{"id":52082,"date":"1961-05-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-05-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961"},"modified":"2018-10-26T13:54:50","modified_gmt":"2018-10-26T08:24:50","slug":"the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shri Mouia Bux And Others on 5 May, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shri Mouia Bux And Others on 5 May, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 145, \t\t 1962 SCR (2) 794<\/div>\n
Author: Hidayatullah<\/div>\n
Bench: Kapur, J.L., Subbarao, K., Hidayatullah, M., Shah, J.C., Dayal, Raghubar<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHRI MOUIA BUX AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n05\/05\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nKAPUR, J.L.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nSHAH, J.C.\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR  145\t\t  1962 SCR  (2) 794\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1985 SC 357\t (15)\n\n\nACT:\nCivil  Procedure-Parties-Suit against Government of  Part  C\nState-Authority\t to  be\t named as  defendant-Code  of  Civil\nProcedure, 1908 (V of 1908), 8. 79-General Clauses Act, 1897\n(X  of 1897). 88. 3(8), 3(8); 3(58) and 3(60)-Government  of\nPart C States Act, 1951 (49 of 1951) s. 38 (2).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondents obtained a lease for plucking tendu  leaves\nfrom   the  Government\tof  Vindhya  Pradesh.\tLater,\t the\nGovernment  cancelled  the lease and sought to\trecover\t the\nbalance\t of the lease money.  The respondents filed  a\tsuit\nfor  damages and for injunction restraining  the  Government\nfrom recovering the balance of the lease money and impleaded\nthe  State  of\tVindhya\t Pradesh  as  the  defendant.\tThey\ncontended  that\t the  suit was\tincompetent  as\t the  proper\ndefendant  was\tthe  Union of India and\t not  the  State  of\nVindhya Pradesh.\nHeld,  that  the  State of Vindhya Pradesh  was\t the  proper\ndefendant  to be sued and that the suit was properly  filed.\nUnder  s.  3 (58 of the General Clauses\t Act  \"State\"  meant\ninter alia a Part C State and under Art. 239 (1) the Part  C\nState  was  administered  by a Lieutenant  Governor  if\t the\nPresident  so  ordered.\t Thus Part C States had\t a  separate\nexistence  and were not merged with the Central\t Government.\nThough\t'State Government' was defined by s. 3(60)  ibid  in\nrelation  to  a Part C State as the Central  Government\t the\ndefinition  of\t'Central  Government'  in  relation  to\t the\nadministration\tof  a  Part C  State  meant  the  Lieutenant\nGovernor  within the scope of the authority under  Art.\t 239\nand  thus  the\tState Government.  Thus cl.  (b)  of  s.  79\napplied and not cl. (a).\nSatya Deo v. Padam Deo, (1955) 1 S. C. R. 549, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1959.
\n Appeal from the Judgment and decree dated February 2, 1956,
\nof the Court of the judicial Commissioner, Vindhya  Pradesh,
\nin Review Application No. 15 of 1955,
\n\t\t\t    795<\/span>
\nB.Sen,\tB.  K.\tB.  Naidu  and\tI.  N.\tShroff,\t for  the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
G. C. Mathur, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
1961.  May 5. The Judgment of the Court was  delivered by
\nHIDAYATULLAH,  J. This is ,in appeal by the State of  Madhya
\nPradesh,  which stands substituted for the State of  Vindhya
\nPradesh under the States Reorganisation, Act, 1956, and\t is.
\ndirected  against  an order of\tthe  Judicial  Commissioner,
\nRewa,  by  which he modified, on reviews his  judgement\t and
\ndecree in a civil suit filed by the respondents against\t the
\nState  of Vindhya Pradesh.  The appeal has been filed  on  a
\ncertificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner, Rewa.
