{"id":250767,"date":"2010-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-20T10:18:27","modified_gmt":"2018-09-20T04:48:27","slug":"ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Singh &Amp; Anr vs Chinta Devi &Amp; Ors on 27 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
Ramesh Singh &Amp; Anr vs Chinta Devi &Amp; Ors on 27 July, 2010<\/div>\n
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                             MA No.252 of 1992\n         1. Ramesh Singh, son of Paltoo Singh.\n         2. Rakesh Kumar Singh, S\/o. Ramesh Singh.\n                Minor son under the guardianship of his father, both residents of\n                Jhoomari Tilaiya, P.S. - Jhoomari Tilaiya, Distt. - Hazaribagh,\n                                     .................... O.P. .............. Appellants.\n                                    Versus\n         1. Chinta Devi, w\/o. Prayag Goshwami, decd.\n                Resident of village - Rajapur, Indaul, P.S. - Akbarpur, Distt. -\n                Nawada.\n                                 ......... Applicant ............Respondent Ist. Set.\n         2. Oriental Insurance Company, Hazaribagh, Distt. - Hazaribagh.\n                                  ........ O.P. ........... Respondent, 2nd Set.\n         3. Prahlad Kumar Verma, son of Firangi Prasad Verma.\n            Driver of vehicle No. B.H.W. 1892,\n                Resident of Jhoomari Tilaiya, P.S. Jhoomari Tilaiya, Distt. -\n                Hazaribagh.\n                                    ........ O.P. ............... Respondent 3rd Set.\n                                   -----------\n<\/pre>\n
23\/   27.07.2010                    Heard learned counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
                               2.    This miscellaneous appeal is directed<\/p>\n
                   against the order dated 29.06.1992 passed by Sri Hari<\/p>\n
                   Bhushan Prasad Sinha, learned 4th Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
                   Judge, Nawada in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No. 01 of<\/p>\n
                   1991 \/ 28 of 1988 by which the appellant has been granted<\/p>\n
                   compensation of Rs.65,000\/-. However, it has further been<\/p>\n
                   held that under Section 95(i) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles<\/p>\n
                   Act<\/a>, 1939 would be applicable to this case having been<\/p>\n
                   filed prior to New Motor Vehicle Act<\/a> 1988. The Insurance<\/p>\n
                   Company is only liable to pay Rs.15,000\/- per passenger
\n                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
and the rest of the amount to be paid by the owner.<\/p>\n
            3.     As per the case of the applicant her<\/p>\n
husband was the passenger on the trecker in question. So<\/p>\n
the Insurance Company is only liable to pay Rs.15,000\/-<\/p>\n
which has already been paid by it as ad interim<\/p>\n
compensation. Subtracting this amount of 15,000\/- the<\/p>\n
applicant is entitled for 50,000\/- more which is not<\/p>\n
payable by the Insurance Company and hence it is<\/p>\n
required to be paid by the opposite party no. 1, the owner<\/p>\n
of the vehicle in question. The owner of the vehicle has<\/p>\n
preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
            4.    The learned counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
however, challenged the above finding by the Tribunal on<\/p>\n
the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly applied Section<\/p>\n
95(i)(b)(ii)<\/a> of the Motor Vehicle Act 1939 and has<\/p>\n
contended that the case falls under Section 95(i)(b)<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
Motor Vehicle Act 1939 as there is no case that the<\/p>\n
deceased was a passenger of the vehicle and contended<\/p>\n
that after going through the evidence, it can well be<\/p>\n
inferred that the deceased died not being a passenger but<\/p>\n
as other than a passenger and it can well be inferred that<\/p>\n
the vehicle dashed while going on the road and hence
\n                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 95(i)(b)(ii)<\/a> of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 is not<\/p>\n
applicable.\n<\/p>\n
              5.        Learned counsel for the Insurance<\/p>\n
Company, however, contended that the Tribunal has<\/p>\n
rightly applied the law and fact as the case is covered<\/p>\n
under Section 95(i)(b)(ii)<\/a> of the Motor Vehicle Act as<\/p>\n
there is evidence and it can well be inferred that the<\/p>\n
deceased was travelling as a passenger on the vehicle<\/p>\n
which met with an accident and hence on the rival<\/p>\n
submission of the parties, the question for consideration is<\/p>\n
whether the deceased was a passenger or was a person<\/p>\n
other than passenger on the vehicle which met with the<\/p>\n
accident i.e. and whether the case is covered under Section<\/p>\n
95(i)(b)(i)<\/a> or covered under Section 95(i)(b)(ii)<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
Motor Vehicle Act.\n<\/p>\n
              6. However, going into facts and the findings<\/p>\n
by the learned lower Court, the learned Tribunal has taken<\/p>\n
into consideration the evidence of A.W. 2 Chinta Devi<\/p>\n
who is the applicant and wife of deceased herself has<\/p>\n
stated that she came to know that her husband fell down<\/p>\n
from the trecker in question and died and the Tribunal<\/p>\n
took into consideration this fact and evidence and while
\n                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
considering the applicability of Section 95(i)(b)(ii)<\/a> held<\/p>\n
that her husband was a passenger on the trecker in<\/p>\n
question.\n<\/p>\n
             7. Learned counsel for the appellant has<\/p>\n
challenged the findings and contends that Chinta Devi is<\/p>\n
not the eye witness of the occurrence and she has stated<\/p>\n
that she has learnt about the occurrence and her evidence<\/p>\n
cannot be relied as admissible and hence the finding of<\/p>\n
Tribunal is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
             8.    However, in the petition of the claim<\/p>\n
before the Tribunal it has been stated that the deceased<\/p>\n
was traveling by that vehicle and he caught the vehicle at<\/p>\n
Rajouli to Nawada and vehicle which was being driven<\/p>\n
rashly and negligently dashed with a tree and deceased<\/p>\n
Prayag Goswami died on the spot.\n<\/p>\n
              9. The owner even filed written statement<\/p>\n
and has stated in his written statement that the vehicle is<\/p>\n
already insured and Ramesh Singh is the owner of the<\/p>\n
