{"id":231328,"date":"2009-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009"},"modified":"2018-01-27T15:46:13","modified_gmt":"2018-01-27T10:16:13","slug":"savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Savitribai vs Raghuraj Prasad on 28 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Savitribai vs Raghuraj Prasad on 28 July, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n\n\n\n                Second Appeal No.766 of 1997\n\n\n\n\n                       Savitribai\n                                ...Petitioners\n\n\n                           Versus\n\n\n                   1.   Raghuraj Prasad\n\n                    2.   Basant Prasad\n\n\n                    3.   Raghunandan Prasad Sao\n\n                    4.   State  of  Madhya  Pradesh\n                                               ...Respondents\n\n\n    {Second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil\n                      Procedure, 1908}\n\n!     Mr.  Shree Kumar Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellant\n\n\n^     Mr.  Sanjay K. Agrawal with Mr. Sourabh Sharma,  counsel for respondents No.1 &amp; 2.\n\n      Mr. A.K. Yadav, counsel for respondent No.3\n\n      Mr.    Sushil    Dubey,   Govt.   Advocate    for    the State\/respondent No.4\n\n\n\nHonble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J \n\n\n       Dated:28\/07\/2009\n\n\n:       Judgment\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>               (Delivered on 28th July, 2009)<\/p>\n<p>1.    By this second appeal, the appellant has challenged the<br \/>\n  judgment &amp; decree dated 15-9-97 passed by the 1st Additional<br \/>\n  District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.20-A\/83 affirming<br \/>\n  the  judgment &amp; decree of dismissal of suit passed  by  the<br \/>\n  Additional Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.56-<br \/>\n  A\/83 vide judgment &amp; decree dated 9-8-83.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   Judgment &amp; decree are challenged on the ground that<br \/>\nlearned Court below has illegally dismissed the suit and<br \/>\nappeal even in absence of any adverse pleading.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    I  have  heard learned counsel for the parties, perused<br \/>\n  the  impugned  judgment &amp; decree and record of  the  Courts<br \/>\n  below.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    The  present appellant\/plaintiff had filed  civil  suit<br \/>\n  against  the  respondents\/defendants  for  declaration  and<br \/>\n  permanent injunction from interfering in possession by  the<br \/>\n  respondents in Khasra No.318\/14 area 18.10 acres  &amp;  Khasra<br \/>\n  No.318\/1  area 36.90 acres and in alternate declaration  of<br \/>\n  damages.  The present respondents have not filed any written<br \/>\n  statement.  After providing opportunity of hearing  to  the<br \/>\n  parties, Court below has dismissed the suit and the same has<br \/>\n  been affirmed in appeal vide the impugned judgment &amp; decree.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.     Following  substantial  question  of  law   has   been<br \/>\n  formulated For deciding the present appeal: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>          &#8220;Whether    the   plaintiff&#8217;s    claim    for<br \/>\n          declaration   of  title  and  injunction   in<br \/>\n          relation  to  the  land in area  36.90  acres<br \/>\n          ought    to   have   been   decreed   against<br \/>\n          respondents  No.1  to 3 by  both  the  Courts<br \/>\n          below?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>6.    Learned  counsel  for  the appellant  argued  that  the<br \/>\n  defendants  have not filed their written statement  and  in<br \/>\n  absence of any pleading on behalf of the defendants the suit<br \/>\n  ought to have been decreed in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5<br \/>\n  of Order 8 of the C.P.C. but the Court below has even after<br \/>\n  recording evidence of plaintiff witness dismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.    On  the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf<br \/>\n  of  respondents No.1 to 3 opposed the appeal and  submitted<br \/>\n  that even in absence of any pleading of the defendants  the<br \/>\n  Court is not under obligation to decree the suit under sub-<br \/>\n  rule (2) of Rule 5 of Order 8 of the C.P.C.  Both the Courts<br \/>\n  below have rightly dismissed the claim of the plaintiff  in<br \/>\n  absence of such proof.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   In order to appreciate the claims of the parties, I have<br \/>\n  examined  pleadings &amp; evidence adduced  on  behalf  of  the<br \/>\n  parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.    In the present suit, the respondents\/defendants had not<br \/>\n  filed     any     written     statement\/pleading.       The<br \/>\n  plaintiff\/appellant has not examined herself as witness, but<br \/>\n  she has examined her husband Shatrughan Prasad Gupta as PW-1<br \/>\n  who has deposed that the present plaintiff has purchased part<br \/>\n  of Khasra No.21\/1 measuring area of 55 acres of land from her<br \/>\n  mother.  True copy of the said deed is Ex.P-2.  One ceiling<br \/>\n  case under the Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings<br \/>\n  Act, 1960 (for short `the Act&#8217;) was initiated against father,<br \/>\n  mother, uncle &amp; aunt of respondents No.1 &amp; 2 and in the said<br \/>\n  ceiling  proceeding 18.10 acres of land was vested  in  the<br \/>\n  State.   At  the  time of such purchase, the appellant  was<br \/>\n  minor,  therefore,  the  land was  cultivated  by  deceased<br \/>\n  defendant  Krishna  Devi, mother  of  the  appellant.   The<br \/>\n  appellant demanded possession of land from the respondents\/<br \/>\n  defendants and on refusal the appellant has filed civil suit.<br \/>\n  In his cross-examination, husband of the appellant Shatrughan<br \/>\n  Prasad Gupta (PW-1) has deposed that original sale deed was<br \/>\n  with mother of the appellant\/plaintiff, he has not summoned<br \/>\n  mother  of  the  appellant\/plaintiff  and  other  attesting<br \/>\n  witnesses of the sale deed.  