{"id":224564,"date":"1966-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966"},"modified":"2015-09-15T18:26:16","modified_gmt":"2015-09-15T12:56:16","slug":"nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966","title":{"rendered":"Nand Kishore vs Ram Kishan & Anr on 25 August, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Nand Kishore vs Ram Kishan & Anr on 25 August, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1196, \t\t 1967 SCR (1) 167<\/div>\n
Author: K S Rao<\/div>\n
Bench: Rao, K. Subba (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNAND KISHORE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAM KISHAN & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n25\/08\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nRAO, K. SUBBA (CJ)\nBENCH:\nRAO, K. SUBBA (CJ)\nSHELAT, J.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1196\t\t  1967 SCR  (1) 167\n\n\nACT:\nDelhi  Rent Control Act (59 of 1958), ss. 17(3),  18(2)\t and\n50,  and Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (38 of  1952),  s.\n20-Tenancy  determined\tbefore commencement of\tthe  Act  of\n1958-Suit  by sub-tenant claiming to be statutory  tenant-If\nmaintainable.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  landlord of the premises in dispute, obtained a  decree\nfor ejectment against his tenant before the commencement  of\nthe Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.  The sub-tenant was not  a\nparty to that suit and the sub-tenancy was not determined by\nthat  decree.  In 1962, the subtenant filed a  suit  against\nthe  landlord claiming to have become a statutory tenant  of\nthe  premises.\tThe landlord contended that under s.  50  of\nthe Act, no civil court shall entertain any suit in  respect\nof  a matter which the Controller is empowered by  or  under\nthe Act to decide, and that as s. 17(3) of the Act empowered\nthe Controller to decide a dispute in regard to the question\nwhether a person was a sub-tenant or not, the ,suit was\t not\nmaintainable.\nHELD : Section 50 was not a bar to the suit.\nThe  provision\tof the Act applicable to a  case  where\t the\ninterest  of  a\t tenant\t had  been  determined\tbefore\t the\ncommencement of the Act, but the interest of the  sub-tenant\nwas allowed to subsist is s. 18(2).  Under this\t sub-section\nthe  sub-tenant\t shall,\t with effect from the  date  of\t the\ncommencement  of  the Act, be deemed to have  become,  by  a\nstatutory fiction, a tenant under the landlord.\t There is no\nprovision  in  the Act under which a dispute in\t respect  of\nsuch a sub-tenancy could be decided by the Controller.\t Any\ndispute\t raised by such a sub-tenant does not fall under  s.\n17(3), for, s. 17(3) applies only to a case where a  dispute\narises during the subsistence of the main tenancy after\t the\nAct came into force, and where the dispute was raised within\ntwo months of the issue of the notice of sub-letting, by the\ntenant or sub-tenant. [171 A-C]\nMohd.  Mamood v. Tikam Das,<\/a> [1966] 1 S.C.R. 128, explained.\nMoreover,  under s. 20 of the Delhi and Ajmer  Rent  Control\nAct,  1952,  on the eviction of the tenant,  the  sub-tenant\nwould  be  deemed to have become a tenant of  the  landlord.\nThere  is no provision in the Delhi Rent Control Act,  1958,\nwhich\ttook  away  that  vested  right\t or  empowered\t the\nController  to\tdecide\ta dispute raised in  regard  to\t it.\nSection\t 50,  therefore could not have any  bearing  on\t the\nmaintainability of the suit. [171 E-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 467 of 1966.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and decree  dated
\nMarch  4, 1965 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit  Bench)  at
\nDelhi in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 125-D of 1964.\n<\/p>\n
168<\/span><\/p>\n
A.K.  Sen,  E.\tC.  Agarwal and\t P.  C.\t Agarwala,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
Gauri Dayal for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSubba  Rao,  C. J. This appeal by special leave\t raises\t the
\nquestion  of the construction of some of the  provisions  of
\nthe  Delhi  Rent  Control  Act,\t 1958  (Act  59\t of   1958),
\nhereinafter called the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Appellant-1st  defendant is the owner of premises No.  6022,
\nGali  Mandir Wali, Arya Samaj, Delhi.  Ram Saran  Das,\tres-
\npondent\t No.  2 herein, was the tenant of the  appellant  in
\nrespect of the said premises and Ram Kishan Das,  respondent
\nNo.  1\therein, was a sub-tenant.  On January 30,  1959\t the
\nappellant  obtained a decree for ejectment against  the\t 2nd
\nrespondent  from the court of the Subordinate Judge,  Delhi.
