{"id":220574,"date":"1986-08-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1986-08-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986"},"modified":"2018-08-27T09:03:35","modified_gmt":"2018-08-27T03:33:35","slug":"suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986","title":{"rendered":"Suraj Mal And Another vs Ram Singh And Others on 7 August, 1986"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Suraj Mal And Another vs Ram Singh And Others on 7 August, 1986<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 1889, \t\t 1986 SCR (3) 487<\/div>\n
Author: M Dutt<\/div>\n
Bench: Dutt, M.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSURAJ MAL AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAM SINGH AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT07\/08\/1986\n\nBENCH:\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1986 AIR 1889\t\t  1986 SCR  (3) 487\n 1986 SCC  (3) 699\t  JT 1986    90\n 1986 SCALE  (2)292\n\n\nACT:\n     U.P. Consolidation\t of Holdings  Act, 1953-ss. 4, 4A, 5\nand 52-Consolidation  proceedings-When deemed  to be closed-\nconsequence of Notification under s. 4(2).\n     Uttar Pradesh  (Supplementary) Act,  1952-s.  3-Benefit\nof-When can be claimed-Person not having any lawful right in\nland-Not entitled to claim cultivatory possession.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Sona Devi,\t mother of  respondents nos.  3,  4  and  5,\ninherited certain  Zamindari property  from her father. By a\nregistered deed\t of sale  she sold  it to the predecessor in\ninterest of  the appellants  and one Abhey Ram. At that time\nshe had\t no son,  but subsequently,  respondents nos. 3 to 5\nwere born  to her  and at  the time of her death all of them\nwere minors.\n     Respondents Nos.  3 to  5\tfiled  a  suit\tagainst\t the\nappellants and\tothers for  a declaration  that their mother\nhad only  a life  interest in the zamindari property sold by\nher, and  that the transfer not having been supported by any\nlegal necessity, was not binding upon them. They also prayed\nfor recovery  of possession  of the  property and  for mesne\nprofits. The  suit was\tdecreed by  the Munsif.\t During\t the\npendency of  the appeals  filed by  both  the  parties,\t the\nvillage in  which the disputed land is situate, was notified\nfor consolidation operations and, therefore, in view of s. 5\nof the\tConsolidation Act,  all further\t proceedings of\t the\nappeals were stayed.\n     In the  consolidation proceedings,\t the  names  of\t the\nappellants were\t recorded in  the revenue papers as Bhumidar\nin respect  of the  disputed  land.  The  respondents  filed\nobjections under  s. 12\t of the\t Consolidation Act,  raising\nquestions  of\ttitle  regarding   the\tdisputed  land.\t The\nConsolidation officer  referred the matter under sub-s. I of\ns. 12  to the  statutory Arbitrator,  who made\tan Award  in\nfavour of the Respondents and\n488\nrecorded the  findings\tthat  Sona  Devi  had  only  a\tlife\ninterest in  the disputed  land, that the sale deed executed\nby her\twas neither  for legal necessity nor for the benefit\nof the\testate of  her deceased father, that the transfer of\nthe disputed  land by  the sale\t deed was not binding on the\nrespondents Nos.  3 to\t5 and  that they  were\tentitled  to\nreocover possession of the disputed land.\n     Two petitions  of objections to the Award, filed by the\nappellants,  were   dismissed  by   the\t Civil\t Judge.\t The\nAdditional District  Judge in  second appeal  took the\tview\nthat as\t the sons  of Abhey  Ram, who  was also\t one of\t the\ntransferees under  the said sale deed. were not made parties\nin the\tproceedings, the  reference to\tthe  Arbitrator\t was\nillegal and  the Award made by him was invalid, and that the\nArbitrator was guilty of legal misconduct inasmuch as he had\ncommitted an error of law apparent on the face of the Award,\nallowed the  appeals, and set aside the order of Civil Judge\nand also the Award of the Arbitrator.\n     A Single  Judge of\t the High Court allowed the Revision\nPetitions of  the respondents,\tset aside  the order  of the\nAdditional District  Judge and\trestored that  of the  Civil\nJudge and also the Award of the Arbitrator.\n     Dismissing the appeals, this Court,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The object of sub-s. (2) of s. 52 of the U.P.