{"id":45399,"date":"1988-04-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-04-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988"},"modified":"2017-08-12T08:49:05","modified_gmt":"2017-08-12T03:19:05","slug":"smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Sudha Devi vs M.P. Narayanan & Ors on 26 April, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Smt. Sudha Devi vs M.P. Narayanan & Ors on 26 April, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1381, \t\t 1988 SCR (3) 756<\/div>\n
Author: L Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: Sharma, L.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSMT. SUDHA DEVI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM.P. NARAYANAN & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT26\/04\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\nSEN, A.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 1381\t\t  1988 SCR  (3) 756\n 1988 SCC  (3) 366\t  JT 1988 (2)\t217\n 1988 SCALE  (1)952\n\n\nACT:\n     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order IX, Rule 13-Decree\nexparte-Setting aside  of-Held, even in absence of a defence\nCourt not  entitled  to\t pass  an  ex-parte  decree  without\nreliable relevant evidence.\n     Indian Evidence  Act, 1872: Section 3-Affidavits can be\nused as\t 'evidence' only  when ordered\tby court under Order\nXIX, Rules 1 or 2 C.P.C.\n     Constitution of  India, Article  136: Plaintiff in suit\ncannot be  allowed to  fill up\tlacuna in evidence at S.L.P.\nstage.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The plaintiff-appellant  filed a  suit for ejectment of\nthe tenant  defendant No.  1 for  default in payment of rent\nand also  to have  wrongfully sublet  the flat to the second\ndefendant. None\t of the defendants appeared. At the ex-parte\ntrial  the  plaintiff  examined\t one  witness  and  tendered\ncertain documents  in evidence. The Single Judge decreed the\nsuit. Subsequently  to the  decree the\ttwo  defendants\t are\nalleged to have inducted the third defendant (respondent No.\n1) to  occupy the  demised  flat.  The\tplaintiff  filed  an\napplication for\t modification of  the decree. The respondent\nNo. 1  first filed  an application for setting aside the ex-\nparte decree,  but later withdrew it and assailed the decree\nin appeal.  The Letters\t Patent Bench allowed the appeal and\nset aside the decree on the ground that the plaintiff's sole\nwitness did  not disclose his concern with the suit property\nor his relationship with the plaintiff and that on the basis\nof the\tmeagre evidence\t led  by  her,\tshe  had  failed  to\nestablish her case.\n     In the  appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf\nof the\tappellant that\tthe witness  was the  husband of the\nplaintiff-appellant and\t thus he  was fully  conversant with\nthe relevant  facts and that the criticism by the High Court\nwas not justified. Reliance was placed on an affidavit filed\nin this\t Court. It  was further contended that even ignoring\nthe relationship  of the  witness with\tthe  plaintiff,\t his\nevidence was  adequate to  prove the  plaintiff's case which\nhas not\t been rebutted\tby any\tof the\tdefendants either by\nfiling\ta  written  statement  or  by  cross  examining\t the\nwitness.\n757\n     Allowing  the   appeals  and  remanding  the  suit\t for\nretrial.\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The plaintiff  cannot be\t allowed a decree on\nthe evidence led by her in the suit founded on the plaint as\nit is. Even in absence of a defence the Court cannot pass an\nex-parte decree without reliable relevant evidence. The fact\nthat the  plaintiff chose  to examine  some evidence  in the\ncase cannot  by itself\tentitle her to a decree. The Letters\nPatent Bench  was, therefore,  justified in scrutinising the\nevidence from that angle. [760B-D]\n     2. The suit was filed and the relief was claimed on the\nbasis that  the third  defendant was inducted in the flat in\nquestion by the other two defendants after they had suffered\na decree.  There is  not an  iota of  evidence\tled  by\t the\nplaintiff to  prove this  story.  