\nTo  that  suit the 1st respondent, the sub-tenant,  was\t not
\nmade  a party.\tWhen that decree was sought to\tbe  executed
\nagainst\t the 2nd respondent, the 1st  respondent  obstructed
\ndelivery  of possession of the premises on the\tground\tthat
\nhe,  as\t a  sub-tenant,\t had  become  a\t tenant\t under\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe Act.  The executing court  rejected\t his
\nclaim.\t Thereafter,  on May 22, 1962,\tthe  1st  respondent
\nfiled  a suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate  Judge,
\nDelhi, against the appellant and respondent 2 praying for  a
\ndecree for a permanent injunction against the appellant\t and
\nthe  2nd  respondent restraining the appellant\tfrom  taking
\npossession  of the said premises.  The appellant inter\talia
\ncontended  that\t S.  50 of the Act was a bar  to  the  main-
\ntainability  of\t the  suit  in a civil\tcourt.\t It  is\t not
\nnecessary  to state the other defences, as nothing turns  on
\nthem  in  this appeal.\tThe said plea was  rejected  in\t the
\nfirst  instance by the learned Subordinate Judge, on  appeal
\nby the learned Senior Subordinate Judge and on Second Appeal
\nby the High Court.  Hence the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The only question that arises in this appeal is, whether  s.
\n50  of the Act is a bar to the maintainability of  the\tsuit
\nfiled by the 1st respondent against the appellant.
\nThe  learned counsel for the appellant contended that s.  50
\nof the Act was a bar to the maintainability of the suit,  as
\ns.  17 of the Act empowered the Rent Controller to decide  a
\ndispute\t in  regard to the question whether a person  was  a
\nsub-tenant or not.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that s.
\n17(3)  of  the Act applied only to a case  where  a  dispute
\narose during the subsistence of tenancy, that in the instant
\ncase the tenancy had come to an end before the Act came into
\nforce, that the 1st respondent became a tenant under  Sub-s.
\n(2) of s. 18, that a dispute
\n169<\/span>
\nin regard to the question whether he had become a  statutory
\ntenant\tthereunder  was not a dispute triable  by  the\tRent
\nController  and that, therefore s. 50 of the Act was  not  a
\nbar to the maintainability of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
Alternatively,\tthe learned counsel for the  1st  respondent
\ncontended that the 1st respondent had become a tenant  under
\ns.  20 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act,\t 1952,\tthat
\nthere  was  no\tprovision in the  Act  conferring  exclusive
\njurisdiction  on the Rent Controller in respect of the\tsaid
\nright vested in him before the Act and that, therefore,\t the
\nsuit  for a declaration of the said pre-existing  right\t was
\nmaintainable in the civil court.\n<\/p>\n
The  solution to the rival contentions depends on  the\ttrue
\nconstruction  of the relevant provisions of the Act.   Under
\ns. 50 of the Act, no civil court shall entertain any suit in
\nrespect of a matter which the Controller is empowered by  or
\nunder the Act to decide.  If the Controller, in exercise  of
\nthe  power  conferred on him under the Act, can\t decide\t the
\ndispute\t in respect of the claim of the 1st respondent to  a
\nstatutory  tenancy, there cannot by any doubt that his\tsuit
\nis  not maintainable in a civil court.\tS. 17(3) of the\t Act
\non  which reliance is placed for invoking the aid of  s.  50
\nreads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where  in any case mentioned  in\t sub-section
\n\t      (2),  the landlord contests that the  premises
\n\t      were  not lawfully sublet, and an\t application
\n\t      is  made\tto  the Collector  in  this  behalf,
\n\t      either  by the landlord or by the\t sub-tenant,
\n\t      within  two months of the date of the
\n\t      receipt  of  the notice of subletting  by\t the
\n\t      landlord\tor  the issue of the notice  by\t the
\n\t      tenant or the sub-tenant, as the case may\t be,
\n\t      the Controller shall decide the dispute.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Under  this  sub-section,  the Controller  is  empowered  to
\ndecide a dispute between the landlord and his sub-tenant  in
\nrespect of any case mentioned in sub-s. (2) of s. 17.\tSub-
\nsection (2) of s. 17 of the Act says :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where,  before the commencement of this\tAct,
\n\t      any premises have been lawfully sub-let either
\n\t      in whole or in part by the tenant, the  tenant
\n\t      or  the sub-tenant to whom the  premises\thave
\n\t      been  sub-let may, in the\t prescribed  manner,
\n\t      give notice to the landlord of the creation of
\n\t      the  subtenancy  within  six  months  of\t the
\n\t      commencement  of\tthis  Act,  and\t notify\t the
\n\t      termination  of  such sub-tenancy\t within\t one
\n\t      month of such termination.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
To  invoke  this  sub-section  three  conditions  shall\t  be
\ncomplied  with,\t namely, (i) the premises  shall  have\tbeen
\nlawfully  sub-let by the tenant, (ii) the sub-letting  shall
\nhave been before the commence-\n<\/p>\n
Sup.Cl\/66-12
\n170<\/span>
\nment  of the Act, and (iii) such tenant or sub-tenant  shall
\nhave  given a notice to the landlord of the creation of\t the
\nsub-tenancy within six months of the commencement of the Act
\nand notified the termination of such sub-tenancy within\t one
\nmonth of such termination.  The dispute referred to in\tsub.
