{"id":245998,"date":"1972-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972"},"modified":"2017-10-05T18:10:49","modified_gmt":"2017-10-05T12:40:49","slug":"dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972","title":{"rendered":"Dharmadeo Rai vs Ramnagina Rai on 18 January, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dharmadeo Rai vs Ramnagina Rai on 18 January, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 928, \t\t 1972 SCR (3) 111<\/div>\n
Author: K K Mathew<\/div>\n
Bench: Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDHARMADEO RAI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAMNAGINA RAI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT18\/01\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nBENCH:\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nSHELAT, J.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR  928\t\t  1972 SCR  (3) 111\n 1972 SCC  (1) 460\n\n\nACT:\nIndian\t Registration\tAct,  1916,  s.\t  83(1)-Section\t  is\npermissive and not prohibitive-Does not prevent an aggrieved\nprivate person from filing a complaint.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nA  private  complaint in connection with the  forgery  of  a\nzerpeshgi  lease  and  its  registration  under\t the  Indian\nRegistration Act was filed against several persons including\nthe  appellant.\t  The appellant was acquitted by  the  trial\ncourt.\tIn an appeal filed by the complainant the High Court\nconvicted  the\tappellant  under  s.  82(d)  of\t the  Indian\nRegistration  Act  for abetment of an offence  under  s.  82\nafter  overriding his contention that the complaint was\t not\nmaintainable without the permission as required by s. 83  of\nthe Act.  Under s. 83(1) a prosecution for any offence under\nthe Act coming to the knowledge of a registering officer  in\nhis  official  capacity\t may be commenced  by  or  with\t the\npermission  of the Inspector-General, the Registrar  or\t the\nSub-Registrar in whose territories, district or\t subdistrict\nas  the\t case may be, the offence has  been  committed.\t  In\nappeal\tby  special leave before this Court the\t only  point\nargued on behalf of the appellant was that the complaint was\nincompetent  as it was filed by a person  without  obtaining\nthe  necessary\tpermission  under  s.  83  of  the  Act\t and\ntherefore  the conviction of the appellant was bad and\tmust\nbe set aside.\nHELD : On a reading of the section it would be clear that it\ndeals  only  with prosecution for an offence under  the\t Act\ncoming\tto the knowledge of the Registering Officer  in\t his\nofficial  capacity.  It, in effect, provides that  where  an\noffence comes to the knowledge of the Registering Officer in\nhis official capacity, a prosecution may be commenced by  or\nwith the permission of any of the officers mentioned in\t the\nsection.   The section can possibly have no  application  to\ncases in which the offences are committed under the Act, but\nthe offences do not come to the knowledge of the Registering\nOfficer in his official capacity. [113 H]\nThe section is not prohibitory in that it does not  preclude\na  private person from commencing a prosecution.  Even in  a\ncase where the commission of offence comes to the  knowledge\nof  the\t Registering Officer in his official  capacity,\t the\nsection does not prohibit a private person from commencing a\nprosecution as the section is clearly permissive in language\nand intent. [114B]\nOne  would  have  expected a more  apt\tphraseology  if\t the\npurpose\t of the Legislature was to prohibit the\t prosecution\nof an offence under the Act by a private individual.  Seeing\nthat a private person will be more seriously injured by\t the\naction\tof  an offender who not only forges a  document\t but\nendeavours  to give it a higher efficacy by registering\t it,\nthere is no reason why the private person should be deprived\nof the liberty to prosecute the offender.  There is also  no\nreason why a registering officer guilty of an offence  under\ns. 81 of the Act should get immunity from prosecution. by  a\nprivate\t individual  injured thereby.  