{"id":253660,"date":"1992-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-03-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992"},"modified":"2018-05-20T18:22:31","modified_gmt":"2018-05-20T12:52:31","slug":"darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992","title":{"rendered":"Darshan Prashad And Anr vs Civil Judge Ii, Gorakhpur And Ors on 13 March, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Darshan Prashad And Anr vs Civil Judge Ii, Gorakhpur And Ors on 13 March, 1992<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 967, 1992 SCR (2) 265<\/div>\n
Author: N Kasliwal<\/div>\n
Bench: Kasliwal, N.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDARSHAN PRASHAD AND ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCIVIL JUDGE II, GORAKHPUR AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/03\/1992\n\nBENCH:\nKASLIWAL, N.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nKASLIWAL, N.M. (J)\nRAMASWAMY, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR  967\t\t  1992 SCR  (2) 265\n 1992 SCC  Supl.  (2)  87 JT 1992 (2)\t213\n 1992 SCALE  (1)660\n\n\nACT:\n     U.P.  Imposition  of  Ceiling  on\tLand  Holdings\tAct,\n1960\/U.P. Act<\/a> No. 20 of 1976:\n     Ss.  3(7), 5(3), 10(2), 38-A, 38-B-Agricultural  lands-\nCeiling-Determination  of-Land\theld  by  wife\tas  separate\ntenure-holder, living separately without obtaining a  decree\nfor judicial separation-Whether can be included in the\tland\nof  husband while determining ceiling  area:  Family-Whether\nincludes  wife living separately without obtaining  judicial\nseparation.\n     Issuance\tof   fresh  notice   under   s.10(2)   after\nenforcement  of U.P. Act<\/a> No. 20 of 1976-Validity  of-Whether\ndecision in earlier proceedings operates as res judicate.\n     Words and Phrases:\n     'Family', 'judicial separation', 'judicially  separated\nwife'-Meaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     A\tnotice\tunder  s.10(2) of  the\tU.P.  Imposition  of\nCeiling\t on Land Holdings Act, 1960, as amended by the\tU.P.\nAct<\/a>  No.  20 of 1976, was issued to the appellant;  and\t his\nobjections   thereto  were  dismissed  by   the\t  Prescribed\nAuthority.   Thereupon\ttwo appeals were  filed\t before\t the\nappellate authority-one by the appellant and another by\t his\nwife  claiming herself to be the judicially separated  wife.\nIt  was\t stated\t that  she was\tliving\tseparately  and\t the\nappellant gave her certain lands for maintenance in  respect\nof which she obtained a decree of injunction restraining the\nappellant-husband from interfering with her possession;\t and\nher  ownership\twith  respect  thereto\twas  recognised\t  in\nconsolidation  proceeding as well as in the earlier  ceiling\nproceedings.\n     Both  the\tappeals\t were  dismissed  by  the  appellate\nauthority  and\tthe writ petitions thereupon  filed  by\t the\nappellants were also dismissed by the High Court.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       266\n     In\t appeal\t to  this  Court it  was  contended  by\t the\nappellants  that (1) the lands of the wife, who\t was  living\nseparately,  could  not\t be clubbed with the  lands  of\t the\nhusband even though a judicial separation may not have taken\nplace;\tand (2) the notice issued under s.10(2) was  illegal\nand without jurisdiction inasmuch as ceiling area in respect\nof  the\t appellants had been determined before\tcoming\tinto\nforce  of Amendment Act<\/a> No. 20 of 1976 and the order  passed\nin  the\t earlier ceiling proceedings would  operate  as\t res\njudicata.\n     Dismissing the appeals, this Court,\n     HELD  :  1. In view of the provision of s.5(3)  of\t the\nU.