{"id":238831,"date":"1953-05-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1953-05-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953"},"modified":"2015-09-11T19:24:53","modified_gmt":"2015-09-11T13:54:53","slug":"thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953","title":{"rendered":"Thakur Raghubir Singh vs Court Of Wards, Ajmer, And Another on 15 May, 1953"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Thakur Raghubir Singh vs Court Of Wards, Ajmer, And Another on 15 May, 1953<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 373, \t\t 1953 SCR 1049<\/div>\n
Author: M C Mahajan<\/div>\n
Bench: Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Mukherjea, B.K., Hasan, Ghulam, Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Jagannadhadas, B.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHAKUR RAGHUBIR SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOURT OF WARDS, AJMER, AND ANOTHER.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/05\/1953\n\nBENCH:\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nBENCH:\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nHASAN, GHULAM\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nJAGANNADHADAS, B.\n\nCITATION:\n 1953 AIR  373\t\t  1953 SCR 1049\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1955 SC 795\t (9)\n R\t    1956 SC 559\t (4)\n R\t    1958 SC 578\t (177)\n R\t    1959 SC 459\t (40)\n E\t    1959 SC 519\t (13)\n D\t    1960 SC 468\t (6)\n R\t    1961 SC 705\t (13)\n E\t    1961 SC 954\t (23)\n RF\t    1962 SC1371\t (36,41)\n R\t    1965 SC 632\t (11)\n R\t    1969 SC 168\t (11)\n\n\nACT:\n   Constitution\t of  India, 1950, arts.\t 19(1)\t(f),  19(5),\n31-A-Ajmer  Revenue and Land Records Act (XLII of  1950)  s.\n112-Ajmer Government Wards Regulation (I of 1888), ss. 6, 7-\nLaw  declaring landlords who habitually infringe the  rights\nof  a tenant to be disqualified proprietors  and  empowering\nCourt  of  Wards  to  assume management\t of  their  lands  -\nValidity-Infringement  of fundamental  right-Reasonableness-\nScope of article 31-A-\"Modification of rights,\" meaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n       Section 112 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records  Act\n (XLII\tof  1.950) provided that \"if  a\t landlord  habitually\n infringes  the rights of a tenant under this Act, he  shall,\n notwithstanding  any  thing  in  section  7  of  the\tAjmer\n Government  Wards Regulation, 1888 (I of 1888) be deemed  to\n be  a\t'landlord  who\tis disqualified\t to  manage  his  own\n property'  within  the\t meaning of section  6\tof  the\t said\n Regulation  and  his property shall be liable\tto  be\ttaken\n under the superintendence of the Court of Wards.\" Section  6\n of  Regulation\t I of 1888 provided that the Court  of\tWards\n may,  with the previous sanction of the Chief\tCommissioner,\n assume the superintendence of the property of any landholder\n who is disqualified to manage his property.  The petitioner,\n whose estate was taken over by the Court of Wards under  the\n above-mentioned provisions of law, applied for relief\tunder\n art.  32 of the Constitution for restoration of  his  estate\n and other appropriate reliefs:\n       Held, (1) that the result of the combined operation of\n s. 112 of Act XLII of 1950 and the provisions of ss. 6 and 7\n of Regulation I of 1888 was that the Court of Wards could in\n its  own  discretion  and on  its  subjective\tdetermination\n assume the superintendence of the property of a landlord who\n habitually  infringed\tthe rights of his  tenants,  and  the\n exercise  of the discretion of the Court of Wards cannot  be\n questioned in a civil court; s. 112 of Act XLII of 1950 read\n with  the  provisions\tof Regulation  I  of  1888  therefore\n infringed   the   fundamental\trights\tof   the   petitioner\n guaranteed  by\t art. 19 (1) of the Constitution and  was  to\n that extent void;\n (ii) the  provisions  of s. 112 cannot be regarded  as\t a  \"\n reasonable\"  restriction  imposed in the  interests  of  the\n general  public  on the exercise of the right\tconferred  by\n art. 19 (1) (f), because they completely negatived the right\n by making its enjoyment depend on the mere discretion of the\n executive;\n 136\n 1050\n       (iii)that s. 112 was not validated by art. 31-A of the\n Constitution  as  it  was  not\t \"a  law  providing  for  the\n acquisition  by  the State of any estate or  of  any  rights\n therein  or for the extinction or modification of  any\t such\n rights\"   within  the\tmeaning\t of  art.  31-A.   The\t word\n \"modification\"\t in  the context of art. 31-A  only  means  a\n modfication  of the proprietary right of a citizen  like  an\n extinguishment\t of that right and cannot include within  its\n ambit\ta mere suspension of the right of management  of  the\n estate for a time, definite or indefinite.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      ORIGINAL\tJURISDICTION:  Petition\t No.  29  of   1953.