\nConsolidation of Holdings Act 1953 is that when an order has\nbeen  passed   by  a  Court  under  the\t provisions  of\t the\nConstitution or\t in cases  or proceedings  pending under the\nConsolidation Act, the right or interest involved under such\norder or  in the  pending cases\t or  proceedings  under\t the\nConsolidation Act,  should not\tbe again  subjected  to\t the\nconsideration in  the consolidation  proceedings started  by\nvirtue of  a notification  under s. 4-A of the Consolidation\nAct. [495E-F]\n     2. Section\t 4-A will apply only where the consolidation\noperations remained closed for a period of 10 years from the\ndate of\t the notification under s. 52(1). But, in view of s.\n52(2), consolidation  operations shall be deemed to have not\nbeen closed  in respect\t of two cases mentioned therein. So,\ns.  4A\t will  have  no\t application  to  these\t two  cases.\nConsequently, the provision of s. 4 as also the provision of\ns. 5 will not apply to these two cases. [495D-E]\n     3. The  proceedings out  of which\tthe instant  appeals\narise are  l l\tproceedings under the Consolidation Act and,\ntherefore, s. 5(2)(a) will\n489\nhave no\t application to\t these proceedings. In any event, in\nview of\t s. 52(2),  the notification  issued under s.4-A and\nthe  subsequent\t  notification\tunder\ts.  4(2)   and\t the\nconsequence  thereof  as  provided  under  s.  5(2)  of\t the\nConsolidation Act, will have no application to or affect the\nproceedings giving rise to the instant appeals. [496A-B]\n     4. The  High  Court  was  right  in  holding  that\t the\nAdditional District  Judge should  not have  entertained the\nobjection to  the maintainability  of the  reference to\t the\nArbitrator raised for the first time before him and that the\nproper stage  for raising  such an  objection was  when\t the\nreference was  made under  s. 12  of the  Consolidation Act.\n[496E-F]\n     5. Since the sale deed in question has been held by the\nArbitrator as  invalid inasmuch\t as it\twas not supported by\nany legal  necessity, the  appellants had  not acquired\t any\ninterest in  the disputed  land under  the sale deed and, as\nsuch, they had no intermediary interest in the disputed land\non the\tdate immediately preceding the date of vesting under\nthe  Zamindari\tAbolition  Act.\t The  appellants  not  being\nintermediaries or persons of any category as mentioned in s.\n18, they are not entitled to 1) retain the disputed land and\ntheir possession is not protected by the provision of s. 18.\n[497C-D]\n     6. Section\t 3 of the Uttar Pradesh (Supplementary) Act,\n1952 does  not confer any right on a person whose possession\nof land\t during the  year 1359\tFasli was illegal. It is not\nthe intention  of the  Legislature to protect the possession\nof a  trespasser under\ts. 3(1).  The explanation to s. 3(1)\ngives sufficient  indication that  a person  not having\t any\nlawful right  in the land. cannot claim to be in cultivatory\npossession of such land. [499A-B]\n     Ram Krishna  v. Bhagwan Baksh Singh, (1961) ALJ 301 and\nBadri and  another v.  Juthan Singh  and others, ( 1969) ALJ\n411, relied upon.\n     In the  instant case,  in view  of the  findings of the\nArbitrator, the\t appellants did\t not acquire any interest in\nthe disputed  land by  virtue of  the sale deed in question,\nand it\tcannot be  said that they have acquired title to the\ndisputed land by adverse possession. After the death of Sona\nDevi, the  possession of the disputed land by the appellants\nbecame illegal\tand adverse  to the respondents Nos. 3 to 5.\nBut before  such possession could ripen into title after the\nlapse  of   twelve  years,  the\t respondents  Nos.  3  to  S\ninstituted a suit within six years of such possession in the\nCourt of  Munsif for  the  recovery  of\t possession  of\t the\ndisputed land  from the\t appellants, which was decreed. Both\nthe appellants\n490\nand the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed appeals, but in view of\ns. 5  of the  Consolidation Act,  all further proceedings of\nthe said  appeals were stayed. Thereafter, the consolidation\nproceedings were started giving rise to the present appeals.\nThus, the  appellants have  not acquired  any title  to\t the\ndisputed land by adverse possession. [498E-H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 273-274
\nof 1972
\n     From the  Judgment and  order dated  25.8.1971  of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court in C. Revn. No. 1354 and 1355 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n
     J.P. Goel, Rajesh and R.A. Gupta for the Appellants.
