{"id":266885,"date":"2008-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008"},"modified":"2016-03-20T07:25:36","modified_gmt":"2016-03-20T01:55:36","slug":"vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"Vidyadhari & Ors vs Sukhrana Bai & Ors on 22 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Vidyadhari & Ors vs Sukhrana Bai & Ors on 22 January, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: V Sirpurkar<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, V.S. Sirpurkar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  575 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nVidyadhari & Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSukhrana Bai & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/01\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of SLP (C) No.6758 of 2007)<\/p>\n
V.S. SIRPURKAR,J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tA common judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
\nJabalpur, disposing of two Miscellaneous Appeals  is in challenge before
\nus.  The appeals were filed by one Smt.Sukhrana Bai claiming herself to
\nbe the widow of one Sheetaldeen.  Sheetaldeen was working as a CCM
\nHelper in Mines P.K.1 of the Western Coalfields at Pathakheda and died
\non 9.5.1993 while in service.  Two separate applications came to be filed
\nunder Section 372<\/a> of the Indian Succession Act for obtaining succession
\ncertificate with respect to the movable properties of deceased
\nSheetaldeen, one of them was filed by Vidhyadhari registered as
\nSuccession Case No.3\/96 while the other came to be filed by Sukhrana
\nBai which was registered as Succession Case No.10\/95.  Both the cases
\nwere joined and tried together by the Trial Court which allowed the
\napplication filed by Vidhyadhari (SC No.3\/96) and dismissed the one filed
\nby Sukhrana Bai (SC No.10\/95).  Sukhrana Bai, therefore, filed two
\nMiscellaneous Appeals being MA 33\/1998 and MA 43\/1998 which came to
\nbe allowed by the High Court in favour of Sukhrana Bai.  Vidhyadhari,
\ntherefore, is before us in this appeal.  Before we proceed with the matter, a
\nfactual background would be necessary.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tAdmittedly, Sukhrana Bai was the first wife of Sheetaldeen, while
\nduring the subsistence of this marriage, Sheetaldeen got married with
\nVidhyadhari.  Two sons and two daughters were born to Vidhyadhari, they
\nbeing Smt.Savitri, Naresh @ Ramesh, Ms.Chanda @ Durga and Baliram,
\nwhile Sukhrana Bai does not have any children.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tVidhyadhari in her application before the Trial Court (SC No.3\/96),
\nbesides herself, disclosed the names of her children as the legal heirs of
\nSheetaldeen.  It was also revealed that deceased Sheetaldeen had
\nnominated her for receiving amounts under the Provident Fund, Family
\nPension Scheme and Coal Mines Deposits Life Scheme.  She also
\ndisclosed that she has received a sum of Rs.45036\/- towards gratuity
\namount of the deceased from the employer of Sheetaldeen, i.e., Western
\nCoalfields Ltd.  She, therefore, claimed the Succession Certificate on the
\nbasis of the nominations besides her marriage with Sheetaldeen.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tAs stated above, both the Succession Cases came to be
\nconsolidated and tried together.  In SC No.10\/95, filed by Sukhrana Bai,
\nVidhyadhari raised an objection that Sukhrana Bai was not the heir of
\ndeceased Sheetaldeen and though Sheetaldeen initially nominated
\nVidhyadhari to receive the dues after his death as per Form A,
\nsubsequently he cancelled that nomination and filled in a second Form A in
\nwhich he had nominated Smt.Vidhyadhari and in description of his family
\nmembers he had indicated her to be the wife, one Naresh as his son and
\nMs.Chanda @ Durga as his daughter.  It was also pointed out that
\nSukhrana Bai had not claimed any dues from the office of Sheetaldeen.
\nWCL which is a party, contended that the non-applicant had no knowledge
\nabout the valid marriage between the deceased and Sukhrana Bai and it
\nwas also admitted that Sheetaldeen had nominated Vidhyadhari to receive
\nthe total amount and had registered her as his nominee.  Following issues
\ncame to be framed by the Trial Court:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tWhether the legal widow of the deceased Sheetaldeen
\nis the applicant Smt.Sukhrana of Case No.10\/95 or
\nVidhyadhari of Case No.3\/96?\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tWhether Smt.Savitri, Naresh aias Ramesh, Ms.Chanda
\nalias Durga and Baliram, as mentioned in the application of
\nCase No.3\/96 are the children of applicant Vidhyadhari, sired
\nby deceased Sheetaldeen?\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tIf yes, whether they are the heirs of deceased
\nSheetaldeen?\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tFor receiving the amount due to deceased
\nSheetaldeen, issuance of Succession Certificate in whose
\nfavour would be just and proper?\n<\/p>\n
(5) \tRelief and expenses?\n<\/p>\n
Both oral and documentary evidence was led by both the parties.
