{"id":253689,"date":"1972-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-01-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972"},"modified":"2018-09-07T14:10:01","modified_gmt":"2018-09-07T08:40:01","slug":"talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972","title":{"rendered":"Talkeshwari Devi vs Ram Ran Bikat Prasad Singh &amp; Anr on 12 January, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Talkeshwari Devi vs Ram Ran Bikat Prasad Singh &amp; Anr on 12 January, 1972<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR  639, 1972 SCR  (3)\t 71<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           PETITIONER:\nTALKESHWARI DEVI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAM RAN BIKAT PRASAD SINGH &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/01\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\nPALEKAR, D.G.\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR  639\t\t  1972 SCR  (3)\t 71\n\n\nACT:\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1450343\/\" id=\"a_1\">Indian\t Succession   Act<\/a>  1925-Ss.   124,   131-Scope-Will,\nconstruction of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nBy  clause 4 of a will the testator bequeathed to his  grand\ndaughters  T and S an absolute right in the properties\tthat\nwere to devolve on them after the death of his wife., Clause\n5  further provided that if one of the two  grand  daughters\nwere to die issueless the other living grand daughter was to\nenter  into  possession of the entire property\tas  absolute\nowner.\t After\tthe  death of the testator's wife  T  and  S\ndivided\t the  properties  which devolved on  them  in  equal\nshares.\t  On  S\t dying issueless T  instituted\ta  suit\t for\npossession  of\tthe properties that fell to the share  of  S\nbasing\ther  claim on clause 5 of the will.   The  suit\t was\ndismissed.  Dismissing the appeal,\nHELD  : Clause 5 of the will relates to devolution, it\tdoes\nnot  provide  for  any divestment of  an  estate  which\t had\nvested.\t  The estate that vested in S under clause 4 of\t the\nwill  was not a conditional estate, it was an absolute\tone.\nThe will does not provide for the divestment of that estate.\nClause\t5 would have come into operation if the\t contingency\nmentioned   therein  had  happened  before  the\t  properties\nabsolutely  devolved on T and S. What the testator  intended\nwas that if any of his grand daughters died issueless before\nthe devolution took place then the entire property should go\nto another grand daughter.  The intention of the testator is\nplain from the language of the will. [73 E]\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1542038\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section\t 124<\/a> of the Indian Succession Act, 1925\t applies  to\nthe facts of the case and not<a href=\"\/doc\/1319541\/\" id=\"a_2\"> s. 131<\/a>.  The legacy claimed by\nthe appellant is unavailable as the contemplated contingency\ndid  not  occur before the fund bequeathed  was\t payable  or\ndistributable.\t <a href=\"\/doc\/1319541\/\" id=\"a_3\">Section 131<\/a> provides for the divestment  of\nan  estate which had already vested; it speaks of an  estate\ngoing over to another person. [74B]\nNorendra  Nath Sircar and anr. v. Kamal Basini Dasi,  I.L.R.\n23, Cal. 563, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 213 of 1967.<br \/>\nAppeal from the Judgment and order dated February, 17th 1965<br \/>\nof the Patna High Court in First Appeal No. 113 of 1960.<br \/>\nM.   C.\t Chagla, D. P. Singh, S. C. Agarwal, V. J.  Francis,<br \/>\nR.   Goburdhun and D. Goburdhun, for the appellant.<br \/>\nM.   C. Setalvad, Sarjoo Prasad, A. G. Ratnaparkhi and Rajiv<br \/>\nShah, for respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">The Judgment of the Court-was decided by<br \/>\nHegde,\tJ. In this appeal by certificate we are to  consider<br \/>\nthe  effect  of the will executed by  one  Raghunath  Prasad<br \/>\nSingh, on August 31, 1938.  The said testator died very soon<br \/>\nafter the execution of the will leaving behind him his widow<br \/>\nJageshwar Kuer,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">72<\/span><br \/>\nhis  daughter  Satrupa\tKuer and  his  two  grand  daughters<br \/>\nTalkeshwari  Devi (the appellant herein) and Sheorani.\t The<br \/>\nappellant  and Sheorani are the daughters of Sukhdeo  Prasad<br \/>\nSingh,\tthe  son  of the testator who  had  predeceased\t the<br \/>\ntestator.  Jageshwar Kuer died in November 1948 and Sheorani<br \/>\nDevi  on  November 1, 1949 without leaving any\tissue.