\n     O.P. Rana, P.K. Pillai for the Respondents.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     DUTT, J.  These two  appeals by special leave have been
\npreferred by  the  appellants  against\tthe  judgment  of  a
\nlearned Single\tJudge of  the Allahabad\t High Court.  By the
\nsaid judgment  the learned  judge set aside the order of the
\nDistrict Judge,\t Meerut,  passed  by  him  on  appeal  under
\nsection 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, upholding the order
\nof the\tFirst Civil  Judge, Meerut,  and the  Award  of\t the
\nArbitrator made\t under section\t12 of the U.P. Consolidation
\nof Holdings  Act, 1953,\t hereinafter  referred\tto  as\t‘the
\nConsolidation Act’.\n<\/p>\n
     One Kurey\twas the\t owner of  the zamindari property in
\nKhewat Nos.  23 and  34 and also in Khewat No. 2, comprising
\nthe disputed  plots of\tland in\t village Daha. On his death,
\nthe zamindari  property devolved  upon\this  daughter,\tSona
\nDevi. By  a registered deed of sale dated December 21, 1935,
\nSona Devi  sold the  zamindari property to one Hoshiara, the
\npredecessor in\tinterest of  the appellants, and also to one
\nAbhey Ram.  Out of  the consideration of Rs.3,150, Sona Devi
\nwas paid  only Rs.1,300 in cash before the Sub-Registrar and
\nthe balance  of the  consideration money was kept in deposit
\nwith the  purchasers for  payment under\t three\tusufructuary
\nmortgage deeds\texecuted by  Kurey in  favour of some of his
\ncreditors. Sona\t Devi had  no son when she executed the sale
\ndeed, but  subsequently three  sons, namely, the respondents
\nNos. 3,\t 4 and\t5 were born to her. She died in 1944 leaving
\nbehind her  the said  respondents who were all minors at the
\ntime of her death.\n<\/p>\n
491<\/span><\/p>\n
     The respondents  No. 3  to 5,  the sons  of Sona  Devi,
\nfiled a suit being suit no. 1503 of 1950 in the Court of the
\nMunsif, Meerut\tagainst the  appellants\t and  others  for  a
\ndeclaration that  Sona Devi  had only a life interest in the
\nzamindari property purported to have been transferred by her
\nby the\tsale deed  dated December  21, 1935,  and  that\t the
\ntransfer not  having been  supported by any legal necessity,
\nwas not\t binding upon  the respondents. The respondents also
\nprayed for  recovery of\t possession of\tthe property and for
\nmesne profits.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  Munsif by  his judgment  dated January 18,
\n1953 decreed  the suit.\t Both the  parties preferred appeals
\nagainst the  said judgment and decree of the learned Munsif.
\nDuring the  pendency of\t the appeals, village Daha, in which
\nthe  disputed\tland   is   situated,\twas   notified\t for
\nconsolidation operations  under the  Consolidation  Act.  In
\nview of\t section S  of the  consolidation Act,\tall  further
\nproceedings of the said appeals were stayed.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  consolidation proceedings\tthat were started in
\nthe village,  the names\t of the\t appellants were recorded in
\nthe revenue papers as bhumi in respect of the disputed land.
\nThe respondents\t filed objections  under section  12 of\t the
\nConsolidation Act,  as it  stood at  the  relevant  time  in
\nNovember, 1956.\t As the objections raised questions of title
\nregarding  the\tdisputed  land,\t the  Consolidation  officer
\nreferred the  matter under  sub-section (4) of section 12 to
\nthe statutory Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator came to the
\nfindings that  Sona Devi  had only  a life  interest in\t the
\ndisputed land,\tthat  the  sale\t deed  executed\t by  her  on
\nDecember 21,  1935 was\tneither for  legal necessity nor for
\nthe benefit  of the  estate of her deceased father, that the
\ntransfer of  the disputed land by the said sale deed was not
\nbinding on the respondents, the sons of Sona Devi, and that,
\naccordingly, the  said respondents  were entitled to recover
\npossession of  the disputed  land  purported  to  have\tbeen
\ntransferred by\tthe said  sale deed.  In view  of the  above
\nfindings, the  learned Arbitrator made an Award in favour of
\nthe respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  filed two petitions of objection to the
\nAward under  section 30\t of the\t Arbitration Act  which were
\ndismissed by  the learned  First Civil Judge, Meerut, by his
\norder dated November 8, 1967.\n<\/p>\n
     Being aggrieved by the order of the learned First Civil
\nJudge, Meerut,\tdismissing the\tpetitions of  objection, the
\nappellants filed two
\n492<\/span>
\nappeals to  the Additional  District  Judge,  Meerut,  under
\nsection 39  of the  Arbitration Act.  The learned Additional
\nDistrict Judge\ttook the view that as the sons of Abhey Ram,
\nwho was also one of the transferees under the said sale deed
\ndated December\t21, 1935,  were\t not  made  parties  in\t the
\nproceedings, the reference to the Arbitrator was illegal and
\nthe Award  made by  him was invalid. Further, it was held by
\nthe learned  Additional District  Judge that  the Arbitrator
\nwas guilty  of legal misconduct inasmuch as he had committed
\nan error  of law apparent on the face of the Award. Upon the
\nsaid findings,\tthe learned  Additional District  Judge\t set
\naside the  order of  the learned  First Civil Judge, Meerut,
\nand also  the Award  of the  learned  Arbitrator.  Both\t the
\nappeals\t preferred  by\tthe  appellants\t were,\taccordingly,
\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondents,  being aggrieved\tby the said order of
\nthe learned  Additional District  Judge, filed\ttwo revision
\npetitions under\t section 115  of the Code of Civil Procedure
\nbefore a  learned Single  Judge of the Allahabad High Court.
