassumed\t that  they intended to depart\tfrom  their  earlier
\nview.\n<\/p>\n
    Apart from that it may be pointed out that the two suits
\nwhich  were  then  pending were compromised  with  the\tfull
\nknowledge  of the Court of Wards which was also a  party  to
\nboth the suits and
\n(1) L.R. 47 I.A. 233.\n<\/p>\n
(2) A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 44.\n<\/p>\n
(3) .I.L.R. 33 All. 356.\n<\/p>\n
853<\/span><\/p>\n
the Court of Wards in fact released the estate by  accepting
\nfrom  Gopinath\tmonies\twhich  were  due  to  it.  In  these
\ncircumstances we hold that the plaintiff is not entitled  to
\npress in aid the provisions of s. 37(a) of the U.P. Court of
\nWards Act.\n<\/p>\n
    For all these reasons we uphold the decree of the  trial
\nCourt  as affirmed by the High Court and dismiss the  appeal
\nwith costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
854<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ram Charan Das vs Girjanandini Devi And Ors on 20 April, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 323, 1965 SCR (3) 841 Author: M R. Bench: Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: RAM CHARAN DAS Vs. RESPONDENT: GIRJANANDINI DEVI AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/04\/1965 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SARKAR, A.K. BACHAWAT, R.S. […]<\/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-214314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Charan Das vs Girjanandini Devi And Ors on 20 April, 1965 - 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\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Charan Das vs Girjanandini Devi And Ors on 20 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965\" \/>\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=\"1965-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-17T04:01:38+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=\"31 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Charan Das vs Girjanandini Devi And Ors on 20 April, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-17T04:01:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965\"},\"wordCount\":5092,\"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\\\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965\",\"name\":\"Ram Charan Das vs Girjanandini Devi And Ors on 20 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-17T04:01:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Charan Das vs Girjanandini Devi And Ors on 20 April, 1965\"}]},{\"@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":"Ram Charan Das vs Girjanandini Devi And Ors on 20 April, 1965 - 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\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Charan Das vs Girjanandini Devi And Ors on 20 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-17T04:01:38+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":"31 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Charan Das vs Girjanandini Devi And Ors on 20 April, 1965","datePublished":"1965-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-17T04:01:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965"},"wordCount":5092,"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\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965","name":"Ram Charan Das vs Girjanandini Devi And Ors on 20 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-17T04:01:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-charan-das-vs-girjanandini-devi-and-ors-on-20-april-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Charan Das vs Girjanandini Devi And Ors on 20 April, 1965"}]},{"@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\/214314","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=214314"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214314\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}