In s. 195(1)  of\t the\nCriminal\n112\nProcedure  Code, s. 70(1) of the Indian Stamp Act and s.  29\nof  the\t Indian\t Arms Act, 1878\t the  language\temployed  is\nprohibitory  in character.  Section 83(1) of the Act is\t not\nprohibitory either in terms or in intention [116 A-G]\nThe view taken by the Allahabad and Rangoon High Courts that\nthe word 'may' in s. 83(1) should be read as 'must' was\t not\ncorrect.\n[114 H-115 D]\nGopinath  v. Kuldip Singh and Anr., I.L.R. Calcutta  Series,\nVol.  XI 566, Re Piranu Nadathi and Anr. and Emperor v. Yesa\nNath Didiwagh and Ors., A.I.R. 1937 Bombay 191, approved.\nNge Pan Gaing and Ors. v. King Emperor, A.I.R. 1927  Rangoon\n61  and\t Emperor  v.  Mohd.  Mehdi  and\t Ors.,\tA.I.R.\t1934\nAllahabad, 963. disapproved.\nGonga  Dibya and Anr. v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1943 Patna 227\t and\nHabib  Shah v. Mehda Shah, A.I.R. 1960 J & K.  18,  referred\nto.\nK.   M.\t  Kanavi  v. State of Mysore,<\/a> [1968] 3\tS.C.R.\t821,\nheld inapplicable.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 33  of
\n1969.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby Special Leave from the Judgment and\tOrder  dated
\nthe 12th November, 1968 of the Patna High Court in  Criminal
\nAppeal No. 58 of 1966.\n<\/p>\n
S.   N. Prasad, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
K.   K. Sinha, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
R.   C. Prasad, for the State of Bihar.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nMathew,\t J.  This  appeal, by  special\tleave,\tis  directed
\nagainst\t the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.  58\/1966
\nwhereby\t the High Court of Patna set aside the acquittal  of
\nthe appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge of Chapra and
\nconvicted him under section 82(d) of the Indian Registration
\nAct  (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced\t him
\nto six months rigorous imprisonment,
\nOne  Ramnagina\tRai filed a complaint before  the  Sub-Divi-
\nsional Officer, Sadar, Chapra, against Bishundeo Rai.\tSheo
\nDeo  Prasad  Rai, Mohan Rai, Jangli Rai\t and  the  appellant
\nstating\t that  they entered into a conspiracy and  forged  a
\nZerpeshgi  deed\t on 25-1-1964 purporting to be\texecuted  by
\nBishundeo  Rai and Nageshwar Rai in favour of Jangli Rai  in
\nwhich Sheo Deo Prasad Rai falsely personated Nageshwar\tRai.
\nThe  Sessions Court, to which the case was committed,  after
\ntrial,\tcame  to the conclusion that Sheo  Deo\tPrasad\tRai,
\nposing as Nageshwar, son of Bujhawan. executed the Zerpeshgi
\ndeed and that Sheo Deo Prasad
\n113<\/span>
\nRai   falsely  personated  as  Nageshwar  before  the\tSub-
\nRegistrar, that no such person as Nageshwar existed and that
\nBishundeo  Rai,\t the father of Sheo Deo Prasad Rai  and\t co-
\nexecutant  of the document was a party to the forgery.\t The
\nCourt,\ttherefore,  convicted  Bishundeo Rai  and  Sheo\t Deo
\nPrasad\tRai of offences under section 467 and section 120  B
\nof  the\t Indian Penal Code.  Bishundeo and Sheo\t Deo  Prasad
\nwere   also   convicted\t under\tsection\t 82(d)\t and   82(c)
\nrespectively  of the Act.  The remaining three accused\twere
\ngiven  the  benefit of doubt , and acquitted.\tTwo  appeals
\nwere  filed  from this judgment to the High  Court,  namely,
\nCriminal  Appeal  No. 205\/1966 and Criminal Appeal  No.\t 58\/
\n1966.\tWe are only concerned with the appeal filed  by\t the
\ncomplainant against the acquittal of the appellant,  namely,
\nCriminal Appeal No. 58\/1966.  In that appeal, the High Court
\ncame to the conclusion that the, Sessions Judge was wrong in
\nacquitting the appellant as there was clear evidence that it
\nwas be who identified Sheo Deo Prasad Rai as Nageshwar,\t son
\nof   Bujhawan,\tbefore\tthe  Sub-Registrar.    ‘The   Court,
\ntherefore, convicted him under section 82(d) of the Act\t for
\nabetment,  of  an offence under s. 82 after  overruling\t his
\ncontention  that the complaint was not maintainable  without
\nthe permission as required by section 83 of the Act.