\ns.  (3)\t of s. 17 is in regard to such sub-tenancy.   It  is
\nmanifest  from\tthe provisions of sub-s. (2) that  the\tsaid
\nprovision applies only during the period ,of subsistence  of
\nthe  tenancy  created before the commencement  of  the\tAct.
\nBut, if the tenancy itself ceased to exist before the  corn-
\nmencement   of\tthe  Act,  the\tsaid  sub-section   has\t  no
\napplication.   If the tripartite relationship  of  landlord,
\ntenant\tand  sub-tenant\t had  ceased  to  exist\t before\t the
\ncommencement  of  the  Act, no\tquestion  of  giving  notice
\nprescribed  thereunder would arise.  If subs. (2)  does\t Dot
\napply  to such a case, a dispute raised between them  cannot
\nbe raised before the Controller under sub-s. (3) of s. 17 of
\nof  the Act.  If that be the construction of sub-s. (2)\t and
\n(3) of s. 17 of the Act, s. 18(1) thereof would not  equally
\nhelp  the  appellant.  Under sub-s. (1) of s.  18  where  an
\norder  for  eviction ill respect of’ any  premises  is\tmade
\nunder  s. 14 against a tenant but not against  a  sub-tenant
\nreferred to in s. 17 and a notice of the subtenancy has been
\ngiven  to  the landlord, the sub-tenant shall,\twith  effect
\nfrom  the  date of the order, be deemed to become  a  tenant
\nholding\t directly  under  the landlord\tin  respect  of\t the
\npremises in his occupation on the same terms and  conditions
\non  which the tenant would have held from the  landlord,  if
\nthe  tenancy had continued.  This section also applies to  a
\ncase  of subsisting tenancy after the Act came\tinto  force.
\nThe  reference to s. 14 presupposes that an  eviction  order
\nhas  been  made against the tenant after the Act  came\tinto
\nforce.\t The sub-tenant mentioned therein is the  sub-tenant
\nreferred  to in s. 17 and in respect of whose sub-tenancy  a
\nnotice\thas  been given to the landlord, that is to  say,  a
\nsub-tenant  of\ta  tenant during  the  subsistence  of’\t his
\ntenancy.  In such a case the sub-tenant becomes a  statutory
\ntenant.\t This section cannot have any application to a\tcase
\nwhere the tenancy ceased to exist before the commencement of
\nthe Act.  Sub-section (2) of s. 18 reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where,  before the commencement of this\tAct,
\n\t      the  interest  of a tenant in respect  of\t any
\n\t      premises\t  has\tbeen   determined    without
\n\t      determining the interest of any sub-tenant  to
\n\t      whom  the premises either in whole or in\tpart
\n\t      had  been\t lawfully  sub-let,  the  sub-tenant
\n\t      shall,  with  effect  from  the  date  of\t the
\n\t      commencement  or this Act, be deemed  to\thave
\n\t      become  a\t tenant holding directly  under\t the
\n\t      landlord\ton the same terms and conditions  on
\n\t      which  the  tenant would have  held  from\t the
\n\t      landlord, if the tenancy had continued.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
171<\/span><\/p>\n
This  sub-section applies to a case where the interest of  a
\ntenant\thad been determined before the commencement  of\t the
\nAct,  but  the\tinterest of the sub-tenant  was\t allowed  to
\nsubsist.   In such a case, the sub-tenant shall with  effect
\nfrom  the date of the commencement of the Act be  deemed  to
\nhave  become,  by a statutory fiction, a  tenant  under\t the
\nlandlord.    This   situation\tcould\tarise\tbefore\t the
\ncommencement  of  the  Act  either  because  of\t a  statute,
\ncontract  or  a decree.\t Any dispute raised by such  a\tsub-
\ntenant\tdoes not fall under sub-s. (3) of S. 17 of the\tAct,
\nfor, as we have said, the said sub-section applies only to a
\ncase  where a dispute arises during the subsistence  of\t the
\nmain tenancy after the Act came into force.  If so, as there
\nis  no other provision in the Act under which a\t dispute  in
\nrespect\t of  such  a sub-tenancy could\tbe  decided  by\t the
\nController,  S.\t 50 cannot have a bearing on  the  maintain-
\nability of a suit filed in respect of such a sub-tenancy.
