{"id":235980,"date":"1955-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1955-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955"},"modified":"2016-02-22T17:39:47","modified_gmt":"2016-02-22T12:09:47","slug":"shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955","title":{"rendered":"Shyam Sundar Rakshit vs Satchidananda Rakshit And Anr. on 17 February, 1955"},"content":{"rendered":"
Calcutta High Court<\/div>\n
Shyam Sundar Rakshit vs Satchidananda Rakshit And Anr. on 17 February, 1955<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1955 Cal 351<\/div>\n
Author: P Mookerjee<\/div>\n
Bench: P Mookerjee<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 P.N. Mookerjee, J.  <\/p>\n
 1.  This second miscellaneous appeal and the alternative application arise out of a proceeding for punishing breach of an injunction, issued under Order 39 Rule 1, Civil P. C. The proceeding was initiated by an application which was headed as one under Order 39 Rule 2(3) of the Code but which should have been properly described as <\/p>\n
one under Order 39 Rule 1(2) as applying to this part of the country. This sub-rule was added by this Court in the exercise of its rule-making powers under the Code to remove doubts as to the mofussil courts’ power to take action under Order 3 in case of breach of injunction, issued under the First rule of that Order.\n<\/p>\n
 2.  There can be no doubt that the second miscellaneous appeal is incompetent in law. The code provides for one appeal in such a case and there is no provision for a further appeal to this Court from an appellate order of the District Court. The appeal must, therefore, fail on this preliminary ground and it is dismissed without costs.\n<\/p>\n
 3.  There is, however, an alternative application under Section 115, Civil P. C. It is necessary, therefore, to consider whether the appellant petitioner should have any relief under the revisional powers of this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
 4.  On the materials before the court, there can be little doubt that there has been a breach of the ‘ad interim’ injunction, issued by the learned Munsif on 4-4-1953.     That injunction   was  issued,   re straining  the   appellant petitioner   from  proceeding with   pucca    construction    work    in    the    disputed property.     The   suit  was  for  a  permanent  injunction  to  restrain the  defendant  (who  is  the  appellant    before    me)     from    constructing    permanent structures   in  the   disputed  land.     In  the   suit  the plaintiff,   who  is the  respondent opposite party   this Court, applied for an appropriate temporary junction   and  the   court  issued  a   Rule   ‘Nisi’   with ‘ad interim’ injunction.   The notice to show can along    with   the   notice    of   temporary    injunction were, duly   served   on 5-2-1953,   at about 5 p.m. But,  thereafter,    some  further pucca  construction work appears to have been done.    There is dispute as   to   the   nature   and  extent   of  this   construction but, on the materials before me, there can be no question  that   some   pucca   construction   was   made after the service  of the injunction   order.    Clearly therefore,   the   appellant   petitioner   was   guilty   (sic) breach of an injuction  order,   issued   under  Order 3(sic) Rule   1   of   the   Code,   the   question   is   whether   the breach is punishable in law and, if so, what punish ment should be inflicted upon him.\n<\/p>\n
 5.  I am unable to accept Mr. Mitter’s extreme  contention that, where the injunction is issued under Order 39 Rule 1 ” of the Code, its breach is not punishable    under,    the   provisions    of   that   Order    and, accordingly, the plaintiff’s application under Order 39 Rule   2(3)   should  have   been   dismissed.     This   argument is based on the theory that Rule 2(3) is a part of Rule   2  and  its  opening words  where  they refer to   “such   terms”   must,   in   the   context,   in   which they appear, refer to Rule 2(2) which again uses the words   “such   injunction”,   thus   obviously   referring to  the   injunction,   issued  in   a   proceeding  under the  preceding Sub-rule  (1)  of Rule  2,  and it is  contended that Order 39 Rule 2(3) would not apply to case of injunction    other   than those   under   Rule 2   an would not,   therefore,   apply  to injunctions,   issued under   Rule    1,   and,   accordingly,    the   respondents’ application   under that   statutory   prevision,   Order 39 Rule 2(3), ought to fail.\n<\/p>\n
 6.  The contention is  undoubtedly supported by the Allahabad decisions in the eases of — ‘Ram<\/p>\n
Prasad Singh v. Benares Bank Ltd,’ AIR 1919 All 20  (A);  —  ‘Balbhaddar  v.   Balla AIR 1930 All 387 (2) (B); — ‘Janak Nandini Kunwari v. Kedar Narain Singh , but it is opposed to the view of the Patna High Court
\n(Vide  — ‘Jang  Bahadur  Singh v.  Chhabila Koiri’, AIR   1936    Pat  23    (D);    —    ‘Hakim   Muhammad
\nNaziruddin   v.  Raja   Ram’,  AIR   1935 Pat 274  (E)
\nand —  ‘Sita   Ram  Sahu  v.   Lachmi  Narain’,   AIR
\n1946 Pat 47 (F)) and also of the Madras High Court
\n(Vide  —   ‘Adaikkala   Thevan   v.    Imperial   Bank,
\nMadura  Branch’,  AIR   1926, Mad  574  (G)  and —\n<\/p>\n
‘Krishnapur   Mutt   v.   Vicar  of   Suratkal   Church’,
\nAIR 1918  Mad 340 (H)).\n<\/p>\n
 7.  On    the    wording    of    the    statute,    namely, Sub-rule 2(3) of Order  39, read in the light of the other provisions of that Order and Section 94, there is much to be said in favour of either point of view but, in  view   of   the   amendment,   made   by   this   Court in  Order  whereby provisions,  almost similar to  Order 39 Rules 2(3) and 2(4), have been added to Rule  1 Sub-rules (2) and (3), it is unnecessary to examine the   conflict  any  further  for  purposes   of   the   present case.    I may point out further that, in Allahabad   too,   the   two   sub-rules,   viz.,   Sub-rule   (3)   and  (4)   of  Rule 2 of  Order   39  have  been  replaced  by  a  similar   but   separate   and   independent   and   more
\ncomprehensive Rule 2A which specifically applies to
\nboth Rules 1 and 2 of the Order.  (8) The newly added Sub-rule (2) of this Court in Order 39, Rule 1, directly applies to the present case and, under it, the court has ample powers to take action, similar to that, contemplated by the original Rule 2(3) in cases of breach of injunctions, issued
\nSunder Rule  1.    The only defect that appears in the plaintiff’s application is in its heading which mentions Order 39 Rule 2(3) in place of Order 39 Rule  1(2), but
\n that is hardly of any importance. I, accordingly, over-rule Mr. Milter’s contention in support of his  client’s claim for immunity or total exemption from  punishment.\n<\/p>\n