\nIn  this  Court,  the only point argued\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant  was that the complaint was incompetent as it\t was
\nfiled by a person without obtaining the necessary permission
\nunder  section 83 of the Act and, therefore, the  conviction
\nwas  bad  and  must be set aside.  Section  83\tof  the\t Act
\nprovides :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “83(1)  A\t prosecution for any  offence  under
\n\t      this   Act  coming  to  the  knowledge  of   a
\n\t      registering  officer in his official  capacity
\n\t      may be commenced by or with the permission  of
\n\t      the  Inspector General, the Registrar  or\t the
\n\t      Sub-Registrar, in whose territories.  district
\n\t      or  subdistrict,\tas  the\t case  may  be,\t the
\n\t      offence has been committed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   Offences punishable under this Act shall
\n\t      be triable by any Court or officer- exercising
\n\t      powers not less than those of a Magistrate  of
\n\t      the second class.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On a reading of the section, it would be clear that it deals
\nonly with prosecution for an offence under the Act coming to
\nthe  knowledge\tof the Registering Officer in  his  official
\ncapacity.   It,\t in effect, provides that where\t an  offence
\ncomes  to  the knowledge of the Registering Officer  in\t his
\nofficial capacity, a prosecution may be commenced by or with
\nthe  permission\t of  any of the officers  mentioned  in\t the
\nsection.   The section can possibly have no  application  to
\ncases in which offences are committed under the
\n114<\/span>
\nAct,  but the offences do not come to the knowledge  of\t the
\nRegistering  Officer  in  his  official\t capacity.   If\t the
\nRegistering  Officer does not know in his official  capacity
\nthat the document produced before him is a false document or
\nthat  the  person appearing before him is  personating\tsome
\nother  person, the section has no application.\tThe  section
\nis  not prohibitory in that it does not preclude  a  private
\nperson from commencing a prosecution.  Even in a case  where
\nthe  commission of an offence comes to the knowledge of\t the
\nRegistering  Officer in his official capacity,\tthe  section
\ndoes  not  prohibit  a\tprivate\t person\t from  commencing  a
\nprosecution  as\t the section is clearly\t permissive  in\t its
\nlanguage  and  intent.\tIn other words, the  section  is  an
\nenabling  one.\tIt enables the persons mentioned therein  to
\ncommence a prosecution in cases where the commission of\t the
\noffence\t under\tthe  Act  comes\t to  the  knowledge  of\t the
\nRegistering  Officer in his official capacity.\tThe  Section
\nenables\t the officers named to use ‘their official  position
\nfor the purpose of prosecution without personal risk.
\nIn  Gopinath  v. Kuldip Singh and  others(1),  the  question
\nwhether\t  the  section\tprohibits  a  private  person\tfrom
\ncommencing a prosecution without the permission as  provided
\nin  the section, came up for consideration and a Full  Bench
\nof  the Calcutta High Court answered the question by  saying
\nthat the section is not prohibitory in character and that it
\ndoes  not  preclude  a\tprivate\t person\t from  commencing  a
\nprosecution  for  an  offence  under  the  Act\twithout\t the
\npermission as envisaged in the section.\t This case has\tbeen
\nfollowed  by the Madras High Court in Re Piranu Nadathi\t and
\nothers ( 2 ) . There also the Court has taken the view\tthat
\nthe  section is an enabling one in that it  only  authorises
\nthe authorities mentioned therein to commence a\t prosecution
\nand  does  not prohibit a private person from  commencing  a
\nprosecution  without  the  permission  as  required  by\t the
\nsection.   In Emperor v. Yesa Nath Bidwagh  and\t others(,’),
\nBeaumont,  C.J.,  speaking  for the  Court,  said  that\t the
\nsection\t is  intended to provide only for  cases  where\t the
\nknowledge of an offence under the Act comes to a Registering
\nOfficer\t in  his  official  capacity  and  that\t it  has  no
\napplication when he has no such knowledge, and that even  in
\ncases  where  he  has knowledge of  the\t commission  of\t the
\noffence\t in  his  official capacity,  the  section  is\tonly
\nenabling  and  does  not  preclude  a  private\tperson\tfrom
\nlaunching a prosecution for the offence.  The same view\t was
\ntaken by a Bench of the Patna High Court in Ganga Dibya\t and
\nanother\t v. Emperor(4) and also by the High Court  of  Jammu
\nand Kashmir in Habib Shah v. Mehda Shah(5)  In Nge Pan Gaing
\nand  other v. King Emperor(6), the Rangoon High\t Court\theld
\nthat the word ‘may’
\n(1)  I.L.R. Calcutta Series, Vol.  XI, 566.