\nThe learned  Judge, as aforesaid, set aside the order of the
\nlearned Additional District Judge, Meerut, and restored that
\nof the learned First Civil Judge, Meerut, and also the Award
\nof the\tlearned\t Arbitrator.  Hence  these  two\t appeals  by
\nspecial leave.\n<\/p>\n
     Before  we\t proceed  further  we  may  dispose  of\t two
\napplications which  have been filed by the appellants in the
\ntwo appeals.  It has  been alleged  in the applications that
\nduring\tthe  pendency  of  the\tappeals\t in  this  Court,  a
\nnotification dated  June 27,  1981 under  section 4-A of the
\nConsolidation Act  was issued  declaring that  village\tDaha
\nmight again  be brought\t under the consolidation operations.
\nIn view\t of that  notification, a  further notification\t was
\nissued under  sub-section (2)  of section  4  by  the  State
\nGovernment deciding  to start  consolidation  operations  in
\nvillage Daha.  It is  alleged that since the issuance of the
\nnotification   under   section\t 4(2),\t the   consolidation
\noperations have been going on in that village.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  submitted that  by virtue  of sub-section (2) of
\nsection 5  of the  Consolidation Act, the consequence of the
\npublication of a notification under section 4(2) is that the
\npresent appeals\t along with  other proceedings\tout of which
\nthe appeals  arise, stand abated. The parties affected will,
\nhowever, be  entitled to  agitate their right or interest in
\ndispute in  the\t said  proceedings  before  the\t appropriate
\nconsolidation authorities  under and  in accordance with the
\nprovisions of  the Consolidation  Act  and  the\t rules\tmade
\nthereunder, as provided in clause (b) of
\n493<\/span>
\nsection 5(2)  of the  Consolidation Act. Accordingly, it has
\nbeen prayed  in the  said  applications\t that  an  order  of
\nabatement  of\tthe  instant   appeals\tand  also  of  other
\nproceedings including the arbitration proceedings, should be
\nmade under section 5(2) of the Consolidation Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In order  to consider the contentions of the appellants
\nas to the abatement of the appeals and the other proceedings
\nout of\twhich the appeals arise, we may refer to some of the
\nprovisions of  the Consolidation  Act.\tSub-section  (1)  of
\nsection\t 52  of\t the  Consolidation  Act  provides  for\t the
\nissuance of a notification by the State Government declaring
\nthe closure  of the  consolidation operations  in  the\tunit
\nwhereupon the village or villages forming a part of the unit
\nshall cease  to\t be  under  consolidation  operations.\tSub-
\nsection (2)  of section\t 52  provides  that  notwithstanding
\nanything contained in sub-section (1), any order passed by a
\ncourt of  competent jurisdiction  in cases  of\twrits  filed
\nunder the  provisions of  the Constitution  of India,  or in
\ncases or  proceedings pending under the Consolidation Act on
\nthe date of issue of the notification under sub-section (1),
\nshall be  given effect\tto by  such authorities,  as may  be
\nprescribed and\tthe consolidation operations shall, for that
\npurpose, be deemed to have not been closed.\n<\/p>\n
     Under section  4-A(1) of  the Consolidation  Act, where
\nthe State Government is of the opinion that in the case of a
\ndistrict or  part thereof in respect of which a notification
\nhas already been issued under section 52, it is expedient in
\npublic interest\t so to\tdo, it\tmay make  a  declaration  by
\nnotification in\t the Gazette  that  such  district  or\tpart
\nthereof may  again be brought under consolidation operation.