\nSukhrana Bai examined herself as AW1 along with three other witnesses,
\nnamely, Kanhaiyalal (AW2), Ram Prasad (AW3) and Shivnath (AW4).  On
\nthe basis of the evidence led, the Trial Court held Vidhyadhari to be the
\nlegal widow of deceased Sheetaldeen.  It was also held that the children
\nSmt.Savitri, Naresh @ Ramesh, Ms.Chanda @ Durga and Baliram
\nmentioned in SC No.3\/96 were sired by deceased Sheetaldeen and were
\nhis children. They were also held to be heirs of deceased Sheetaldeen.
\nThe Trial Court also held that the Succession Certificate was liable to be
\nissued in favour of Vidhyadhari and not in favour of Sukhrana Bai.  In its
\njudgment the Trial Court referred to an admission made by Vidhyadhari in
\nher affidavit Exhibit C-7 wherein she had stated on oath that she is the
\nsecond wife of Sheetaldeen and Sukhrana Bai was the first wife.  The Trial
\ncourt also referred to the proved fact that Sheetaldeen initially had
\nnominated Sukharana Bai as a nominee indicating her to be his wife in
\nForm A.  After discussing the voluminous oral evidence led by the parties,
\nthe Trial Court held that Sukhrana Bai was earlier married to Sheetaldeen
\nand there were no issues out of this wedlock and thereafter Sheetaldeen
\nmarried Vidhyadhari and for about 20 to 25 years he lived with Vidhyadhari
\ntill his death while Sukhrana Bai never came to stay with him.  The
\nobservation of the Trial Court in para 18 of the its Judgment is as under:
\nwhich means that either Sukhrana Devi deserted him or
\nSheetaldeen left her. <\/p>\n
The Trial Court then proceeded to hold in Para 19 that Sheetaldeen
\nbelonged to the Shudra community and in Shudra community if the wife
\ndeserts her husband and no effort is made by the husband to take her back
\nas his wife then under Hindu law it is presumed that divorce has taken
\nplace between the two, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Govind
\nRaju vs. K. Muni Swami Gonder & Ors. [AIR 1997 SC 10].  A finding was
\ngiven that Sheetaldeen had divorced Sukhrana Bai and solemnized second
\nmarriage with Vidhyadhari and, therefore, the marriage of Vidhyadhari
\ncould not be said to be illegal.  On that basis the Trial Court excluded the
\nclaim of Sukhrana Bai and granted the claim of Vidhyadhari holding that
\nshe was entitled to receive the amount of Rs.1,30,000\/- from WCL towards
\nSheetaldeens Provident Fund, Life Cover Scheme, Pension and amount of
\nLife Insurance and amount of other dues payable to the successor of
\nSheetaldeen on his death.  It was also observed in para 23 as under:
\n.In that amount, applicant Vidhyadhari and her sons and
\ndaughters will have equal share.  On receipt of the said
\namount, applicant Vidhyadhari shall distribute the amount to
\nher sons and daughters as per their share..<\/p>\n
Resultantly the Trial Court dismissed Sukhrana Bais application.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe High Court, however, concluded that the theory of customary
\ndivorce between Sukhrana Bai and Sheetaldeen was a myth.  It was noted
\nthat there was no evidence on record to hold that customary divorce had
\ntaken place between Sukhrana Bai and Sheetaldeen nor was there any
\npleading about the factum of any customary divorce or existence of any
\ncustom.  Relying on a reported decision in Smt.Savitri Devi v. Manorama
\nBai<\/a> [AIR 1998 MP 114], the High Court came to the conclusion that the
\nalleged customary divorce between Sukhrana Bai and deceased
\nSheetaldeen was not established.  Stopping here itself, the High Court
\nallowed both the appeals and directed that the Succession Certificate
\nshould be granted in favour of Sukhrana Bai.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tLearned counsel appearing for the appellant Vidhyadhari strenuously
\nurged that the High Court could not have straightaway granted the claim of
\nSukharana Bai.  Learned counsel pointed out that in grant of certificate in
\nfavour of Sukhranai Bai, the claim of four children was altogether ignored
\nas, admittedly, Sukhrana Bai had sought the certificate for herself alone.