\nPetition  under\t article  32 of the  Constitution  of  India
\npraying\t that  the  Court of Wards,  Ajmer,  be\t ordered  to
\nforbear\t  from\tcarrying  on  the  superintendence  of\t the
\nistimrari estate and other properties of the petitioner\t and
\nfor  restoration  of possession and management of  the\tsaid
\nestate and properties.\n<\/p>\n
    J.B. Dadachanji and H. C. Sogain for the appellant.
\n     M.C.  Setalvad,  A ttorney-General\t for  India,  (Bhava
\nDatta Sharma, with him) for the respondents.
\n  1953.\t May 15.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n   MAHAJAN  J.-This is a petition under article\t 32  of\t the
\nConstitution seeking relief against alleged infringement  of
\ncertain\t fundamental rights of the petitioner and arises  in
\nthese circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
   The\tpetitioner owns an ” istimrari estate” in the  State
\nof Ajmer under an istimrari sanad granted to his ancestor in
\nthe  year 1875.\t He enjoys therein a life interest  with  an
\nobligation  to perform certain duties as prescribed  by\t the
\nAjmer Land and Revenue Regulation (11 of 1877).
\n   The\tDeputy\tCommissioner of Ajmer, who is the  Court  of
\nWards\tconstituted   under  the  Ajmer\t  Government   Wards
\nRegulation  (I\tof 1888), took over possession\tand  assumed
\nsuperintendence\t of the said estate on the  18th  September,
\n1952,  purporting  to  act under sections 6  and  7  of\t the
\nRegulation  read with section 112 of the Ajmer\tTenancy\t and
\nLand  Records  Act,  1950 (XLII of  1950),  and\t hence\tthis
\npetition  for  a  writ\tof mandamus or\tone  in\t the  nature
\nthereof, or for the issue
\n1051<\/span>
\nof  a  direction to the Court of Wards\tfor  restoration  of
\npossession  of the estate and for an order directing  it  to
\nforbear from carrying on the superintendence of the estate.
\nThe  order  made by the Court of Wards\ton  the\t 18th
\nSeptember, 1952, is impugned as being void and of no  effect
\nwhatever,   because  it\t is  alleged  that   the   statutory
\nprovisions  under  which it is purported to have  been\tmade
\ncontravene  the provisions of Part III of  the\tConstitution
\nand take away and abridge the petitioner’s rights guaranteed
\nby article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
    Section  112 of Act XLII of 1950 is one of a group of  7
\nsections  in  Chapter  X of the Act  which  deals  with\t the
\nsubject\t of  ”\tCompensation and Penalties  “.\tThe  section
\nprescribes penalties for habitual infringement of rights  of
\ntenants and reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
    ”  If  a landlord habitually infringes the rights  of  a
\ntenant under this Act, he shall, notwithstanding anything in
\nsection 7 of the Ajmer Government Wards Regulation, 1888  (I
\nof 1888), be deemed to be a “landlord who is disqualified to
\nmanage his own property ” within the meaning of section 6 of
\nthe  said Regulation and his property shall be liable to  be
\ntaken under the superintendence of the Court of Wards “.\n<\/p>\n
      The preceding section 110 is in these terms:-
\n      “If  a landholder or his agent collects from a  tenant
\nany  lag  or neg, he shall be deemed to\t have  committed  an
\noffence of extortion within the meaning of the Indian  Penal
\nCode (Act XLV of 186O)
\n   Just\t as section II 0 declares an illegal exaction  by  a
\nlandlord  to be an offence under the Indian Penal  Code,  in
\nlike manner, section 112 declares a landlord who  habitually
\ninfringes the rights of a tenant ” a person disqualified  to
\nmanage his own property ” within the meaning of section 6 of
\nRegulation  I  of  1888,  the  consequence  being  that\t his
\nproperty  becomes  liable to be taken over by the  Court  of
\nWards.\t The  section is an ingenious and  novel  device  to
\npunish\tlandlords  who\thabitually infringe  the  rights  of
\ntenants.  It authorizes
\n1052<\/span>
\nthe use for punitive purposes of the machinery of Regulation
\nI  of  1888  enacted  to  make\tbetter\tprovision  for\t the
\nsuperintendence\t of  Government Wards in  AjmerMerwara.\t  By
\nforce  of  the\tdeclaration  in\t section  112  of  the\tAct,
\nlandlords who habitually infringe the rights of the  tenants
\nfall  within the category of persons incapable\tof  managing
\ntheir own property and come within the ambit of section 6 of
\nthe Regulation, which is in these terms:-\n<\/p>\n