\nUnder the  proviso to  section 4-A(1),\tno such\t declaration
\nshall be  issued within\t ten years  from  the  date  of\t the
\nnotification referred  to in  the said\tsection.  Section  S
\nprovides for  the effect  of a\tnotification  under  section
\n4(2). Sub-section (2) of section S runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “S.  5(2)-Upon   the\tsaid   publication  of\t the
\n\t  notification under  sub-section (2)  of Section 4,
\n\t  the following further consequences shall ensure in
\n\t  the  area   to  which\t the  notification  relates,
\n\t  namely-<\/p>\n
\t  (a) every proceeding for the correction of records
\n\t  and every  suit  and\tproceedings  in\t respect  of
\n\t  declaration of  rights or  interest  in  any\tland
\n\t  lying\t in   the  area,   or  for   declaration  or
\n\t  adjudication of any other right in regard to which
\n\t  proceedings can  or ought  to be  taken under this
\n\t  Act, pending
\n494<\/span>
\n\t  before any court or authority whether of the first
\n\t  instance or  of  appeal,  reference  or  revision,
\n\t  shall, on  an order being passed in that behalf by
\n\t  the court  or authority  before whom\tsuch suit or
\n\t  proceeding is pending, stand abated:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Provided that  no such  order shall be passed
\n\t  without giving to the parties notice by post or in
\n\t  any  other   manner  and   after  giving  them  an
\n\t  opportunity of being heard:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Provided further\t that  on  the\tissue  of  a
\n\t  notification under sub-section (1) of Section 6 in
\n\t  respect of  the said\tarea or\t part thereof, every
\n\t  such order  in relation  to the land lying in such
\n\t  area or  part as  the case  may  be,\tshall  stand
\n\t  vacated;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) such  abatement shall  be without prejudice to
\n\t  the rights  of the persons affected to agitate the
\n\t  right or  interest in dispute in the said suits or
\n\t  proceedings before  the appropriate  consolidation
\n\t  authorities  under  and  in  accordance  with\t the
\n\t  provisions  of   this\t Act   and  the\t rules\tmade
\n\t  thereunder.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Explanation-For the purposes of sub-section (2), a
\n\t  proceeding under  the Uttar  Pradesh Imposition of
\n\t  Ceiling  on\tLand  Holdings\t Act,  1960   or  an
\n\t  uncontested proceeding  under Sections  134 to 137
\n\t  of the  U.P. Zamindari  Abolition and Land Reforms
\n\t  Act, 1950,  shall not be deemed to be a proceeding
\n\t  in respect  of declaration  of rights or interest,
\n\t  in any land.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It\t is   manifestly  clear\t  that\twhere  consolidation
\nproceedings have  been held and closed, a notification under
\nsection 4(2) of the Consolidation Act can be made only after
\nthe expiry  of 10  years from  the date\t of the notification
\nunder section  52. When\t the consolidation  proceedings\t are
\nover, the  State Government  issues a notification declaring
\nthat the  consolidation operations  have been  closed in the
\nunit whereupon the village or villages forming a part of the
\nunit shall cease to be under consolidation operations. Thus,
\nat the\ttime the notification under section 4-A is made, the
\nconsolidation operations  in respect of any district or part
\nthereof have  been closed  ten years  before and there is no
\nconsolidation operation\t in the\t district or part thereof to
\nwhich the notification under section 4-A relates.\n<\/p>\n
495<\/span><\/p>\n
     By virtue\tof sub-section\t(2) of\tsection\t 52  of\t the
\nConsolidation Act  even though\ta  notification\t under\tsub-
\nsection (I)  of\t section  52  is  made\tdeclaring  that\t the
\nconsolidation operations  have been closed in respect of the
\nunit, yet it shall be deemed to have not been closed for the
\npurpose of  giving effect  by the  prescribed authorities to
\nthe following two cases:\n<\/p>\n
\t  (i) Any  order passed\t by  a\tcourt  of  competent
\n\t  jurisdiction in  cases of  writs filed  under\t the
\n\t  provisions of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) In  cases or  proceedings pending  under\t the
\n\t  Consolidation Act  on the  date of  issue  of\t the
\n\t  notification under sub- section (1).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Thus, in  regard to  the two cases mentioned above, the
\nconsolidation operations  shall be  deemed to  have not been
\nclosed. As  noticed already,  section 4-A  will\t apply\tonly
\nwhere the  consolidation operations  remained closed  for  a
\nperiod of  ten years from the date of the notification under
\nsection 52(1). But, in view of sub-section (2) of section 52
\nof the Consolidation Act, the consolidation operations shall
\nbe deemed  to have  not been  closed in\t respect of  the two
\ncases mentioned\t above, and  so section\t 4-A  will  have  no
\napplication to\tthese two cases. Consequently, the provision
\nof section  4 as  also the  provision of  section 5 will not
\napply to  these two  cases. The object of sub-section (2) of
\nsection 52  is that when an order has been passed by a court
\nunder the  provisions of  the Constitution  of India  or  in
\ncases or  proceedings pending  under the  Consolidation Act,
\nthe right  or interest\tinvolved in  such order\t or  in\t the
\npending cases  or proceedings  under the  Consolidation Act,
\nshould not  be again  subjected to  the consideration in the
\nconsolidation\tproceedings   started\tby   virtue   of   a
\nnotification under section 4-A of the Consolidation Act.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t may  be  noticed  that\t the  suit  and\t proceedings
\nreferred to  in section 5(2)(a) are different from the cases
\nand proceedings\t mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 52.
