{"id":33919,"date":"1964-08-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-08-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964"},"modified":"2018-05-29T23:00:12","modified_gmt":"2018-05-29T17:30:12","slug":"musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964","title":{"rendered":"Musammat Murti Dussadhin And … vs Surajdeo Singh And Others on 11 August, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Musammat Murti Dussadhin And … vs Surajdeo Singh And Others on 11 August, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 875, \t\t 1965 SCR (1)\t 20<\/div>\n
Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMUSAMMAT MURTI DUSSADHIN AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSURAJDEO SINGH AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n11\/08\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nSUBBARAO, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR  875\t\t  1965 SCR  (1)\t 20\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1972 SC1408\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\nIndian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), Arts. 142, 144-Suit\nfor  Ejectment-Plaintiff's title admitted but possession  as\ntenant claimed Whether Art. 142 or Art. 144 applies.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nOne M brought a suit in the Munsif's Court against a  number\nof  persons including the appellants for a declaration\tthat\ncertain\t land  constituted  the\t bakshat  interest  of\t the\nplaintiff,  who had been and continued to be  in  possession\nand  occupation thereof.  In the alternative he\t prayed\t for\npossession   if\t the  plaintiff\t be  deemed  to\t have\tbeen\ndispossessed  for a proceedings under s. 144 of the Code  of\nCriminal Procedure had cast a doubt on his title.  This suit\nfollowed  the  proceedings  under  s. 144  of  the  Code  of\nCriminal Procedure which resulted in a decision against\t the\nplaintiff.   The  defendants did not deny the title  of\t the\nplaintiff  but asserted that the plaintiff gave these  lands\nto the defendants to cultivate them on batai over more\tthan\n25  years  ago, and since then the defendants had  been\t and\nwere  in peaceful cultivating possession over the  same\t and\nhad  also  acquired occupancy rights in\t them.\t The  Munsif\ndismissed  the suit upholding the pleas of defendants.\t The\nplaintiff  appealed and succeed before the Appellate  Court,\nwhich was of the view that the onus was on the defendants to\nprove  that they were rayats of the land and that  they\t had\noccupancy rights in these lands and that the defendants\t had\nnot  been  able\t to prove their case  about  settlement\t and\npossession.   The High Court, on appeal by  the\t defendants,\nheld  that having regard to the facts and  circumstances  of\nthis  particular case, the burden was on the  defendants  to\nshow  whether they have been in possession for 12  years  or\nmore, and dismissed the appeal.\t On appeal by special leave,\nHELD  : On the facts of the case Art. 144 and not  Art.\t 142\napplied.\nIf  a defendant not only admits title of the  plaintiff\t but\nalso  admits that he derived possession from the  plaintiff-\nas a tenant, the case must proceed on the defendant's  plea,\nand for the purpose of deciding whether Art. 142 or Art. 144\napplied, it must be assumed that the plaintiff has not\tbeen\ndispossessed  or has not discontinued his possession  within\nthe  meaning of Art. 142, for neither the plaintiff nor\t the\ndefendant alleges decision or discontinuation of ion.  [24F-\nF]\nJaldhari v. Rajendra Singh, A.I.R. 1958 Pat. 386, approved.\nThe  Official  Receiver of East Godavari  v.  Chava  Govinda\nRaju,  I.L.R. [1940] Mad. 953 and Behari Lal v. Sundar\tDas.\nI.L.R. (1935) 16 Lab. 442, distinguished.\nKumbham\t Lakshmanna  v. Tangirala  Venkateswarlu,  (1948-49)\nL.R.  76  I.A. 202 and Seturatna-in  Aiyar  v.\tVenkatachala\nGounden, (1919) L.R. 47 I.A. 76, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 625 of 1960.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and decree  dated
\nJuly  17,  1958,  of the Patna High Court,  in\tAppeal\tfrom
\nAppellate Decree No. 890 of 1954.\n<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
B, C. Misra, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
R.   V.\t S.  Mani, E.  C. Agarwala and P. C.  Agarwala,<\/a>\t for
\nrespondents Nos. 1. (a) to 1 (k) and 1 (m) to 1 (r).
