{"id":50988,"date":"1982-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982"},"modified":"2016-01-07T11:14:32","modified_gmt":"2016-01-07T05:44:32","slug":"jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982","title":{"rendered":"Jogdhayan vs Babu Ram And Others on 23 November, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jogdhayan vs Babu Ram And Others on 23 November, 1982<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR   57, \t\t  1983 SCR  (1) 844<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B Islam<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Islam, Baharul (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nJOGDHAYAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBABU RAM AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT23\/11\/1982\n\nBENCH:\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\nBENCH:\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\nDESAI, D.A.\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1983 AIR   57\t\t  1983 SCR  (1) 844\n 1983 SCC  (1)\t26\t  1982 SCALE  (2)1061\n CITATOR INFO :\n E\t    1989 SC2073\t (17,18)\n RF\t    1992 SC 109\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution of  India 1950,  Article 136-Supreme Court\nexercise its  discretionary power  under Article  136 of the\nConstitution to\t meet the  ends\t of  justice  or  to  remove\nmiscarriage of\tjustice perpetrated  in\t a  case-pre-emption\nsuit-Judgement-Decree holder  by bona  fide mistake fails to\ndeposit 0.25 Paise, but makes good later with the permission\nof the\tCourt-Whether in view of the provisions of Order XX,\nRule 14(1)(b) of the Civil procedure Code the suit should be\ndeemed to  have been dismissed and consequently execution of\nthe decree is impermissible-Whether the default could not be\ncondoned.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Appellant-plaintfull in  the pre-emption  suit  against\nthe respondent\t(vendee) and  Respondent 2  (Vendor)  got  a\ndecree.\t As   per  the\tTrial  Court  decree  the  appellant\ndeposited a  sum of  Rs. 15,500 as the price of the land and\nRB. 100\t u tho\tcharges on account of registration and other\nexpenses of  the dead. Respondent I (vendee) filed an appeal\nand the\t Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal with\nthe modification directing the appellant to deposit a sum of\nRs. 1836-25  more in  the trial\t Court for  payment  to\t the\nvendee, within\t15.4.1967; in  case of\tfailure the suit was\ndirected  to  be  dismissed.  On  14.4.1967,  the  appellant\ndeposited Rs.  1836.00 instead\tof Rs. 1836-25. He, however,\nmade good  the short  deposit of 25 Paise on 28.10.1968 with\nthe permission\tof the\tCourt averring\tthat the omission to\ndeposit 25  paise was  due to bona fide mistakes. The vendee\nheld a\tregular second\tappeal\tand  the  High\tCourt  while\ndismissing the\tappeal directed\t the  appellant\t to  deposit\nwithin three  Months' time, a further sum of Rs. 500 for the\nimprovements made  to the land. The appellant deposited this\nsum within the time limit.\n     In the execution case filed before the executing court,\nthe respondent\tvendee Sled  an application  under order  XX\nRule 14(1)(b),\traising an  objection to the maintainability\nof the\tExecution Petition on the plea that short deposit of\n25 Paise  within 15.4.1967  amounted to\t deemed dismissal of\nthe suit  itself and that the default could not be condoned.\nThe executing  court by its order dt. 1.2.1969 overruled the\nobjections. The\t Judgment  debtor's  appeal  before  the  II\nAdditional District  Judge was\taccepted  holding  that\t the\nprovisions of  order XX Rule 14(1)(b) C.P.C. were mandatory,\nthe short  deposit was\tnot due to bona fide mistake and the\ndefault could  not be  condoned. The  appellant preferred  a\nsecond execution  appeal before\t the High  Court, without  a\ncertified copy of the order of the executing Court, but with\nan application for exemption from filing the certified copy.\nThe appellant was directed on 25.11.1969 to file the\n845\ncertified copy\t\"as soon  as is\t available\".  Tho  appellant\nobtained a  certified copy A on June 3, 1970 and filed it in\nthe High  Court on  July 17,  1970. The appellant filed r an\napplication  on\t July  17,  1970  under\t section  5  of\t the\nLimitation Act\tfor condonation\t of delay.  The\t preliminary\nobjection raised by the Respondent No. 1 that the appeal was\nbarred by  limitation, was  accepted by\t the learned  single\nJudge and  the Execution second appeal thus stood dismissed.\nHence the appeal after obtaining special leave of the Court.