{"id":261830,"date":"1966-01-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-01-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966"},"modified":"2016-08-07T10:20:41","modified_gmt":"2016-08-07T04:50:41","slug":"smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Dayawati And Another vs Inderjit And Others on 14 January, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Smt. Dayawati And Another vs Inderjit And Others on 14 January, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1423, 1966 SCR (3) 275<\/div>\n
Author: Hidayatullah<\/div>\n
Bench: Hidayatullah, M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSMT.  DAYAWATI AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nINDERJIT AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/01\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1423\t\t  1966 SCR  (3) 275\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1985 SC 111\t (9)\n E&F\t    1989 SC1247\t (24)\n RF\t    1991 SC1654\t (44)\n\n\nACT:\nUsurious  Loans Act<\/a>, 1918 (10 of 1918), s. 3<\/a>, as amended  by\ns.  5  of  Punjab Relief of Indebtedness  Act-Section  6<\/a>  of\nlatter\tAct making s. 5<\/a> applicable to \"all suits pending  or\nto be instituted after, the commencement of this Act\"-Appeal\nfiled against judgment in suit-Whether suit 'pending' within\nmeaning of s. 6<\/a>.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nInterest  in  excess of 7 1\/2 per cent was  awarded  to\t the\nappellants by the trial court in a mortgage suit against the\nrespondents.   The respondents file before the\tHigh  Court,\nwhere an appeal by them against the decree of the trial\t co=\nwas  pending an application under a. 3 of the Usurious\tAct<\/a>,\n1918 as amended by a. 5 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness\nAct.  They claimed, by virtue of the latter provision,\tthat\ninterest  in excels of 7 1\/2 per cent could not be  awarded-\nin the &Wt.  The High Court having accepted the\t contention,\nthe  appellants\t cam  to this Court  by\t special  leave\t and\ncontended that an appeal having been filed against the trial\ncourt's\t judgment  in the suit, the said suit could  not  be\nsaid  to  be.  pending' within the meaning of a.  6  of\t the\nPunjab\tAct<\/a> on the relevant date, and therefore a.  5  would\nnot apply.\nHELD  :\t (i)  The word 'suit' includes an  appeal  from\t the\njudgment\t\tin between a suit.\nThe  only difference between a suit and an appeal is that an\nappeal\t\"only  reviews and corrects the\t proceedings  'in  a\ncause already constituted but does not create the cause.  In\nthe  present Act the intention is to give relief in  respect\nof  excessive  interest\t in a suit which is  pending  and  a\npreliminary decree in a suit of this kind does not terminate\nthe  suit.   The appeal is a part of the cause\tbecause\t the\npreliminary decree which decree.[281 D-F]\n(ii)The\t words\tof  s. 6<\/a> speak of a  suit  pending  on\tthe\ncommencement of the Act and it means a live suit whether  in\nthe  court of first instance, or an appeal court  where\t the\njudgment of the court of first instance is being considered.\nIt only excludes those suits in which nothing further  needs\nto  be done in relation to the rights and  claim  litigated,\nbecause\t an executable decree which may not be\treopened  is\nalready\t in existence.\tThe decision of the High  Court\t was\nright  in  applying  s.\t 3<\/a> of the  Usurious  Loans  Act\t (as\namended) to the case. [282 A, B]\n(iii)Ordinarily\t a  court of appeal  cannot  take  into\naccount a new law, brought into existence after the Judgment\nappealed  from has been rendered, because the rights of\t the\nlitigants in an appeal are determined under the law in force\nat  the date of the suit.  Matters of procedure are  however\ndifferent  and\tthe  law  affecting  procedure\tis.   always\nretrospective.\t But  it  does not mean\t that  there  is  an\nabsolute rule of inviolability of substantive rights, If the\nnew  law  speaks in language, which expressly  or  by  clear\nintendment,  takes  in even pending matters,  the  court  of\ntrial as well as the court of appeal may give effect to such\na  law\teven  after  the judgment  of  the  court  of  first\ninstance.  The distinction between laws effacting  procedure\nand  those affecting vented rights does not matter when\t the\ncourt  is  invited  by law to take away\t from  a  successful\nplaintiff what he has obtained under a judgment. [280 &H]\n2 7 6\nQuilter v. Maples`n, (1882)9 Q.B.D. 672, Stovin v. Fairbrass\n(1919)88  L.J.\tK.B.  1004  and\t Mukerjee  (K.C.)  v.\tMst.\nRamratan, 63 I.A. 47, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 246 of 1964.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and decree  dated
\nOctober 15, 1959 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at
\nDelhi in R.F.A. No. 1-D of 1954.\n<\/p>\n
S.T.  Desai,  D.  R. Prem and Mohan  Beharilal,\t for  the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
N.C. Chatterjee, and H. P. Wanchoo, for respondents  Nos.
