{"id":32241,"date":"1976-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976"},"modified":"2015-07-01T20:19:18","modified_gmt":"2015-07-01T14:49:18","slug":"chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976","title":{"rendered":"Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors vs Hari Dusadh & Ors on 24 November, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors vs Hari Dusadh & Ors on 24 November, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 407, \t\t 1977 SCR (2) 174<\/div>\n
Author: P Shingal<\/div>\n
Bench: Shingal, P.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHHOTAN PRASAD SINGH & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHARI DUSADH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT24\/11\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nSHINGAL, P.N.\nBENCH:\nSHINGAL, P.N.\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nGUPTA, A.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR  407\t\t  1977 SCR  (2) 174\n 1977 SCC  (1) 102\n\n\nACT:\n\tOaths  Act 1873--Section 4---General Clauses Act 1897,\tsec.\n\t3(3)--Meaning\tof   affidavit--Criminal   Procedure\tCode\n\t1898--Section 145(1), whether affidavits before a Magistrate\n\tin 145(1) proceedings must be sworn before any other author-\n\tity empowered to administer oath.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t    Proceedings under section 145(1) of the Criminal  Proce-\n\tdure   Code   1898 were going on between the  parties.\t The\n\tappellants filed affidavits before the Magistrate.  The said\n\taffidavits  were not sworn before the Magistrate who was  in\n\tseisin\tof the case but were sworn before some other  Magis-\n\ttrate.\tIt  was contended before the Magistrate by  the\t re-\n\tspondents  that the said affidavits were not  admissible  in\n\tevidence.  The High Court held those affidavits to be  inad-\n\tmissible.\n\tDismissing the appeal by special leave,\n\t    HELD:  (1) In the absence of any specific  provision  to\n\tthe  contrary in the Criminal Procedure Code the  affidavits\n\thave  to be sworn or affirmed in accordance with the  provi-\n\tsions  of the Oaths Act, 1873.\tSection 145(1) of  the\tCode\n\tprovides that the Magistrate making an order under it  shall\n\trequire\t the parties concerned in the dispute to attend\t his\n\tcourt  in person or by pleader and to put in such  documents\n\tor  to adduce by putting in affidavits the evidence of\tsuch\n\tpersons\t as they rely upon in support of their\tclaim.\t The\n\taffidavits  contemplated by the sub-section are,  therefore,\n\tevidence  for purposes of proceedings before the  Magistrate\n\tconcerned  even\t though the Evidence Act does not  apply  to\n\tthem.  [175G-H]\n\t    (2)\t There\tis no provision in the Code  specifying\t the\n\tcourts before whom the affidavits referred to in section 145\n\thave to be sworn and affirmed.\tThe definition of  affidavit\n\tin section 3(3) of.the General Clauses Act 1897 only  states\n\tthat  it  shall include affirmation and declaration  in\t the\n\tcase of persons by law allowed to affirm or declare  instead\n\tof swearing.  Section 4 of the Oaths Act reads as under:\n\t   \"4.\tThe following Courts and persons are  authorised  to\n\tadminister by themselves or by an officer empowered by\tthem\n\tin  this behalf, oaths and affirmations in discharge of\t the\n\tduties\tor in exercise of  the powers imposed  or  conferred\n\tupon them respectively by law :--\n\t   (a)\tall Courts and persons having by law or\t consent  of\n\tparties authority to receive evidence;\"\n\tIt  is clear that all Courts and persons  having by  law  or\n\tconsent of  parties authority to receive evidence are autho-\n\trised to. administer oaths and affirmations, but they can do\n\tso only where they are otherwise acting in the discharge  of\n\tthe duties or in exercise of the powers imposed or conferred\n\tupon  them  respectively by law.  