{"id":23102,"date":"1973-03-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-03-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973"},"modified":"2015-12-08T16:12:04","modified_gmt":"2015-12-08T10:42:04","slug":"brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973","title":{"rendered":"Brij Kishore Prasad Singh And &#8230; vs Jaleshwar Prasad Singh And Others on 2 March, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Brij Kishore Prasad Singh And &#8230; vs Jaleshwar Prasad Singh And Others on 2 March, 1973<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 1130, \t\t  1973 SCR  (3) 562<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K K Mathew<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBRIJ KISHORE PRASAD SINGH AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJALESHWAR PRASAD SINGH AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/03\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nBENCH:\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nGROVER, A.N.\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR 1130\t\t  1973 SCR  (3) 562\n 1973 SCC  (1) 672\n\n\nACT:\nCode  of  Civil\t Procedure,  1908,  S.\t47.-Partition\tsuit\ncompromised-No\tdecree drawn up or executed-Subsequent\tsuit\nfor possession of property allotted under compromise whether\nbarred.\nBihar  Land Reforms Act 1959, s.  5-Constructive  possession\nsufficient to confer right under section.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nA partition suit between K and his brothers was\t compromised\non  July 4, 1947 and different schedules were  prepared\t for\nthe property ,allotted to the sharers.\tHowever none of\t the\nparties to the compromise produced the necessary stamp paper\nas directed by the Court, and no decree was drawn up by\t the\nCourt.\t The  present suit was filed by\t the  successors-in-\ninterest  of  K. for possession of  certain  property  which\nunder the aforesaid compromise had fallen to the share of K.\nDefendants  1  and  2 contended that K while  he  was  alive\nexecuted  a hukumanama in their favour and they were put  in\npossession  of the plaint property as lessees, and  so\tthey\nwere entitled to retain possession.  They further  contended\nthat  the suit was barred by limitation and also by  section\n47 of the Civil Procedure Code.\t The Trial Court decreed the\nsuit.  The decree was confirmed in appeal.  In second appeal\nthe  High  Court held that the plaintiff  should  have\tpaid\nstamp fee and got the decree drawn up in the partition\tsuit\nand  executed it- and go the suit was barred by sec.  47  of\nCivil Procedure Code.  The Court further held that since the\nplaint property had vested in the Bihar Government under the\nBihar Land Reforms Act, 1959 the plaintiffs were not entitle\nto  maintain the suit.\tThe High Court\taccordingly  allowed\nthe  appeal  and dismissed the suit.  In appeal\t by  special\nleave\tto   this  Court  two  questions  that\t arose\t for\nconsideration  were  : (1) whether the suit  was  barred  by\nsection 47 of the Civil Procedure Code and (2) whether under\nthe  provisions of the Reforms Act the plaint  property\t had\nvested\t  in  the  Government and therefore  the  plaintiffs\nwere\tincompetentto maintain the suit.\nAllowing the appeal,\nHELD : (i) It was clear from the compromise petition thatthe\ndefendants  were  permitted to occupy  the  plaint  property\nuntilthe   structure  which  was  constructed  in   the\nproperty  was  removed by them.\t They no doubt\tremained  in\nphysical  possession but that was not with any intention  to\npossess\t the property for themselves, but because they\twere\npermitted  to  remain  in possess-ion  until  the  structure\nconstructed by them was removed.  The only right which\tthey\nclaimed in the written statement was that they were  tenants\nunder K by virtue of the. hukumnama executed by him in their\nfavour.\t  At no time they asserted or claimed any  right  to\nremain in possession otherwise than as tenant.\t'Their\tcase\nthat K put them in possession was found against them by\t the\nTrial as well as the First Appellate Court.  But that  would\nnot  in\t any  way  affect the  permissive  nature  of  their\npossession after the compromise.  Therefore it must be\theld\nthat K was in constructive possession of the property  after\nthe compromise and the suit for recovery of khas possession\nwas  not barred by section 47 of the Civil Procedure  Code.\n[565CE]\n\t\t\t    563\n(ii)The\t High Court wrongly took the View that since K\twas\nnot  in possession of the property at the time the  property\nvested in the State he was not entitled to retain possession\nof the plaint property under s. 5 of the Bihar Land  Reforms\nAct  1959, as a tenant under the State free of rent.   There\nwas  no\t dispute  that\tthe  plaint  property  answered\t the\ndescription  of\t a  homestead  in s.  5\t of  the  Act.\t The\nconstructive possession of K was sufficient to enable him to\nretain\tpossession as tenant under the section.