\n1 to 5.\n<\/p>\n
Tiryugi Narain, for respondent No. 6.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHidayatullah, J. In this appeal by special leave against the
\njudgment  and decree of the Punjab High Court dated  October
\n15,  1959 the only question is whether, in the facts  to  be
\nstated\tpresently,  the\t High Court was\t right\tin  reducing
\ninterest  in a preliminary mortgage decree dated August\t 12,
\n1953  by  applying  ss.\t 5 and 6 of  the  Punjab  Relief  of
\nIndebtedness  Act  which were extended to Delhi on  June  8,
\n1956.\n<\/p>\n
On January 17, 1946, Hazarilal (predecessor of respondents 1
\nto 5) and one Jagat Narain (respondent 6) executed a  simple
\nmortgage  deed for Rs. 50,000 with interest at 9% per  annum
\nor in default of payment of interest for 3 months at Re.   1
\nper  cent  per\tmonth for the period  of  default.   As\t the
\nmortgagors made default in payment of interest and also\t did
\nnot  pay  anything out of the mortgaged amount\ta  suit\t was
\nfiled for enforcement of the mortgage by sale of properties.
\nThe claim was for Rs. 76,692\/9\/8, by calculating interest at
\n9  per cent per annum for the first 3 months and at  12\t pet
\ncent  per  annum till institution of the suit  and  allowing
\ncredit for Rs. 14,000 as repayment.  The defendants admitted
\nthe mortgage and the consideration but pleaded that the rate
\nof interest was both penal and excessive.  This plea was not
\naccepted  and -a preliminary decree was passed for the\tfull
\nclaim  on  August  12, 1953.  Hazarilal\t alone\tappealed  on
\nJanuary\t 5,  1954  (R.F.A. No. 1-D of 1954)  and  asked\t for
\nreduction of interest by Rs. 7,900 and of the rate of future
\ninterest to 9 per cent per annum.  Court fee was paid on Rs.
\n7,900.\t During the pendency of this appeal the\t decree\t was
\nmade final on April 3, 1954.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    277<\/span><\/p>\n
Before the appeal was disposed of Inderjit and Satya Narain,
\nsons  of Hazarilal, filed a suit for a declaration that\t the
\nproperties  were ancestral and belonged to a  joint  family.
\nThey claimed that the properties could not be sold and asked
\nfor a temporary injunction which was first granted and later
\nvacated.  Against the order vacating the stay they filed  an
\nappeal\t(F.A.0.\t 68-D of 1957) and obtained  temporary\tstay
\nfrom  the  High Court.\tThe mortgagees also  filed  in\tthat
\nappeal a petition (S.M. 1318-D of 1957) for vacation of\t the
\nstay  order.  On February 10, 1958 a conditional stay  order
\nwas  passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court\t but
\nwe need not trouble ourselves with it.\n<\/p>\n
On  October 29, 1958 the legal representatives of  Hazarilal
\n(respondents 1 to 5) presented an application under s. 3<\/a>  of
\nthe  Usurious  Loans Act, as amended by s. 5 of\t the  Punjab
\nRelief of Indebtedness Act, when the latter Act was extended
\nto Delhi on June 8, 1956 under s. 2 of Part C States  (Laws)
\nAct,  1950 (30 of 1950) and claimed that interest in  excess
\nof 71 per cent per annum could not be awarded in this  suit.