\nWhile cases or proceedings referred to in sub-section (2) of
\nsection 52,  the  order\t passed\t in  writ  cases  under\t the
\nConstitution of\t India apart,  must  be\t pending  under\t the
\nConsolidation Act,  under clause  (a) of  section  5(2)\t the
\nproceedings which  will stand  abated upon  an\torder  being
\npassed in  that behalf by a court or authority, are either a
\npending suit  or pending  proceedings, but  such proceedings
\nare not pending under the Consolidation Act.\n<\/p>\n
496<\/span><\/p>\n
     The proceedings  out of which the instant appeals arise
\nare proceedings\t under the Consolidation Act and, therefore,
\nsection 5(2)(a)\t will have no application to the proceedings
\nout of\twhich the  present appeals  arise. In  any event, in
\nview of\t sub-section (2)  of section 52 of the Consolidation
\nAct, the  notification issued  under  section  4-A  and\t the
\nsubsequent  notification   under  section   4(2)   and\t the
\nconsequence thereof  as provided  under section\t 5(2) of the
\nConsolidation Act, will have no application to or affect the
\nproceedings giving rise to the instant appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     The applications  are, therefore,\tmisconceived and are
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     We may  now come  to the  merits of  the appeals. It is
\nurged by Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf
\nof the appellants in both these appeals, that the High Court
\nshould have  held that\tas the sons of Abhey Ram, one of the
\ntransferees under  the sale  deed dated\t December 21,  1935,
\nwere not made parties in the arbitration proceedings, it was
\ninvalid. This  contention challenging the maintainability of
\nthe  reference\t and  the   invalidity\tof  the\t arbitration
\nproceedings, was  raised  for  the  first  time\t before\t the
\nlearned Additional  District Judge  who, as  stated already,
\nupheld the same. In our opinion, the High Court was right in
\noverruling the\tcontention on  the ground  that the  learned
\nAdditional District  Judge should  not have  entertained the
\nobjection to  the maintainability of the reference itself at
\nthat stage.  The High  Court has pointed out that before the
\nlearned Arbitrator all the parties concerned appeared and no
\nobjection to  the competency of the reference was raised and
\nthat the proper stage for raising such an objection was when
\nthe reference was made under section 12 of the Consolidation
\nAct. The  contention  of  the  appellants  is,\taccordingly,
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  next contended  on behalf of the appellants that
\nthe High  Court was  not  justified  in\t setting  aside\t the
\nfinding of  the learned\t Additional District  Judge that the
\nlearned Arbitrator  was guilty\tof legal  misconduct. It has
\nbeen held  by the  learned Additional  District\t Judge\tthat
\nthere was  an error  apparent  on  the\tface  of  the  Award
\ninasmuch  as  the  learned  Arbitrator\tfailed\tto  properly
\nconsider the  provision of  section 18 of the U.P. Zamindari
\nAbolition and  Land Reforms  Act, 1950, hereinafter referred
\nto as  ‘the Zamindari  Abolition Act’, and to give effect to
\nthe rights  conferred upon  the appellants  under  the\tsaid
\nprovision. It  is  submitted  that  the\t learned  Additional
\nDistrict Judge\twas, therefore justified in holding that the
\nlearned Arbitrator was guilty of legal misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
497<\/span><\/p>\n
     Let  us   now  consider   whether\tthe  Arbitrator\t has
\ncommitted any  error of\t law in\t not giving  effect  to\t the
\nprovision of  section 18  of the  Zamindari Abolition Act in
\nfavour\tof   the  appellants.  Section\t18  confers  on\t the
\nintermediaries and  certain cultivators\t the right to retain
\nland in\t their possession,  as\tbhumidhars.  The  appellants
\nclaim that  they are  intermediaries in\t possession  of\t the
\ndisputed land  and, accordingly, they are entitled to retain
\nthe disputed  land as  bhumidhars  under  the  provision  of
\nsection 18.  In our opinion, this claim of the appellants is
\nwithout any  foundation. It  is true  that by  the sale deed
\ndated December\t21, 1935  the appellants  purported to\thave
\nacquired the  proprietory interest of Sona Devi in the land.