\nThe  only  question urged in this appeal is  that  the\tsuit
\nbrought against the State of Vindhya Pradesh was  defective,
\nbecause the proper defendant was the Union of India.  Since-
\nthe  question is one of law, it relieves us of the  duty  of
\nnarrating  all the facts.  Briefly stated the suit  was\t for
\ndamages\t valued\t at  Ls.  1,00,000\/-  and  for\ta  permanent
\ninjunction  against the State of Vindhya Pradesh.  The\tsuit
\nwas  filed in the following circumstances:  The\t respondents
\nare  bidi merchants, and for that purpose, had\tobtained  on
\nOctober 18, 1951 from the Divisional Forest Officer, Rewa, a
\nlease for plucking and appropriating tendu leaves from.\t the
\nMakundpur Range for three years, commencing from October 18,
\n1951 on payment of Rs. 1,63,000\/- per year (Ex. P. 85).\t For
\nsome  reasons  into which it is not necessary  to  go,\tthis
\ncontract  was  cancelled,  and\tthe right  was\tput  up\t for
\nauction,  but  no bidders came.\t The  Government  therefore,
\ndemanded  the  yearly instalments, claiming them  under\t the
\ncontract  as  the difference between the  original  contract
\namount less the
\n796<\/span>
\namount fetched by way of fresh auction, which was nil.\t The
\nsuit was filed for a perpetual injunction against this claim
\nand  for damages on the averment that the State\t of  Vindhya
\nPradesh was guilty of breach of the contract.
\nThe trial Judge decreed both the parts of the claim, placing
\nthe  damages  at Rs. 36,570\/-.\tAppeals were filed  by\tboth
\nsides  before the Judicial Commissioner, the appeal  of\t the
\nState  Government  was allowed and that\t of  the  plaintiffs
\ndismissed,  resulting in the dismissal of the  entire  suit.
\nThe  Judicial  Commissioner held that the State\t of  Vindhya
\nPradesh was not a juristic entity and the suit ought to have
\nbeen  filed against the Union of India.\t On  an\t application
\nfor review the Judicial Commissioner held that there was  an
\nerror apparent on the face of his earlier judgment, and that
\nthe  State  of Vindhya Pradesh could be\t legally  sued.\t  He
\naccordingly  granted review, and modified his judgment’\t and
\ndecree by upholding, the claim for perpetual injunction, but
\nhe dismissed the claim for damages on merits.  It is against
\nthis  order  that  the present appeal has  been\t fired\twith
\ncertificate.\n<\/p>\n
Prior  to the formation of the State of Vindhya\t Pradesh,  a
\nUnion  of 35 States in Baghelkhand and Bundelkhand had\tbeen
\nformed by the Rulers in March, 1948.  On December 26,  1949,
\nthis  Union merged with India, and on January 22, 1950,\t the
\nUnited\t State\t of   Vindhya\tPradesh\t  became   a   Chief
\nCommissioner’s\tProvince under the Government of India\tAct,
\n1935.\tOn the commencement of the Constitution,  the  Chief
\nCommissioner’s\tProvince of Vindhya Pradesh became a Part  C
\nState administered by the President.  In September, 1951  an
\nAct known as the Government of Part C States Act, 1951,\t was
\npassed\tby Parliament, and under it,  a\t Lieutenant-Governor
\nwas  appointed\tfor  Vindhya Pradesh.  In  1956,  under\t the
\nStates Reorganisation Act, 1956, this Part C State became  a
\npart of the State of Madhya Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    797<\/span><\/p>\n
The  suit was filed on May 11, 1953, after notices under  s.