\nWe may, at this stage, read the relevant sections.   Section
\n3<\/a> of the Usurious Loans Act, in so far as it is material  to
\nour purpose, reads as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3. Re-opening of transactions.
\n\t      (1)Notwithstanding anything in the Usuary Laws
\n\t      Repeal Act, 1855, where, in any suit to  which
\n\t      this  Act applies, whether heard ex  parte  or
\n\t      otherwise, the Court has reason to believe,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   that the interest is excessive; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)
\n\t      the  Court  may  exercise all or\tany  of\t the
\n\t      following powers, namely, may,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)re-open  the transaction, take\t an  account
\n\t      between the parties, and relieve the debtor of
\n\t      all  liability  in respect  of  any  excessive
\n\t      interest;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)(a)  In this section “excessive”  means  in
\n\t      excess  of  that which the Court deems  to  be
\n\t      reasonable having regard to the risk  incurred
\n\t      as  it  appeared,\t or must be  taken  to\thave
\n\t      appeared,\t to the creditor at the date of\t the
\n\t      loan.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)
\n\t      278<\/span>
\n\t      (3)This  section shall apply to  any  suit,
\n\t      whatever\tits  form may be, if  such  suit  is
\n\t      substantially one for the recoveryof a  loan
\n\t      or  for  the enforcement of any  agreement  or
\n\t      security\tin  respect  of a loan\tor  for\t the
\n\t      redemption of any such security.
\n\t      By  s. 5 of the Punjab Relief of\tIndebtedness
\n\t      Act, it was provided :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “5.  Amendment  of  the  Usurious\t Loans\tAct<\/a>,
\n\t      1918.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      In  section 3<\/a> of the Usurious Loans Act,\t1918
\n\t      (X of 1918)-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   for the word “and” in clause(a) of\tsub-
\n\t      section\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   the word ‘or” shall be substituted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)for  the word “may” where it\tappears\t for
\n\t      the  first  time in sub-section (1)  the\tword
\n\t      “shall” shall be substituted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii)for\t the  word  “may”  after  the\tword
\n\t      “namely”\tin sub-section (1) the word  ‘shall”
\n\t      shall be substituted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iv)to  sub-section (2) the  following  clause
\n\t      shall be added, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “(e)  The\t Court\tshall deem  interest  to  be
\n\t      excessive\t if it exceeds seven and-a-half\t per
\n\t      centum  per annum simple interest or  is\tmore
\n\t      than  two\t per  centum  over  the\t Bank  rate,
\n\t      whichever is higher at the time of taking\t the
\n\t      loan, in the case of secured loans, or  twelve
\n\t      and-a-half   per\tcentum\tper   annum   simple
\n\t      interest\tin  the\t case  of  unsecured  loans;
\n\t      Provided\t that  the  court  shall  not\tdeem
\n\t      interest\tin excess of the above rates  to  be
\n\t      excessive if the loan has been advanced by the
\n\t      State  Bank of India or any bank\tincluded  in
\n\t      the  Second  Schedule to the Reserve  Bank  of
\n\t      India  Act<\/a>,  1934,  or  any  banking   company
\n\t      registered  under\t the Indian  Companies\tAct<\/a>,
\n\t      1913 prior to the first day of April, 1937  or
\n\t      any  cooperative society registered under\t the
\n\t      Bombay  Cooperative  Societies Act<\/a>,  1925,  as
\n\t      extended to the State of Delhi.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 6<\/a> of the Act gave retrospective effect to the  above
\nprovisions by enacting
\n279<\/span>
\n“6. Retrospective effect.-\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  provisions of this part of the Act  shall
\n\t      apply  to all suits pending on  or  instituted
\n\t      after the commencement of this Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  decree.-holders  opposed  the  application\t on  several
\ngrounds.  The, main grounds (and they are the grounds  urged
\nin  this  Court)  were that s. 5 of  the  Punjab  Relief  of
\nIndebtedness  Act merely amended s. 3<\/a> of the Usurious  Loans
\nAct,  that neither section applied to the facts of the\tcase
\nand that no such plea was taken in the court below.   R.F.A.