\t  In  other\nwords  on  the\tdate  of vesting  of  the  property  in\t the\nGovernment, K was, for the purpose of s. 5 in possession  of\nthe plaint property.  Whereas s.6 speaks of khas  possession\nsection 5 speaks only of possession.  On the date of vesting\nof the plaint property in the State K was in possession\t for\nthe purpose of s. 5 and he became a tenant under the  State\nfree  of  rent.\t  Accordingly  the  suit  for  recovery\t  of\npossession was maintainable. [565H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1466  of<br \/>\n1967.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and decree  dated<br \/>\n24th  November 1964 of the Patna High Court in\tappeal\tfrom<br \/>\nAppellate Decree No. 1029 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.   C. Agarwala, and V. J. Francis, for the appellants.<br \/>\nD.   Goburdhan, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 &amp; 10.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nMATHEW,\t J.-This  is  an appeal, by special  leave,  by\t the<br \/>\nplaintiffs from a decree passed in appeal by the Patna\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  dismissing  their suit for recovery  of\tthe,  plaint<br \/>\nproperty with mesne profits.\n<\/p>\n<p>Plaintiffs  1 to 4 are the daughter&#8217;s sons of one  Kishundeo<br \/>\nSingh, plaintiffs 5 and 6 are his daughters and plaintiff  7<br \/>\nis his widow.  The plaint property together with some  other<br \/>\nproperties  belonged to the joint family of which  Kishundeo<br \/>\nSingh and his brothers were the members.  Suit No. 60\/34  of<br \/>\n1944-46\t was  instituted for partition\tof  the\t properties.<br \/>\nThat  suit  was compromised on July 4,\t1947  and  different<br \/>\nschedules  were\t prepared for the property allotted  to\t the<br \/>\nshares and sons property was left in the joint possession of<br \/>\nall  of\t them.\t The plaint property fell to  the  share  of<br \/>\nKishundeo  Singh under the compromise. lit may be  mentioned<br \/>\nthat  as none of the parties to the compromise produced\t the<br \/>\nnecessary  stamp paper as directed by the Court,, no  decree<br \/>\nwas drawn up by the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  the\t suit  for  recovery of\t possession  of\t the  plaint<br \/>\nproperty  filed\t by  the  plaintiffs,  defendants  1  and  2<br \/>\ncontended that Kishundeo Singh, while he was alive, executed<br \/>\na  hukumnama in 1354 Fs. in their favour and they were\tput<br \/>\nin possession of the plaint property as lessees and so\tthey<br \/>\nwere  entitled\tto  remain  in\tpossession.   They   further<br \/>\ncontended that the suit was barred by limitation and also by<br \/>\ns. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">564<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Trial Court found that Kishundeo Singh obtained  posses-<br \/>\nsion of the plaint property on the basis of the\t compromise,<br \/>\nthat the case of the defendants 1 and 2 that Kishundeo Singh<br \/>\nhad  executed\ta hukumnama in their favour  and  that\tthey<br \/>\nobtain possession of the plaint property under it was false,<br \/>\nthat  the suit was not barred by limitation or by s.  47  of<br \/>\nthe Civil Procedure Code and decreed the suit.\tThis  decree<br \/>\nwas  confirmed in appeal.  It was against this\tdecree\tthat<br \/>\nthe  second  appeal was filed by the defendants\t before\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court held that the plaintiff should have paid\t the<br \/>\nstamps fee and got the decree drawn up in Suit No. 80\/34  of<br \/>\n1944-46 and executed it and so the suit was barred by s.  47<br \/>\nof  the Civil Procedure Code.  The Court further  held\tthat<br \/>\nsince the plaint property had vasted in the Bihar Government<br \/>\nunder the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1959, hereinafter referred<br \/>\nto as the Act, the plaintiffs were not entitled to  maintain<br \/>\nthe suit.  Therefore, the High Court allowed the appeal\t and<br \/>\ndismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  two  questions  that arise for  consideration  in\tthis<br \/>\nappeal are:    whether\tthe suit was barred by s. 47 of\t the<br \/>\nCivil Procedure Code\t and whether under the provisions of<br \/>\nthe  Act, the plaint property bad vested in  the  Government<br \/>\nand, therefore, the plaintiffs were incompetent to  maintain<br \/>\nthe suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>As the first question, the High Court was of the view  that,<br \/>\nthough\tnone of the parties to the compromise  had  produced<br \/>\nthe  necessary stamps paper as directed by the Court and  no<br \/>\nformal\tdecree was drawn up, the plaintiffs could  not\thave<br \/>\ninstituted  a fresh suit for recovery of possession  of\t the<br \/>\nplaint\tproperty  as their only remedy was  to\texecute\t the<br \/>\ndecree\tin  suit No. 80\/34 of 1944-46. In other\t words,\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court held that the plaintiffs should have produced the<br \/>\nnecessary  stamp  paper\t and  got the  final  drawn  up\t and<br \/>\nexecuted  it, instead of filing a suit for the relief  which<br \/>\nthey could have obtained by executing the decree and so, the<br \/>\nsuit was barred by s.47 of the Civil Procedure Code.