{"id":33999,"date":"1991-10-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-10-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991"},"modified":"2017-05-30T03:31:11","modified_gmt":"2017-05-29T22:01:11","slug":"swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991","title":{"rendered":"Swadesh Ranjan Sinha vs Haradeb Banerjee on 3 October, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Swadesh Ranjan Sinha vs Haradeb Banerjee on 3 October, 1991<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 1590, \t\t  1991 SCR  Supl. (1) 245<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: T Thommen<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Thommen, T.K. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSWADESH RANJAN SINHA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHARADEB BANERJEE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/10\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nTHOMMEN, T.K. (J)\nBENCH:\nTHOMMEN, T.K. (J)\nSAHAI, R.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR 1590\t\t  1991 SCR  Supl. (1) 245\n 1991 SCC  (4) 572\t  JT 1991 (4)\t 67\n 1991 SCALE  (2)802\n\n\nACT:\nWest Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956:\n    Sections  2\t and 13(1)(ff)-Eviction\t of  tenant-Premises\nallotted  by  sub-lease rented\tout-Whether  allottee  owner\nentitled to evict the tenant ownership - Meaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t appellant-plaintiff rented out to  the\t respondent-\ndefendant  the suit premises allotted to him, by  sub-lease,\nby  a  Housing Co-operative Society, which itself  held\t the\nflat  under  a 99 years lease granted  by  the\tMetropolitan\nDevelopment Authority. Sometime later he issued a notice  of\ntermination of the tenancy to the respondent and called upon\nhim  to\t vacate the premises within a  stipulated  time.  On\nrespondent's failure to vacate the premises, he\/instituted a\nsuit on grounds of default of payment of rent and reasonable\nrequirement  for  occupation under Sections  13(1)  (i)\t and\n13(1)(ff) respectively. The trial court decreed the suit  on\nthe  ground  of\t reasonable requirement but  held  that\t the\nrespondent tenant was not in arrears of rent.\n    On\tappeal by the respondent, the first appellate  court\ndid  not  examine  the merits of the  appellant's  claim  of\nreasonable  requirement, but examined  the  appellant-plain-\ntiff's\ttitle, though the respondent had not questioned\t the\nsame  and held that, since the appellant was only  a  lessee\nunder a 99 years lease granted by the Society, which  itself\nwas a lessee holding a 99 years lease from the\tMetropolitan\nDevelopment  Authority,\t he was not an\t'owner'\t within\t the\nmeaning of Section 13(I)(II) of the Act and was,  therefore,\nnot entitled to seek eviction under that provision. The High\nCourt  also did not examine the appellant's claim for  evic-\ntion and affirmed the first appellate Court's finding on the\nquestion of title. Hence the appeal by the  appellant-plain-\ntiff.\n    On the question: whether the appellant was the owner  of\nthe suit premises for the purpose of instituting a suit\t for\neviction  in terms of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy\tAct,\n1956.\n246\nAllowing the appeal, this Court,\n    HELD:  1.1\tOwnership  denotes the\trelation  between  a\nperson\tand  an\t object forming the  subject-matter  of\t his\nownership. It consists in a complex of rights, all of  which\nare right's in rem, being good against all the world and not\nmerely against specific persons. [249 G]\nSalmond\t on Jurisprudence, 12th ed. Ch. 8, p. 246  et.\tseq.\nreferred to.\n    1.2\t There are various rights or incidents of  ownership\nall of which need not necessarily be present in every  case.\nThey may include a right to possess, use and enjoy the thing\nowned;\tand  a right may be indeterminate  in  duration\t and\nresiduary in character. A person has a right to possess\t the\nthing which he owns, even when he is not in possession,\t but\nonly  retains  a  reversionary interest, i.e.,\ta  right  to\nrepossess  the thing on the termination of a certain  period\nor on the happening of a certain event. [249 G-H; 250 A]\n    1.3 All that a plaintiff needs to prove is that he has a\nbetter\ttitle than the defendant. He has no burden  to\tshow\nthat  he has the best of all possible titles. His  ownership\nis  good  against all the world except the true\t owner.