\n     Allowing the appeal, the Court\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The High\t Court committed  an  error  in\t not\nadverting to and not exercising its powers under Section 148\nof the\tCode of Civil Procedure and in dismissing the appeal\nwithout going  into the\t merit of  the matter. Under section\n148 C.P.C.,  the Court has enough power to enlarge time from\ntime to\t time. The  power given\t to the\t Court under section\n148, is\t discretionary and  is\tgiven  for  the\t purpose  of\nsecuring the ends of justice in case of necessity.\n\t\t\t\t      [848-C-D, E-F, 850-B]\n     2. Under  order XX, rule 14 C.P.C. the plaintiff decree\nholder, in  order to get delivery of possession of the land,\nhas to fulfill two conditions : (i) he has to deposit in the\ncourt the  purchase money  together with  the cost,  if\t any\ndecreed against him, and (ii) the deposit must be made on or\nbefore the date fixed by the Court. [849-E-F]\n     However, in view of the deposit of 25 Paise having been\nmade, under  the orders of the court after the acceptance of\nthe bona  fide mistake,\t the finding  of the first executing\nappellate court\t  that\tthe non-deposit\t could not be due to\nany bona fide mistake is absolutely untenable for the reason\nthat  while   the  appellant  has  deposited  in  total\t Rs.\n17,936.00 from\ttime to time as directed by the Courts there\nwas absolutely\tno reason  as  to  why\the  would  not\thave\ndeposited 25  paise, unless it was due to a mistake. Indeed,\nthe  appellant\t is  the   victim  of\tCourts\t craze\t for\ntechnicalities of law at the cost of justice.\n\t\t\t\t     [845-H, 849-G.H, 850-A]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No.  94-of<br \/>\n1972.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeal by\tSpecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  order<br \/>\ndated the  23rd July,  1971 of\tthe Punjab  and Haryana High<br \/>\nCourt in Execution Second Appeal No. 1941 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Uma Datta and Krishna Datta for the Appellant.<br \/>\n     S.K. Mehta, P.N. Puri and M.R. Dua for the Respondent.<br \/>\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     BAHARUL ISLAM, J. In this appeal by special leave under<br \/>\nArticle 136 of the Constitution, the appellant is the victim<br \/>\nof Court&#8217;s  craze for  technicalities of  law at the cost of<br \/>\njustice. This Court<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">846<\/span><br \/>\nexercises its  discretionary power  under Article 136 of the<br \/>\nConstitution to\t meet the  ends\t of  justice  or  to  remove<br \/>\nmiscarriage of justice perpetrated in a case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     2. This  appeal arises  out of an execution proceeding.<br \/>\nThe facts  material for\t the purpose  of  disposal  of\tthis<br \/>\nappeal may  be stated  thus. The appellant was the plaintiff<br \/>\nin a pre-emption suit and Bot a decree. Respondent No. I was<br \/>\nthe vendee and respondent No. 2, who was the real brother of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff-appellant,  was the  vendor. The\tsuit was for<br \/>\npre-emption and\t possession in\trespect of some agricultural<br \/>\nland. The  trial court\tdecreed the  suit, on payment of Rs.<br \/>\n15,500 as  the price  of the land and Rs. 100 as the charges<br \/>\non account  of registration  and other\tcharges of the deed.<br \/>\nThe appellant deposited the amount as directed by the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     3 Respondent  No. I  filed an appeal and the Additional<br \/>\nDistrict  Judge\t  who  heard  and  disposed  of\t the  appeal<br \/>\ndismissed the  appeal with  the modification  directing\t the<br \/>\nappellant to  deposit a sum of Rs. 1836.25 more in the trial<br \/>\ncourt for  payment to  the vendee, within 15.4.1967; in case<br \/>\nof failure  the\t suit  was  directed  to  be  dismissed.  On<br \/>\n14.4.1967, the\tappellant deposited  Rs. 1836.00  instead of<br \/>\nRs. 1836.25.  He, however, made good the short deposit of 25<br \/>\npaise on 28. 10.1968 with the permission of the Court on the<br \/>\nallegation that\t the omission to deposit 25 paise was due to<br \/>\nbona fide  mistake. Respondent\tNo. 1 filed a regular second<br \/>\nappeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High<br \/>\nCourt affirmed\tthe decree  of the first appellate Court but<br \/>\nordered the appellant to deposit a further sum of Rs. 500.00<br \/>\nfor the\t improvements made  to the  land. The  appellant was<br \/>\ngiven three months&#8217; time to make the payment of the said sum<br \/>\nof Rs.