\nThe sale  deed\thas,  however,\tbeen  held  by\tthe  learned
\nArbitrator as  invalid inasmuch\t as it\twas not supported by
\nany legal  necessity. The  appellants,\ttherefore,  had\t not
\nacquired any  interest in  the disputed\t land under the sale
\ndeed and,  as such, they had no intermediary interest in the
\ndisputed land  on the date immediately preceding the date of
\nvesting under  the Zamindari  Abolition Act.  The appellants
\nnot being  intermediaries or  persons  of  any\tcategory  as
\nmentioned in section 18, they are not entitled to retain the
\ndisputed land  under the provisions of section 18. There is,
\ntherefore, no  substance in the contention made on behalf of
\nthe appellants that their possession in the disputed land is
\nprotected by the provision of section 18.\n<\/p>\n
     It is,  however, urged  by Mr.  Goyal that in any event
\nthe appellants\tare entitled  to the benefit of section 3 of
\nthe Uttar  Pradesh Land\t Reforms (Supplementary)  Act, 1952.
\nSub-section (1)\t of section  3 of  the said  Act provides as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “S. 3.  Persons in  cultivatory possession in 1359
\n\t  Fasli to be adhivasis or asamis. -(1) Every person
\n\t  who was  in cultivatory  possession  of  any\tland
\n\t  during the year 1359 fasli but is not a person who
\n\t  as a consequence of vesting under Section 4 of the
\n\t  U.P. Zamindari  Abolition and\t Land  Reforms\tAct,
\n\t  1950 (U.P. Act I of 1951) (hereinafter referred to
\n\t  as the  Act),\t has  become  a\t bhumudhar,  sirdar,
\n\t  adhivasi or  asami under  Sections 18 to 21 of the
\n\t  said Act  shall be  and is  hereby declared to be,
\n\t  with effect from the appointed date-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (a) if  the bhumidhar  or sirdar\t of the land
\n\t       was, or where the land belongs jointly to two
\n\t       or more\tbhumidhars or  sirdars, all  of them
\n\t       were, on the appointed date person or persons
\n\t       referred to in items
\n498<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (i) to  (vi) of sub-section (2) of Section 10
\n\t       of the  said Act, an asami from year to year,
\n\t       or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (b) if the bhumidhar or sirdar was not such a
\n\t       per son, an adhivasi,
\n\t  and shall  be entitled  to all  the rights  and be
\n\t  subject  to\tall  the  liabilities  conferred  or
\n\t  imposed upon\tan asami or an adhivasi, as the case
\n\t  may be, by or under the said Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\t  Explanation. -A  person shall\t not be deemed to be
\n\t  in cultivatory  possession of\t the land, if he was
\n\t  cultivating it as a mortgagee with possession or a
\n\t  thekedar   or\t  he   was   merely   assisting\t  or
\n\t  participating with  a bhumidhar,  sirdar, adhivasi
\n\t  or asami  concerned in  the actual  performance of
\n\t  agricultural operations.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It\t is   submitted\t by  the  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants that\t as the\t appellants had\t been in cultivatory
\npossession of  the disputed land during the year 1359 Fasli,
\nthey have  acquired the\t status of adhivasi and are entitled
\nto all\tthe rights  conferred upon  an\tadhivasi  under\t the
\nZamindari Abolition  Act. This\tcontention is  based on\t the
\nassumption  that   the\tappellants   were   in\t cultivatory
\npossession during  the year  1359  Fasli.  In  view  of\t the
\nfindings of  the learned  Arbitrator, as  noticed above, the
\nappellants did not acquire any interest in the disputed land
\nby virtue of the sale deed executed by Sona Devi. In view of
\nthe  facts   already  noticed\tand  stated   hereafter\t for
\nconvenience, we\t are unable  to accept the contention of the
\nappellants that\t they have  acquired title  to the  disputed
\nland by\t adverse possession. After the death of Sona Devi in
\n1944, the  possession of the disputed land by the appellants
\nbecame illegal\tand adverse  to the respondents nos. 3 to 5.