\t The<br \/>\ndispute\t in  this  case\t is as to who  is  entitled  to\t the<br \/>\nproperties devolved on Sheorani under the provisions of\t the<br \/>\nwill  left by the testator.  For deciding that\tquestion  we<br \/>\nhave  to refer to the relevant provisions of the  will.\t the<br \/>\ngenuineness or validity of which is not in dispute.<br \/>\nThe  will in question provides that after the death  of\t the<br \/>\ntestator a portion of his properties (detailed in the  will)<br \/>\nwas  to\t devolve  on  Jageshwar\t Kuer  absolutely  and\t the<br \/>\nremaining properties are also to devolve on her but  therein<br \/>\nshe  was  to  have only a life interest.  The  will  further<br \/>\nprovides  that after her death &#8220;the entire property will  be<br \/>\ntreated\t as  16\t annas\tproperty out  of  which\t 5  annas  4<br \/>\npies(five  annas four pies) share  constituting\t proprietary<br \/>\ninterest  will\tpass  to Shrimati  Satrupa  Kuer  alias\t Nan<br \/>\ndaughter  of  me, the executant and her\t heirs\tas  absolute<br \/>\nowners\tand  the remaining 10 annas 8 pies  (annas  ten\t and<br \/>\neight  pies)  share  will  pass\t to  both  the\tminor  grand<br \/>\ndaughters, (1) Shrimati Talkeshwari Kuer alias Babu and\t (2)<br \/>\nShrimati  Sheorani  Kuer  alias Bachan in  equal  shares  as<br \/>\nabsolute proprietary interest&#8221; (cf. 4 of the will).   Clause<br \/>\n5 of the will says :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>\t      &#8220;That if one of the two grand daughters  named<br \/>\n\t      above,   dies  issueless,\t then\tunder\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      circumstances the other living grand  daughter<br \/>\n\t      will  enter into possession and occupation  of<br \/>\n\t      the  entire  10 annas 8 pies  and\t become\t the<br \/>\n\t      absolute owner thereof.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_2\"> At the time of the death of the testator, the appellant  as<br \/>\nwell  as  Sheorani  Kuer were minors.  After  the  death  of<br \/>\nJageshwar  Kuer, the appellant and her sister Sheorani\tKuer<br \/>\ndivided\t the  ten annas eight pies share of  the  properties<br \/>\nwhich  devolved\t on them in equal shares and each  one\tcame<br \/>\ninto possession of her share of the properties.<br \/>\nImmediately after the death of Sheorani Kuer, the  appellant<br \/>\ninstituted a suit for possession of the properties that fell<br \/>\nto  the share of Sheorani Kuer purporting to base her  claim<br \/>\non  clause  5  of the will to which  we\t have  earlier\tmade<br \/>\nreference.   That suit was resisted by the first  defendant,<br \/>\nthe husband of Sheorani.  He claimed that he was entitled to<br \/>\nthose  properties as the heir of his wife. The\ttrial  court<br \/>\ndismissed the plaintiff&#8217;s suit and the decision of the trial<br \/>\ncourt was upheld by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">It was contended on behalf of the appellant that in view  of<br \/>\nclause 5 of the will, the appellant is entitled to the\tsuit<br \/>\nproperties<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">73<\/span><br \/>\nas  Sheorani Kuer had died issueless.  This  contention,  as<br \/>\nmentioned earlier, did not find favour either with the trial<br \/>\ncourt or with the appellate court.  They have held that on a<br \/>\nproper\tleading\t of the will as a whole, it  is\t clear\tthat<br \/>\nclause\t5 ceased to be operative on the death  of  Jageshwar<br \/>\nKuer, thereafter caluse 4 of the will was the only operative<br \/>\nclause\tso far as the rights of the appellant  and  Sheorani<br \/>\nware concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">It  is undisputed that the duty of the court is to find\t out<br \/>\nthe  intention of the testator but that intention has to  be<br \/>\ngathered from the language of the will read as a whole.\t  I+<br \/>\nis clear from clause 4 of the will that the testator  wanted<br \/>\nto  give  to his grant-daughters an absolute  right  in\t the<br \/>\nproperties  that were to devolve on them after the death  of<br \/>\nhis  wife,  Jageshwar  Kuer.  The  estate  bequeathed  under<br \/>\nclause 4 of the will is not a conditional estate.  Clause  5<br \/>\nof  the will relates to devolution and it does\tnot  provide<br \/>\nfor  any  divestment  of an estate which  had  vested.\t The<br \/>\nestate\tthat  vested on Sheorani was an absolute  one.\t The<br \/>\nwill does not provide for the divestment of that estate.  