\t500.00, failing\t which, it  was directed,  the\tsuit<br \/>\nwould stand dismissed. The appellant deposited this sum to..<br \/>\nwithin the time limit.\n<\/p>\n<p>     4. The  appellant on 28.10.1968 filed an execution case<br \/>\nbefore the  executing court  to get  possession of  the suit<br \/>\nland. The  executing court  issued notice  to the  judgment-<br \/>\ndebtor (respondent  No. 1 herein). The judgment-debtor filed<br \/>\nan application\tunder order XX, rule 14(1)(b) of the Code of<br \/>\nCivil Procedure on the ground, inter alia that the appellant<br \/>\nwas directed  to make  the payment of the sum of Rs. 1836.25<br \/>\nwithin April  15, 1967, but the appellant had deposited only<br \/>\na sum of Rs. 1836.00 within the due date and the amount fell<br \/>\nshort of 25 paise, and as such the execution proceedings<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">847<\/span><br \/>\nshould be struck off. The appellant filed a rejoinder to the<br \/>\nobjection petition of the judgment-debtor. His plea was that<br \/>\nthe short deposit of 25 paise was due to a bona fide mistake<br \/>\non his\tpart, but that the shortage was made good on October<br \/>\n28, 1968 after obtaining necessary permission from the trial<br \/>\nCourt. The  executing Court,  by its order dated February 1,<br \/>\n1969, held  that the  short deposit of 25 paise was due to a<br \/>\nbona fide mistake on the part of the degree holder and over-<br \/>\nruled the  objection of the judgment-debtor, taking the view<br \/>\nthat in\t the interest  of justice the default on the part of<br \/>\nthe decree-holder  should be  condoned. The  Judgment-debtor<br \/>\npreferred an  appeal in\t the Court  of the  IInd  Additional<br \/>\nDistrict Judge, who, by his order dated October 24, 1969 set<br \/>\naside the  order of  the executing  court. He  held that the<br \/>\nprovisions of  order 20,  rule 14(1)(b) of the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure were\tmandatory, and\tas such\t the suit  should be<br \/>\ndeemed to  have stood dismissed. He also held that the short<br \/>\ndeposit of  25 paise  was not  on account of mistake and the<br \/>\ndefault could not be condoned.\n<\/p>\n<p>     5. The  appellant preferred  a second execution appeal,<br \/>\nbeing Execution\t Second Appeal\tNo. 1941 of 1969 in the High<br \/>\nCourt. The  appeal was however presented without a certified<br \/>\ncopy of\t the order  of the  executing Court.  The appellant,<br \/>\nhowever, made  an application for dispensing with the filing<br \/>\nof the\tcertified copy.\t The High  Court while admitting the<br \/>\nappeal passed the following order: E<br \/>\n\t  &#8220;Admitted. Certified\tcopy to\t be filed as soon as<br \/>\n     it is available &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t    Sd\/- R.S. Narula<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  25.11.69&#8243;.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant  obtained the  certified copy  on June 3, 1970<br \/>\nand filed  it in  the High  Court  on  June  10,  1970.\t The<br \/>\nappellant filed\t an  application  on  July  17,\t 1970  under<br \/>\nsection S  of the  Limitation Act for the condonation of the<br \/>\ndelay. The  second appeal  came up  for hearing on March 25,<br \/>\n1971 before  a single  Judge. Respondent  No. I\t raised\t the<br \/>\npreliminary  objection\t that  the   appeal  was  barred  by<br \/>\nlimitation. The\t objection was\tupheld by the learned single<br \/>\nJudge; asa  result he  dismissed the execution second appeal<br \/>\nfiled by  the appellant\t herein. The  appellant\t prayed\t for<br \/>\nleave to  appeal under\tLetters Patent.\t The prayer was also<br \/>\nrejected. H\n<\/p>\n<p>     6. Hence this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">848<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     7. Shri  S.K.  Mehta,  learned  counsel  appearing\t for<br \/>\nRespondent No.\tI submitted  that the execution appeal filed<br \/>\nby the\tappellant in &#8211; the High Court was incompetent as the<br \/>\ncertified copy\tof the impugned order of the lower appellate<br \/>\nCourt was  not filed  alongwith the memorandum of appeal. We<br \/>\ndo not\tfind any substance in the submission for the reason,<br \/>\nas we  have already  stated above,  that the  appellant\t was<br \/>\ngranted time  by the High Court at the time of the admission<br \/>\nand was allowed to file the certified copy &#8220;as soon as it is<br \/>\navailable.