<br \/>\nThe  Trial  Court had found that  Kishundeo  Singh  obtained<br \/>\npossession of the plaint property without the assistance  of<br \/>\nthe Court in pursuance of the compromise but that he allowed<br \/>\nthe  defendants\t to occupy the same.  To put  it  in  other<br \/>\nwords,\tthe  finding  of  the  Trial  Court  was  that\t the<br \/>\ndefendants  were in permissive occupation.  The Trial  Court<br \/>\nalso found that the definite case of the defendants was that<br \/>\nthey  were  put\t in possession of  the\tproperty  under\t the<br \/>\nhukumnama and, therefore, their possession was clearly\tthat<br \/>\nof lessees under an agricultural  lease.\n<\/p>\n<p>The lower appellate Court held that there, was no allegation<br \/>\nin the plaint that Kishundeo Singh obtained khas  possession<br \/>\nunder the compromise nor was there any evidence to show that<br \/>\nhe obtained<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">565<\/span><br \/>\nkhas possession but that defendants 1 and 2 continued in  as<br \/>\nbefore the compromise.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before\tthe compromise, Kishundeo Singh and  the  defendants<br \/>\nwere   in  possession  as  tenants-in-common.\tThe   actual<br \/>\npossession  of the defendants, of the plaint  property,\t was<br \/>\nalso  the constructive possession of Kishundeo\tSingh.\t So,<br \/>\nwhen  the  lower appellate Court said  that  the  defendants<br \/>\ncontinued  in  possession as before, it can only  mean\tthat<br \/>\nafter  the  compromise\tthe defendants\twere  in  possession<br \/>\nacknowledging  the  title of Kishundeo Singh.\tThat  apart,<br \/>\ndefendants  1  and  2 had no case  that\t they  intended to<br \/>\npossess\t ,the property as their own.  It is clear  from\t the<br \/>\ncompromise  petition that the defendants were  permitted  to<br \/>\noccupy\tthe  plaint property until the structure  which\t was<br \/>\nconstructed  in the property was removed by them.  They,  no<br \/>\ndoubt,\tremained  in physical possession, but that  was\t not<br \/>\nwith  any intention to possess the, property for  themselves<br \/>\nbut  because  they were permitted to  remain  in  possession<br \/>\nuntil  the structure constructed by them was  removed.\t The<br \/>\nonly right which &#8216;they claimed in the written statement\t was<br \/>\nthat  they were tenants under Kishundeo Singh by  virtue  of<br \/>\nthe  hukumnama executed by him in their favour.\t At no\ttime<br \/>\nthey  asserted or claimed any right to remain in  possession<br \/>\notherwise  than\t as tenant.  As already stated,\t their\tcase<br \/>\nthat  Kishundeo\t Singh\tput them  in  possession  under\t the<br \/>\nhukumnama  was\tfound against by the Trial as well  as\t;the<br \/>\nFirst Appellate Court.\tBut that would not in any way affect<br \/>\nthe   permissive  nature  of  their  possession\t after\t the<br \/>\ncompromise.  Therefore, we think that Kishundeo Singh was in<br \/>\nconstructive possession of the property after the compromise<br \/>\nand, the suit for recovery of khas possession was not barred<br \/>\nby s.47 of the Civil Procedure Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>The second ground on which the High Court dismissed the suit<br \/>\nwas  that  the plaint property had vested in  the  State  of<br \/>\nBihar  under the Act and the plaintiffs had,  therefore,  no<br \/>\nright  to  proceed  with the suit and obtain  a\t decree\t for<br \/>\npossession.   The suit was instituted on March 7, 1953;\t the<br \/>\nproperty vested in the State on January 26, 1955, under\t the<br \/>\nAct.   There is no dispute that the plaint property  answers<br \/>\nthe description of a homestead in s. 5 of the Act.<br \/>\nThe  High Court was of the view that since  Kishundeo  Singh<br \/>\nwas not in possession at the time the property vested in the<br \/>\nState,\the  was\t not entitled to retain\t possession  of\t the<br \/>\nplaint property under s. 5 as a tenant under the State\tfree<br \/>\nof  rent.   We\tare of the  opinion  that  the\tconstructive<br \/>\npossession  of Kishundeo Singh was sufficient to enable\t him<br \/>\nto  retain  possession as a tenant under  the  section.\t  In<br \/>\nother  words, on the date of the vesting of the property  in<br \/>\nthe  Government, Kishundeo Singh was, for the purpose of  S.<br \/>\n5,  in possession of the plaint property.  In this  context,<br \/>\nit may be noted<br \/>\n4-L761Sup.CI\/73<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">566<\/span><br \/>\nthat the language of s. 5 is in sharp contrast with that  of<br \/>\ns. 6. The material part of s. 5 states :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;5.    