\nLearned counsel points out that even if the theory of divorce between
\nSukhrana Bai and Sheetaldeen is described and even if Vidhyadhari is not
\nheld to be his legal wife since the children admittedly were sired by
\nSheetaldeen, they were legitimate children entitled to inherit Sheetaldeen.
\nOn this point, learned counsel relied on Rameshwari Devi v. State of
\nBihar & Ors<\/a>. [(2000) 2 SCC 431].  Learned counsel pointed out that in her
\napplication Vidhyadhari had specifically mentioned the names of four
\nchildren as the legal heirs besides herself, while Sukhrana Bai had claimed
\nthat she was the only legal heir of Sheetaldeen.  Learned counsel tried to
\nurge, relying on a reported decision in Yamanji H. Jadhav v. Nirmala<\/a>
\n[(2002) 2 SCC 637], that in this case the customary divorce should have
\nbeen held to be proved.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tAs against this, learned counsel appearing for respondent Sukhrana
\nBai supported the judgment of the High Court and contended that she
\nbeing the only legal heir of deceased Sheetaldeen, she alone was entitled
\nto the grant of Succession Certificate as ordered by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThere can be no dispute that Vidhyadhari had never pleaded any
\ndivorce, much less customary divorce between Sukhrana Bai and
\nSheetaldeen.  There were no pleadings and hence no issue arose on that
\ncount.  In our opinion, therefore, the High Court was right in holding that
\nmarriage between Sukhrana Bai and Sheetaldeen was very much
\nsubsisting when Sheetaldeen got married to Vidhyadhari.  Learned counsel
\ntried to rely on the reported decision in Govind Rajus case (supra).  We
\nare afraid the decision is of no help to the respondent as basically the issue
\nin that decision was about the legitimacy of the children born to a mother
\nwhose first marriage was not dissolved and yet she had contracted the
\nsecond marriage.  This is apart from the fact that in the present case there
\nwere no pleadings about the existence of custom and alleged divorce
\nthereunder.  Therefore, there was no evidence led on that issue.  In our
\nopinion the decision in Govind Rajus case is not applicable.  Even the
\nother decision in Yamanajis case is not applicable as the facts are entirely
\ndifferent.  In Yamanjis case there was a Deed of Divorce executed by the
\nwife.  The question was whether there was a customary divorce.  There
\nwas a custom permitting divorce by executing deed existing in the
\ncommunity to which the parties belonged.  Such is not the situation here.
\nThere is neither any Divorce Deed nor even the assertion on the part of
\nVidhyadhari that Sheetaldeen had divorced Sukhrana Bai.  We, therefore,
\naccept the finding of the High Court that Sukhrana Bai was the legally
\nwedded wife while Vidhyadhar could not claim that status.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tHowever, unfortunately, the High Court stopped there only and did
\nnot consider the question as to whether inspite of this factual scenario
\nVidhyadhari could be rendered the Succession Certificate.  The High Court
\nalmost presumed that Succession Certificate can be applied for only by the
\nlegally wedded wife to the exclusion of anybody else.  The High Court
\ncompletely ignored the admitted situation that this Succession Certificate
\nwas for the purposes of collecting the Provident Fund, Life Cover Scheme,
\nPension and amount of Life Insurance and amount of other dues in the
\nnature of death benefits of Sheetaldeen.  That Vidhyadhari was a nominee
\nis not disputed by anyone and is, therefore proved.  Vidhyadhari had
\nclaimed the Succession Certificate mentioning therein the names of four
\nchildren whose status as legitimate children of Sheetaldeen could not and
\ncannot be disputed.  This Court in a reported decision in Rameshwari
\nDevis case (supra) has held that even if a Government Servant had
\ncontracted second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage,
\nchildren born out of such second marriage would still be legitimate though
\nthe second marriage itself would be void.  The Court, therefore, went on to
\nhold that such children would be entitled to the pension but not the second
\nwife.  It was, therefore, bound to be considered by the High Court as to
\nwhether Vidhyadhari being the nominee of Sheetaldeen could legitimately
\nfile an application for Succession Certificate and could be granted the
\nsame.  The law is clear on this issue that a nominee like Vidhyadhari who
\nwas claiming the death benefits arising out of the employment can always
\nfile an application under Section 372<\/a> of the Indian Succession Act as there
\nis nothing in that Section to prevent such a nominee from claiming the
\ncertificate on the basis of nomination.  The High Court should have realised
\nthat Vidhyadhari was not only a nominee but also was the mother of four
\nchildren of Sheetaldeen who were the legal heirs of Sheetaldeen and
\nwhose names were also found in Form A which was the declaration of
\nSheetaldeen during his life-time.  In her application Vidhyadhari candidly
\npointed out the names of the four children as the legal heirs of
\nSheetaldeen.  No doubt that she herself has claimed to be a legal heir
\nwhich status she could not claim but besides that she had the status of a
\nnominee of Sheetaldeen.  She continued to stay with Sheetaldeen as his