On  the  other  hand,\t the\nevidence of the sole witness, who positively stated that the\ndefendant No.  3 was  in possession  of the flat in question\nfrom before  the date  of the  decree passed  in the earlier\nsuit, disproves\t this part of the case. If the defendant No.\n3 is  assumed to  be in\t possession from  before the earlier\ndecree several other issues would arise for consideration on\nwhich  the  plaintiff  will  be\t required  to  lead  further\nevidence necessitating retrial. [760D-E]\n     3. Affidavits  are not  included in  the definition  of\n'evidence' in  s. 3  of the  Evidence Act and can be used as\nevidence only  if for  sufficient reasons  Court  passes  an\norder under  Order XIX,\t Rules 1  or 2\tof the Code of Civil\nProcedure. The plaintiff-appellant cannot be allowed to fill\nup the lacuna in the evidence belatedly at the Supreme Court\nstage. [759E-F]\n     4. In  view of  the prayer made by the plaintiff in the\nHigh Court  and in  C.A. No.  4145 of 1986 before this Court\nfor remanding  the suit\t for retrial  and the  concession of\ndefendant No. 3 before this Court, the judgments of the High\nCourt are  set aside  and the suit is remanded to the Single\nJudge for  retrial  and\t disposal  in  accordance  with\t law\nexpeditiously. [761B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4145-46
\nof 1986.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and order dated 10.7.85 and 11.11.85
\nof the High Court of Calcutta in Appeal No. 477 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
     Tapas Ray and B.R. Agarwal for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
758<\/span><\/p>\n
     V.A. Bobde,  Rajiv Dutta  and Ms.\tMridula Ray  for the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered:\n<\/p>\n
     SHARMA, J.\t By the impugned judgment the Division Bench
\nof the\tCalcutta High  Court set  aside the  ex-parte decree
\npassed by  the Original\t Side of  the Court in favour of the
\nplaintiff Sudha\t Devi, the  present appellant.\tThe  dispute
\nbetween the  parties is in regard to a flat in a building on
\nLord Sinha Road, Calcutta. The plaintiff prayed for a decree
\nfor Rs.1,44,730\t as past  mesne profits besides future mesne
\nprofits at the rate of Rs.170 per day and for “if necessary,
\ndecree as against the third respondent for possession of the
\nflat” described\t in the\t plaint. By  way of  an\t alternative
\nrelief to the money claimed, an inquiry for determination of
\nthe mesne  profits was\tasked for.  None of  the  defendants
\nappeared. At  the ex-parte  trial the plaintiff examined one
\nwitness and  tendered certain  documents  in  evidence.\t The
\nlearned Single\tJudge decreed the suit and the defendant No.
\n3 (present respondent No. 1) filed an appeal therefrom which
\nwas allowed  on 10-7-1985  by the  judgment which  is  under
\nchallenge in  Civil Appeal  No. 4146  of 1986. The plaintiff
\nthereafter filed  an application with a prayer to modify the
\njudgment and  remand the  suit for  retrial. The  prayer was
\nrejected by  the order\tdated 11-10-1985.  Civil Appeal\t No.
\n4145 of 1986 is directed against this order.\n<\/p>\n
     2. According to the plaintiff’s case, the defendant No.
\n1 Baranagar  Jute Factory  Company Ltd.\t was the  tenant  in
\nrespect to  the flat  in question  under the  plaintiff. The
\nJute  Company\tdefaulted  in\tpayment\t of  rent  and\talso
\nwrongfully sublet  the flat  to the  second defendant Sadhan
\nChattopadhyaya, which  led to the filing of an eviction suit
\nby the\tplaintiff. Both the defendants were impleaded in the
\nsuit but  they did not appear to contest. An ex-parte decree
\nof eviction  was passed\t on 19-2-1982. It is further pleaded
\nthat subsequent\t to the decree, either of the two defendants
\nor both\t wrongfully inducted  the third\t defendant to occupy
\nthe demised  flat. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to
\nthe reliefs mentioned in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
     3. The  third defendant  filed an application under the
\nprovisions of  Order IX,  Rule\t13  of\tthe  Code  of  Civil
\nProcedure for  setting aside  the ex-parte decree, but later
\nwithdrew the  same and\tassailed the  decree  in  appeal  on
\nmerits. The  Letters Patent Bench allowed the appeal and set
\naside the  decree on  the ground  that the plaintiff, on the