\n80  of the Code of Civil Procedure were served, inter  alia,
\non the Secretary, Forests and Industries Department, Vindhya
\nPradesh\t and the Collector of Rewa.  The  defendants  raised
\nthe  plea for the first time in appeal before  the  Judicial
\nCommissioner  that  the\t suit was  filed  against  a,  wrong
\ndefendant.  According to them, the proper defendant was\t the
\nUnion  of  India.  The judicial Commissioner,  relying\tupon
\nArt. 300 of the Constitution and the definition’ of  “State”
\nin Art. 264, which did not include Part C States, held\tthat
\nthe State of Vindhya Pradesh was not a juristic entity,\t and
\nthat  the suit could not be filed against it.  Later, on  an
\napplication  for  review,  he held that\t Art.  300  was\t not
\napplicable  to\tsuits by or against Part C States,  and\t he,
\ntherefore, considered the matter in the light of s.79 of the
\nCode of Civil Procedure.  Before him, a notification  issued
\nby  the\t President appointing the Lieutenant-Governor  as  a
\nperson\tauthorised  under  Order 27 of\tthe  Code  of  Civil
\nProcedure  was produced, to which earlier his attention\t had
\nnot  been called.  He, therefore, held that, in view of\t the
\nprovisions of s. 79 and the definition of”‘State Government”
\nin  s.\t3(60)  of’  the\t General  Clauses  Act,\t the  proper
\ndefendant  was, in fact, the State of Vindhya  Pradesh.\t  He
\naccordingly observed as follows
\n\t      “The  previous  judgement of  this  Court\t was
\n\t      based  on\t the assumption that  the  State  of
\n\t      Vindhya  Pradesh was not a legal entity,\tthat
\n\t      is, entity capable of holding property and  of
\n\t      entering\tinto contracts.\t As has\t been  shown
\n\t      above this assumption was erroneous.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      In  the  view of the matter, he  reviewed\t his
\n\t      order, with the result stated above.\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  provisions  which are material  to,\tthe,
\n\t      discussion way now be set down.  Section 79 of
\n\t      the
\n\t      798<\/span>
\n\t      Code of Civil Procedure lays down:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “79.  In a suit by or against the Government,’
\n\t      the  authority  to be named  as  plaintiff  or
\n\t      defendant, as the case may be, shall be-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   In the case of a suit by or against\t the
\n\t      Central Government, the Union of India, and\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   In\tthe case of a suit by or  against  a
\n\t      State Government, the State.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      The following definitions in the General Clau-
\n\t      ses Act, 1897, as they stood at the time,\t are
\n\t      also relevant:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3 (8) ‘Central Government’ shall.-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   in\trelation to anything done or  to  be
\n\t      done  after  the\tcommencement  of  the\tCon-\n<\/p>\n
\t      stitution, mean the President;\n<\/p>\n
\t      and shall include-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (ii)in  relation to the administration of\t a
\n\t      Part  C  State,  the  Chief  Commissioner\t  or
\n\t      Lieutenant-Governor acting within the scope of
\n\t      the authority given to him or it under article
\n\t      239 or article 243 of the Constitution, as the
\n\t      case may be :”\n<\/p>\n
\t      3\t (58) “State’ shall mean a Part A  State,  a
\n\t      Part B State or a Part C State
\n\t      3 (60) ‘State Government’,–\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   as respects anything done or to be. done
\n\t      after  the commencement of  the  Constitution,
\n\t      shall mean in a Part A State, the Governor, in
\n\t      a\t Part B State, Rajpramukh, and in a ‘Part  C
\n\t      State the Central Government : ”\n<\/p>\n
It  is contended before us that s. 79, which lays  down\t the
\nprocedure for suits by or against
\n\t\t\t    799<\/span>
\nGovernment  and\t the authority to be named as  plaintiff  or
\ndefendant  provides  that(a)  in the case of a\tsuit  by  or
\nagainst\t the Central Government, the Union of India and\t (b)
\nin  the case of a suit by or against the  State\t Government,
\nthe State, shall be-named as plaintiff or defendant, as\t the
\ncase may be.  It is contended that under the General Clauses
\nAct,  s.  3 (8), “Central Government” means in\trelation  to
\nanything  done or to be done after the commencement  of\t the