\t The\nrights\tof  an owner are seldom absolute, and often  are  in\nmany  respects\tcontrolled  and regulated  by  statute.\t The\nquestion,  however,  is whether he has a superior  right  or\ninterest vis-a-vis the person challenging it. [250 B]\n    1.4\t In the instant case, the appellant-plaintiff is  an\nallottee in terms of the West Bengal Co-operative  Societies\nAct,  1983.  He has a right to possess the  premises  for  a\nperiod of 99 years as a heritable and transferable property.\nDuring\tthat period he has a right to let out  the  premises\nand enjoy the rental income therefrom, subject to the statu-\ntory  terms and conditions of allotment. The certificate  of\nallotment is the conclusive evidence of his title or  inter-\nest.  No doubt he has to obtain the written consent  of\t the\nSociety before letting out the premises. But once let out in\naccordance  with  the terms of allotment  specified  in\t the\nstatute, he is entitled to enjoy the income from the proper-\nty. Although he is a lessee in relation to the society,\t and\nhis rights and interests are subject to the terms and condi-\ntions of allotment, he is the owner of the property having a\nsuperior  right in relation to the defendant. As far as\t the\nrespondent  is concerned, the appeliant is his landlord\t and\nthe owner of the premises for all purposes dealt with  under\nthe provisions of the Act. [250 C-E]\n    1.5 Hence. the High Court and the first appellate  court\nwere  wrong in setting aside the decree of the\ttrial  court\nsolely on the question of\n247\nappellant's title, which was never an issue at any stage  of\nthe  trial.  There was no plea to that effect and  no  issue\nwas,  therefore,  framed  on the question.  This  being\t the\nposition,  the\tappellant's claim has to be decided  on\t the\nbasis  of  the pleadings, i.e. on the basis that he  is\t the\nowner  of the premises in question. Accordingly,  the  Judg-\nments  of the High Court and first appellate court  are\t set\naside  and the matter remanded to the first appellate  court\nfor fresh disposal of respondent-tenant's appeal on  merits.\n[250 E-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4075 of 1991.<br \/>\n    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  3.12.1990  of\t the<br \/>\nCalcutta High Court in Second Appeal No. 1063 of 1982.<br \/>\n    D.N. Mukherjee, N.R. Choudhary and Ranjan Mukherjee\t for<br \/>\nthe Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Manoj  Swarup, Ms. Lalita Kohli, Ms. Sarla\tChandra\t and<br \/>\nS.K. Mitra for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nTHOMMEN, J. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>    This  appeal  by the plaintiff in a\t suit  for  eviction<br \/>\narises from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dismiss-<br \/>\ning  his  appeal against the judgment of the  1st  appellate<br \/>\ncourt allowing the defendant&#8217;s appeal against the decree  of<br \/>\nthe  trial court. The trial court found that  the  plaintiff<br \/>\nwas entitled to evict the tenant on the ground of reasonable<br \/>\nrequirement  specified under Section 13(1)(ff) of  the\tWest<br \/>\nBengal\tPremises  Tenancy Act, 1956 (the  &#8220;Act&#8221;).  Reversing<br \/>\nthat  finding, the 1st appellate court held that the  plain-<br \/>\ntiff  was not the owner of the premises and was,  therefore,<br \/>\nnot entitled to seek eviction. This finding was affirmed  by<br \/>\nthe High Court by the judgment under appeal.<br \/>\n    The only question which arises in the present appeal  is<br \/>\nwhether or not the plaintiff is the owner of the suit  prem-<br \/>\nises  for the purpose of instituting a suit for eviction  in<br \/>\nterms  of the Act. The dispute concerns a flat\tallotted  to<br \/>\nthe plaintiff by the Kadamtola Housing Co-operative Society,<br \/>\nCalcutta (the &#8220;Society&#8221;). This was one of the 16 flats\theld<br \/>\nby the Society under a 99 years lease granted by the Calcut-<br \/>\nta  Metropolitan  Development Authority under  a  registered<br \/>\ndocument.  