In the  present  case\t the\n\tMagistrate  concerned with the proceedings under s.  145  of\n\tthe  Code was discharging the duties imposed and  exercising\n\tthe powers conferred by the Code and he alone could adminis-\n\tter  the  oaths\t and affirmations to the  persons  who\tmade\n\taffidavits and not Magistrates who were not discharging\t any\n\tsuch duty or exercising any such power. [176A-H]\n\t    Nandial  Ghose v. Emperor AIR 1944 Cal. 283,  Hemdan  v.\n\tState of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1966 Raj. 5; Govind v.  State\n\tand  others AIR 1969 All. 405; Krishna Chandra Naik  v.\t Sk.\n\tMakbul\tand  others AIR 1970 Orissa 309; Mahesh\t Thakur\t and\n\tothers v. Lakshman Prasad Thakur and another (1971) 19 Bihar\n\tLaw  Journal  727  and State of Madhya\tPradesh\t v.  Trivedi\n\tPrasad<\/a> (1971) XVI H.R. Law journal 1059 approved.\n\t175\n\t    Ahmad  Din v. Abdul Salem AIR 1966 Pb. 528\tand  Shambhu\n\tNath Chopra v. State AIR 1970 Delhi 210, over-ruled.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 316
\n\tof 1971.\n<\/p>\n
\t    (Appeal  by\t Special Leave from the Judgment  and  Order
\n\tdated  the 17th September, 1971 of the Patna High  Court  in
\n\tCriminal Revision No. 2488 of 1971) and
\n\tCriminal Appeal No. 317 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
\t    (Appeal  by\t Special Leave from the Judgment  and  Order
\n\tdated  the  7th\t October, 1971 of the Patna  High  Court  in
\n\tCriminal Revision No. 1491 of 1971.)
\n\t    D. Goburdhan and D.P. Sharma for the appellants in\tboth
\n\tthe appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t    S.C.  Agrawala and V.J. Francis for respondents in\tboth
\n\tthe appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\t    SHINGHAL,  J.–The\tpoint  for  consideration  in  these
\n\tappeals\t  by special leave is whether affidavits,  sworn  or
\n\taffirmed  before  magistrates who are not in seisin  of\t the
\n\tcase  under section 145 of the Code of\tCriminal  Procedure,
\n\thereinafter  referred to as the Code, could be read in\tevi-
\n\tdence  under  that section ?  The High Court has  held\tsuch
\n\taffidavits  to be inadmissible in evidence, in its  impugned
\n\tjudgments dated September 17, 1971 and October 7, 1971,\t and
\n\tthat is why the present appeals by special leave have arisen
\n\tat the instance of the aggrieved parties.
\n\t    It\tis  not in controversy that in the  absence  of\t any
\n\tspecific provision to the contrary in the Code, the  affida-
\n\tvits  have  to be Sworn or affirmed in accordance  with\t the
\n\tprovisions  of the Oaths Act, 1873.  It is also not in\tcon-
\n\ttroversy  that the Oaths Act of 1969 has no  application  to
\n\tthe controversy.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Sub-section\t (1)  of section 145 of the  Code  provides,
\n\tinter  alia,  that the Magistrate making an order  under  it
\n\tshall require the parties concerned in the dispute to attend
\n\this  court in person or by pleader and to put in such  docu-
\n\tments, or to adduce, “by putting in affidavits, the evidence
\n\tof  such  persons”  as they rely upon in  support  of  their
\n\tclaims.\t The affidavits contemplated by the sub-section\t are
\n\ttherefore  evidence for purposes of the\t proceedings  before
\n\tthe  Magistrate concerned even though the Evidence Act\tdoes
\n\tnot  apply  to them by virtue of the  express  provision  of
\n\tsection 1 of that Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Chapter  XLVI of the Code deals with miscellaneous\tmat-
\n\tters  including the affidavits referred to in sections\t539,
\n\t539-A and 539-AA. Section 539 deals with courts and  persons
\n\tbefore\twhom affidavits and affirmations to be\tused  before
\n\tany High Court or any officer of such Court may be sworn and
\n\taffirmed.  Section 539-A relates to
\n\t176<\/span>