\nIf  that be the construction of the relevant  provisions  of
\nthe Act, the 1st respondent is not hit by the provisions  of
\nS.  50 of the Act.  The landlord by obtaining a\t decree\t for
\neviction  against  the\t2nd respondent put  an\tend  to\t the
\ntenancy before the commencement of the Act.  The Sub-tenancy
\nof  the 1st respondent was not determined by the decree,  is
\nlie was neither a party to the suit nor his rights were\t put
\nin  issue therein.  He can, therefore, claim to be a  tenant
\nunder S. 18(2) of the Act.  As S. 50 does not apply to\thim,
\nhe  can file a Suit in a. civil Court for a  declaration  of
\nhis right thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
The  same result will flow if we look at the matter  from  a
\ndifferent aspect.  Under S. 20 of the Delhi and Ajmer  Reiit
\nControl\t Act, 1962, on the eviction of the tenant, the\tsub-
\ntenant\twould  be  deemed to have become  a  tenant  of\t the
\nlandlord.   The\t appellant obtained a  decree  for  eviction
\nagainst\t the  2nd respondent on January 30, 1959.   The\t Act
\ncame  into force subsequently.\tHe had therefore acquired  a
\nvested right under the Act of 1952.  No provision of the Act
\nhas been pointed Out to us which took way that right.  There
\nwas also no provision under the Act empowering the Controler
\nto  decide  a  dispute raised in regard to  the\t said  right
\nvested in the 1st respondent.  If so, it follows that S.  50
\nof  the\t Act cannot be a bar to the suit filed\tby  the\t 1st
\nrespondent for a declaration of his said right.
\nThe  view  expressed by us finds support in  the  unreported
\njudgment  of  Mehar  Singh, J. of  the\tPunjab\tHigh  Court,
\nCircuit\t BeBench  at  Delhi in Smt.   Viran  Wati  Devi\t and
\nanother\t v. Jaswant Rai and mother(1).\tThere,\tthe  learned
\nJudge,\tafter considering the provisions of sub-ss. (2)\t and
\n(3) of S. 17 of the Act, observed
\n\t      “It ippeai-s to me obvious on a plain  reading
\n\t      of  those two sub-sections of section 17\tthat
\n\t      the procedure provided
\n\t      (1)Civil\tRevision No. 558-D of 1961  (Decided
\n\t      oil 15-2-t962).\n<\/p>\n
\t      172<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      by those sub-sections is available to a tenant
\n\t      and his sub-tenant, during the subsistence  of
\n\t      the tenancy and the sub-tenancy, but where the
\n\t      tenancy has ceased to exist or the sub-tenancy
\n\t      has  ceased  to exist those  sub-sections\t are
\n\t      apparently not attracted and resort cannot  be
\n\t      had to their provisions.”\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision
\nof  this Court in Mohd.\t Mahmood v. Tikam Das<\/a>(1) in  support
\nof his contention.  That case arose under the provisions  of
\nthe  Madhya  Pradesh Accommodation Control Act,\t 1961.\t The
\nprovisions of that Act, though not in pari materia with\t the
\nprovisions of the Act now in question, are similar to  those
\nof the Act in many respects.  There, the landlord terminated
\nthe  tenancy  before the said Act came into force,  filed  a
\nsuit  for  ejectment and obtained a decree for\teviction  on
\nJune 23, 1962, after the said Act came into force.  The said
\nAct  came into force on December 40, 1961.  On June  25\t and
\n26,  1962,  the appellants served notices  on  the  landlord
\nunder  s. 15(2) of the said Act claiming that as the  tenant
\nhad  sub-let  the premises to them before the Act  had\tcome
\ninto force with the consent of the landlord, they had become
\nhis  direct  tenants under s. 16(2) of the said Act  and  on
\nJune 28, 1962, the appellants filed a suit against both\t the
\nlandlord  and  the  tenant in a civil court  praying  for  a
\ndeclaration  that  they had, in\t the  circumstances,  become
\ndirect tenants of the premises under the landlord.  On\tJune
\n30,  1962, the landlord sent a reply to the notices sent  by
\nthe  appellants in which he denied that the  sub-letting  by
\nthe tenant had been with his consent or was lawful.  Here it
\nmay be mentioned that s. 15(2) of that Act corresponds to s.
