{"id":238281,"date":"1979-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979"},"modified":"2015-09-16T15:28:04","modified_gmt":"2015-09-16T09:58:04","slug":"shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979","title":{"rendered":"Shakuntala Sawhney vs Kaushalya Sawhney on 4 April, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shakuntala Sawhney vs Kaushalya Sawhney on 4 April, 1979<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Tulzapurkar<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSHAKUNTALA SAWHNEY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKAUSHALYA SAWHNEY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/04\/1979\n\nBENCH:\n\n\nACT:\nProcedure-Duty of  Subordinate Courts in dealing with family\ndisputes.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The purpose of law and justice (Dharma) is promotion of\ncohesion and  not production  of fission.  A judgment  often\npossesses a  sublime essence  and a  humdrum component.\t The\nsublime element\t consists in  the  optimistic  endeavour  to\nbring parties  together so  that the  litigation may not cut\nthem as under, especially when they are blood relations like\nsisters. The  present appeal  in its happy conclusion, holds\nout the\t higher lesson\tthat hate and fight are dissolved by\nbasic  human   fellowship,  even   after  bitter  litigative\nstruggle, if the Bench and the Bar pursue consensual justice\nand bring  into play conciliatory processes and successfully\npersuade the  parties to  see reason  and right\t beyond bare\nlaw. If\t the effort  succeeds, the  court and counsel derive\nspiritual fulfilment  and get  satisfaction. The finest hour\nof  justice   arrives  propitiously  when  parties,  despite\nfalling apart,\tbury  the  hatchet  and\t weave\ta  sense  of\nfellowship or union. [640 D]\n     The present  case is  not merely a just adjustment of a\nbitter litigation  but a  path-finder  for  the\t subordinate\ncourts in dealing with family or like disputes. [643 B]\n     The  text\tand  the  context  and\tthe  application  of\ntraditional rules  of statutory\t interpretation, in  a given\ncase, might  leave the position in an unsatisfactory dilemma\nof  dual   import.  Even   an  equitable  approach  may\t not\nnecessarily help reach a just solution because equity shifts\nas the\tsituation varies.  Contradictory positions  taken by\ndifferent High\tCourts add  to the  difficulty and result in\nthe deleterious\t uncertainty of\t the law.  The Supreme Court\nmay resolve the conflict by exercising its preference guided\nby the\tlanguage and  the milieu and following the customary\ncanons of  statutory interpretation. While its decision will\nbe binding on account of Art. 141 of the Constitution it may\nstill be  fallible because  the intendment  of Parliament is\nbest brought out by legislative clarification in some cases.\n[640 H]\n     The appellant  and the  respondent\t were  step-sisters-\ndaughters of  a common\tfather but of different mothers. The\nfather who  owned vast properties had died before the coming\ninto  force   of  the\tHindu  Succession   Act\t 1956.\t The\nrespondent's mother  who inherited her husband's estate died\nafter the  coming into force of the 1956 Act. The High Court\ndismissed the  appellant's claim  for a\t half share  in\t the\nproperties under  s. 15(1)(a) of the Act. The specific point\nof claim,  whether a  son and  daughter in the setting of s.\n15(1)(a) of  the Act, includes step-son and step-daughter or\nembraces only  the son\tand daughter  of the deceased female\npropositus, has\t escaped the  Parliament's  attention  while\npassing the legislation.\n     [At the  Court's  suggestion  the\tparties\t came  to  a\ncompromise assisted by counsel on both sides.]\n640\nTulzapurkar, J.\nParliament  should   clarify  its   intention  regarding  s.\n15(1)(a) of the Act.\n^\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 348 of<br \/>\n1977.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order<br \/>\ndated 21-9-1976\t of the\t Punjab\t &amp;  Haryana  High  Court  in<br \/>\nLetters Patent Appeal No. 89\/76.\n<\/p>\n<p>     W. C. Chopra for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     M. L. Varma for respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     KRISHNA IYER,  J.-A judgment  often possesses a sublime<br \/>\nessence and  a humdrum\tcomponent. The\tappeal before us, in<br \/>\nits happy  conclusion, holds out the higher lesson that hate<br \/>\nand fight  are dissolved  by basic  human  fellowship,\teven<br \/>\nafter bitter  litigative struggle,  if the Bench and the Bar<br \/>\npursue consensual  justice, and bring into play conciliatory<br \/>\nprocesses, and\tsuccessfully persuade  the  parties  to\t see<br \/>\nreason and right beyond bare law. If the effort succeeds, as<br \/>\nit has\tin this\t case, court  and counsel  derive  spiritual<br \/>\nfulfilment and get satisfaction.