&#8221; It\tis not the contention of the respondent that<br \/>\nthe copy was not filed at all, nor it is his submission that<br \/>\nthe Court had no power to grant time to file the copy of the<br \/>\nimpugned order.\t As stated  above, the\tcopy was obtained on<br \/>\n3.6.1970 and  filed in\tcourt on 10.6.1970- seven days after<br \/>\nthe copy  was obtained.\t So  he\t filed\tthe  petition  under<br \/>\nSection 5  of the  Limitation Act. There was no reason as to<br \/>\nwhy the\t delay could  not be  condoned.\t That  apart,  under<br \/>\nSection 148  of the  Code of  Civil Procedure, the Court has<br \/>\nenough power  to enlarge time from time to time. Section 148<br \/>\nprovides:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court<br \/>\n     for the  doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this<br \/>\n     Code, the\tCourt, may,  in its discretion, from time to<br \/>\n     time, enlarge  such  period,  even\t though\t the  period<br \/>\n     originally fixed or granted may have expired.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The power\tgiven to  the Court  under  Section  148  is<br \/>\ndiscretionary and  is given  for the purpose of securing the<br \/>\nends of\t justice in  case of  necessity. In our opinion, the<br \/>\nHigh Court  committed an  error in not adverting to, and not<br \/>\nexercising its\tpowers\tunder  Section\t148  C.P.C.  and  in<br \/>\ndismissing the\tappeal without\tgoing to  the merit  of\t the<br \/>\nmatter.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Mehta\tdrew our  attention to the second proviso to<br \/>\nsubrule\t  of Order 41, rule (1) C.P.C. as amended by Punjab,<br \/>\nHaryana and  Chandigarh. The  amendment is  in the following<br \/>\nwords:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;Provided further  that the  Court may  permit the<br \/>\n     appeal to\tbe filed with true copies duly authenticated<br \/>\n     by an advocate as correct.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     This  provision   hardly\thelps\thim.   It   is\t not<br \/>\nunderstandable, how the counsel for the appellant could file<br \/>\n&#8216;true  copies&#8217;,\t  when\this  client  had  not  obtained\t the<br \/>\ncertificate copy of the order tn question.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">849<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     8. The  next question for decision is whether the first<br \/>\nexecution A  appellate Court  was justified  in holding that<br \/>\nthe amount  directed to be deposited was not deposited as it<br \/>\nfell short by 25 paise. Order 20, rule 14 CPC provides:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;Decree  in  pre-emption  suits  Where  the  Court<br \/>\n     decrees  a\t  claim\t to  pre-emption  in  respect  of  a<br \/>\n     particular scale of property and the purchase money has<br \/>\n     not been paid into Court, the decree shall-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (a)   specify a  day on  or before\t which the  purchase<br \/>\n\t  money shall be so paid, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (c)  direct that on payment into Court of such purchase<br \/>\n\t  money, together  with the  costs (if\tany) decreed<br \/>\n\t  against  the\tplaintiff,  on\tor  before  the\t day<br \/>\n\t  referred to  in clause  (a), the  defendant  shall<br \/>\n\t  deliver  possession\tof  the\t  property  to\t the<br \/>\n\t  plaintiff, whose  title thereto shall be deemed to<br \/>\n\t  have accrued\tfrom the  date of  such payment, but<br \/>\n\t  that, if  the purchase money and the costs if any)<br \/>\n\t  are not  so paid, the suit shall be dismissed with<br \/>\n\t  costs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (2)  &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;<br \/>\n     Under order  20, rule  14 CPC,  the  plaintiff  decree-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>holder, in  order to get delivery of possession of the land,<br \/>\nhas to fulfil two conditions, (i) he has to deposit in Court<br \/>\nthe purchase  money together  with the cost, if any, decreed<br \/>\nagainst him  and (ii)  the deposit must be made on or before<br \/>\nthe date fixed by the Court. F<br \/>\n     Here  the\tadmitted  position  is\tthat  the  appellant<br \/>\ndeposited the  entire amount of purchase money together with<br \/>\nthe costs decreed against him, less 25 paise within the time<br \/>\nfixed by  the Court  and 25  paise too\twas  deposited,\t but<br \/>\nbeyond time. The executing Court held that the short deposit<br \/>\nwas .  