It<br \/>\nis  plain from the language of clause 5 of the will that  it<br \/>\nrefers\tto the devolution, which means when  the  properties<br \/>\ndevolved on the two sisters on the death of Jageshwar  Kuer.<br \/>\nWe are, unable to accept the contention of Mr. M. C. Chagla,<br \/>\nlearned\t Counsel  for  the appellant  that  there  is  an-,-<br \/>\nconflict between clause 4 and clause 5 of the will.   Clause<br \/>\n5  in  our  judgment  would have  come\tinto  force  if\t the<br \/>\ncontingency  mentioned\ttherein\t had  happened\tbefore\t the<br \/>\nproperties absolutely devoted on the two sisters.  Clause  5<br \/>\ncannot\tbe  considered\tas  a  defeasance  clause.   If\t the<br \/>\ntestator  wanted that the bequest made to any of his  grand-<br \/>\ndaughters  should  stand divested on the  happening  of\t any<br \/>\ncontingency,  then  he\twould  have said  so  in  the  will,<br \/>\nassuming that he could have made such a provision.  But\t the<br \/>\nwill  nowhere  says that the properties\t bequeathed  to\t the<br \/>\nappellant and her sister should cease to be their properties<br \/>\non  their  dying  issueless.  Obviously\t what  the  testator<br \/>\nintended  was  that  if\t any  of  his  grand-daughters\tdies<br \/>\nissueless  before the devolution took place then the  entire<br \/>\nproperty should go to the other granddaughter.\tTo our\tmind<br \/>\nthe intention of the testator is plain from the language  of<br \/>\nthe will.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">To find out the effect of the will before us we have to look<br \/>\nto <a href=\"\/doc\/59741\/\" id=\"a_4\"> ss.\t 1-4<\/a>  and <a href=\"\/doc\/1319541\/\" id=\"a_5\">131<\/a> of the Indian  Succession\t Act,  1925.<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1542038\/\" id=\"a_6\">Section 124<\/a> says :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>\t      &#8220;Where  a\t legacy\t is  given  if\ta  specified<br \/>\n\t      uncertain\t event shall happen and no  time  is<br \/>\n\t      mentioned\t in  the will for be  occurrence  of<br \/>\n\t      that  event,  the legacy cannot  take  effect,<br \/>\n\t      unless  such event happens before\t the  period<br \/>\n\t      when   the  fund\tbequeathed  is\tpayable\t  or<br \/>\n\t      distributable.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_6\">-L864 Sup.CI\/72<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">74<\/span><br \/>\nIllustration (ii) to that section says<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;A legacy is bequeathed to A, and in the\tcase<br \/>\n\t      of  his  death without children, to  B.  If  A<br \/>\n\t      survives the testator or dies in his  lifetime<br \/>\n\t      leaving a child, the legacy to B does not take<br \/>\n\t      effect.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">If <a href=\"\/doc\/1542038\/\" id=\"a_7\"> s. 124<\/a> applies to the facts of the case, as we think  it<br \/>\ndoes,  then  it\t is clear that the  legacy  claimed  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant is unavailable as the contemplated contingency did<br \/>\nnot  occur  before  the\t fund  bequeathed  was\tpayable\t  or<br \/>\ndistributable.\t <a href=\"\/doc\/1542038\/\" id=\"a_8\">Section 124<\/a> deals with devolution.  But  as<br \/>\nwe  shall presently see<a href=\"\/doc\/1319541\/\" id=\"a_9\"> s. 131<\/a> deals with divestment  of  an<br \/>\nestate\tthat  had  vested.  Mr.\t Chagla\t contends  that\t the<br \/>\ngoverning  provision is<a href=\"\/doc\/1319541\/\" id=\"a_10\"> S. 131<\/a>. That section says:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_2\"><p>\t      &#8220;A bequest may be made to any person with\t the<br \/>\n\t      condition\t  super\t added\tthat,  in   case   a<br \/>\n\t      specified\t uncertain event shall\thappen,\t the<br \/>\n\t      thing  bequeathed shall go to another  person,<br \/>\n\t      or  that in case a specified  uncertain  event<br \/>\n\t      shall  not happen, the thing bequeathed  shall<br \/>\n\t      go over to another person.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_8\">had  already vested.  It speaks of an estate going  over  to<br \/>\nanother person.\t As seen earlier clause 5 of the will is not<br \/>\na defeasance clause.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">A  case\t somewhat similar to the one before us came  up\t for<br \/>\nconsideration  before  the Judicial Committee of  the  Privy<br \/>\nCouncil\t in  Norendra Nath Sircar and anr. v.  