He has also admitted that even<br \/>\n  after having knowledge that 18.10 acres of land belonging to<br \/>\n  the plaintiff was vested in the State they have not taken any<br \/>\n  action.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  Learned Additional Civil Judge Class-I has dismissed the<br \/>\n  suit on the ground that the proceeding relating to the land<br \/>\n  in dispute was initiated &amp; decided against mother &amp; father of<br \/>\n  the appellant and mother &amp; father of respondents No.1 &amp; 2 by<br \/>\n  the competent authority under the Act vide order dated 28-9-<br \/>\n  68,  and  18.10 acres of land was vested in the State,  but<br \/>\n  knowing well about the fact that 18.10 acres of land has been<br \/>\n  vested in the State, the present appellant\/plaintiff has not<br \/>\n  filed any objection before the competent authority that she<br \/>\n  has  purchased the land from mother &amp; father of respondents<br \/>\n  No.1 &amp; 2 and in the said ceiling proceeding the disputed land<br \/>\n  was calculated and considered in the names of father &amp; mother<br \/>\n  of respondents No.1 &amp; 2 and father &amp; mother of the appellant.<br \/>\n  Even after the order passed in ceiling proceeding in the year<br \/>\n  1968,  the  present appellant has not filed any civil  suit<br \/>\n  against the respondents.  The suit was dismissed also on the<br \/>\n  ground of bar created under Section 46 of the Act against the<br \/>\n  order of the competent authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  Admittedly, in this case, the respondents have not filed<br \/>\n  their  pleadings and in case of absence of pleading it  was<br \/>\n  lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis  of<br \/>\n  facts contained in the plaint in accordance with sub-rule (2)<br \/>\n  of Rule 5 of Order 8 of the C.P.C. which reads as follows: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;5. Specific denial.-(1) Every allegation  of<br \/>\n          fact   in   the   plaint,   if   not   denied<br \/>\n          specifically or by necessary implication,  or<br \/>\n          stated to be not admitted in the pleading  of<br \/>\n          the  defendant, shall be taken to be admitted<br \/>\n          except as against a person under disability:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                Provided  that  the Court  may  in  its<br \/>\n          discretion require any fact so admitted to be<br \/>\n          proved otherwise than by such admission.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               (2) Where the defendant has not filed  a<br \/>\n          pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to<br \/>\n          pronounce judgment on the basis of the  facts<br \/>\n          contained in the plaint, except as against  a<br \/>\n          person under a disability, but the Court may,<br \/>\n          in  its discretion, require any such fact  to<br \/>\n          be proved.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               (3)  In exercising its discretion  under<br \/>\n          the proviso to sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule<br \/>\n          (2),  the Court shall have due regard to  the<br \/>\n          fact  whether  the defendant could  have,  or<br \/>\n          has, engaged a pleader.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               (4)  Whenever  a judgment is  pronounced<br \/>\n          under  this rule, a decree shall be drawn  up<br \/>\n          in  accordance  with such judgment  and  such<br \/>\n          decree  shall  bear  the date  on  which  the<br \/>\n          judgment was pronounced.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>12.   Section  46  of the Act creates bar of jurisdiction  of<br \/>\n  Civil Courts which reads as follows: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>          &#8220;46.    Bar   of   jurisdiction   of    Civil<br \/>\n          Courts.-Save  as expressly provided  in  this<br \/>\n          Act,   no   Civil   Court  shall   have   any<br \/>\n          jurisdiction-\n<\/p>\n<p>            (i)  to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by<br \/>\n               or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt<br \/>\n               with by the competent authority; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) to grant stay in any case under this Act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>13.   According to the allegation of the plaint, entire  land<br \/>\n  was  subject matter of the ceiling proceeding initiated and<br \/>\n  decided against father &amp; mother of respondents No.1 &amp; 2 and<br \/>\n  father &amp; mother of the plaintiff who were possessors of the<br \/>\n  suit land and out of total 65 acres of land 18.10 acres  of<br \/>\n  land  was  vested  in  the  State.   In  the  said  ceiling<br \/>\n  proceeding, the present petitioner was required to file her<br \/>\n  objection and in case of rejection of her objection remedy to<br \/>\n  file appeal or revision and finally civil suit under Section<br \/>\n  11  (5) of the Act was available to the plaintiff, but  the<br \/>\n  plaintiff  has  neither filed any objection nor  any  claim<br \/>\n  before the competent authority even during the pendency  of<br \/>\n  the  said proceeding.  The property was not recorded in the<br \/>\n  name  of  the present appellant.  Burden to prove the  fact<br \/>\n  before the competent authority appointed under the Act, that<br \/>\n  the  transaction was genuine, was on the plaintiff, but the<br \/>\n  plaintiff has neither filed any objection nor claim  before<br \/>\n  the  said  authority  knowing well about  the  pendency  of<br \/>\n  proceeding and order of the competent authority, even she has<br \/>\n  not filed any civil suit against the said order but has filed<br \/>\n  the  present suit after lapse of 12 years in the year 1980.