\n1-D of 1954 came up for hearing on October 15, 1959 before a
\nDivisional Bench and by the judgment under appeal the amount
\nof  interest in the mortgage was, reduced by Rs.  15,027  by
\napplying the provisions of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness
\nAct.   ‘Me Divisional Bench followed an earlier decision  of
\nthe  same  court reported in L. Ram Sukh  Das  v.  Hafiz-ul-
\nRahman\tand  others.(1) It was held in that  case  that\t the
\nprovisions of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act  applied
\nto  a case in which a decree had already been passed and  an
\nappeal\twas  pending at the time the amendment\twas  brought
\ninto force.  The Divisional Bench in this case held that  on
\nthe date on which they decided the appeal the provisions  of
\nthe  Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act had been extended  to
\nDelhi  and they were required to apply those provisions\t and
\ninterest  in  excess of 71 -per cent per annum\tcon  not  be
\nawarded.\n<\/p>\n
The preliminary decree was modified by reducing interest  up
\nto, the date of the suit to Rs. 11,665 by applying the\trate
\nof 7 1\/2` per cent. per annum simple and future interest was
\nawarded also at the same rate.\tThe judgment debtors who had
\napplied\t in  the High Court were ordered to  make  good\t the
\ncourt  fee  on.\t  Rs.  7,127.\tAfter  sundry\tunsuccessful
\nproceedings  which included. an: application for review\t and
\nanother\t for  a certificate, the decree-holders\t filed\tthis
\nappeal after obtaining special leave of this Court-
\nIn  this  appeal  it is contended on behalf  of\t the  decree
\nholder-& that s. 5 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness\t Act
\ncan  only  apply to a suit instituted or pending  after\t the
\nsection\t comes -into force and ‘not in an appeal  after\t the
\nsuit  has ended in a decree.  It is farther; contended\tthat
\nthis will be all the more so, because the section itself  is
\nmade retrospective for suits pending on or instituted  after
\nthe  commencement  of  the Act and thus\t cannot\t affect\t the
\nvested’\t  right\t which\tthe  judgment  had  given   to\t the
\nappellants.   We  have\ttherefore,  to\tdecide\twhether\t the
\nprovisions of ss. 5<\/a> and 6<\/a>
\n(1)  A. I.R. 1945 Lah. 177.\n<\/p>\n
Sup.CI\/6  5
\n280<\/span>
\nof the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act could be invoked by
\nthe Divisional Bench to reduce the interest as stated above.
\nThe  amended section 3<\/a> of the Usurious Loans Act is  plainly
\nmandatory because it makes it obligatory for a court to\t re-
\nopen  a transaction if there is reason to believe  that\t the
\ninterest is excessive.\tFurther, where the rate of  interest
\nexceeds\t seven and a half, percentum per annum\tsimple,\t the
\ncourt  must  hold that it is excessive.\t  Therefore  if\t the
\namended\t section 3<\/a> of the Usurious Loans Act applies to\t the
\ncase in hand, the High Court was right in acting as it\tdid.