\n(3)  A.I.R. 1937 Bombay 191.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  A.I.R. 1960 J & K 18.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  I.L.R. 40 Madras 880.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  A.I.R. 1943 Patna 227.\n<\/p>\n
(6)  A.I.R. 1927 Rangoon 61.\n<\/p>\n
115<\/span><\/p>\n
in  section  83 of the Act should be read as  equivalent  to
\n‘must be’and that a prosecution for an offence under the Act
\ncoming\tto  the knowledge of a Registering  Officer  in\t his
\nofficial  capacity cannot be commenced by a  private  person
\nwithout\t the  permission mentioned in the section.   A\tFull
\nBench  it  the\tAllahabad High Court, in  Emperor  v.  Mohd.
\nMehdi and others(1), took the view that section 83 lays down
\na special procedure for prosecution of “he offences  created
\nby  the\t Act  and,  therefore,\tthat  procedure\t should\t  be
\nfollowed;  that\t although the word ‘may’ occurring  in\tthe,
\nsection\t cannot be read as ‘must’, it has to be read in\t the
\ncontext\t as  having a mandatory character.  The\t Court\tsaid
\nthat the offences contemplated by sections 81 and 82 of\t the
\nAct  are, offences committed against registering  authority,
\nthat only indirectly that private persons would be  affected
\nand,   therefore,   the\t provisions  of\t the   section\t are
\nprohibitory in character.  In our view, this reading of\t the
\nsection\t is  inadmissible for the obvious  reason  that\t the
\nsection,  as  we have said, provides only for  one  type  of
\ncases,\tnamely, cases in which the commission of an  offence
\nunder  the  Act comes to the knowledge\tof  the\t Registering
\nOfficer\t in  his  official  capacity  and  even\t there,\t the
\nlanguage  of  the section is permissive and  not  mandatory.
\nSection\t 81  of\t the,  Act  makes  the\tendorsing,  copying,
\ntranslating  or registering of a document by  a\t Registering
\nOfficer charged with those duties in a manner which he knows
\nor  believes  to be incorrect, intending  thereby  to  cause
\ninjury\tas  defined  in the Penal Code\tto  any\t person.  an
\noffence\t punishable  with imprisonment which may  extend  to
\nseven  years  or with fine or with both.  Section  82  deals
\nwith four classes of offences classified under (a), (b), (c)
\nand (d) of the section.\t Clause (a) deals with intentionally
\nmake false statements before officers acting under the\tAct,\n<\/p>\n
(b) with intentionally delivering to a registering officer a
\nfalse copy or translation of a document or a false copy of a
\nmap or plan; and (c) with false personation and presentation
\nof  a document or the making of an admission or a  statement
\nin the assumed character in any proceeding or enquiry  under
\nthe  Act.  Clause (d) deals with the abetment of  the  above
\noffences.\n<\/p>\n
If  the authorities mentioned in section 83 of the Act\twere
\nto  collide  with  the person guilty of\t an.  offence  under
\nsection\t 82  of\t the  Act’, or if  they\t fail  to  launch  a
\nprosecution  against the registering officer for an  offence
\nunder section 81 of the Act, there, would be a total bar  to
\nprosecution  by\t a  private person in  case  we\t accept\t the
\nreasoning  of the Rangoon and Allahabad High Courts.  We  do
\nnot  think  that  a construction which would  lead  to\tthat
\nresult is warranted by the plain language of the section.
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1934 Allahabad, 963.\n<\/p>\n
116<\/span><\/p>\n
One  would have expected a more apt phraseology if the\tpur-
\npose  of the Legislature was to prohibit the prosecution  of
\nan .,offence under the Act by a private individual.   Seeing
\nthat a private person will be more seriously injured by\t the
\naction\tof  an offender who not only forges a  document\t but
\nendeavors to give it a higher efficacy by registering it, we
\ncan  perceive  no reason why the private  person  should  be
\ndenied\tthe liberty to prosecute the offender.\tWe also\t see
\nno  reason  why a registering officer guilty of\t an  offence
\nunder  section\t81  of\tthe Act\t should\t get  immunity\tfrom
\nprosecution   by  a  private  individual  injured   thereby.