,, The Court of Wards may, with the previous sanction of the
\nChief  Commissioner,  assume  the  superintendence  of\t the
\nproperty of any landholder who is disqualified to manage his
\nown property “.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t result therefore of the combined operation of\tsec-
\ntion  112  of  Act XLII of 1950 and  of\t the  provisions  of
\nRegulation I of 1888, is that the Court of Wards can in\t its
\nown  discretion and on its subjective determination,  assume
\nthe  superintendence  of  the property\tof  a  landlord\t who
\nhabitually  infringes  the  rights  of\this  tenants.\t The
\ncondition precedent to such assumption of superintendence is
\nthe previous sanction of the Chief Commissioner, the  giving
\nof   which  is\talso  a\t matter\t entirely  resting  on\t his
\ndiscretion.   Section  27 of Regulation I of  1888  provides
\nthat ” the exercise of any discretion conferred on the Court
\nof Wards or the Chief Commissioner by this Regulation  shall
\nnot  be\t called\t in question in any civil court\t “.  It\t was
\nconceded  by the learned Attorney-General appearing for\t the
\nState  of Ajmere that there was nothing in the\tcontents  of
\neither\tAct  XLII  of 1950 or Regulation  I  of\t 1888  which
\nprovided a machinery for determining the question whether  a
\ncertain landlord was a person who was habitually  infringing
\nthe rights of his tenants.  Under Regulation I of 1888,\t the
\nassumption  by the Court of Wards of the superintendence  of
\nthe property of a disqualified proprietor depends merely  on
\nthe  subjective determination of the Deputy Commissioner  or
\nthe  Commissioner  or  of the Chief  Commissioner,  and\t the
\nexercise  of  this discretion cannot be\t questioned  in\t any
\nmanner\tin  a civil court.  Act XLII of\t 1950  says  nothing
\nwhatsoever on this subject.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    1053<\/span><\/p>\n
      The  contention that the provisions of section 112  of
\nAct XLII of 1950 read with the provisions of Regulation I of
\n1888  infringe\tthe  fundamental  right\t of  the  petitioner
\nguaranteed by article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution, is, in
\nour opinion, well-founded and does not require any elaborate
\ndiscussion.   The petitioner’s right to hold  the  istimrari
\nestate\tand his power of disposal over it stand abridged  by
\nthe   act  of  the  Court  of  Wards  authorized  by   these
\nprovisions.   His  right  to manage  the  estate  and  enjoy
\npossession  thereof stands suspended indefinitely and  until
\nthe  time  that the Court of Wards chooses to  withdraw\t its
\nsuperintendence\t of the property of the petitioner.   During
\nthis period, he can only receive such sums of money for\t his
\nexpenses as the Court of Wards decides in its discretion  to
\nallow.\t Thus, the provisions of section 112 of Act XLII  of
\n1950 clearly abridge the fundamental right of the petitioner
\nunder article 19 (1) (f) and are to that extent void.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned Attorney-General canvassed for the validity
\nof  the\t provisions  of section 112 on\tthree  grounds.\t  He
\ncontended  that the determination of the question whether  a
\ncertain landholder was a person who habitually infringed the
\nrights\tof his tenants did not depend on the opinion of\t the
\nCourt of Wards, but was a matter that could be agitated\t and
\ncanvassed in a civil court.  It was said that there were  no
\nwords  in the section from which it could be  inferred\tthat
\nthe  determination of this fact depended on  the  subjective
\ndetermination of the Court of Wards.  It was emphasized that
\nthe  section  had  not used the familiar  language  “in\t its
\nopinion”  or words like that, which are usually employed  to
\nindicate   whether  a  matter  depends\ton  the\t  subjective
\ndetermination of an authority or whether it can be  agitated
\nin  a civil court.  This contention, in our opinion, is\t not
\nwell-founded.  As already pointed out, Act XLII of 1950\t has
\nprescribed  no\tmachinery  for\tthe  determination  of\t the
\nquestion   whether  a  landlord\t is  guilty  of\t  habitually
\ninfringing  the\t rights\t of his\t tenants,  and\trightly\t so,
\nbecause\t section II 2 of the Act is merely of a\t declaratory
\ncharacter and
\n1054<\/span>
\ndeclares  such\ta landlord as being under a  disability\t and