\nwife for long time and was a person of confidence for Sheetaldeen who had
\nnominated her for his Provident Fund, Life Cover Scheme, Pension and
\namount of Life Insurance and amount of other dues.  Under such
\ncircumstances she was always preferable even to the legally wedded wife
\nlike Sukhrana Bai who had never stayed with Sheetaldeen as his wife and
\nwho had gone to the extent of claiming the Succession Certificate to the
\nexclusion of legal heirs of Sheetaldeen.  In the grant of Succession
\nCertificate the court has to use its discretion where the rival claims, as in
\nthis case, are made for the Succession Certificate for the properties of the
\ndeceased.  The High Court should have taken into consideration these
\ncrucial circumstances.  Merely because Sukhrana Bai was the legally
\nwedded wife that by itself did not entitle her to a Succession Certificate in
\ncomparison to Vidhyadhari who all through had stayed as the wife of
\nSheetaldeen, had born his four children and had claimed a Succession
\nCertificate on behalf children also.  In our opinion, the High Court was not
\njustified in granting the claim of Sukhrana Bai to the exclusion not only of
\nthe nominee of Sheetaldeen but also to the exclusion of his legitimate legal
\nheirs.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tTherefore, though we agree with the High Court that Sukhrana Bai
\nwas the only legitimate wife yet, we would chose to grant the certificate in
\nfavour of Vidhyadhari who was his nominee and the mother of his four
\nchildren.  However, we must balance the equities as Sukhrana Bai is also
\none of the legal heirs and besides the four children she would have the
\nequal share in Sheetaldeens estate which would be 1\/5th.  To balance the
\nequities we would, therefore, chose to grant Succession Certificate to
\nVidhyadhari but with a rider that she would protect the 1\/5th share of
\nSukhrana Bai in Sheetaldeens properties and would hand over the same
\nto her.  As the nominee she would hold the 1\/5th share of Sukhrana Bai in
\ntrust and would be responsible to pay the same to Sukhrana Bai.  We
\ndirect that for this purpose she would give a security in the Trial Court to
\nthe satisfaction of the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIt should not be understood by the above that we are, in any way,
\ndeciding the status of Vidhadhari finally.  She may still prosecute her own
\nremedies for establishing her own status independently of these
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tIn the result the appeal is allowed.  In the facts and circumstances of
\nthe case, there will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Vidyadhari & Ors vs Sukhrana Bai & Ors on 22 January, 2008 Author: V Sirpurkar Bench: S.B. Sinha, V.S. Sirpurkar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 575 of 2008 PETITIONER: Vidyadhari & Ors. RESPONDENT: Sukhrana Bai & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/01\/2008 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/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-266885","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nVidyadhari & Ors vs Sukhrana Bai & Ors on 22 January, 2008 - 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\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vidyadhari & Ors vs Sukhrana Bai & Ors on 22 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-20T01:55:36+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vidyadhari & Ors vs Sukhrana Bai & Ors on 22 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-20T01:55:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2576,\"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\\\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008\",\"name\":\"Vidyadhari & Ors vs Sukhrana Bai & Ors on 22 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-20T01:55:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vidyadhari & Ors vs Sukhrana Bai & Ors on 22 January, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Vidyadhari & Ors vs Sukhrana Bai & Ors on 22 January, 2008 - 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\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vidyadhari & Ors vs Sukhrana Bai & Ors on 22 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-20T01:55:36+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vidyadhari & Ors vs Sukhrana Bai & Ors on 22 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-20T01:55:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008"},"wordCount":2576,"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\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008","name":"Vidyadhari & Ors vs Sukhrana Bai & Ors on 22 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-20T01:55:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vidyadhari-ors-vs-sukhrana-bai-ors-on-22-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vidyadhari & Ors vs Sukhrana Bai & Ors on 22 January, 2008"}]},{"@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\/266885","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=266885"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266885\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=266885"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=266885"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=266885"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}