<br \/>\n  Such civil suit is admittedly not maintainable and bar  has<br \/>\n  been  created under Section 46 of the Act.  Both the Courts<br \/>\n  below  have dismissed the suit and appeal on the  aforesaid<br \/>\n  grounds.  The plaintiff has not claimed any declaration  of<br \/>\n  land in dispute, but has in alternative claimed that she be<br \/>\n  declared for damages.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.   In absence of any pleading on behalf of opposite party,<br \/>\n  the Court is competent to pass decree in accordance with the<br \/>\n  pleading  under  Order 8 Rule 5 (2) of the  C.P.C.  but  in<br \/>\n  suitable cases the Court may in its discretion require  any<br \/>\n  such fact to be proved.  In exercising such power, the Court<br \/>\n  has not decided the suit in the light of pleading especially<br \/>\n  relating to pendency, initiation and decision of proceeding<br \/>\n  under the provisions of the Act.  The Court below has rightly<br \/>\n  not  decided  the  suit on the basis of  pleading  and  has<br \/>\n  directed the parties to adduce evidence to prove the fact.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.   It  is  clear  from the pleading and  evidence  of  the<br \/>\n  husband of the appellant namely, Shatrughan Prasad Gupta that<br \/>\n  proceeding  under  the Act was initiated against  father  &amp;<br \/>\n  mother  of respondents No.1 &amp; 2 and father &amp; mother of  the<br \/>\n  appellant.  The land in dispute was taken into consideration<br \/>\n  in the holding of father &amp; mother of respondents No.1 &amp; 2 and<br \/>\n  father &amp; mother of the appellant and 18.10 acres of land was<br \/>\n  declared surplus and vested with the State knowing well the<br \/>\n  fact that the present appellant has not filed any objection<br \/>\n  or  has  not  filed  any civil suit.  Even  mother  of  the<br \/>\n  appellant, the alleged seller of the suit land, was alive at<br \/>\n  the  time  of evidence, but the present appellant  has  not<br \/>\n  examined her in support of her claim or execution  of  such<br \/>\n  sale deed.  It reveals that the sale deed has not been used<br \/>\n  as  genuine even by the mother of the appellant and has not<br \/>\n  been  acted upon.  In absence of such proof of transfer  of<br \/>\n  land by sale deed, both the Courts below have dismissed the<br \/>\n  claim of the appellant.  In absence of any proof of transfer<br \/>\n  of  land, the Court below has rightly dismissed the  claim.<br \/>\n  Even the present appellant has not claimed any declaration of<br \/>\n  ownership  over  the  land, but she  has  cleverly  claimed<br \/>\n  declaration of right to recover damages.  The Courts  below<br \/>\n  have not committed any illegality in dismissing the suit and<br \/>\n  claim.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.   In the light of the bar created under Section 46 of the<br \/>\n  Act, the Court below has rightly dismissed the claim of the<br \/>\n  plaintiff.  Court below has not committed any illegality and<br \/>\n  the substantial question of law is decided as negative.  In<br \/>\n  the light of finding on the aforesaid substantial question of<br \/>\n  law  formulated for the decision of this second appeal, the<br \/>\n  appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.   The appellant shall bear her costs of the suit as  well<br \/>\n  as  appeal and also the costs of the respondents.  Advocate<br \/>\n  fees as per schedule.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.  Decree be drawn up accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                    J U D G E<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Savitribai vs Raghuraj Prasad on 28 July, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No.766 of 1997 Savitribai &#8230;Petitioners Versus 1. Raghuraj Prasad 2. Basant Prasad 3. Raghunandan Prasad Sao 4. State of Madhya Pradesh &#8230;Respondents {Second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908} ! Mr. [&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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-231328","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Savitribai vs Raghuraj Prasad on 28 July, 2009 - 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\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Savitribai vs Raghuraj Prasad on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-27T10:16:13+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Savitribai vs Raghuraj Prasad on 28 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-27T10:16:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1812,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Savitribai vs Raghuraj Prasad on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-27T10:16:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Savitribai vs Raghuraj Prasad on 28 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Savitribai vs Raghuraj Prasad on 28 July, 2009 - 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\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Savitribai vs Raghuraj Prasad on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-27T10:16:13+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Savitribai vs Raghuraj Prasad on 28 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-27T10:16:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009"},"wordCount":1812,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009","name":"Savitribai vs Raghuraj Prasad on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-27T10:16:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savitribai-vs-raghuraj-prasad-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Savitribai vs Raghuraj Prasad on 28 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/231328","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=231328"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231328\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231328"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231328"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231328"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}