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSikri  J. One Mohd. Mir Khan brought a suit in the Court  of
\nthe  Munsif  Aurangabad against a number of  persons  for  a
\ndeclaration  that  8  bighas of land  under  khata  No.\t 22,
\nsituate\t at  Mauza Gopalpur, Dist.   Gaya,  constituted\t the
\nbakasht\t  interest  of\tthe  plaintiff,\t who  had  been\t  in
\npossession  and\t occupation thereof, and he  prayed  in\t the
\nalternative  “that  if\tin  the opinion\t of  the  Court\t the
\nplaintiff be deemed to have been dispossessed from the\tsuit
\nland  under S. 144 (Cr.\t P.C.), in that case, the  plaintiff
\nmay be put in sir possession thereof on dispossession of the
\ndefendants  and 3 decree for future mesne profits  from\t the
\ndate of dispossession till the date of realisation, may also
\nbe  passed  in favour of the plaintiff.” He alleged  in\t the
\nplaint that the said sir land had been in sir possession  of
\nthe plaintiff and 9.81 acres (including the said 8 bighas is
\nrecorded  in the Record of Rights, i.e., Survey Khaitan,  as
\nthe bakasht land of. the plaintiff.  He further alleged that
\nhe had sown seeds in two bighas in the month of Asadh  1353,
\nwhen  defendant, 2, 3 and 5 interfered with his\t possession.
\nProceeding%  under  s. 144, Cr.\t P.C.,\twere  started  which
\nresulted  in  a decision against him, He asserted  that\t the
\ndefence\t of the above defendants in s. 144 proceedings\tthat
\nplots  Nos.  587, 832 and 846 and portion of  881  had\tbeen
\nsettled by him and that they were in possession, was  false.
\nHe further stated that after the s. 144 proceedings he\tgrew
\nrabbi crop in the suit land after cultivating the same\twith
\nhis  own plough and bullock and was still in possession\t but
\nsince a cloud had been cast over the title of the  plaintiff
\ndue to the decision in s. 144 proceedings, the plaintiff was
\nentitled  to  get  his title to possession  over  suit\tland
\nconfirmed by court.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tapparent from the above recital that except  in\t the
\nrelief\tclause, the plaintiff asserted that he had  been  in
\npossession and continued to be in possession and that he had
\ntitle to the land.  It was in the alternative that he prayed
\nfor  possession\t if  the plaintiff be deemed  to  have\tbeen
\ndispossessed.\n<\/p>\n
The  defendants in their written statement did not deny\t the
\ntitle  of the plaintiff to the suit land but  asserted\tthat
\n“the  plaintiff being the only member in his house  used  to
\nremain outside in some service and consequently he gave\t the
\nentire area of the lands in khata No. 22 to these defendants
\nto cultivate them on batai over more than 25 years ago,\t and
\nsince then the defendants have been
\n22<\/span>
\nand are in peaceful cultivating possession over the same and
\nhave  also acquired occupancy rights in them.” They  further
\nalleged\t they  have  been dividing crops  regularly  to\t the
\nplaintiff  but\tthe plaintiff never granted any\t receipt  to
\nthem.\n<\/p>\n
The Munsif held that the plaintiff settled these lands\twith
\nthe  defendants\t some  28 years ago.   On  the\tquestion  of
\npossession  he\theld  that ever since  the  settlement,\t the
\ndefendants  have  been\tin possession  and  cultivating\t the
\nlands, and that the plaintiff since after the settlement has
\nnot  been  in possession.  He concluded that  the  plaintiff
\nhaving been out of possession for more than 12 years was not
\nentitled  to possession.  He, in consequence, dismissed\t the
\nsuit  with  costs.   The plaintiff  appealed  and  succeeded
\nbefore the Appellate Court.  The Additional Sub-Judge was of
\nthe view that “the onus was on the defendants to prove\tthat
\nthey  were raiyats of the lands and that they  had  acquired
\noccupancy rights in these lands and unless they succeeded in
\nproving\t these,\t they  could  not  successfully\t resist\t the
\nplaintiff’s suit.” After going through the evidence, he came
\nto  the conclusion that the defendants bad not been able  to
\nprove their case about settlement and possession.
\nFive  defendants  appealed  to\tthe  High  Court.   It\t was
\ncontended before the High Court on behalf of the  defendants
\nthat  the  Appellate Court had wrongly put the onus  on\t the
\ndefendants,  but  the  High Court, relying  on\tJaldhari  v.
