{"id":41296,"date":"2007-03-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007"},"modified":"2019-02-25T04:34:56","modified_gmt":"2019-02-24T23:04:56","slug":"shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu vs Sita Ram Saraugi &amp; Ors on 30 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu vs Sita Ram Saraugi &amp; Ors on 30 March, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V.S. Sirpurkar<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ashok Bhan, V.S. Sirpurkar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1700 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nShiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal  Sahu\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSita Ram Saraugi &amp; Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/03\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nAshok Bhan &amp; V.S. Sirpurkar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.1729 of 2006)<\/p>\n<p>V.S. SIRPURKAR, J:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tJudgment of the High Court passed under Section 115 CPC<br \/>\nconfirming the order passed by the Additional Munsiff is in challenge in this<br \/>\nappeal.  The High Court has approved of the amendments which were<br \/>\npermitted to be made by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tLearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein assails<br \/>\nboth the judgments stating that the said amendment application was liable<br \/>\nto be dismissed on the ground that it permitted the plaintiffs to include a<br \/>\ntime barred claim and secondly it was hopelessly belated and as such the<br \/>\nplaintiffs lacked bona fides.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tSome facts would be necessary.  Original suit was filed in the year<br \/>\n1986 bearing registration number Eviction Suit No.11 of 1986 which was<br \/>\nfiled by Sita Ram Saraugi and some others impleading the present<br \/>\npetitioner-defendant Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu.  This was a suit<br \/>\nfor eviction on the ground of personal necessities of the plaintiffs.  Original<br \/>\ndefendant Ram Charitra Sahu appeared and raised a plea that he was not<br \/>\na tenant and further that he was in fact an owner having purchased the suit<br \/>\nproperty along with the other part of the property from Banwari Sah and<br \/>\nothers by sale deed dated 4.10.1985 and as such he was the full owner of<br \/>\nthe entire house including the suit property.  In view of these pleadings<br \/>\nraised by the defendant, the suit was converted into a Title Suit by the<br \/>\norder of the court dated 16.12.1988.  By subsequent order dated 4.1.1991<br \/>\nthe suit was renumbered as Title Suit No.17 of 1991 and the plaintiff was<br \/>\ndirected to pay advalorem court fees as also to effect the necessary<br \/>\namendments. The plaintiff failed to avail of this opportunity to amend the<br \/>\nsuit. Eventually, the original defendant died and the present petitioner-<br \/>\ndefendant has been impleaded for him.  The original plaintiff, namely, Sita<br \/>\nRam Saraugi seems to have sold the suit property during the pendency of<br \/>\nthe suit in favour of Vijay Kumar Yadav and Manju Devi, respondent nos.3<br \/>\nand 4 herein in the year 1997, who were added as the co-plaintiffs by their<br \/>\napplication dated 22.5.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tOn 11.12.2004 the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 6<br \/>\nRule 17 CPC seeking amendments to the plaint.  It was stated in that<br \/>\namendment application that the said amendments have become<br \/>\nnecessary on account of the plea raised by the defendant regarding his<br \/>\nbecoming an owner by the registered sale deed dated 4.10.1985.  It was<br \/>\nalso suggested that the averments regarding the title of the plaintiffs,<br \/>\nreliefs to be claimed relating to the title, description of the area of the land<br \/>\nin the suit and the explanation of plaintiffs relating to the sale deeds in<br \/>\nfavour of the defendant had to be introduced by the amendments.  It was<br \/>\nalso alleged that it was necessary to challenge the sale deed dated<br \/>\n4.10.1985 in favour of the defendants and get it declared bogus and not<br \/>\nbinding against the plaintiffs and that the defendant no.1 had not acquired<br \/>\nany right, title or interest over the suit property by that sale deed and to<br \/>\nfurther assert that plaintiff Sita Ram Saraugi had a valid title and<br \/>\npossession on the suit land which he transferred validly in favour of Vijay<br \/>\nKumar Yadav and Manju Devi.  The plaintiffs also prayed, vide the said<br \/>\namendment application, that the original plaintiff Sita Ram Saraugi was<br \/>\nliable to be transposed as a party-defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThis amendment application was, though strongly opposed by the<br \/>\ndefendants on various grounds, allowed and as stated earlier, the<br \/>\nchallenge by the defendants by way of a Civil Revision thereto in the High<br \/>\nCourt also did not succeed necessitating the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tShri Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-<br \/>\noriginal defendant pointed out that the High Court was in error in<br \/>\nconfirming the order passed by the trial court allowing the amendment.  His<br \/>\nmain thrust was that the amendment application was trying to introduce a<br \/>\ntime barred claim regarding the declaration of the sale deed dated<br \/>\n4.10.1985 being a bogus and ineffective document.  According to the<br \/>\nlearned counsel the fact of the said sale deed was brought to the notice of<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs way back in the year 1987 when the defendants had pleaded<br \/>\na title in his favour on the basis of that sale deed.  Learned counsel further<br \/>\npoints out that even after the original eviction suit was converted into title<br \/>\nsuit in the year 1988 and was re-numbered in 1991, the civil court in its<br \/>\norder dated 4.1.1991 had permitted the original plaintiffs, respondent no.1<br \/>\nand 2 to suitably amend the plaint.  