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, while\ndetermining ceiling area of the land belonging to a  person,\nthe  land even if owned or possessed by his wife in her\t own\nright  as  a  separate tenure-holder is not  allowed  to  be\nexcluded  and would have to be included in the land  of\t the\nhusband\t treating the wife as a member of his  family.\t The\nonly  exception\t has been made in the case of  a  judicially\nseparated  wife.   The\tterm  'judicially  separated'\twife\noccurring in s.3(7) of the Ceiling Act, 1960 cannot be given\na  meaning to include a wife merely living  separately\tfrom\nher  husband but having not obtained a decree  for  judicial\nseparation, which was necessary under the provisions of\t the\nHindu  Marriage\t Act<\/a>, 1955.  After obtaining such  a  decree\nalone  it  could  be  recognised  as  judicial\t separation.\n[.pp.270E-G; 271B]\n     2.1 The provisions of s.38-A of the U.P. Imposition  of\nCeiling\t on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and s.30(3) of U.P.\t Act<\/a>\nNo.20  of 1976 authorise the Prescribed Authority  to  issue\nfresh  notice  under s.10(2), within a period of  two  years\nfrom  the  date\t of  any order\tpassed\tin  earlier  ceiling\nproceedings  requiring\tthe tenure holder  to  furnish\tsuch\nparticulars  by an affidavit in respect of the land held  by\nhim  and  members  of his family as may\t be  prescribed\t and\nconsidered  necessary for enforcement of the  provisions  of\nthe  Ceiling Act. Section 38-B of Ceiling Act, 1960  clearly\nprovides  that\tany  finding or decision  given\t before\t the\ncommencement  of these provisions will not operate as a\t bar\nfor  the retrial of such proceeding or issue  in  accordance\nwith the provisions of the Act as amended from time to time.\n[pp.268F-G; 269B]\n     2.2  The  High Court was right in holding\tthat  if  an\nearlier\t judgment is said to operate as res-judicata in\t the\nsubsequent   proceedings,  then\t all  the  necessary   facts\nincluding pleadings of the earlier litigation, must be\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       267\nplaced\tin the subsequent proceeding; and that\tthe  earlier\nnotice under Section 10(2)<\/a> issued to the tenure-holder along\nwith the statement prepared in Form No.3 were neither placed\nbefore the Ceiling authorities in subsequent proceedings nor\nsuch  material\twas produced even before the High  Court  in\norder to enable it to decide whether the second notice could\nbe said to be illegal. [pp. 268-G-H; p.269A]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.  2838-
\n39 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     From the Judgment dated 11.5.1979 of the Allahabad High
\nCourt in Writ Petition Nos. 2764 & 2856 of 1977.\n<\/p>\n
     B.R.L.  Iyengar,  B. Barua and R.D.  Upadhyay  for\t the
\nAppellants.\n<\/p>\n
     Anil   Kumar   Gupta  and\tA.K.  Srivastava   for\t the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KASLIWAL  ,  J. These two appeal by  grant\t of  Special
\nLeave  are  directed against the judgment of  the  Allahabad
\nHigh Court dated 11.5.1979.  A notice under Section 10(2) of
\nthe  U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings  Act,\t1960
\n(hereinafter  referred\tto as the ‘Ceiling  Act,  1960’)  as
\namended\t by Act No. 20 of 1976 was issued to  the  appellant
\nDarshan\t Prashad.  The appellant filed objections,  but\t the
\nsame  were  dismissed by the prescribed authority  by  order
\ndated  28.5.1976.  Thereafter two appeals were filed one  by
\nDarshan\t Prashad  and  the  other  by  Smt.  Saraswati\tDevi
\nclaiming  to  be the judicially separated  wife\t of  Darshan
\nPrashad.  Both appeals were dismissed by the Civil Judge No.
\nII,  Gorakhpur\tDarshan\t Prashad then  filed  Writ  Petition
\nNo.2764\t of 1977 and Smt. Saraswati Devi Writ  petition\t No.