\n\taffidavits  in\tproof of conduct of public  servants,  while
\n\tsection 539-AA relates to the authorities before whom  affi-
\n\tdavits\tto be used under section 510A or 539-A may be  sworn
\n\tor  affirmed. An affidavit under section 145 is not  however
\n\tof  a formal character because it is meant to prove or\tdis-
\n\tprove  the  competing claim of the parties as  respects\t the
\n\tfact of actual possession of the subject or dispute.   There
\n\tis  thus no provision in the Code specifying the  courts  or
\n\tpersons\t before whom the affidavits referred to\t in  section
\n\t145 have to be sworn and affirmed.  This has therefore to be
\n\tdone  according\t to   the  general  provisions\trelating  to
\n\taffidavits.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t definition of “affidavit” in section 3(3)  of\t the
\n\tGeneral\t Clauses  Act (Act X of 1897) only  states  that  it
\n\tshall  include\taffirmation and declaration in the  case  of
\n\tpersons\t by  law  allowed to affirm or\tdeclare\t instead  of
\n\tswearing.   But\t it  is an essential  characteristic  of  an
\n\taffidavit  that\t it should be made on  oath  or\t affirmation
\n\tbefore\ta person having authority to administer the oath  or
\n\taffirmation It is here that section 4 of the Oaths Act comes
\n\tinto operation which provides as follows:–\n<\/p>\n
\t      “4. The following Courts and persons are authorised to
\n\tadminister by themselves or by an officer empowered by\tthem
\n\tin  this behalf, oaths and affirmations in discharge of\t the
\n\tduties\tor  in exercise of the powers imposed  or  conferred
\n\tupon them respectively by law :–\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a) all Courts and persons having by law or consent of
\n\tparties authority to receive evidence;”
\n\tThen follow clause (b) and a proviso, with which we are\t not
\n\tconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t    It is therefore clear that all courts and persons having
\n\tby  law or consent of parties authority to receive  evidence
\n\tare   authorised  to administer oaths and affirmations,\t but
\n\tthey can do so only where they are otherwise acting” in\t the
\n\tdischarge of the duties or in exercise of the powers imposed
\n\tor  conferred upon them respectively by law.”  So the  court
\n\tor person mentioned in clause (a) of section 4 of the  Oaths
\n\tAct can administer oath or affirmation to the deponent in an
\n\taffidavit  only\t if the, court or person in  acting  in\t the
\n\t“discharge  of the duties or in exercise of the\t powers\t im-
\n\tposed  or conferred upon them respectively by law.”  In\t the
\n\tpresent cases, the Magistrates concerned with the proceeding
\n\tunder  section 145 of the Code were discharging\t the  duties
\n\timposed and exercising the powers conferred by the Code, and
\n\tthey  alone could administer the oaths and  affirmations  to
\n\tthe persons who made the affidavits, and not the magistrates
\n\twho  were  not discharging any such duty or  exercising\t any
\n\tsuch  power.  As the affidavits in the cases before us\twere
\n\tadmittedly not sworn or affirmed before Magistrates who were
\n\tdealing\t with  the disputes under section 145 of  the  Code,
\n\tthey  were  not\t proper affidavits and\tdid  not  constitute
\n\tevidence for purpose of section 145.  A similar view
\n\t177<\/span>
\n\thas  been  taken in Nandial Ghost v. Emperor(1),  Hemdan  v.
\n\tState  Rajasthan and others(2),\t Govind v.  State  and\toth-
\n\ters(3),\t Krishna Chandra Naik  v.  Sk. Makbul and  others(4)
\n\tMahesh\tThakur\tand  others v. Lakshman\t Prasad\t Thakur\t and
\n\tanother(5) and\tState Madhya Pradesh v. Triveni Prasad<\/a>(6) on
\n\twhich  reliance has been placed by counsel for the  respond-
\n\tents.\n<\/p>\n
\t    We have gone through Ahmad Din v. Abdul Selem,(7)  which
\n\thas  been  cited  with approval in Shambhu  Nath  Chopra  v.