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Two sisters, apparently of the affluent bracket, with a<br \/>\ncommon father  but different  mothers, became estranged when<br \/>\none (the  appellant) claimed  a half  share in the estate of<br \/>\nthe father,  on whose  death before  1956, the\trespondent&#8217;s<br \/>\nmother inherited  her husband&#8217;s\t estate but died after 1956,<br \/>\npossessed  of\ther  husband&#8217;s\tassets\tand  her  own.\tWhen<br \/>\nintestate succession  to her  opened the plaintiff-appellant<br \/>\nclaimed a  half share therein, founded on s. 15(1)(a) of the<br \/>\nHindu Succession  Act (the  Act, for  short). The High Court<br \/>\nnegatived the right to a share as an heir, and, in doing so,<br \/>\npreferred the interpretation of the provision adopted by the<br \/>\nthen Mysore  High Court (AIR 1962 Mysore 160) as against the<br \/>\nmeaning attached  to the  provision by\tthe  Allahabad\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt (1968 Allahabad Law Journal 488). In fact, a plurality<br \/>\nof decisions  has been\tbrought to  our notice\tindicating a<br \/>\nplain conflict.\t Interpretation is sometimes a projection of<br \/>\njudicial inclination to do justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The question  of law  canvassed before  us turns on the<br \/>\nmeaning of  &#8220;son&#8221;  and\t&#8220;daughter&#8221;  in\tthe  setting  of  s.<br \/>\n15(1)(a) of the Act. Do the expressions include step-son and<br \/>\nstep-daughter or  embrace only\tthe son\t and daughter of the<br \/>\ndeceased female\t propositus ?  The text\t and the context and<br \/>\nthe  application   of\ttraditional   rules   of   statutory<br \/>\ninterpretation\tleave  the  position  in  an  unsatisfactory<br \/>\ndilemma of  dual import.  Even an equitable approach may not<br \/>\nnecessarily help  reach\t a  just  solution,  because  equity<br \/>\nshifts as the situation varies, as illustra-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">641<\/span><\/p>\n<p>tions presented\t to us\tconvinced us. Thus, the problem is a<br \/>\nlittle tricky  and may\twell arise frequently. Contradictory<br \/>\npositions already  taken by different High Courts add to the<br \/>\ndifficulty and\tresult in the deleterious uncertainty of the<br \/>\nlaw which  may well  incite, as\t it  has  done\there,  close<br \/>\nrelations to  quarrel over  property. Blood  may be  thicker<br \/>\nthan water,  but wealth\t breaks all  relations on  a word of<br \/>\nmaterial value\tsets. The  Supreme Court  may, when the High<br \/>\nCourts\tdisagree,   resolve  the   logomachic  conflict\t  by<br \/>\nexercising its\tpreference guided  by the  language and\t the<br \/>\nmilieu and  following  the  customary  canons  of  statutory<br \/>\ninterpretation.\t While\tits  decision  will  be\t binding  on<br \/>\naccount of  Article 141 of the Constitution, it may still be<br \/>\nfallible  because  the\tintendment  of\tParliament  is\tbest<br \/>\nbrought out  by legislative  clarification. In\tthe  present<br \/>\ninstance, we  have a  hunch that the specific point of claim<br \/>\nby stepsons and step-daughters to inherit to the estate of a<br \/>\ndeceased female\t has escaped  Parliament&#8217;s  attention  while<br \/>\nfashioning the\tlegislation. This  is not surprising when we<br \/>\nappreciate the\tpush and  pressure, hurry  and worry of law-<br \/>\nmaking\tmodalities.  In\t such  a  situation,  when  a  sharp<br \/>\nconflict has  shown up\tin the rulings of courts, the matter<br \/>\nshould not  be\tleft  in  doubt\t or  to\t forensic-linguistic<br \/>\nexercises but  must be\tsettled by legislative action on the<br \/>\npart of\t Parliament, making  explicit  its  policy  on\tthis<br \/>\nbranch of  the Hindu  Succession Act. Inaction leads to more<br \/>\nlitigation,  speculation   and\t compulsion   for   judicial<br \/>\nlegislation  by\t the  Supreme  Court.  Drafting\t lapses\t are<br \/>\nunderstandable but  when differences  of interpretation come<br \/>\ninto  the   open,  delay   in\tcorrectional   parliamentary<br \/>\nperformance is\tfraught with  negative litigative potential.<br \/>\nWe are\thopeful that  the Indian draftsmen will disprove the<br \/>\nold English jingle:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  I&#8217;am the parliamentary draftsman<br \/>\n\t       I compose the country&#8217;s laws<br \/>\n\t  And of half the litigation<br \/>\n\t       I&#8217;am undoubtedly the cause.