\n2856 of 1977 challenging the order of the Civil Judge.\t The
\nHigh Court dismissed both the Writ Petitions by order  dated
\n11.5.1979. Being aggrieved by the findings of the prescribed
\nauthority and the High Court, the appellants have now  filed
\nthe present appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     The first contention raised by Learned Counsel for\t the
\nappellants  was\t that notice issued under Section  10(2)<\/a>  wa
\nillegal and without jurisdiction.  It was contended that  in
\nthe  earlier  ceiling  proceedings 0.87 acres  of  land\t was
\ndeclared  surplus under the provisions of the  Ceiling\tAct,
\n1960 before coming into force of the Amendment Act<\/a>, No.20 of
\n1976 and the order passed in the earlier ceiling proceedings
\nwould operate as res
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       268<\/span>
\njudicata.  It was submitted that there was no change in the
\nlaw to justify issuing of fresh notice
\n     We\t do  not  find any force in  this  contention.\t The
\nAmendment Act<\/a> No. 20 of 1976 inserted two Sections 38-A<\/a>\t and
\n38-B<\/a>  in the Principal Act of 1960.  Sections 38-A<\/a> and\t38-B<\/a>
\nare reproduced as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\t “38-A.\t Power to call for particulars of land\tfrom
\n\t tenure-holders.  (1) Where the prescribed authority
\n\t or  the appellate court considers it necessary\t for
\n\t the  enforcement of the provisions of this Act,  it
\n\t may,  at  any stage of the proceedings\t under\tthis
\n\t Act,  require\tany tenure-holder  to  furnish\tsuch
\n\t particulars  by  affidavit in respect of  the\tland
\n\t held  by  him and members of his family as  may  be
\n\t prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
\t (2) The particulars of land filed under sub-section
\n\t (1) may be taken into consideration in\t determining
\n\t the surplus land of such tenure-holder.\n<\/p>\n
\t 38-B  Bar  against  res judicata –  No\t finding  or
\n\t decision  given  before the  commencement  of\tthis
\n\t section   in  any  proceeding\tor  on\t any   issue
\n\t (including  any order, decree or judgment)  by\t any
\n\t court,\t tribunal  or authority in  respect  of\t any
\n\t mater\tgoverned by this Act, shall bar the  retrial
\n\t such  proceeding  or  issue  under  this  Act,\t  in
\n\t accordance  with  the\tprovisions of  this  Act  as
\n\t amended from time to time.”\n<\/p>\n
     The  above provisions clearly show that the  prescribed
\nauthority  was given power to required any tenure-holder  to
\nfurnish\t such  particulars, by affidavit in respect  of\t the
\nland  held  by\thim and\t members of his\t family\t as  may  be
\nprescribed  which  may\tbe  considered\tnecessary  for\t the
\nenforcement  of\t the provisions of the Ceiling Act.   It  is
\nclearly provided under Section 38-B<\/a> inserted by the Amending
\nAct<\/a>  as mentioned above that any finding or  decision  given
\nbefore the commencement of this Section will not operate  as
\na  bar\tfor  the  retrial of  such  proceeding or  issue  in
\naccordance  with the provisions of the Act as  amended\tfrom
\ntime to time.  The appellants had raised a similar objection
\nbefore\tthe  High Court, but the same was  rejected  on\t the
\nground that if an earlier judgment is said to operate as res
\njudicata  in  the  subsequent  proceedings,  then  all\t the
\nnecessary   facts   including  pleadings  of   the   earlier
\nlitigation must be placed in the subsequent
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  269<\/span>
\nproceedings.   The High Court further observed that  in\t the
\ninstant\t case, the earlier notice under Section 10(2)<\/a>  which
\nwas  issued  to the tenure-holder along with  the  statement
\nprepared  in Form No. 3 were not placed before\tthe  Ceiling
\nauthorities in subsequent proceedings.\tIt was further\theld
\nthat  even in the Writ Petition no such material was  placed
\nin  order to enable the Court to decide whether\t the  second
\nnotice\tcould be said to be illegal.  Section 30(3)<\/a>  of\t the
\nU.P. Act No. 20 of 1976 clearly provided that the prescribed
\nauthority  was\tauthorised to issue fresh  notice  within  a
\nperiod\tof  two years from the date of any order  passed  in
\nearlier\t ceiling proceedings.  We are in agreement with\t the
\nview  taken  by\t the High Court.  Learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants  was\t unable\t to  show  that\t in  the  facts\t and
\ncircumstances  of the case, the notice issued under  Section
\n10(2)<\/a>  of the present proceedings was in any manner  illegal
\nor without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
     It was next contended on behalf of the Learned  Counsel
\nfor  the  Appellants that Smt Saraswati Devi  had  left\t the
\ncompany\t of  the appellant Darshan Prashad and\thad  started
\nliving\twith  her parents even before the  year\t 1955.\t The
\nappellant (Darshan Prashad) had given her agricultural lands
\nfor  her  maintenance and thereafter  married  with  another
\nwoman.\tIt was submitted that Smt. Saraswati Devi had  filed
\na  suit on 22nd February, 1956 for permanent  injunction  to
\nrestrain the appellant Darshan Prashad from interfering with
\nher  possession\t over  the lands given to  her\tin  lieu  of
\nmaintenance.  In that suit arbitrators were appointed by the
\nCourt and an award was given in favour of Smt Saraswati Devi
\non  5.12.1956.\tThe said award was made a rule of the  Court
\nand  a\tdecree\twas passed on 21.1.1957 in  favour  of\tSmt.