However, the original plaintiffs did not<br \/>\nchallenge the said sale deed dated 4.10.1985 which was in direct conflict<br \/>\nwith his title.  Learned counsel further points out that again in the year<br \/>\n1987 when the plaintiff transferred the suit property in favour of Vijay<br \/>\nKumar Yadav and Manju Devi, respondents 3 and 4 herein as the watchful<br \/>\npurchasers, the new so-called transferees were bound to join the plaintiffs<br \/>\nwhich they did not do upto 2004 and it was only after they joined the suit<br \/>\nas the co-plaintiffs that it dawned upon them for the first time to challenge<br \/>\nthe sale deed dated 4.10.1985 in favour of the petitioner-defendant.  All<br \/>\nthis suggests that the challenge to the sale deed which had become known<br \/>\nto the original plaintiff way back in 1987 and of which there was bound to<br \/>\nbe a notice to the newly added plaintiffs, hopelessly time barred.  Learned<br \/>\ncounsel further submits that there are no bona fides in the plaintiffs at all<br \/>\nas the plaintiffs have remained callously negligent towards their own rights.<br \/>\nLearned counsel, therefore, states that the trial court as well as High Court<br \/>\nerred in allowing the amendments.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tAs against this it was contended by the learned counsel appearing<br \/>\non behalf the original plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 herein that it was<br \/>\nalways permissible for the court to allow the amendment at any stage and<br \/>\neven if it is presumed that the challenge has become time barred, yet the<br \/>\ncourt could permit the amendments.  Learned counsel for the respondent<br \/>\ntried to rely on some rulings of this Court stating that this Court had<br \/>\npermitted the amendments even when a time barred challenge was sought<br \/>\nto be introduced by the amendments.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tIt is to be seen as to whether the courts below were right in allowing<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs to introduce the amendments.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tThere can be no dispute that the defendant had opened his cards<br \/>\nand asserted his title vis-`-vis the original plaintiffs right in the beginning in<br \/>\nthe year 1987 when he, for the first time, filed the written statement.  It is<br \/>\nthen that the original eviction suit was converted into the title suit.  This<br \/>\nwas the first opportunity to challenge the sale deed dated 4.10.1985. As if<br \/>\nthis was not sufficient, the trial court also permitted the plaintiffs to make<br \/>\nthe necessary amendments.  We fail to understand the apathy on the part<br \/>\nof the plaintiffs in the wake of all this happenings.  As if this was not<br \/>\nsufficient when the plaintiffs allegedly sold the property in favour of Vijay<br \/>\nKumar Yadav and Manju Devi in the year 1997 by two separate sale<br \/>\ndeeds, he could have given the notice of the cloud on his title to the<br \/>\npurchasers or atleast the purchasers were bound to take notice of the<br \/>\ncloud on the title of the original plaintiff.  The purchasers, i.e., respondents<br \/>\n3 and 4 herein respectively remained complacent right till 2004. We do not<br \/>\nknow as to how original plaintiffs kept the suit alive for a long period of<br \/>\nseven years.  It is only in the year 2004 that the transferees sought to add<br \/>\nthemselves as the co-plaintiffs which should have been done immediately<br \/>\nafter they purchased the said suit property by two separate sale deeds in<br \/>\nthe year 1997.  It is, therefore, clear that the original plaintiff as also the<br \/>\nsubsequent purchasers remained complacent and negligent all through for<br \/>\na period of more than 15 years and woke up for the first time to challenge<br \/>\nthe sale deed dated 4.10.1985 by seeking a declaration that it is bogus<br \/>\nand did not create any title in favour of the original defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tWe have gone through the amendment application carefully where<br \/>\nwe do not find any explanation whatsoever for this towering delay.  We<br \/>\nwould expect some explanation, atleast regarding the delay since the<br \/>\ndelay was very substantial.  The whole amendment application, when<br \/>\ncarefully scanned, does not show any explanation whatsoever.  This<br \/>\nnegligent complacency on the part of the plaintiffs would not permit them to<br \/>\namend the plaint, more particularly when the claim has, apparently,<br \/>\nbecome barred by time.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tIt is quite true that this Court in a number of decisions, has allowed<br \/>\nby way of an amendment even the claims which were barred by time.<br \/>\nHowever, for that there had to be a valid basis made out in the application<br \/>\nand first of all there had to be bona fides on the part of the plaintiffs and a<br \/>\nreasonable explanation for the delay.  It is also true that the amendments<br \/>\ncan be introduced at any stage of the suit, however, when by that<br \/>\namendment an apparently time barred claim is being introduced for the<br \/>\nfirst time, there would have to be some explanation and secondly, the<br \/>\nplaintiff would have to show his bona fides, particularly because such<br \/>\nclaims by way of an amendment would have the effect of defeating the<br \/>\nrights created in the defendant by lapse of time.  When we see the present<br \/>\nfacts, it is clear that no such attempt is made by the plaintiffs anywhere<br \/>\nmore particularly in the amendment application.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\t<a href=\"\/doc\/795590\/\">In Dondapati Narayana Reddy vs. Duggireddy Venkatanarayan<br \/>\nReddy &amp; Ors.