\nsuffering  from\t an  infirmity.\t  This\tdeclaration  becomes
\noperative and effective only when the Court of Wards in\t its
\ndiscretion decides to assume superintendence of the property
\nof  such  a  proprietor.  In other words,  when\t the  Deputy
\nCommissioner  or the Commissioner or the Chief\tCommissioner
\nis of the opinion that such a proprietor should be  deprived
\nof  possession\tof  his property,  this\t determination\tthen
\noperates  to  the prejudice of the landlord, but  he  cannot
\nchallenge  the exercise of the discretion by these  officers
\nin  view of the provisions of section 27 of Regulation I  of
\n1888.\t The   result  then  is\t that  by   the\t  subjective
\ndetermination  of  the Court of Wards,\tboth  the  questions
\nwhether a particular person habitually infringes the  rights
\nof his tenants and whether his property should be taken over
\nby the Court of Wards, stand settled and the landlord cannot
\nhave  recourse\tto a civil court on  these  questions.\t The
\nlearned Attorney-General was not able to draw our  attention
\nto any provision in the Court of Wards Act or in Act XLII of
\n1950  which  enabled  the landlord, held to  be\t a  habitual
\ninfringer of the rights of his tenants, to have recourse  to
\na  civil court to test the correctness of the  determination
\nmade by the Court of Wards.  The provisions of Regulation of
\n1888 clearly indicate the contrary.\n<\/p>\n
Next,  it  was\targued that the provisions  of\tsection\t 112
\namount\tto  reasonable restrictions on the exercise  of\t the
\nright conferred by article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution on
\na  citizen, and these restrictions are in the  interests  of
\nthe general public.  In our judgment, this. argument also is
\nnot  sound.  As indicated above, the provisions\t of  section
\n112 of Act XLII of 1950 are penal in nature and are intended
\nby way of punishment of a landlord who habitually  infringes
\nthe  rights of his tenants.  He is punished by being  placed
\nat the mercy of the Court of Wards and by being made subject
\nto  the\t stringent provisions of Regulation I of  1888.\t  An
\nenactment  which prescribes a punishment or penalty for\t bad
\nbehaviour or for misconduct of a landlord cannot possibly be
\nregarded as restriction on a fundamental
\n1055<\/span>
\nright.\tIndeed, a punishment is not a restriction.  This was
\nfrankly\t conceded  by the learned Attorney-General.   It  is
\nstill  more  difficult\tto  regard such\t a  provision  as  a
\nreasonable restriction on the fundamental right.  When a law
\ndeprives  a  person  of possession of his  property  for  an
\nindefinite   period  of\t time  merely  on   the\t  subjective
\ndetermination of an executive officer, such a law can, on no
\nconstruction of the word “reasonable” be described as coming
\nwithin that expression, because it completely negatives\t the
\nfundamental right by making its enjoyment depend on the mere
\npleasure  and  discretion  of  the  executive,\tthe  citizen
\naffected  having no right to have recourse for\testablishing
\nthe  contrary in a civil court.\t Section 112 of Act XLII  of
\n1950  cannot  therefore be held valid as coming\t within\t the
\nscope of article 19 (5) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     Lastly, it was contended by the learned AttorneyGeneral
\nthat  section  112  was\t valid by  reason  of  the  curative
\nprovisions  of\tarticle\t 31 -A of  the\tConstitution.\tThat
\narticle validates laws which would otherwise contravene\t the
\nfundamental right in article 31(2) of the Constitution,\t but
\nits   operation\t  is  restricted  to  laws   providing\t for
\nacquisition of estates etc.  It runs as follows:-
\n”  Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing  provi-
\nsions of this Part, no law providing for the acquisition  by
\nthe State of any estate or of any rights therein or for\t the
\nextinguishment\tor modification of any such rights shall  be
\ndeemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with
\nor takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by any
\nprovisions of this Part……..\n<\/p>\n
      Section II 2 of Act XLII of 1950, intended to regulate
\nthe rights of landlords and tenants, is obviously not a\t law
\nproviding  for\t”  the acquisition by the  State  ”  of\t the
\nestates of the landlords, or of any rights in those estates.