\nSaraswati  Devi\t restraining the appellant by  a  decree  of
\npermanent injunction from interfering with the possession of
\nSmt.  Saraswati\t Devi  over the lands  situated\t in  village
\nKarmahava  Khurd, Tappa Lehara, Pargana\t Haveli,  Gorakhpur.
\nIt  was submitted that even in the proceedings\ttaken  under
\nthe provisions of Ceiling Act, 1960. Smt. Saraswati Devi was
\nrecognised  as owner of land by virtue of the  decree  dated
\n21.1.1957, and also in consolidation proceedings which\ttook
\nplace  after the coming into force of the Ceiling  Act,1960.
\nLearned Counsel for the appellants also contended that\tSmt.
\nSaraswati  Devi was also entitled to separate residence\t and
\nmaintenance  from  her husband under the provisions  of\t the
\nHindu  Married\tWoman’s\t Right\tto  Separate  Residence\t and
\nMaintenance  Act<\/a>,  1946.  It was thus  contended  that\teven
\nthough a judicial separation of Smt. Saraswati Devi may\t not
\nhave  taken place, Smt. Saraswati Devi for all\tintents\t and
\npurposes was judicially separated wife
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       270<\/span>
\nand  the agricultural lands in her ownership and  possession
\nlong before the coming into force of the Ceiling Act,  1960,
\nconnot\tbe clubbed in the land of the appellant husband\t for
\ndetermining the ceiling area.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t do  not find any force in the above  contention  in
\nview  of  the  clear provisions of the\tceiling\t Act,  1960.
\nSection 3(7)<\/a> defines ‘family’ as under:-
\n\t “‘family’  in\trelation to a  tenure-holder,  means
\n\t himself or herself and his wife or her husband,  as
\n\t the case may be (other than a judicially  separated
\n\t wife  or husband), minor sons and  minor  daughters
\n\t (other than married daughters)”\n<\/p>\n
     It is clear from the above definition that the wife  is
\nincluded  in  the  family  of  her  husband  other  than   a
\njudicially separated wife.\n<\/p>\n
     If\t is important to note that the Hindu  Marriage\tAct<\/a>,
\n1955  had come into force on 18th May, 1955.  Section 10<\/a>  of
\nthis  Act  provided  for  the  judicial\t separation.   Under
\nSection\t 10<\/a>  of\t the Hindu Marriage Act either\tparty  to  a
\nmarriage was entitled to present a petition to the  District
\nCourt praying for a decree for judicial separation on any of
\nthe  grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 13<\/a>\t and
\nin the case of wife also on any of the grounds specified  in
\nsub-section (2) thereof, as grounds of which a petition\t for
\ndivorce might have been presented.  Thus, in order to get  a
\njudicial  separation,  it was necessary to obtain  a  decree
\nunder  the  above  provision  and then\talone  it  could  be
\nrecognised as a judicial separation.  The Ceiling Act,\t1960
\nwas enacted and brought into operation long after the  Hindu
\nMarriage Act<\/a>, and as such the legislature was fully aware of
\nthe  meaning  of judicial separated wife  or  husband  while
\nusing this term in the definition of ‘family’ under  Section
\n3<\/a>  (7) the Ceiling  Act, 1960.\tIt is further  important  to
\nnote  that sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Ceiling\tAct,
\n1960,  prescribes, while determining the ceiling  area,\t the
\nland of ‘adult son\/sons’ who were themselves  tenure-holders
\nbeing  excluded, but no such land is allowed to be  excluded
\nin the case of the wife, even though she might be a separate
\ntenure-holder.\tThus, it is abundantly clear from a  perusal
\nof  the\t above provisions that in the  case  of\t determining
\nceiling\t area  of the land belonging to a person,  the\tland
\neven  if  owned or possessed by his wife in  her  own  right
\nwould  have  to\t be  included in the  land  of\tthe  husband
\ntreating  the  wife  as a member of his\t family.   The\tonly
\nexception  has\tbeen  made  in\tthe  case  of  a  judicially
\nseparated wife.\t It was contended by the Learned Counsel for
\nthe appellants that a wider meaning should be given to the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       271<\/span>
\nterm  ‘judicially separated’ wife to include a wife who\t may
\nbe living separately from her husband and agricultural\tland