The Society in turn allotted these flats  to\t its<br \/>\nmembers, among whom the appellant is one, by a sub-lease for<br \/>\na  term\t of 99 years. The appellant, being an  allottee,  is<br \/>\nthus  a\t sub-lessee under the Society with a  heritable\t and<br \/>\ntransferable title. The<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">248<\/span><br \/>\nappellant subsequently inducted the respondent into the flat<br \/>\non  a rent of Rs. 110 per month. On 29.10.1976, a notice  of<br \/>\ntermination  of the tenancy was issued by the  appellant  to<br \/>\nthe  respondent calling upon him to vacate the premises\t not<br \/>\nlater  than  December, 1976. Since the\trespondent  did\t not<br \/>\nvacate the premises, title suit No. 165\/77 was instituted by<br \/>\nthe appellant on the ground of default of payment of rent as<br \/>\nspecified under Section 13(1)(i) of the Act and also on\t the<br \/>\nground of reasonable requirement for occupation as  provided<br \/>\nunder  Section\t13(1)(ff). The trial court  found  that\t the<br \/>\npremises were reasonably required by the appellant, and\t the<br \/>\nsuit  was accordingly decreed on the ground mentioned  under<br \/>\nSection 13(1)(ff). It was, however, held that the tenant was<br \/>\nnot in arrears of rent.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It is important to note that the defendant in his  writ-<br \/>\nten  statement\tdid not question the  plaintiff&#8217;s  title  or<br \/>\nclaim  of ownership. No issue regarding ownership  had\tbeen<br \/>\nframed\tas it was never questioned by the defendant  at\t any<br \/>\nstage  of the proceedings in the trial court. On  appeal  by<br \/>\nthe  defendant, the 1st appellate court examined the  plain-<br \/>\ntiffs title and held that, since he was only a lessee  under<br \/>\na 99 years lease granted by the Society, which itself was  a<br \/>\nlessee holding a 99 years lease from the Metropolitan Devel-<br \/>\nopment\tAuthority, he was not an &#8216;owner&#8217; within the  meaning<br \/>\nof  Section  13(1)(ff) of the Act and  was,  therefore,\t not<br \/>\nentitled to seek eviction under that provision. Accordingly,<br \/>\nthe merits of the plaintiffs claim were not examined by\t the<br \/>\n1st  appellate court. This finding was affirmed by the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt,\tand, like the 1st appellate court, it also  did\t not<br \/>\nconsider the merits of the plaintiffs case for eviction.<br \/>\n    Section 13 protects a tenant from eviction except on one<br \/>\nor  more of the grounds specified thereunder. That  Section,<br \/>\nin so far as it is material, reads:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;S.(13)(1)&#8211;Notwithstanding  anything  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      contrary in any other law, no order or  decree<br \/>\n\t      for the recovery of possession of any premises<br \/>\n\t      shall  be made by any Court in favour  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      landlord\tagainst\t a tenant except on  one  or<br \/>\n\t      more of the following grounds, namely:&#8211;<br \/>\n\t      (fl&#8217;) Subject to the provisions of sub-section<br \/>\n\t      (3A),  where the premises are  reasonably\t re-<br \/>\n\t      quired by the landlord for his own  occupation<br \/>\n\t      if  he is the owner or for the  occupation  of<br \/>\n\t      any person for whose benefit the premises\t are<br \/>\n\t      held and the landlord or such person is not in<br \/>\n\t      possession of any reasonably suitable accommo-<br \/>\n\t      dation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">249<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    On the facts of this case, the provision of\t sub-section<br \/>\n3(A)  of  this\tSection are not attracted.  Clause  (ff)  is<br \/>\nattracted  as a ground for eviction if the landlord is in  a<br \/>\nposition to prove that the premises are required by him\t for<br \/>\nhis  own occupation, if he is the owner of the premises,  or<br \/>\nfor  the  occupation  of any person for\t whose\tbenefit\t the<br \/>\npremises are held, and the landlord or such other person, as<br \/>\nthe  case  may be, is not in possession\t of  any  reasonably<br \/>\nsuitable accommodation.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The &#8216;landlord&#8217; is defined by Section 2 in wide terms  so<br \/>\nas  to include any person who, for the time being, is  enti-<br \/>\ntled  to  receive or but for a special\tcontract,  would  be<br \/>\nentitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether or not<br \/>\non his own account:&#8217; This definition shows that even if\t the<br \/>\nrent  is received by a person not on his own account but  on<br \/>\naccount\t of any other person, such as his principal  or\t his<br \/>\nward, he is for the purpose of the Act a landlord. Any\tsuch<br \/>\nperson\tis,  therefore,\t entitled to institute\ta  suit\t for<br \/>\neviction.  