\nTo  this Mr. S. T. Desai raises no exception.  He  contends,
\nhowever,  that\ts. 6 of the Relief of -Indebtedness  Act  in
\ngiving\tretrospection to section 5<\/a> by which  the  amendments
\nwere made, limits it to suits pending on or instituted after
\nthe  commencement  of  the Relief of  Indebtedness  Act\t and
\nsubmits\t that  the  suit here was  neither  pending  on\t nor
\ninstituted after June 8 1956 when that Act commenced in\t the
\nUnion  Territories  of\tDelhi.\t‘The  respondents  in  reply
\nsubmit\tthat the appeal court must apply ,the provisions  of
\nthe Relief of Indebtedness Act same as the court ,of  trial,
\nbecause\t the  word  ‘suit’, where the section  speaks  of  a\n<\/p>\n
-pending  suit, includes an appeal from the decision in\t the
\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n
Now as a general proposition, it may be admitted that  ordi-
\nnarily a court of appeal cannot take into account a new law,
\nbrought into existence after the judgment appealed from\t has
\nbeen  tendered,\t because the rights of the litigants  in  an
\nappeal are determined under the law in force at the date  of
\nthe  suit.  Even before the days of Coke, whose maxim-a\t new
\nlaw  ought  to\tbe prospective,\t not  retrospective  in\t its
\noperation-is  oft-quoted, courts have looked with  disfavour
\nupon  laws which take away vested Tights or  affect  pending
\ncases.\t Matters of procedure are, how,ever,  different\t and
\nthe  law affecting procedure is always retrospective’.\t But
\nit  does  not  mean  that  there  is  an  absolute  rule  of
\ninviolability of substantive rights.  If the new law  speaks
\nin language, which, expressly or by clear intendment,  takes
\nin  even pending matters, the court of trial as well as\t the
\ncourt  of  appeal  must\t have  regard  to  an  intention  so
\nexpressed, and the court of appeal may give effect to such a
\nlaw even after the judgment of the ,court of first instance.
\nThe  distinction between laws affecting procedure and  those
\naffecting  vested rights does not matter when  the,court  is
\ninvited\t by  law to take away from a  successful  plaintiff,
\nwhat he has obtained under judgment.  See Quilter v.  Maple-
\nson(1)\tand Stovin v. Fairbrass,(2) which are  instances  of
\nnew laws being applied.\t In the former the vested rights  of
\nthe landlord
\n(1) (1892) 9 Q.B.D. 672.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1919] 88 L.J. K.B. 1004.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t 281<\/span><\/p>\n
to recover possession and in the latter the vested right  of
\nthe statutory tenant to remain in possession were taken away
\nafter  judgment.   See\talso  Maxwell’s\t Interpretation\t  of
\nStatutes  (11th\t pp. 211 and 213, and Mukerjee (K.   C.)  v.
\nMst.   Ramaraton,(1) where no saving in respect\t of  pending
\nsuits was implied when s. 26(N)<\/a> and (0) of the Bihar Tenancy
\nAct  (as amended by Bihar Tenancy Amendment Act, 1934)\twere
\nclearly applicable’ to all cases without exception.
\nSection\t 6  of\tthe Relief of Indebtedness  Act\t is  clearly
\nretrospective.\t Indeed,  the heading of the  section  shows
\nthat it lays down the retrospective effect.  This being\t so,
\nthe core of the problem really is whether the suit could  be
\nsaid to be pending on June 8, 1956 when only an appeal\tfrom
\nthe  judgment  in the suit was pending.\t This  requires\t the
\nconsideration  whether\tthe word ‘suit’ includes  an  appeal
\nfrom  the judgment in the suit.\t An appeal has been said  to
\nbe “the right of entering a superior court, and invoking its
\naid  and  interposition to redress the error  of  the  court
\nbelow.”\t  -(Per\t Lord  Westbury\t in  Attorney\tGeneral\t  v.