\n17(2)  of  the\tAct  and sub-s. (3) of s.  15  of  that\t Act
\ncorresponds  to\t sub-s. (3) of s. 17 of\t the  Act.   Section
\n45(1)  of  that Act, which bars a suit in a civil  court  is
\nanalogous  to s. 50(1) of the Act.  If the dispute  was\t one
\nthat  could  be decided by the\tRent  Controlling  Authority
\nunder  s.  15(3)  of that Act, the suit in  respect  of\t the
\ndispute\t would not be maintainable by reason of s. 45(1)  of
\nthe said Act.  Under sub-s. (3) of s. 15 of that Act, a sub-
\ntenant\tcould  make an application to the  Rent\t Controlling
\nAuthority  for deciding a dispute within two months  of\t the
\ndate  of issue of notice by him.  Instead of filing such  an
\napplication,  the  tenants filed a suit in the\tcivil  court
\nwithin the said time prescribed.  On those facts, this Court
\nheld  by  reason of s. 45(1) of that Act, the suit  was\t not
\nmaintainable.\tBut in so holding this Court left  open\t the
\nquestion whether such a suit could be filed in a civil court
\nafter the period of limitation prescribed under s. 15(3)  of
\nthat Act had expired.- This Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Another\tquestion  mooted was  that  the\t two
\n\t      months mentioned in sub-s. (3) only provided a
\n\t      special period of
\n(1)  [1966] 1 S.C.R. 128,131.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
173<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      limitation for the application mentioned in it
\n\t      and  the provision of the period did not\tmean
\n\t      that a Rent Controlling Authority had power to
\n\t      decide  the matter only if an application\t had
\n\t      been  made within that period, so that  if  no
\n\t      such  application\t had been  made,  after\t the
\n\t      expiry of the period a civil court would\thave
\n\t      jurisdiction to decide a dispute as to whether
\n\t      a\t sub-letting was lawful.  The point is\tthat
\n\t      the real effect of s. 15(3) was to deprive the
\n\t      civil court of the jurisdiction to decide that
\n\t      dispute  for all time.  We do not feel  called
\n\t      upon  to decide these questions.\tThey do\t not
\n\t      arise in the present case and it was not\tsaid
\n\t      that  these questions affect the\tquestion  of
\n\t      the  competence of the civil court to try\t the
\n\t      present  suit.  The suit was filed within\t the
\n\t      period  of two months during which  admittedly
\n\t      the    Rent   Controlling\t  Authorities\t had
\n\t      jurisdiction to decide the dispute on which it
\n\t      was  based.  Whatever may be the\tjurisdiction
\n\t      of  a  civil  court on  other  facts,  in\t the
\n\t      present case it clearly had no jurisdiction to
\n\t      entertain the appellants’ suit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The decision of this Court, therefore, has a limited  scope.
\nIt has only held that during the prescribed period under  s.
\n15(3)  of the said Act, no suit would lie in a civil  court.
\nIn  the present case, the suit was filed in the civil  court
\nbeyond the period prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed.\n174<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Nand Kishore vs Ram Kishan & Anr on 25 August, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1196, 1967 SCR (1) 167 Author: K S Rao Bench: Rao, K. Subba (Cj) PETITIONER: NAND KISHORE Vs. RESPONDENT: RAM KISHAN & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/08\/1966 BENCH: RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ) BENCH: RAO, K. SUBBA […]<\/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-224564","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNand Kishore vs Ram Kishan & Anr on 25 August, 1966 - 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\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nand Kishore vs Ram Kishan & Anr on 25 August, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-15T12:56:16+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nand Kishore vs Ram Kishan & Anr on 25 August, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-15T12:56:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966\"},\"wordCount\":2694,\"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\\\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966\",\"name\":\"Nand Kishore vs Ram Kishan & Anr on 25 August, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-15T12:56:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nand Kishore vs Ram Kishan & Anr on 25 August, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"Nand Kishore vs Ram Kishan & Anr on 25 August, 1966 - 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\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nand Kishore vs Ram Kishan & Anr on 25 August, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-15T12:56:16+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nand Kishore vs Ram Kishan & Anr on 25 August, 1966","datePublished":"1966-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-15T12:56:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966"},"wordCount":2694,"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\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966","name":"Nand Kishore vs Ram Kishan & Anr on 25 August, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-15T12:56:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nand-kishore-vs-ram-kishan-anr-on-25-august-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nand Kishore vs Ram Kishan & Anr on 25 August, 1966"}]},{"@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\/224564","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=224564"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224564\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224564"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224564"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}