Kamal  Basini<br \/>\nDasi(1)\t Therein a Hindu at his death left three  sons,\t the<br \/>\neldest\tof full age and the other two minors.  In  his\twill<br \/>\nwere  the  directions &#8220;My three sons shall  be\tentitled  to<br \/>\nenjoy  all the movable and immoveable properties left by  me<br \/>\nequally.   Any one of the sons dying sonless, the  surviving<br \/>\nson  shall  be\tentitled to  all  the  properties  equally&#8221;.<br \/>\nInterpreting  this clause the Judicial Committee  held\tthat<br \/>\nthose  words gave a legacy to the survivors contingently  on<br \/>\nthe happening of a specified uncertain event, which had\t not<br \/>\nhappened before the period when the property bequeathed\t was<br \/>\ndistributable, that period of distribution being the time of<br \/>\nthe  testator&#8217;s death.\tIn arriving at this conclusion,\t the<br \/>\nJudicial Committee relied on<a href=\"\/doc\/283311\/\" id=\"a_11\"> s. 111<\/a> of the Indian Succession<br \/>\nAct,  1865.   That  provision is similar to<a href=\"\/doc\/1542038\/\" id=\"a_12\"> s.\t124<\/a>  of\t the<br \/>\nIndian Succession Act, 1925.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">For the reasons mentioned above we are in agreement with the<br \/>\ncourts\tbelow that the suit brought by the appellant is\t un-<br \/>\nsustainable.   This  appeal is\taccordingly  dismissed\twith<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">K.B.N.\t\t\tAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">(1)  I.L.R. 23, Cal, 563.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">75<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Talkeshwari Devi vs Ram Ran Bikat Prasad Singh &amp; Anr on 12 January, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 639, 1972 SCR (3) 71 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: TALKESHWARI DEVI Vs. RESPONDENT: RAM RAN BIKAT PRASAD SINGH &amp; ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/01\/1972 BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. REDDY, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-253689","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Talkeshwari Devi vs Ram Ran Bikat Prasad Singh &amp; Anr on 12 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Talkeshwari Devi vs Ram Ran Bikat Prasad Singh &amp; Anr on 12 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1972-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-07T08:40:01+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Talkeshwari Devi vs Ram Ran Bikat Prasad Singh &amp; Anr on 12 January, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-07T08:40:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972\"},\"wordCount\":1494,\"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\\\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972\",\"name\":\"Talkeshwari Devi vs Ram Ran Bikat Prasad Singh &amp; Anr on 12 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-07T08:40:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Talkeshwari Devi vs Ram Ran Bikat Prasad Singh &amp; Anr on 12 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":"Talkeshwari Devi vs Ram Ran Bikat Prasad Singh &amp; Anr on 12 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Talkeshwari Devi vs Ram Ran Bikat Prasad Singh &amp; Anr on 12 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-07T08:40:01+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Talkeshwari Devi vs Ram Ran Bikat Prasad Singh &amp; Anr on 12 January, 1972","datePublished":"1972-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-07T08:40:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972"},"wordCount":1494,"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\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972","name":"Talkeshwari Devi vs Ram Ran Bikat Prasad Singh &amp; Anr on 12 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-07T08:40:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/talkeshwari-devi-vs-ram-ran-bikat-prasad-singh-anr-on-12-january-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Talkeshwari Devi vs Ram Ran Bikat Prasad Singh &amp; Anr on 12 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\/253689","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=253689"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253689\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253689"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253689"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253689"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}