due to  a bona  fide  mistake,  while  the  executing<br \/>\nappellate Court\t held that  it was  not due to any bona fide<br \/>\nmistake, but  it was  a default\t and thereby  the  executing<br \/>\nappellate Court deprived the decree-holder of the legitimate<br \/>\nfruits of  the decree  he obtained  in all  the Courts.\t The<br \/>\nfinding of the first executing appellate Court that the non-<br \/>\ndeposit could  not be  due to  any  bona  fide\tmistake,  is<br \/>\nabsolutely untenable for the reason that while the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">850<\/span><br \/>\nappellant has  deposited in total Rs. 17,936.00 from time to<br \/>\ntime as\t directed by  the Courts,  there was  absolutely  no<br \/>\nreason as  to why  he would  not have  deposited  25  paise,<br \/>\nunless it  was due  to a  mistake. This\t was pre-eminently a<br \/>\ncase in\t which the  first execution appellate Court ought to<br \/>\nhave exercised\tits discretionary  powers under\t section 148<br \/>\nCPC and\t accepted the  delayed deposit\tof 25  paise, 85 was<br \/>\ndone by the original executing Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     9. In  the result,\t we allow the appeal with costs, set<br \/>\naside the  orders of  the High\tCourt as  well as  the first<br \/>\nexecution appellate  Court and\trestore\t the  order  of\t the<br \/>\noriginal executing Court.\n<\/p>\n<pre>S.R.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">851<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Jogdhayan vs Babu Ram And Others on 23 November, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 57, 1983 SCR (1) 844 Author: B Islam Bench: Islam, Baharul (J) PETITIONER: JOGDHAYAN Vs. RESPONDENT: BABU RAM AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT23\/11\/1982 BENCH: ISLAM, BAHARUL (J) BENCH: ISLAM, BAHARUL (J) DESAI, D.A. ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) [&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-50988","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jogdhayan vs Babu Ram And Others on 23 November, 1982 - 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\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jogdhayan vs Babu Ram And Others on 23 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982\" \/>\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=\"1982-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-07T05:44:32+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\\\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jogdhayan vs Babu Ram And Others on 23 November, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-07T05:44:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982\"},\"wordCount\":1758,\"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\\\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982\",\"name\":\"Jogdhayan vs Babu Ram And Others on 23 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-07T05:44:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jogdhayan vs Babu Ram And Others on 23 November, 1982\"}]},{\"@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":"Jogdhayan vs Babu Ram And Others on 23 November, 1982 - 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\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jogdhayan vs Babu Ram And Others on 23 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-07T05:44:32+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\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jogdhayan vs Babu Ram And Others on 23 November, 1982","datePublished":"1982-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-07T05:44:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982"},"wordCount":1758,"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\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982","name":"Jogdhayan vs Babu Ram And Others on 23 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-07T05:44:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jogdhayan-vs-babu-ram-and-others-on-23-november-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jogdhayan vs Babu Ram And Others on 23 November, 1982"}]},{"@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\/50988","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=50988"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50988\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50988"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50988"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50988"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}