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The  sublime  element  which  we  adverted\t to  in\t the<br \/>\nbeginning consists  in the  optimistic\tendeavour  to  bring<br \/>\nparties together  so that  the litigation  may not  cut them<br \/>\nasunder, especially  when they\tare sisters.  The purpose of<br \/>\nlaw and\t justice (dharma)  is promotion\t of cohesion and not<br \/>\nproduction of  fission. From  this angle,  as the  arguments<br \/>\nproceeded and the legal tempers flared up, we suggested that<br \/>\ninstead of  escalating estrangement  the parties may as well<br \/>\ncompose themselves and their quarrels and re-establish their<br \/>\nsisterly relations  making a somewhat amicable adjustment of<br \/>\nthe lis before us. Viewing the case from this perspective of<br \/>\ntranquillity versus turbulence, but making it perfectly<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">642<\/span><br \/>\nplain that  suggestions from the court towards this end will<br \/>\nnot affect  its unbiased adjudicatory duty in case it became<br \/>\nnecessary, we  ventured tentative solutions. Counsel took up<br \/>\nthe suggestion\tin the\tproper spirit and we must record our<br \/>\nadmiration for the strenuous effort made by the young lawyer<br \/>\nShri M. L. Varma who did his best and successfully persuaded<br \/>\nhis client  who had  won in the High Court to come down to a<br \/>\ncompromise. We\tneed hardly  say that  such a  seasoned\t and<br \/>\nsenior counsel\tlike Shri  Lal Narain Sinha could be counted<br \/>\nupon to\t aid in\t the process, and he did. The finest hour of<br \/>\njustice arrives\t propitiously when  parties, despite falling<br \/>\napart, bury  the hatchet  and weave a sense of fellowship or<br \/>\nreunion. In  the present  case, counsel today put in a joint<br \/>\nstatement(1) signed by the parties setting down the terms on<br \/>\nwhich they  have agreed.  We consider  it a  success of\t the<br \/>\nfiner human spirit over its baser tendency for conflict.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Now we  come to the humdrum part of the case. According<br \/>\nto the compromise some landed properties are to be made over<br \/>\nto the\tappellant. Some\t cash is  also to  be  paid  to\t the<br \/>\nappellant by  the respondent.  The discretion to fix the sum<br \/>\nhas been  left by  the parties\tto us.\tWe direct  that\t the<br \/>\nrespondent shall  pay a sum of Rs. 75,000\/- to the appellant<br \/>\nwithin two  weeks of  the attachment  of the  moneys by\t the<br \/>\ntrial  court   being  withdrawn.   The\t plaintiff\/appellant<br \/>\nundertakes that she will get the attachment withdrawn and we<br \/>\ndirect her  to do  so. We  make it  further clear  that this<br \/>\nwithdrawal of  the attachment is to facilitate the making of<br \/>\nthe payment of Rs. 75,000\/- from out of the sum now lying in<br \/>\nbank deposit.  We also direct that landed property worth Rs.<br \/>\n25,000\/- will in addition be made over to the appellant from<br \/>\nout of\tthe suit property. The further direction must justly<br \/>\nfollow-and  we\t make-that  all\t  the  rents  due  from\t the<br \/>\nproperties  allotted   to  the\tappellant  under  the  joint<br \/>\nstatement prior\t to this  date and  subsequent to  this date<br \/>\nshall be  collectible by the appellant. If they have already<br \/>\nbeen deposited\tin court,  they will  be  withdrawn  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant. The\tactual allocation  of the  lands  under\t the<br \/>\njoint statement\t will be  made by Mr. Prem Nath Handa within<br \/>\ntwo months  from today. Both sides agree on Shri Handa being<br \/>\nimpartial and  competent to  make the  said  allotment.\t His<br \/>\nallotment once\tmade will  not be  challengeable. Shri Handa<br \/>\npursuant to  this direction will make the allocation and put<br \/>\nin a  statement to  that effect\t in the trial court and that<br \/>\nstatement will be deemed to be part of this decree.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">643<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     We need  hardly mention-it\t is so obvious-that the land<br \/>\nthat remains  will belong  entirely to\tthe  respondent\t and<br \/>\nthere will  be no  more claims\tfrom the  appellant  on\t the<br \/>\nrespondent in regard to the estate of her step-mother, or in<br \/>\nrespect of its income or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Before  we\t part  with  the  case\twe  should  like  to<br \/>\nemphasise that\thaving regard  to the  merits of  the claim,<br \/>\nthis is\t not merely a just adjustment of a bitter litigation<br \/>\nbut a path-finder for the subordinate courts in dealing with<br \/>\nfamily or  like disputes.  