\n\tState,(8) on which reliance. has been placed by counsel\t for
\n\tthe  appellants.   We find however that in Ahmad Din’s\tcase
\n\t(supra) the Punjab High Court did not take proper notice  of
\n\tthe  requirement  of  section 4 of the Oaths  Act  that\t the
\n\tcourts and persons mentioned in clause (a) could  administer
\n\toaths  only  “in discharge of the duties or in\texercise  of
\n\tthe  powers imposed or conferred upon them  respectively  by
\n\tlaw.”\tWe have also examined the reasoning in Shambhu\tNath
\n\tChopra’s  case (supra), but the Delhi High Court there\twent
\n\twrong in holding that the evidence on affidavits referred to
\n\tin section 145 of the Code was of a formal character  within
\n\tthe  meaning of section 510A so as  to attract section\t539-
\n\tAA.\n<\/p>\n
\t    At\tthe High Court has rightly held in the two  impugned
\n\tjudgments that the affidavits were inadmissible in  evidence
\n\tas  they  were sworn before Magistrates who  were  never  in
\n\tseisin\tof the case, we find no force in these\tappeals\t and
\n\tthey are hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tP.H,P.\t\t\t\t\t       Appeals\tdis-\n\tmissed.\n<\/pre>\n
\t(1) A.I.R. 1944 Cal. 283.\t     (2) A.1.R. 1966 Raj. 5.
\n\t(3) A.I.R. 1969 All. 405.\t (4) A.I.R. 1970 Orissa 209.
\n\t(5) (1971) 19 Bihar, Law
\n\t Journal 727.\t\t    (6) [1971] XVI M.P.L. J. 1059a
\n\t(7) A.I.R. 1966 Pb. 528.\t (8) A.I.R. 1970 Delhi 210.
\n\t13 — 1:158SCI\/77
\n\t178<\/span>
\n\tSTATE OF KERALA
\n\tv.\n<\/p>\n
\tM.T. JOSEPH
\n\tNovember 25, 1976
\n\t[A. N. RAY, C.J., M.H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
\n\t    Kerala  Land  Reforms Act 1963–Kerala  Government\tLand
\n\tAssignment  Act\t 1960–Sec. 8—Whether after a\t person\t ac-
\n\tquires title to Government land any further restrictions can
\n\tbe imposed.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The Government of Travancore sanctioned a scheme for the
\n\treclamation  of the Vimbana Lake upon terms  and  conditions
\n\tcontained  in  at document dated  4-10-1963.   The  document
\n\tprovided that one Joseph his father on payment of Rs.  10’\/-
\n\tper acre which was to. be recovered in 10 equal\t instalments
\n\twould  be given possession of certain tracts of\t land  which
\n\tthey undertook to reclaim.  The said agreement was  modified
\n\tby  an order dated 12-2-1941 and a fresh agreement was\texe-
\n\tcuted  in July 1941. The said agreement provided  that\ttill
\n\ttie remittances of all amounts due to the Government by\t way
\n\tof land value are paid the executant shall have no right  of
\n\talienation  in respect of the property in question and\tthat
\n\ttill  then the property shall remain with the Government  as
\n\tsole owner. It further provided that, until the entire\tland
\n\tvalue  is paid by the executant and until the assignment  of
\n\tthe  land  and issue of Patta is  completed,  the  executant
\n\tundertook not to do any act which might reduce the value  of
\n\ttie  property.\tJoseph complied with  the  conditions\tlaid
\n\tdown  in the  agreement and ;acquired full ownership  rights
\n\tby  fulfilling the  said  terms.  In 1957,  Joseph  executed
\n\ta  deed of settlement of this land.  Thereafter Kerala\tLand
\n\tReforms Act of 1963 was passed so that the State Land  Board
\n\tstarted\t proceedings  for the surrender of  the\t land.\t The
\n\tquestion  before the Land Board was whether the\t whole\tland
\n\tshould be treated as a single unit belonging  to  Joseph  or
\n\twhether\t it may be divided and treated as separate units  of
\n\tpersons in whose favour Joseph made the settlement.  If\t the
\n\tchildren of Joseph had\tacquired rights under the settlement
\n\teach  of them could be treated as entitled  to\tcompensation
\n\tfor  a separate unit.  The State  relied  on  section  8  of