But to attract clause (fl&#8217;), the  requirement  of<br \/>\nthe landlord must be either for his own occupation, if he is<br \/>\nthe  owner, or, for the occupation of any person  for  whose<br \/>\nbenefit\t the premises are held. This clause is,\t of  course,<br \/>\navailable only when no reasonably suitable accommodation  is<br \/>\navailable to the person for whose occupation the eviction is<br \/>\nsought.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It\tis  submitted on behalf of the respondent  that\t the<br \/>\nappellant,  although  a\t &#8216;landlord&#8217; within  the\t meaning  of<br \/>\nSection 2, is not an owner so as to be able to seek eviction<br \/>\non the ground specified under clause (ff) of sub-section (1)<br \/>\nof Section 13. The contention is that the appellant is\tonly<br \/>\na  lessee, and that too in terms of a sub-lease of 99  years<br \/>\ngranted by a Society which is itself holding a lease for the<br \/>\nsame  period. Such a lessee is not an owner, for his  rights<br \/>\nare  not  absolute. He cannot claim to be an owner  for\t the<br \/>\npurpose of seeking eviction by recourse to the provisions of<br \/>\nan  Act which is intended to protect the tenant and  prevent<br \/>\neviction  except on specified grounds. The expression  owner<br \/>\nshould\tbe  so strictly construed as to exclude\t any  person<br \/>\nhaving less than full ownership right.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Ownership  denotes the relation between a person and  an<br \/>\nobject\tforming\t the  subject-matter of\t his  ownership.  It<br \/>\nconsists in a complex of rights, all of which are rights  in<br \/>\nrem, being good against all the world and not merely against<br \/>\nspecific persons&#8217;. (Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th ed.,\t Ch.<br \/>\n8,  p. 246 et. seq.). There are various rights or  incidents<br \/>\nof ownership all of which need not necessarily be present in<br \/>\nevery  case.  They may include a right to possess,  use\t and<br \/>\nenjoy  the thing owned; and a right to consume,\t destroy  or<br \/>\nalienate  it. Such a right may be indeterminate in  duration<br \/>\nand residuary in character. A person has a right to  possess<br \/>\nthe thing which he owns, even when he is not in\t possession,<br \/>\nbut only retains a rever-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">250<\/span><\/p>\n<p>sionary\t interest, i.e., a right to repossess the  thing  on<br \/>\nthe termination of a certain period or on the happening of a<br \/>\ncertain event.\n<\/p>\n<p>    All\t that  a plaintiff needs to prove is that he  has  a<br \/>\nbetter\ttitle than the defendant. He has no burden  to\tshow<br \/>\nthat  he has the best of all possible titles. His  ownership<br \/>\nis  good  against all the world except the true\t owner.\t The<br \/>\nrights\tof  an owner are seldom absolute, and often  are  in<br \/>\nmany  respects\tcontrolled  and regulated  by  statute.\t The<br \/>\nquestion,  however,  is whether he has a superior  right  or<br \/>\ninterest vis-a-vis the person challenging it.<br \/>\n    The plaintiff is an allottee in terms of the West Bengal<br \/>\nCo-operative Societies Act, 1983: (See Sections 87 and\t89).<br \/>\nHe  has a right to possess the premises for a period  of  99<br \/>\nyears as a heritable and transferable property. During\tthat<br \/>\nperiod he has a right to let out the premises and enjoy\t the<br \/>\nrental income therefrom, subject to the statutory terms\t and<br \/>\nconditions of allotment. The certificate of allotment is the<br \/>\nconclusive  evidence  of his title or interest. It  is\ttrue<br \/>\nthat  he  has to obtain the written consent of\tthe  Society<br \/>\nbefore letting out the premises. But once let out in accord-<br \/>\nance  with the terms of allotment specified in the  statute,<br \/>\nhe  is entitled to enjoy the income from the  property.