\nRajendra  Singh(1) did not accede to this  contention.\t The
\nHigh  Court  held that the title of the plaintiff  had\tbeen
\nadmitted by the defendants and their case of settlement\t and
\npossession  for 12 years had been rejected by the  Appellate
\nCourt.\t The  plaintiff had never alleged that he  had\tbeen
\ndispossessed.\t The  learned  Judge  further  observed\t  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “As the defendants never got possession  since
\n\t      the case of the defendants, have been rejected
\n\t      and the plaintiff having never alleged that he
\n\t      has  been dispossessed, it is clear that\tonce
\n\t      title has been admitted by the defendants,  on
\n\t      the pleadings it follows that the landlord  is
\n\t      in  possession  and  if  the  landlord  is  in
\n\t      possession, on the pleadings of the parties
\n\t      in  the present case there can be no  question
\n\t      of coming to a formal finding of fact that the
\n\t      plaintiff\t was  in possession because  on\t the
\n\t      pleadings the plaintiff never claimed that  he
\n\t      had  been\t ejected  or  dispossessed  and\t the
\n\t      defendants  never asserted that they  forcibly
\n\t      ejected the plaintiff.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In conclusion, the learned Judge held that having regard  to
\nthe  facts  and circumstances of this particular  case,\t the
\nburden was on
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1958 Pat. 386.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t     23<\/span><\/p>\n
the defendants to show whether they have been in  possession
\nfor  12\t years\tor more.  In the  result  he  dismissed\t the
\nappeal.\t  The  defendants. having obtained leave  from\tthis
\nCourt, the appeal is now before us for disposal.
\nIt has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the Full
\nBench  judgment relied on by the learned Judge\twas  wrongly
\ndecided and that on the facts of this case, Art. 142 and not
\nArt. 144 governed the case.  We are of the opinion that\t the
\nFull Bench was correctly decided and that Art. 1.44  applied
\nto the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  counsel  for the appellant urged\tthat  in  an
\naction\tin ejectment, one of the things that  the  plaintiff
\nmust  prove is his title to immediate possession.   This  is
\ntrue  and  there is no dispute about this  proposition.\t  He
\nfurther\t urges\tthat  where the\t plaintiff  does  not  admit
\ntenancy,  although  the defendant alleges tenancy,  he\tmust
\nshow  possession within 12 years of the suit.  He says\tthat
\nthe defendants have admitted title of the plaintiff but\t not
\npossession.  To support his proposition, the learned counsel
\nfor  the appellant, apart from Patna cases which  have\tbeen
\noverruled by the Full Bench, relied on The Official Receiver
\nof East Godavari v. Chava Govinda Raju(1) and Behari Lal  v.
\nSundar Das.(2) ‘In the former case, an auction purchaser was
\nobstructed  by a person who claimed it as his own  ancestral
\nproperty.   The auction purchaser sued for  declaration\t and
\ninjunction. the facts are quite different and in none of the
\ncases discussed by the learned Chief Justice in his judgment
\na  defendant had claimed possession under the plaintiff\t but
\nhad asserted right by adverse possession.
\nIn Behari Lal v. Sundar Das (2 ) the facts as stated in\t the
\nhead note were these:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The   plaintiffs\t  instituted  a\t  suit\t for
\n\t      possession  of a house against N.B. and  N.D.,
\n\t      alleging\tthat  in 1927 they  had\t rented\t the
\n\t      house  to\t N.B.,\twho had\t sublet\t it  to\t the
\n\t      defendant\t N.D. The plaintiffs stated  in\t the
\n\t      plaint that they were the owners of the  house
\n\t      and that they had instituted a suit previously
\n\t      for   recovery  of  rent\tagainst\t  both\t the
\n\t      defendants,  but\tN.D. had  asserted  his\t own
\n\t      title  to the property and the suit  had\tbeen
\n\t      dismissed\t against him, but bid  been  decreed
\n\t      against N.B.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  High  Court field that the plaintiffs  clearly  pleaded
\npossession and dispossession, i.e., possession through their
\ntenant\tN.B.  and dispossession by the\tlatter’s  sub-tenant
\nN.D., when he set up a
\n(1) I.L.R. 1940 Mad. 953.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  I.L.R. (1935) 16 Lah 442.\n<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
title  of his own.  This case is again\tdistinguishable\t for
\nthe subtenant had clearly asserted his own title and  denied
\nthat of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
Another case cited by the learned counsel for the  appellant
\nis  Kumbham Lakshmanna v. Tangirala Venkateshwarlu,  (1)  in
\nwhich  the  Privy  Council  reviewed  most  of\tits  earlier
\ndecisions on this branch of the law.  In this case, a holder
\nof a minor inam sued to eject the tenants from the  holding,
\nand  the  Privy\t Council held that the\tburden\twas  on\t the
\nplaintiff  to  -make out a right by proving that  the  grant
\nincluded both the melvaram and kudivaram interests, or\tthat
\nthe  tenants or their predecessors were let into  possession
\nby  the inamdar under a terminable lease.  One of the  cases
\nreferred to is Seturatnam Aiyar v. Venkatachala\t Gounden,(2)
\nand  with reference to it the board observed at p.  224,  as
\nfollows
\n\t      “In  the above case it was either admitted  or
\n\t      found as a fact that the tenants had been\t let
\n\t      into  possession by the landlord who  was\t the
\n\t      absolute owner.  When the tenant claims rights
\n\t      of  occupancy  in\t such  circumstances   their
\n\t      Lordships,   in\tNainapillai   Marakayar\t  v.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Romanathan   Chettiar,  (3)  laid\t  down\t the
\n\t      principle\t that the burden will be on  him  to
\n\t      prove that he has such rights.”\n<\/p>\n
Is the position the same when the plaintiff does -not  admit
\nany  tenancy  but  the defendant alleges tenancy  but  of  a
\npermanent  nature ? It seems to us that if a  defendant\t not
\nonly  admits title of the plaintiff but also admits that  he
\nderived possession from the, plaintiff as a tenant, the case
\nmust proceed on the defendant’s plea. and for the purpose of
\ndeciding  whether Art. 142 or Art. 144 applied, it  must  be
\nassumed that the plaintiff has not been dispossessed or\t has
\nnot  discontinued his possession within the meaning of\tArt.