Homesteads\t of  intermediaries  to\t  be<br \/>\n\t      retained\t&#8216;by them as tenants-(1) With  effect<br \/>\n\t      from  the\t date  of  vesting,  all  homesteads<br \/>\n\t      comprised in an estate or tenure and being  in<br \/>\n\t      the possession of an intermediary on the date<br \/>\n\t      of  such\tvesting\t :shall,  subject -to  the<br \/>\n\t      provisions of sections 7A and 7B, be deemed to<br \/>\n\t      be  settled the State with  such\tintermediary<br \/>\n\t      and he shall be entitled to retain  possession<br \/>\n\t      of  the land comprised in such homesteads\t and<br \/>\n\t      to hold it as a tenant under the State free of<br \/>\n\t      rent.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The relevant portion of s. 6 is in these terms<br \/>\n   &#8220;6.\t  Certain  other  lands\t win  khas   possession\t  of<br \/>\nintermediaries to be retained :by them on payment of rent as raiya<br \/>\nts having occupancy rights-(1) On and from the date of<br \/>\nvesting\t all  lands used for agricultural  or  horticultural<br \/>\n,purposes, which were in khas possession of an\tintermediary<br \/>\non the date of such vesting,. . . .&#8221; Whereas s. 6 speaks  of<br \/>\nkhas possession, s. 5 mentions only of possession.  We\tfind<br \/>\nthat  on the date of vesting of the plaint property  in\t the<br \/>\nState, Kishundeo Singh was in possession for the purpose  of<br \/>\ns.  5  and that he became a tenant under the State  free  of<br \/>\nrent  and  that\t the suit for recovery\tof  possession\twas<br \/>\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  the result we allow the appeal and set aside the  decree<br \/>\nof the High Court and restore the decree passed by the lower<br \/>\nappellate Court, but we make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>G.C.\t\t\t Appeal allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">567<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Brij Kishore Prasad Singh And &#8230; vs Jaleshwar Prasad Singh And Others on 2 March, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 1130, 1973 SCR (3) 562 Author: K K Mathew Bench: Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien PETITIONER: BRIJ KISHORE PRASAD SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: JALESHWAR PRASAD SINGH AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/03\/1973 BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/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-23102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Brij Kishore Prasad Singh And ... vs Jaleshwar Prasad Singh And Others on 2 March, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Brij Kishore Prasad Singh And ... vs Jaleshwar Prasad Singh And Others on 2 March, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1973-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-08T10:42:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Brij Kishore Prasad Singh And &#8230; vs Jaleshwar Prasad Singh And Others on 2 March, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-08T10:42:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973\"},\"wordCount\":1552,\"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\\\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973\",\"name\":\"Brij Kishore Prasad Singh And ... vs Jaleshwar Prasad Singh And Others on 2 March, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-08T10:42:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Brij Kishore Prasad Singh And &#8230; vs Jaleshwar Prasad Singh And Others on 2 March, 1973\"}]},{\"@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":"Brij Kishore Prasad Singh And ... vs Jaleshwar Prasad Singh And Others on 2 March, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Brij Kishore Prasad Singh And ... vs Jaleshwar Prasad Singh And Others on 2 March, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-08T10:42:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Brij Kishore Prasad Singh And &#8230; vs Jaleshwar Prasad Singh And Others on 2 March, 1973","datePublished":"1973-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-08T10:42:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973"},"wordCount":1552,"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\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973","name":"Brij Kishore Prasad Singh And ... vs Jaleshwar Prasad Singh And Others on 2 March, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-08T10:42:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brij-kishore-prasad-singh-and-vs-jaleshwar-prasad-singh-and-others-on-2-march-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Brij Kishore Prasad Singh And &#8230; vs Jaleshwar Prasad Singh And Others on 2 March, 1973"}]},{"@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\/23102","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=23102"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23102\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}