\nbasis of the meagre evidence led by her, failed to establish
\nher case.\n<\/p>\n
759<\/span><\/p>\n
     4. The  fact that\tthe plaintiff  obtained an  ex-parte
\ndecree in the earlier suit against the defendant No. 1 and 2
\nis established\tby the\tcopy of\t the decree exhibited in the
\ncase. The  allegation in  the plaint  so far  as  the  third
\ndefendant is  concerned, is  in paragraph 7 in the following
\nwords:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “7. Subsequent  to the  said Decree  on a  date or
\n\t  dates which  the plaintiff  is unable\t to  specify
\n\t  until after  disclosure  by  the  defendants,\t the
\n\t  first\t  and\/or    second   defendants\t  wrongfully
\n\t  permitted  and  allowed  the\tthird  defendant  to
\n\t  occupy the  said demised  flat. The  first  and\/or
\n\t  second defendants  by\t themselves  and\/or  by\t the
\n\t  third defendant  are still  in wrongful possession
\n\t  of the said demised flat.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The only evidence relevant to this part of the case is to be
\nfound in  the oral  evidence of the plaintiff’s sole witness
\nNand Kumar Tibrewal. The High Court (in appeal) has declined
\nto rely\t on his\t evidence mainly  on  the  ground  that\t the
\nwitness has not disclosed his concern with the suit property
\nor his relationship with the plaintiff. He has been rejected
\nas  incompetent.  The  learned\tCounsel\t for  the  appellant
\ncontended that the witness (now deceased) was the husband of
\nthe plaintiff-appellant\t and thus  he was  fully  conversant
\nwith the  relevant facts.  The criticism  by the  High Court
\nthat the  witness did  not state  anything in  his  evidence
\nwhich could  connect him  with the plaintiff or the property
\nand thus  make him  competent was attempted to be met before
\nus by  relying on  an affidavit\t filed in this Court. We are
\nafraid, the  plaintiff cannot  be allowed  to  fill  up\t the
\nlacuna in the evidence belatedly at the Supreme Court stage.
\nBesides, affidavits  are not  included in  the definition of
\n‘evidence’ in  s. 3  of the  Evidence Act and can be used as
\nevidence only if for sufficient reason court passes an order
\nunder Order  XIX,  Rules  1  or\t 2  of\tthe  Code  of  Civil
\nProcedure. This\t part of the argument of Mr. Tapas Ray must,
\ntherefore, be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     5. The  learned counsel  next urged  that even ignoring
\nthe relationship  of the  witness with\tthe  plaintiff,\t his
\nevidence is adequate to prove the plaintiff’s case which has
\nnot been  rebutted by any of the defendants either by filing
\na written  statement or\t cross-examining  the  witness.\t Mr.
\nBobde, the  learned counsel representing the defendant No. 3
\n(respondent No.\t 1 before  us), contended  that the  witness
\ncontradicted the  case pleaded\tin the\tplaint by positively
\nstating that  the defendant  No. 3  was in possession of the
\nflat in\t question from\tbefore the date of the decree passed
\nin the\tearlier suit. The plaintiff’s assertion in paragraph
\n7 of the plaint is thus contradicted and the suit
\n760<\/span>
\ncannot\tbe   decreed  on  its  basis.  The  learned  counsel
\nproceeded to  analyse  the  situation  arising\tout  of\t the
\nrecords of  the case  to show that if the defendant No. 3 is
\nheld to\t be in\tpossession since  before the earlier decree,
\nother issues would arise in the suit, on which the plaintiff
\nwill be\t required to  lead  further  evidence.\tThe  learned
\ncounsel\t strenuously   argued  that   in   the\t facts\t and
\ncircumstances of  the case, the prayer of the plaintiff made
\nafter the  disposal of\tthe appeal before the Letters Patent
\nBench for  remanding the  suit to  the learned\tSingle Judge
\n(Original Side)\t for retrial  was fit to be allowed and that
\nCivil Appeal  No. 4145\tof 1986\t should be  allowed by\tthis
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
     6. On  the failure\t of the\t defendants to appear in the
\nsuit, the  learned trial  Judge decided\t to proceed with the
\ncase ex-parte. Even in absence of a defence the court cannot
\npass an\t ex-parte decree without reliable relevant evidence.