<\/a> [(2001) 8 SCC 115] this court observed:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The amendment should, generally, be allowed unless it is<br \/>\nshown that permitting the amendment would be unjust and<br \/>\nresult in prejudice against the opposite side which cannot be<br \/>\ncompensated by costs or would deprive him of a right which<br \/>\nhas accrued to him with the lapse of time.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1963901\/\">In T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. vs. T.N. Electricty Board &amp; Others<\/a><br \/>\n[(2004) 3 SCC 392] a three Judge Bench of this Court relying on <a href=\"\/doc\/908527\/\">L.J.<br \/>\nLeach &amp; Co. Ltd. vs. Jardine Skinner and Co.<\/a> [AIR 1957 SC 357] reiterated<br \/>\nas under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The law as regards permitting amendments to the plaint is<br \/>\nwell settled.  <a href=\"\/doc\/908527\/\">In L.J. Leach &amp; Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and<br \/>\nCo.<\/a> it was held that the court would as a rule decline to allow<br \/>\namendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be<br \/>\nbarred by limitation on the date of the application.  But that is a<br \/>\nfactor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as<br \/>\nto whether amendment should be ordered and does not affect<br \/>\nthe power of the court to order it.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The situation is no different in this appeal and as such a suit as described<br \/>\nabove would be clearly barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\tThe defendant having set up a rival title on the basis of sale deed<br \/>\ndated 4.10.1985 the plaintiff was bound to amend his pleadings if he<br \/>\nwanted to challenge the said sale deed to be ineffective and incapable of<br \/>\ncreating a valid title in favour of the defendant.  It completely beats us as to<br \/>\nwhy the plaintiff remained complacently negligent right from 1987 in case<br \/>\nof original plaintiff and after 1997 in case of co-plaintiffs.  On the top of it<br \/>\nwhen we see the amendment application, it is sadly silent regarding any<br \/>\nexplanation as to why all these steps were not taken after a long period<br \/>\nright from 1987 till the amendment application is made on 11.12.2004.<br \/>\nHaving not challenged, the sale deed dated 4.10.1985, the plaintiff could<br \/>\nnot lead evidence regarding the circumstances under which that sale deed<br \/>\ncame into existence which facts they would be entitled now if the<br \/>\namendments were to be allowed.  That would be completely different from<br \/>\ntheir preliminary task of proving a better title to the property.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\tUnder the circumstances we would not permit the plaintiffs now at<br \/>\nthis stage to introduce a time barred claim under the peculiar facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of this case where we find a complacent negligence on the<br \/>\npart of the plaintiffs apart from the towering delay of more than 15 years.<br \/>\nWe, therefore,  allow this appeal and set aside the orders of the High Court<br \/>\nas well as the trial court and dismiss the application for amendment dated<br \/>\n11.12.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.\tThere will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu vs Sita Ram Saraugi &amp; Ors on 30 March, 2007 Author: V.S. Sirpurkar Bench: Ashok Bhan, V.S. Sirpurkar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1700 of 2007 PETITIONER: Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu RESPONDENT: Sita Ram Saraugi &amp; Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/03\/2007 BENCH: [&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-41296","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>Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu vs Sita Ram Saraugi &amp; Ors on 30 March, 2007 - 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\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu vs Sita Ram Saraugi &amp; Ors on 30 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-24T23:04:56+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu vs Sita Ram Saraugi &amp; Ors on 30 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-24T23:04:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2093,\"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\\\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007\",\"name\":\"Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu vs Sita Ram Saraugi &amp; Ors on 30 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-24T23:04:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu vs Sita Ram Saraugi &amp; Ors on 30 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu vs Sita Ram Saraugi &amp; Ors on 30 March, 2007 - 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\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu vs Sita Ram Saraugi &amp; Ors on 30 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-24T23:04:56+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu vs Sita Ram Saraugi &amp; Ors on 30 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-24T23:04:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007"},"wordCount":2093,"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\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007","name":"Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu vs Sita Ram Saraugi &amp; Ors on 30 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-24T23:04:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-gopal-sah-shiv-gopal-sahu-vs-sita-ram-saraugi-ors-on-30-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu vs Sita Ram Saraugi &amp; Ors on 30 March, 2007"}]},{"@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\/41296","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=41296"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41296\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41296"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41296"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41296"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}