\nCounsel\t for the appellant referred to the decision of\tthis
\nCourt  in K. M. Kanavi v. State of Mysore<\/a>(1)  and  contended
\nthat  section  83 of the Act is\t prohibitory  in  character.
\nThere is no merit in this contention as the language of\t the
\nprovision there considered was totally different.
\nIt  is\tpermissible  in this connection\t to  look  into\t the
\nlanguage  employed  in similar sections\t in  other  statutes
\nwhere\tthe  legislature  intended  a  prohibitory   effect.
\nSection 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that
\n\t      “No  Court shall take cognizance, (a)  of\t any
\n\t      offence  punishable under sections 172 to\t 188
\n\t      of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  except  on\t the
\n\t      complaint\t in  writing of the  public  servant
\n\t      concerned”.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section 70(1 ) of the Indian Stamp Act  states
\n\t      that
\n\t      “No  prosecution\tin respect  of\tany  offence
\n\t      punishable   under  the  Act  …\t  shall\t  be
\n\t      instituted   without  the\t sanction   of\t the
\n\t      Collector\t or such other officer as the  State
\n\t      Government   generally,\tor   the   Collector
\n\t      specially authorises in that behalf”.\n<\/p>\n
\t       Section 29 of the Indian Arms Act, 1878, says
\n\t      “No  proceedings shall be\t instituted  against
\n\t      an,,,  person  in\t respect  of  such   offence
\n\t      without\tthe   previous\t sanction   of\t the
\n\t      Magistrate of the District or, in a presidency
\n\t      town, of the Commissioner of Police”.\n<\/p>\n
In all these sections, the language employed is\t prohibitory
\nin  character.\tSection 83(1) of the Act is not\t prohibitory
\neither in terms or in intention.\n<\/p>\n
We  think  that,  on the  point\t under\tconsideration’.\t the
\ndecisions  in Gopinath v. Kuldip Singh and others (2 ) ,  Re
\nPiranu\tNodathi\t and  others(3), and Emperor  v.  Yesa\tNana
\nDidwagh and others(4) lay down the correct law.
\n(1)  [1968] 3 S.C.R. 821.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  I.L.R. 40 Madras 880.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  I.L.R Calcutta, Vol.  XI 566.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  A.I.R. 1937 Bom. 191.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    117<\/span><\/p>\n
We cannot appreciate or approve the reasoning in Emperor  v.
\nMohd.\tMahdi and others(1) and Nga Pan Gaing and others  v.
\nKing Emperor(2) or the cases followed in these rulings.
\nThe result is that the appeal has to be dismissed and we do
\nso.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n(1)  A.I.R. 1934 All. 963.\n(2)  A.I.R. 1927 Rangoon 61.\n118<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dharmadeo Rai vs Ramnagina Rai on 18 January, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 928, 1972 SCR (3) 111 Author: K K Mathew Bench: Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien PETITIONER: DHARMADEO RAI Vs. RESPONDENT: RAMNAGINA RAI DATE OF JUDGMENT18\/01\/1972 BENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN BENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN SHELAT, J.M. CITATION: 1972 AIR 928 1972 […]<\/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-245998","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDharmadeo Rai vs Ramnagina Rai on 18 January, 1972 - 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\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dharmadeo Rai vs Ramnagina Rai on 18 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972\" \/>\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=\"1972-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-05T12:40:49+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\\\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dharmadeo Rai vs Ramnagina Rai on 18 January, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-05T12:40:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972\"},\"wordCount\":2086,\"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\\\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972\",\"name\":\"Dharmadeo Rai vs Ramnagina Rai on 18 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-05T12:40:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dharmadeo Rai vs Ramnagina Rai on 18 January, 1972\"}]},{\"@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":"Dharmadeo Rai vs Ramnagina Rai on 18 January, 1972 - 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\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dharmadeo Rai vs Ramnagina Rai on 18 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-05T12:40:49+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\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dharmadeo Rai vs Ramnagina Rai on 18 January, 1972","datePublished":"1972-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-05T12:40:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972"},"wordCount":2086,"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\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972","name":"Dharmadeo Rai vs Ramnagina Rai on 18 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-05T12:40:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmadeo-rai-vs-ramnagina-rai-on-18-january-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dharmadeo Rai vs Ramnagina Rai on 18 January, 1972"}]},{"@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\/245998","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=245998"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245998\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245998"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245998"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245998"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}