\n142,  for  neither the plaintiff nor the  defendant  alleges
\ndispossession or discontinuation of possession.
\nConstruing  the\t plaint\t as a whole, it is  clear  that\t the
\nplaintiff  never  alleged  dispossession  or  being  out  of
\npossession.   He  asserted ownership of the  suit  land\t and
\nclaimed\t that he was in possession.  Section 144  Cr.\tP.C.
\nproceedings seemed to have cast a doubt on his title and  he
\naccordingly  brought a suit for a declaration.\tIt  is\ttrue
\nthat  in  the  alternative  he\tprayed\tfor  a\tdecree\t for
\npossession  and mesne profits.\tHe was careful even in\tthis
\nalternative prayer to say that he could only be deemed to he
\ndispossed  by  s. 144 proceedings.  The defendants  did\t not
\ndeny  the  title  of  the plaintiff to\tthe  suit  land\t but
\nasserted that they had been settled and acquired
\n(1) (1948-49) L.R. 76 I.A. 202. (2) (1919) L.R. 47 I.A. 76.
\n(3)  L.R. 51 I.A. 83.\n<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
occupancy rights.  On these facts it seems to us that it was
\nArt. 144 and not Art. 142 that applied.\n<\/p>\n
In  the result, agreeing with the High Court, we  hold\tthat
\nthe suit was not barred.  Accordingly, the appeal fails\t and
\nis dismissed, but as there is no finding by the courts below
\nthat  the  plaintiff is in possession, the  decree  will  be
\nmodified and limited lo a decree for possession of the\tland
\nin dispute.\n<\/p>\n
In the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their
\nown costs in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
In view of our decision on the question of limitation, it is
\nnot  necessary\tto deal with the point of abatement  of\t the
\nappeal raised by the learned counsel for the respondents.
\nThe  appellants wilt pay court fees, which would  have\tbeen
\npaid  by them if they have not been permitted to  appeal  as
\npaupers.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed and decree modified.\n<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Musammat Murti Dussadhin And … vs Surajdeo Singh And Others on 11 August, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 875, 1965 SCR (1) 20 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: MUSAMMAT MURTI DUSSADHIN AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: SURAJDEO SINGH AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/08\/1964 BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. […]<\/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-33919","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMusammat Murti Dussadhin And ... vs Surajdeo Singh And Others on 11 August, 1964 - 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\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Musammat Murti Dussadhin And ... vs Surajdeo Singh And Others on 11 August, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964\" \/>\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=\"1964-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-29T17:30:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Musammat Murti Dussadhin And … vs Surajdeo Singh And Others on 11 August, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-29T17:30:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964\"},\"wordCount\":1988,\"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\\\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964\",\"name\":\"Musammat Murti Dussadhin And ... vs Surajdeo Singh And Others on 11 August, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-29T17:30:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Musammat Murti Dussadhin And … vs Surajdeo Singh And Others on 11 August, 1964\"}]},{\"@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":"Musammat Murti Dussadhin And ... vs Surajdeo Singh And Others on 11 August, 1964 - 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\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Musammat Murti Dussadhin And ... vs Surajdeo Singh And Others on 11 August, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-29T17:30:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Musammat Murti Dussadhin And … vs Surajdeo Singh And Others on 11 August, 1964","datePublished":"1964-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-29T17:30:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964"},"wordCount":1988,"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\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964","name":"Musammat Murti Dussadhin And ... vs Surajdeo Singh And Others on 11 August, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-29T17:30:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musammat-murti-dussadhin-and-vs-surajdeo-singh-and-others-on-11-august-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Musammat Murti Dussadhin And … vs Surajdeo Singh And Others on 11 August, 1964"}]},{"@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\/33919","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=33919"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33919\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33919"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}