\nThe fact  that the  plaintiff chose to examine some evidence
\nin the\tcase cannot  by itself\tentitle her to a decree. The
\nHigh Court  (in appeal)\t was, therefore, perfectly justified
\nin scrutinising\t the evidence  from this angle. The suit was
\nfiled and the relief was claimed on the basis that the third
\ndefendant was  inducted in the flat in question by the other
\ntwo defendants after they had already suffered a decree, and
\nthere is  not an  iota of  evidence led\t by the plaintiff to
\nprove this  story. On  the other  hand, the  evidence of the
\nsole witness  disproves this part of the case. Having regard
\nto the\tallegations in\tthe plaint,  the facts emerging from
\nthe documents  and the\toral  evidence,\t it  is\t clear\tthat
\nseveral other  questions may  arise for consideration if the
\ndefendant No.  3 is  assumed to be in possession from before
\nthe earlier decree. We, therefore, agree with Mr. Bobde that
\nthe plaintiff cannot be allowed a decree on the evidence led
\nby her in the suit founded on the plaint as it is.\n<\/p>\n
     7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at
\nconsiderable length,  we also  agree with  Mr. Bobde that in
\nthe interest  of justice  the prayer  made on  behalf of the
\nplaintiff before  the High  Court after\t the disposal of the
\nappeal for  remand and\tretrial of  the suit  is fit  to  be
\nallowed. As  nobody is disputing this position before us, we
\ndo not\tconsider it  necessary to  further  deal  with\tthis
\naspect. In  view of  the prayer made by the plaintiff in the
\nHigh Court  and in Civil Appeal No. 4145 of 1986 before this
\nCourt and  the concession  of the defendant no. 3 before us,
\nwe hold\t that the  suit should\tbe sent\t back to the learned
\nSingle\tJudge\tfor  retrial.  The  plaintiff  may  file  an
\napplication for\t amendment of  her pleading,  if so advised,
\nand in\tthat case  the learned Single Judge shall dispose it
\nof in accordance with law. The defendants will thereafter be
\nallowed to file their written statements within a
\n761<\/span>
\nperiod\tto   be\t indicated  by\tthe  Court.  The  suit\twill
\nthereafter be taken up for further trial as expeditiously as
\nmay be\tpossible. The  evidence already led by the plaintiff
\nshall continue to be evidence in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     8. In the result, the judgments of the High Court dated
\n10-7-1985 and  11-10-1985, passed  in Appeal No. 477 of 1984
\nare set aside and the suit is remanded to the learned Single
\nJudge for  disposal in\tthe light  of the  observations made
\nabove. We  feel that  the suit\tought to  be disposed  of as
\nexpeditiously as  possible and\twe expect  and hope that the
\ntrial Judge will be able to dispose it of within six months.
\nThe appeals  before us\tare allowed  in the above terms. The
\nparties shall bear their own costs in this Court; but so for
\nthe costs  in the  High Court are concerned they shall abide
\nthe final result in the litigation.\n<\/p>\n
P.S.S.\t\t\t\t       Appeals allowed.\n762<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Smt. Sudha Devi vs M.P. Narayanan & Ors on 26 April, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1381, 1988 SCR (3) 756 Author: L Sharma Bench: Sharma, L.M. (J) PETITIONER: SMT. SUDHA DEVI Vs. RESPONDENT: M.P. NARAYANAN & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT26\/04\/1988 BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) SEN, A.P. […]<\/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-45399","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Sudha Devi vs M.P. Narayanan & Ors on 26 April, 1988 - 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\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Sudha Devi vs M.P. Narayanan & Ors on 26 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-12T03:19:05+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\\\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Sudha Devi vs M.P. Narayanan & Ors on 26 April, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-12T03:19:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988\"},\"wordCount\":1597,\"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\\\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988\",\"name\":\"Smt. Sudha Devi vs M.P. Narayanan & Ors on 26 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-12T03:19:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Sudha Devi vs M.P. Narayanan & Ors on 26 April, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt. Sudha Devi vs M.P. Narayanan & Ors on 26 April, 1988 - 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\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Sudha Devi vs M.P. Narayanan & Ors on 26 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-12T03:19:05+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\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Sudha Devi vs M.P. Narayanan & Ors on 26 April, 1988","datePublished":"1988-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-12T03:19:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988"},"wordCount":1597,"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\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988","name":"Smt. Sudha Devi vs M.P. Narayanan & Ors on 26 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-12T03:19:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sudha-devi-vs-m-p-narayanan-ors-on-26-april-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Sudha Devi vs M.P. Narayanan & Ors on 26 April, 1988"}]},{"@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\/45399","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=45399"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45399\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45399"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45399"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45399"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}