\n\tthe  Kerala Government Land Assignment Act 1960\t which\tpro-
\n\tvides  that  all  provisions,  restrictions  conditions\t and
\n\tlimitations  contained ha any Patta or other  document\tevi-
\n\tdencing an assignment of- Government land shall be valid and
\n\ttake  effect according to their tenure, any rule of  law  or
\n\tusage to the contrary notwithstanding.\n<\/p>\n
\tDismissing the appeal,
\n\t    HELD:  Tie\tterms in the 1941 agreement  operated  as  a
\n\trestraint upon the alientation of the rights only so long as
\n\tall the amounts due to the Government by way of land revenue
\n\twere  not paid up.  Since, in the present case\t the  entire
\n\tamount\thad  been paid by 10 yearly instalments\t before\t the
\n\tyear 1957 and since the Government had effected the mutation
\n\tin  its\t record\t acting upon the  settlement  of   1957\t  in
\n\tfavour\tof the\tchildren  of  Joseph, it  could not be\tsaid
\n\tthat  there was any patta or other documents containing\t any
\n\tcondition to which section 8 of the Act applied.  The  chil-
\n\tdren derived rights under the deed of settlement and  there-
\n\tfore,  each of them is entitled to compensation for a  sepa-
\n\trate unit.  [180 C-E]
\n\t    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  587-696
\n\t& 598-600 of 1976.\n<\/p>\n
\t    (Appeals  by Special Leave from the Judgment  and  order
\n\tdated 13th of July 1975 of the Kerala High Court in CRP Nos.
\n\t1188,  1227, 1250, 1272. 1278, 1279., 1284-1287, 1309,\t1312
\n\tand 1386\/73).\n<\/p>\n
\t179<\/span><\/p>\n
\t    M.M.  Abdul Khader, Adv. Genl. and K.M.K. Nair, for\t the
\n\tAppellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t    T.S.  Krishnamoorthy Iyer and P.K. Pillai, for  RR.\t ex-
\n\tcepting R. 8 in CA 587\/76.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\t    BEG, J.–These appeals by special leave raise the  ques-
\n\ttion whether the Kerala High Court had correctly interpreted
\n\tand  applied Section 8 of the Kerala Govt.  Land  AsSignment
\n\tAct,  1960  (hereinafter referred to as ‘the  Act’)  to\t the
\n\tcases before us.  This provision reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t     “8.   All\t provisions,   restrictions,
\n\t\t      conditions and limitations over, contained  in
\n\t\t      any  Patta  or other  document  evidencing  an
\n\t\t      assignment  of Government land shah  be  valid
\n\t\t      and take effect according to their tenor,\t any
\n\t\t      rule   of\t law  of  usage\t to   the   contrary
\n\t\t      notwithstanding”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    The\t facts\tupon which the provision was  sought  to  be
\n\tapplied\t are these:  On 23 October, 1939, the Government  of
\n\tTravancore  sanctioned a. scheme for the reclamation of\t the
\n\tVimbang Lake upon terms and conditions which were set  forth
\n\tin a document dated 4 October, 1939.  The agreement provided
\n\tthat one M. T. Joseph and his father, on payment of Rs. 10\/-
\n\tper  acre, which were to be recovered in ten  equal  instal-
\n\tments,\twould be given possession of certain tracts of\tland
\n\twhich  they undertook to reclaim.  For the first  two  years
\n\tafter what is called the “Registry” of the names of the\t two
\n\tlessees\t no tax was to be levied. The “Registry” was  liable
\n\tto  be\tcancelled if adequate progress was not\tmade  within
\n\tthese two years. It appears that the agreement was  modified
\n\tby  an order dated 12 February, 1941 and a  fresh  agreement
\n\twas  executed  in July 1941 by M.T. Joseph  (now  dead)\t who
\n\tentered into possession of Keyal land, constructed the\tring
\n\tbunds  at considerable expense, and brought the\t very  large
\n\ttracts\tof and to be reclaimed under paddy cultivation.\t  In
\n\tJune 1957, M.T. Joseph executed a deed of settlement of\t all