\nBut before  such possession could ripen into title after the
\nlapse  of   twelve  years,  the\t respondents  nos.  3  to  5
\ninstituted a suit in 1950, that is, within six years of such
\npossession, in\tthe court  of the  Munsif at  Meerut for the
\nrecovery  of  possession  of  the  disputed  land  from\t the
\nappellants. The\t suit was  decreed  by\tthe  learned  Munsif
\nagainst\t the   appellants.  Both   the\tappellants  and\t the
\nrespondents Nos.  3 to\t5 filed\t appeals against the decree,
\nbut in\tview of\t section 5  of the  Consolidation  Act,\t all
\nfurther\t proceedings   of  the\tsaid  appeals  were  stayed.
\nThereafter, the\t consolidation proceedings  were started and
\nthe present appeals arise out of such proceedings. Thus, the
\nappellants have\t not acquired any title to the disputed land
\nby adverse possession.\n<\/p>\n
499<\/span><\/p>\n
     Section 3\tof the\tUttar Pradesh  (Supplementary)\tAct,
\n1952 does  not confer any right on a person whose possession
\nof the\tland in\t question during  the year  1359  Fasli\t was
\nillegal. In  our opinion,  it is  not the  intention of\t the
\nLegislature to\tprotect the possession of a trespasser under
\nsection\t 3(1).\t The  explanation   to\tsection\t 3(1)  gives
\nsufficient indication  that a person not having lawful right
\nin the land, cannot claim to be in cultivatory possession of
\nsuch land.\n<\/p>\n
     The Allahabad  High Court\tin Ram\tKrishna\t v.  Bhagwan
\nBaksh Singh,  [1961] ALJ  301 and  in Badri  and another  v.
\nJuthan Singh  and others,  [1969] ALJ  411 has\trightly held
\nthat a\ttrespasser cannot  be  said  to\t be  in\t cultivatory
\npossession within  the meaning of section 3 of the U.P. Land
\nReforms (Supplementary)\t Act, 1952. The appellants were not,
\ntherefore, in  cultivatory possession  of the  disputed land
\nduring the  year Fasli\t1359 and, consequently, they are not
\nentitled to  the benefit of section 3(1). No other point has
\nbeen urged on behalf of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     For  the\treasons\t aforesaid,  both  the\tappeals\t are
\ndismissed with costs assessed at a consolidated sum of R.S..
\n3,000.\n<\/p>\n
A.P.J.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n500<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Suraj Mal And Another vs Ram Singh And Others on 7 August, 1986 Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 1889, 1986 SCR (3) 487 Author: M Dutt Bench: Dutt, M.M. (J) PETITIONER: SURAJ MAL AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: RAM SINGH AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT07\/08\/1986 BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) […]<\/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-220574","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSuraj Mal And Another vs Ram Singh And Others on 7 August, 1986 - 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\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suraj Mal And Another vs Ram Singh And Others on 7 August, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986\" \/>\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=\"1986-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-27T03:33:35+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Suraj Mal And Another vs Ram Singh And Others on 7 August, 1986\",\"datePublished\":\"1986-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-27T03:33:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986\"},\"wordCount\":3667,\"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\\\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986\",\"name\":\"Suraj Mal And Another vs Ram Singh And Others on 7 August, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1986-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-27T03:33:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suraj Mal And Another vs Ram Singh And Others on 7 August, 1986\"}]},{\"@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":"Suraj Mal And Another vs Ram Singh And Others on 7 August, 1986 - 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\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suraj Mal And Another vs Ram Singh And Others on 7 August, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1986-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-27T03:33:35+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Suraj Mal And Another vs Ram Singh And Others on 7 August, 1986","datePublished":"1986-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-27T03:33:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986"},"wordCount":3667,"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\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986","name":"Suraj Mal And Another vs Ram Singh And Others on 7 August, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1986-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-27T03:33:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suraj-mal-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-others-on-7-august-1986#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suraj Mal And Another vs Ram Singh And Others on 7 August, 1986"}]},{"@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\/220574","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=220574"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220574\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220574"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220574"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220574"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}