\nIt  is\talso not a law providing for the  extinguishment  or
\nmodification  of  any such rights.   The  learned  Attorney-
\nGeneral\t laid  emphasis on the word modification ”  used  in
\narticle 31 -A, That word in
\n1056<\/span>
\nthe context of the article only means a modification of\t the
\nproprietary  right  of a citizen like an  extinguishment  of
\nthat  right  and  can not include within its  ambit  a\tmere
\nsuspension of the right of management of estate for a  time,
\ndefinite  or indefinite.  Historically speaking, article  31\n<\/p>\n
-A which has relation to article 31(2) of the  Constitution,
\nhas  no relevancy whatsoever to the law enacted\t in  section
\n112 of the Act XLII of 1950.\n<\/p>\n
      For  the\treasons given above, we are of\tthe  opinion
\nthat  the law enacted in section 112 of Act XLII of 1950  is
\nnot  saved either by clause (5) of article 19 or by  article
\n31-A  of  the  Constitution.  It  manifestly  infringes\t the
\nfundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed by article 19
\n(1) (f) of the Constitution.  That being so, the  petitioner
\nis entitled to a direction that possession of his estate  be
\nrestored to him.  We accordingly direct the Court of  Wards,
\nAjmer-Merwara, constituted under the Ajmer Government  Wards
\nRegulation, I of 1888, to forbear from carrying on  superin-
\ntendence of the petitioner’s istimrari estate and the  other
\nproperties  taken  possession  of,  and\t to  restore   their
\npossession to the petitioner.  The petitioner will have\t the
\ncosts of this petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tPetition allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the petitioner : I. N. Shroff.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the respondents: G. H. Rajadhyaksha.\n<\/p>\n
1057<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Thakur Raghubir Singh vs Court Of Wards, Ajmer, And Another on 15 May, 1953 Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 373, 1953 SCR 1049 Author: M C Mahajan Bench: Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Mukherjea, B.K., Hasan, Ghulam, Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Jagannadhadas, B. PETITIONER: THAKUR RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: COURT OF WARDS, AJMER, AND ANOTHER. […]<\/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-238831","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThakur Raghubir Singh vs Court Of Wards, Ajmer, And Another on 15 May, 1953 - 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\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thakur Raghubir Singh vs Court Of Wards, Ajmer, And Another on 15 May, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953\" \/>\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=\"1953-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-11T13:54:53+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thakur Raghubir Singh vs Court Of Wards, Ajmer, And Another on 15 May, 1953\",\"datePublished\":\"1953-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-11T13:54:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953\"},\"wordCount\":2224,\"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\\\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953\",\"name\":\"Thakur Raghubir Singh vs Court Of Wards, Ajmer, And Another on 15 May, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1953-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-11T13:54:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thakur Raghubir Singh vs Court Of Wards, Ajmer, And Another on 15 May, 1953\"}]},{\"@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":"Thakur Raghubir Singh vs Court Of Wards, Ajmer, And Another on 15 May, 1953 - 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\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thakur Raghubir Singh vs Court Of Wards, Ajmer, And Another on 15 May, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1953-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-11T13:54:53+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thakur Raghubir Singh vs Court Of Wards, Ajmer, And Another on 15 May, 1953","datePublished":"1953-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-11T13:54:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953"},"wordCount":2224,"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\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953","name":"Thakur Raghubir Singh vs Court Of Wards, Ajmer, And Another on 15 May, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1953-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-11T13:54:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-raghubir-singh-vs-court-of-wards-ajmer-and-another-on-15-may-1953#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thakur Raghubir Singh vs Court Of Wards, Ajmer, And Another on 15 May, 1953"}]},{"@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\/238831","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=238831"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238831\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=238831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=238831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}