 9.  On the question of punishment, the courts below appear to have taken a very strict view. They have directed attachment of the defendant- petitioner’s properties for a period of one year and
\n sale of the attached properties for payment of compensation to the plaintiff opposite party if the
\n breach of injunction continues beyond the said period of one year. They have also directed detention of the defendant-petitioner in civil prison for two weeks. I am not, however, inclined to affirm this part of the courts’ order in its entirety in the facts and circumstances of this case and I would modify it in the manner indicated below, of course, an terms which I shall presently indicate.\n<\/p>\n
 10.  The   petitioner   is   undoubtedly   guilty   of   a
\nbreach of the order of injunction, and he deserves
\nsome punishment.     It is to be remembered,  however, that the punishment should be primarily for upholding the   dignity   of the   court and maintaining due respect for  the  administration   of justice. There   should   be   no   element   of   vindictiveness   in it and it  should  not be  allowed   to  be  used   for feeding fat private grudge or as an offensive weapon to satisfy private vendetta.  <\/p>\n
 11.  The petitioner is a young L. M. F. doctor. He is a family man and, on his statement before me, he appears to be the only earning member of<\/p>\n
the family.    He has  aged parents,  a number of
\nchildren and a younger brother to maintain. He has tendered unqualified apology before me and has repented his past action which, he says, was never intended to flout the court’s order, or to show disrespect to the authority or rule of law. I feel further that there was a good deal of bitterness between the parties which lies at the bottom of the present proceedings and that these proceedings were, to some extent, the outcome of an innate desire to humiliate the petitioner in the public eye. This has come out very clearly on the surface by the opposite party’s vigorous insistence in this Court to support, in particular, the order for detention. In the above context, I would set aside the order of detention, passed by the two courts below. The order of attachment of the petitioner’s properties will stand. But the further order, of sale of the properties and payment of compensation to the opposite party would also be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
 12.  The petitioner, however will pay the costs of the present proceedings to the opposite parties which I assess at the consolidated figure of ten gold-mohurs (Rupees One hundred and seventy). These costs must be paid to the opposite parties or deposited to their credit in the trial court within six weeks from this date. In default, the petitioner’s present application under Section 115 of the Code will stand dismissed with costs, hearing-fee being assessed at three gold-mohurs, and the orders of the two courts below, complained of herein, will stand affirmed in their entirety.\n<\/p>\n
 13.  The application is allowed as above.    There\nwill be no order as to costs except as stated herein\nbefore.  \n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Calcutta High Court Shyam Sundar Rakshit vs Satchidananda Rakshit And Anr. on 17 February, 1955 Equivalent citations: AIR 1955 Cal 351 Author: P Mookerjee Bench: P Mookerjee JUDGMENT P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This second miscellaneous appeal and the alternative application arise out of a proceeding for punishing breach of an injunction, issued under Order 39 […]<\/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":[22,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235980","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-calcutta-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShyam Sundar Rakshit vs Satchidananda Rakshit And Anr. on 17 February, 1955 - 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\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shyam Sundar Rakshit vs Satchidananda Rakshit And Anr. on 17 February, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955\" \/>\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=\"1955-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-22T12:09:47+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shyam Sundar Rakshit vs Satchidananda Rakshit And Anr. on 17 February, 1955\",\"datePublished\":\"1955-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-22T12:09:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955\"},\"wordCount\":1434,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Calcutta High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955\",\"name\":\"Shyam Sundar Rakshit vs Satchidananda Rakshit And Anr. on 17 February, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1955-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-22T12:09:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shyam Sundar Rakshit vs Satchidananda Rakshit And Anr. on 17 February, 1955\"}]},{\"@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":"Shyam Sundar Rakshit vs Satchidananda Rakshit And Anr. on 17 February, 1955 - 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\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shyam Sundar Rakshit vs Satchidananda Rakshit And Anr. on 17 February, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1955-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-22T12:09:47+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shyam Sundar Rakshit vs Satchidananda Rakshit And Anr. on 17 February, 1955","datePublished":"1955-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-22T12:09:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955"},"wordCount":1434,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Calcutta High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955","name":"Shyam Sundar Rakshit vs Satchidananda Rakshit And Anr. on 17 February, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1955-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-22T12:09:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-sundar-rakshit-vs-satchidananda-rakshit-and-anr-on-17-february-1955#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shyam Sundar Rakshit vs Satchidananda Rakshit And Anr. on 17 February, 1955"}]},{"@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\/235980","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=235980"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235980\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235980"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235980"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235980"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}