\n\tthis  land, after he had acquired full ownership  rights  by
\n\tfulfilling  the\t terms of the agreement.  The Act  which  is
\n\tsought\tto be now applied was then passed.  After that,\t the
\n\tKerala\tLand  Reforms Act of 1963. was passed so  that\tthe,
\n\t“State Land Board” started proceedings for the surrender  of
\n\tthese  lands in accordance with the provisions of  the\tLand
\n\tReforms Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The only question now before us is whether, by an appli-
\n\tcation\tof  section 8 of the Act, the whole land  is  to  be
\n\ttreated\t as  a single unit belonging to M.T.  Joseph  (since
\n\tdead),\ton the dispositions made by M.T. Joseph,  under\t the
\n\tdeed  of  settlement  executed by him on  15th\tJune,  1957,
\n\tdistributing the land among his children, resulted in  sepa-
\n\trate  units  for the purposes of compensation for  the\tland
\n\tsurrendered.  If the children had acquired right  under\t the
\n\tdeed of settlement each of them could be treated as entitled
\n\tto  compensation for a separate unit. If the deed was of  no
\n\teffect, the mere fact that the children were in\t possession,
\n\tunder  an authority from their father could not change\tthe’
\n\townership of the land in the constructive possession of\t the
\n\tfather.\n<\/p>\n
\t    We\thave  been taken through the deed  of  agreement  of
\n\tJuly, 1941, with the Government. which contains the  follow-
\n\ting term, the effect of which has to be determined:\n<\/p>\n
\t180<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t\t    “Till  the remittance of all amount\t due
\n\t\t      to.  the\tGovernment by  way  tharavila  (land
\n\t\t      value) etc. the executant shall have no  right
\n\t\t      of  alienation  in  respect  of  the  schedule
\n\t\t      property\tand the property shall\tremain\twith
\n\t\t      the  Government as sole owner.  The  executant
\n\t\t      shall  remit the tax at the thirteenth  thoram
\n\t\t      in  the  village office every year  after\t the
\n\t\t      first  two  years of registry so\tlong  as  no
\n\t\t      default  is made in the payment of  instalment
\n\t\t      and obtain receipt therefor.  Until the entire
\n\t\t      tharavila (land value under this agreement  as
\n\t\t      stated  above  is paid by\t the  executant\t and
\n\t\t      until the assignment of the land and issue  of
\n\t\t      patta  is completed the  executant  undertakes
\n\t\t      not to do any act which may  reduce  the value
\n\t\t      of  the  property and  if as stated above\t due
\n\t\t      to any reason the property is recovered.\tfrom
\n\t\t      the  executant  he shall not put\tforward\t any
\n\t\t      claim  for improvements etc. and the  property
\n\t\t      shall be surrendered to Government”.
\n\t    It is clear to us that this term in the agreement  oper-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\tated  as a restraint upon the alienation of rights only\t so.
\n\tlong as. all the amounts due to the Government as  Tharavila
\n\thad not been paid up.  The whole amount had to be paid up in
\n\tten  yearly  instalments. It has been paid up  before  1957.
\n\tFurthermore, as the Kerala High Court found, the  settlement
\n\tof land on 15th June, 1957 had not merely been given  effect
\n\tto  by\ta mutation in the relevant  Government\trecords\t but
\n\tpattas\thad  actually been given by the\t Government,  acting
\n\tupon  the settlement of 1957, in favour of the\tchildren  of
\n\tM.T. Joseph. Hence, it could not be said that there was\t any
\n\tpatta  of other document containing any condition  to  which
\n\tSection 8 of the Act could apply. We find, from the Judgment
\n\tunder  appeal,\tthat several questions, which have  no\treal
\n\tbearing\t on the rights of the parties, were:  also.  argued.