Indeed, we  have had\t to take the<br \/>\nlead in\t giving shape  to the  settlement as  it has finally<br \/>\nemerged. Counsel  on both  sides have  also, statesman-like,<br \/>\nassisted  in  producing\t the  settlement.  We  command\tthis<br \/>\nexample to  the judiciary  and to  the Bar  and reinforce it<br \/>\nwith what Gandhiji has recorded in his autobiography:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;I have  leant the  true practice  of law.  I\t had<br \/>\n     learnt to\tfind out the better side of human nature and<br \/>\n     to\t enter\tmen&#8217;s  hearts.\tI  realised  that  the\ttrue<br \/>\n     function of  a  lawyer  was  to  unite  parties  driven<br \/>\n     asunder. The lesson was so indelibly burnt into me that<br \/>\n     a large  part of  my time during the twenty years of my<br \/>\n     practice as  a lawyer  was occupied  in bringing  about<br \/>\n     private  compromises  of  hundreds\t of  cases.  I\tlost<br \/>\n     nothing,  thereby-not  even  money,  certainly  not  my<br \/>\n     soul.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     We allow  the appeal  in part  but entirely in terms of<br \/>\nthe compromise\twhich we  consider  clearly  reasonable\t and<br \/>\njust. There will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>     TULZAPURKAR, J.-Decree  in terms  of compromise without<br \/>\ncosts. Parliament  should clarify its intention regarding s.<br \/>\n15(1) (a).\n<\/p>\n<pre>P.B.R.\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed in part.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">644<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Shakuntala Sawhney vs Kaushalya Sawhney on 4 April, 1979 Author: Tulzapurkar PETITIONER: SHAKUNTALA SAWHNEY Vs. RESPONDENT: KAUSHALYA SAWHNEY DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/04\/1979 BENCH: ACT: Procedure-Duty of Subordinate Courts in dealing with family disputes. HEADNOTE: The purpose of law and justice (Dharma) is promotion of cohesion and not production of fission. A judgment [&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-238281","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>Shakuntala Sawhney vs Kaushalya Sawhney on 4 April, 1979 - 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\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shakuntala Sawhney vs Kaushalya Sawhney on 4 April, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979\" \/>\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=\"1979-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-16T09:58:04+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shakuntala Sawhney vs Kaushalya Sawhney on 4 April, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-16T09:58:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979\"},\"wordCount\":1555,\"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\\\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979\",\"name\":\"Shakuntala Sawhney vs Kaushalya Sawhney on 4 April, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-16T09:58:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shakuntala Sawhney vs Kaushalya Sawhney on 4 April, 1979\"}]},{\"@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":"Shakuntala Sawhney vs Kaushalya Sawhney on 4 April, 1979 - 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\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shakuntala Sawhney vs Kaushalya Sawhney on 4 April, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-16T09:58:04+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shakuntala Sawhney vs Kaushalya Sawhney on 4 April, 1979","datePublished":"1979-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-16T09:58:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979"},"wordCount":1555,"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\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979","name":"Shakuntala Sawhney vs Kaushalya Sawhney on 4 April, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-16T09:58:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shakuntala-sawhney-vs-kaushalya-sawhney-on-4-april-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shakuntala Sawhney vs Kaushalya Sawhney on 4 April, 1979"}]},{"@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\/238281","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=238281"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238281\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=238281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=238281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}