vehicle but not refuted that deceased was not travelling on<\/p>\n
vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
             10.       However, during the evidence the<\/p>\n
applicant witness A.W 1 Saudagar Goswami has stated
\n                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
that his elder brother Prayag Goswami has died on<\/p>\n
25.05.1988 by accident of trecker and he learnt that his<\/p>\n
brother has been taken to the police station. A.W. 2 Chinta<\/p>\n
Devi has stated that her husband died in the accident and<\/p>\n
she learnt that he fell down from the trecker in question<\/p>\n
and died. A.W. 3 is Suresh Goswami and he has stated that<\/p>\n
he was not present at the place of occurrence i.e.<\/p>\n
Angharbari. The evidence of A.W. 4 who is the only<\/p>\n
witness who has stated that Suresh Goswami informed<\/p>\n
him about the occurrence. However, there is no eye<\/p>\n
witness to the occurrence at all. None of the witness<\/p>\n
examined said specifically about the occurrence having<\/p>\n
been taken place in their presence and they simply said<\/p>\n
that there was a simple accident.\n<\/p>\n
            11.   However, A.W. 2 has specifically stated<\/p>\n
that she learnt that the deceased fell down from the death.<\/p>\n
The case of the applicant in the petition for compensation<\/p>\n
of the claim specifically mentioned in Column 10 and 22<\/p>\n
that the deceased Pryag Goswami died while traveling on<\/p>\n
the vehicle which met with the accident.<\/p>\n
            12.   Insurance copy of insurance bill which<\/p>\n
has been marked as Ext. A, mentions that the vehicle was
\n                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
having sitting capacity 6 + 1 and also mentions limit of 6<\/p>\n
passengers and was insured for 6 passengers of<\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/- .\n<\/p>\n
            13.       Learned counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
however, contended that since one of the witnesses Suresh<\/p>\n
Goswami has stated in his evidence that he does the<\/p>\n
business of ferry and the deceased was also a person who<\/p>\n
was doing the business of ferry and hence contend that it<\/p>\n
may be inferred that the deceased was also doing the ferry<\/p>\n
business in the locality when the accident took place and it<\/p>\n
may be deemed that the trecker dashed the deceased while<\/p>\n
he was roaming on the road for doing ferry and therefore it<\/p>\n
should have been held that the deceased was not a<\/p>\n
passenger of the vehicle and was a person other than<\/p>\n
passenger who died out of road accident by the vehicle.<\/p>\n
However, the argument is based on imagination and<\/p>\n
without any basis and any conclusion arrived on that basis<\/p>\n
cannot be accepted as there is neither any pleading,<\/p>\n
averment nor any proof or suggestion.\n<\/p>\n
            14.    However, having regard to the fact, in<\/p>\n
the claim petition itself, there is a specific mention that<\/p>\n
deceased was a passenger and traveling on the trecker and
\n                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
         there is evidence of A.W. 2 that her husband fell down<\/p>\n
         from the trecker and hence on that basis the finding<\/p>\n
         recorded by the Tribunal is well considered and not<\/p>\n
         required to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
                     15.    After having heard the learned counsel<\/p>\n
         for the parties and taking into consideration the entire facts<\/p>\n
         and circumstances of the case, this Court comes to an<\/p>\n
         irresistible conclusion that the deceased was a passenger in<\/p>\n
         the vehicle in question and the Tribunal was justified in<\/p>\n
         making Sections 95(i)(b)(ii)<\/a> of the Motor Vehicles Act<\/p>\n
         1939 applicable to the facts of the case and hence the<\/p>\n
         applicant is entitled to the amount fixed by the Tribunal. In<\/p>\n
         the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and hence<\/p>\n
         the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
Kundan                                      (Gopal Prasad, J.)\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders Ramesh Singh &Amp; Anr vs Chinta Devi &Amp; Ors on 27 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.252 of 1992 1. Ramesh Singh, son of Paltoo Singh. 2. Rakesh Kumar Singh, S\/o. Ramesh Singh. Minor son under the guardianship of his father, both residents of […]<\/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":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-250767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Singh &Amp; Anr vs Chinta Devi &Amp; Ors on 27 July, 2010 - 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\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Singh &Amp; Anr vs Chinta Devi &Amp; Ors on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-20T04:48:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Singh &Amp; Anr vs Chinta Devi &Amp; Ors on 27 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-20T04:48:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1225,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Singh &Amp; Anr vs Chinta Devi &Amp; Ors on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-20T04:48:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Singh &Amp; Anr vs Chinta Devi &Amp; Ors on 27 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramesh Singh &Amp; Anr vs Chinta Devi &Amp; Ors on 27 July, 2010 - 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\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Singh &Amp; Anr vs Chinta Devi &Amp; Ors on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-20T04:48:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Singh &Amp; Anr vs Chinta Devi &Amp; Ors on 27 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-20T04:48:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010"},"wordCount":1225,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010","name":"Ramesh Singh &Amp; Anr vs Chinta Devi &Amp; Ors on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-20T04:48:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-singh-amp-anr-vs-chinta-devi-amp-ors-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Singh &Amp; Anr vs Chinta Devi &Amp; Ors on 27 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/250767","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=250767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250767\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}