\n\tOne of these questions was whether land could be acquired by
\n\tadverse possession by the alienees of the allottees of\tthe.
\n\tland  from the Government under the scheme for its  reclama-
\n\ttion.\tWe fail to see how a question of adverse  possession
\n\tarises\there  when  the Government  itself   recognises\t the
\n\trights of the children of M.T. Joseph in the pattas executed
\n\tby it in their favour.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The High Court recorded the following findings about the
\n\tGovernment  acting  on the terms of the settlement  of\t15th
\n\tJune, 1957, the correctness of which had not been challenged
\n\tbefore us:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    “This   settlement\t deed\t has\tbeen
\n\t\t      recognised   by  the Government  mutation\t has
\n\t\t      been effected in the names of the children and
\n\t\t      pattas have also. been issued to them.  It has
\n\t\t      been further stated on behalf of the  revision
\n\t\t      petitioners (the heirs of the said Joseph\t and
\n\t\t      those   who  took under  the  settlement\tdeed
\n\t\t      dated  15.6.1957) that levy under\t the  Kerala
\n\t\t      Rice  and Paddy (Procurement by  Levy)  Order,
\n\t\t      1966,  has  been collected from  each  of\t the
\n\t\t      shares  under the deed of 1957, that land\t tax
\n\t\t      has  been imposed on each of the shares  sepa-
\n\t\t      rately  and agricultural income-tax  collected
\n\t\t      on the income of the properties of each of the
\n\t\t      sharers”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    We\tdo  not think it is necessary to go into  any  other
\n\tquestion. The High Court was of opinion that some facts\t had
\n\tstill to be as-\n<\/p>\n
\t181<\/span><\/p>\n
\tcertained  when\t the case goes back to the  Land  Board\t for
\n\tproceeding on the footing determined by the High Court.\t  We
\n\tthink that we should make it clear that matters to. be still
\n\tdetermined could not, in view of our finding, involve deter-
\n\tmination  of  any  question  of adverse\t possession  of\t the
\n\tclaimants, the children of M.T. Joseph.\n<\/p>\n
\t    For\t the reasons given above, we dismiss these  appeals.
\n\tWe make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\tP.H.P,\t\t\t\t\t       Appeals\tdis-\n\tmissed.\n\t182<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors vs Hari Dusadh & Ors on 24 November, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 407, 1977 SCR (2) 174 Author: P Shingal Bench: Shingal, P.N. PETITIONER: CHHOTAN PRASAD SINGH & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: HARI DUSADH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT24\/11\/1976 BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. BHAGWATI, […]<\/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-32241","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChhotan Prasad Singh & Ors vs Hari Dusadh & Ors on 24 November, 1976 - 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\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors vs Hari Dusadh & Ors on 24 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976\" \/>\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=\"1976-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-01T14:49:18+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors vs Hari Dusadh & Ors on 24 November, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-01T14:49:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976\"},\"wordCount\":2914,\"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\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976\",\"name\":\"Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors vs Hari Dusadh & Ors on 24 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-01T14:49:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors vs Hari Dusadh & Ors on 24 November, 1976\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors vs Hari Dusadh & Ors on 24 November, 1976 - 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\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors vs Hari Dusadh & Ors on 24 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-01T14:49:18+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors vs Hari Dusadh & Ors on 24 November, 1976","datePublished":"1976-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-01T14:49:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976"},"wordCount":2914,"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\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976","name":"Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors vs Hari Dusadh & Ors on 24 November, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-01T14:49:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotan-prasad-singh-ors-vs-hari-dusadh-ors-on-24-november-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors vs Hari Dusadh & Ors on 24 November, 1976"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/32241","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=32241"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32241\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32241"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32241"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32241"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}