\nSillem(2).  The only difference between a suit and an appeal
\nis  this  that\tan appeal “only\t reviews  and  corrects\t the
\nproceedings  in\t a cause already constituted  but  does\t not
\ncreate\tthe  cause.” As it is intended to interfere  in\t the
\ncause  by its means, it is -a part of it, and in  connection
\nwith  some  matters  and some statutes it is  said  that  an
\nappeal is a continuation of a suit.  In the present Act\t the
\nintention is to give relief in respect of excessive interest
\nin  a  suit which is pending and a preliminary decree  in  a
\nsuit  of this kind does not terminate the suit.\t The  appeal
\nis a part of the cause because the preliminary decree  which
\nemerges from the appeal will be the decree, which can become
\na  final decree.  Such an appeal cannot have an\t independent
\nexistence.   If this be not accepted for the purpose of\t the
\napplication  of s. 3<\/a> of the Usurious Loans Act (as  amended)
\ncurious results will follow.  The appeal court in the appeal
\nis  not able to resort to the section but if the  suit\twere
\nremanded the trial court would be compelled to apply it. For
\nalthough,  in  the  appeal proper,  that  judgment  must  be
\nrendered which could be rendered by the court of trial,\t but
\nif  the\t suit is to be reheard, then the  judgment  must  be
\ngiven on the existing state of the law and that must include
\ns. 5 by reason of s. 6 of the Punjab Relief of\tIndebtedness
\nAct.  It is hardly to be suggested that this obvious anomaly
\nwas  allowed to exist.\tIt would, therefore, appear that  in
\nspeaking of a pending suit, the legislature was thinking not
\nonly in terms of the suit proper but also
\n(1)  63 I.A. 47,\t\t\t\t(2) 11\tE.R.\n<\/p>\n
1200 at 1209.\n<\/p>\n
282<\/span><\/p>\n
of  those  stages in the life of the suit  which  ordinarily
\ntake  place  before a final executable document\t comes\tinto
\nexistence.  The words of the section we are concerned  with,
\nspeak, of a suit pending on the, commencement of the Act and
\nit means a live suit whether in the court of first  instance
\nor  in an appeal court where the judgment of.,,the court  of
\nfirst instance is being considered.  It only excludes  those
\nsuits in which nothing further needs to be done in  relation
\nto  the\t rights or claims litigated, because  an  executable
\ndecree\twhich may not be reopened is already  in  existence.
\nThe decision of the High Court was right in applying s. 3<\/a> of
\nthe Usurious Loans Act (as amended) to the case.
\nThe appeal thus fails and it will be dismissed with costs.
\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
283<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Smt. Dayawati And Another vs Inderjit And Others on 14 January, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1423, 1966 SCR (3) 275 Author: Hidayatullah Bench: Hidayatullah, M. PETITIONER: SMT. DAYAWATI AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: INDERJIT AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/01\/1966 BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. SUBBARAO, K. BACHAWAT, R.S. CITATION: […]<\/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-261830","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Dayawati And Another vs Inderjit And Others on 14 January, 1966 - 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\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Dayawati And Another vs Inderjit And Others on 14 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-07T04:50:41+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Dayawati And Another vs Inderjit And Others on 14 January, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-07T04:50:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966\"},\"wordCount\":2532,\"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\\\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966\",\"name\":\"Smt. Dayawati And Another vs Inderjit And Others on 14 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-07T04:50:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Dayawati And Another vs Inderjit And Others on 14 January, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt. Dayawati And Another vs Inderjit And Others on 14 January, 1966 - 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\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Dayawati And Another vs Inderjit And Others on 14 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-07T04:50:41+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Dayawati And Another vs Inderjit And Others on 14 January, 1966","datePublished":"1966-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-07T04:50:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966"},"wordCount":2532,"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\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966","name":"Smt. Dayawati And Another vs Inderjit And Others on 14 January, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-07T04:50:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-dayawati-and-another-vs-inderjit-and-others-on-14-january-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Dayawati And Another vs Inderjit And Others on 14 January, 1966"}]},{"@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\/261830","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=261830"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261830\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261830"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261830"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261830"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}