\t Al-<br \/>\nthough\the is a lessee in relation to the Society,  and\t his<br \/>\nrights and interests are subject to the terms and conditions<br \/>\nof  allotment,\the  is the owner of the\t property  having  a<br \/>\nsuperior  right in relation to the defendant. As far as\t the<br \/>\ndefendant  is concerned, the plaintiff is his  landlord\t and<br \/>\nthe owner of the premises for all purposes dealt with  under<br \/>\nthe provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In view of what we have stated above, the High Court and<br \/>\nthe  1st  appellate court were wrong in\t setting  aside\t the<br \/>\ndecree\tof  the trial court solely on the  question  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s title. The appellant&#8217;s title was never an  issue<br \/>\nat any stage of the trial. There was no plea to that  effect<br \/>\nand  no issue was, therefore, framed on the  question.\tThis<br \/>\nbeing the position, the appellant&#8217;s claim has to be  decided<br \/>\non the basis of the pleadings, i.e., on the basis that he is<br \/>\nthe owner of the premises in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the High Court<br \/>\nand that of the 1st appellate court and remand this case  to<br \/>\nthe  1st appellate court for fresh disposal of the  respond-<br \/>\nent-tenant&#8217;s appeal on the merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>    This  appeal  is accordingly allowed with costs  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant throughout.\n<\/p>\n<pre>N.P.V\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\nallowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">251<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Swadesh Ranjan Sinha vs Haradeb Banerjee on 3 October, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 1590, 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 245 Author: T Thommen Bench: Thommen, T.K. (J) PETITIONER: SWADESH RANJAN SINHA Vs. RESPONDENT: HARADEB BANERJEE DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/10\/1991 BENCH: THOMMEN, T.K. (J) BENCH: THOMMEN, T.K. (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J) CITATION: 1992 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33999","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Swadesh Ranjan Sinha vs Haradeb Banerjee on 3 October, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Swadesh Ranjan Sinha vs Haradeb Banerjee on 3 October, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1991-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-29T22:01:11+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\\\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Swadesh Ranjan Sinha vs Haradeb Banerjee on 3 October, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-29T22:01:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991\"},\"wordCount\":1721,\"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\\\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991\",\"name\":\"Swadesh Ranjan Sinha vs Haradeb Banerjee on 3 October, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-29T22:01:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Swadesh Ranjan Sinha vs Haradeb Banerjee on 3 October, 1991\"}]},{\"@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":"Swadesh Ranjan Sinha vs Haradeb Banerjee on 3 October, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Swadesh Ranjan Sinha vs Haradeb Banerjee on 3 October, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-29T22:01:11+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\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Swadesh Ranjan Sinha vs Haradeb Banerjee on 3 October, 1991","datePublished":"1991-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-29T22:01:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991"},"wordCount":1721,"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\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991","name":"Swadesh Ranjan Sinha vs Haradeb Banerjee on 3 October, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-29T22:01:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/swadesh-ranjan-sinha-vs-haradeb-banerjee-on-3-october-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Swadesh Ranjan Sinha vs Haradeb Banerjee on 3 October, 1991"}]},{"@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\/33999","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=33999"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33999\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33999"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33999"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33999"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}