\nowned  or  possessed  in lieu of her  right  of\t maintenance
\nshould\tbe excluded from the ceiling limit of  her  husband.
\nIt is difficult for us to accept this contention in view  of
\nthe  clear provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1960\twhich  apart
\nfrom  being a beneficial act for the landless has  used\t the
\nterm ‘judicially separated’ wife after the coming into force
\nof  the\t Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955.  This cannot be  given  a
\nmeaning to include a wife merely living separately from\t the
\nhusband,  but  having  not obtained a  decree  for  judicial
\nseparation  under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage\tAct<\/a>,
\n1955.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t view  of these circumstances, we find no  force  in
\nthese appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
R.P.\t\t\t\t\tAppeals dismissed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       272<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Darshan Prashad And Anr vs Civil Judge Ii, Gorakhpur And Ors on 13 March, 1992 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 967, 1992 SCR (2) 265 Author: N Kasliwal Bench: Kasliwal, N.M. (J) PETITIONER: DARSHAN PRASHAD AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: CIVIL JUDGE II, GORAKHPUR AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/03\/1992 BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) […]<\/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-253660","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDarshan Prashad And Anr vs Civil Judge Ii, Gorakhpur And Ors on 13 March, 1992 - 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\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Darshan Prashad And Anr vs Civil Judge Ii, Gorakhpur And Ors on 13 March, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992\" \/>\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=\"1992-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-20T12:52:31+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Darshan Prashad And Anr vs Civil Judge Ii, Gorakhpur And Ors on 13 March, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-20T12:52:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992\"},\"wordCount\":1717,\"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\\\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992\",\"name\":\"Darshan Prashad And Anr vs Civil Judge Ii, Gorakhpur And Ors on 13 March, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-20T12:52:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Darshan Prashad And Anr vs Civil Judge Ii, Gorakhpur And Ors on 13 March, 1992\"}]},{\"@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":"Darshan Prashad And Anr vs Civil Judge Ii, Gorakhpur And Ors on 13 March, 1992 - 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\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Darshan Prashad And Anr vs Civil Judge Ii, Gorakhpur And Ors on 13 March, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-20T12:52:31+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Darshan Prashad And Anr vs Civil Judge Ii, Gorakhpur And Ors on 13 March, 1992","datePublished":"1992-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-20T12:52:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992"},"wordCount":1717,"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\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992","name":"Darshan Prashad And Anr vs Civil Judge Ii, Gorakhpur And Ors on 13 March, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-20T12:52:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-prashad-and-anr-vs-civil-judge-ii-gorakhpur-and-ors-on-13-march-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Darshan Prashad And Anr vs Civil Judge Ii, Gorakhpur And Ors on 13 March, 1992"}]},{"@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\/253660","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=253660"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253660\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253660"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253660"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253660"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}