\nConstitution,  the  President, and under  s.  3(60),  “State
\nGovernment”  means as respects anything done or to  be\tdone
\nafter  the  commencement of Constitution, in the case  of  a
\nPart  C\t State,\t the Central  Government.   The\t contention,
\ntherefore, is that if the State Government means the Central
\nGovernment in the case of Part C States, then under cl.\t (a)
\nof  s. 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the, proper  party
\nto  sue would be the Union of India.  This argument was\t not
\naccepted by the Judicial Commissioner, and, in our  opinion,
\nrightly.\n<\/p>\n
The  matter  has to be looked at in this  way.\t “State”  is
\ndefined by s. 3(58) as a Part A State or a Part B State or a
\nPart C State.  This shows that wherever the word “‘State” is
\nused, it includes a Part C State.  In Satya Deo v. Padam Deo
\n(1) it has been held by this Court that Part C States bad  a
\nseparate  existence  and were not merged  with\tthe  Central
\nGovernment.  “State Government” is then defined in s.  3(60)
\nin relation to a Part C State, as the Central Government and
\n“Central Government” is defined in s. 3(8)(ii) as  including
\nthe Lieutenant-Governor acting within the scope of authority
\ngiven to him under Art. 239.  Article 239 reads as follows
\n\t      “239(1)  Subject\tto the other  provisions  of
\n\t      this Part, a State specified in Part C of\t the
\n\t      First  Schedule shall be administered  by\t the
\n\t      President acting, to such extent, as. he
\n\t      (1)   (1955) 1 S.C.R. 549.\n<\/p>\n
\t      800<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      thinks fit, through a Chief Commissioner or  a
\n\t      Lieutenant-Governor   to\t be   appointed\t  by
\n\t      him……..”\n<\/p>\n
The administration of a Part C State was thus being  carried
\non  under  the\tprovisions of Art. 239,\t and,  as  has\tbeen
\nrightly\t pointed out by the Judicial Commissioner,  was\t not
\naffected  by  Art.  300.  On April 8,  1953,  the  President
\nissued the following notification
\n\t      S.  R. O. 699″-In pursuance of clause  (1)  of
\n\t      Article  239 and clause (1) of Article 243  of
\n\t      the  Constitution, and in supersession of\t the
\n\t      notification of the Government of India in the
\n\t      late  Home  Department  No.   204\/37-Judicial,
\n\t      dated  the  5th  May,  1938  and\tin   partial
\n\t      modification   of\t the  notification  of\t the
\n\t      Government of India in the Ministry of  States
\n\t      No. S. R. 0. 460 dated the 24th August,  1950,
\n\t      in so far as it relates to the Civil Procedure
\n\t      Code,  1908  (Act V of  1908),  the  President
\n\t      hereby directs that the functions assigned  to
\n\t      the  Central  Govern by Order  XXVII  of,\t the
\n\t      First   Schedule\t be   discharged   by\t the
\n\t      Lieutenant-Governor or the Chief\tCommissioner
\n\t      as  the  case may be, of every  Part  C  State
\n\t      except  the  State of Manipur, in\t respect  of
\n\t      such   Part   C  State,  and  by\t the   Cheif
\n\t      Commissioner  of\tthe,  Andaman  and   Nicobar
\n\t      Islands in respect of those Islands.”\n<\/p>\n
In view of this notification, the Lieutenant Governor became
\nthe proper authority under 0.27 of the Code Civil Procedure.
\nBy  virtue  of\tthe  definitions  of  “State”  and  “Central
\nGovernment” read with the definition of “State\tGovernment”,
\nthe Lieutenant-Governor of the State was the proper party to
\nbe  sued.   The\t Government of\tVindhya\t Pradesh  meant\t the
\nLieutenant-Governor  only by an amendment made in  1954\t in.
\nthe
\n801<\/span>
\nVindhya Pradesh General Clauses Act.  Since the contract  in
\nquestion  was  entered\tinto by the  Government\t of  Vindhya
\nPradesh\t and could not be construed as a contract  with\t the
\nCentral Government, see Staye Deo V. Padam Deo the suit\t had
\nto be brought against the State of Vindhya Pradesh, and\t the
\nState  was the proper authority to be named tinder s.  79(b)
\nof  the Code.  In addition to this there was the Act  called
\nthe  Government of Part C States Act, and under s. 38(2)  of
\nthat Act,’ all executive action of a Part C State was to  be
\nexpressed to be taken in the name of the Lieutenant-Governor
\nand  the  executive  power  of\tthe  Government\t was  to  be
\nexercised by him, including the grant, sale, disposition  or
\nmortgage  etc., of any property held for the poses  of’\t the
\nState.\t The combined effect of all these provisions was  to
\nconstitute  the\t Part  C  State of  Vindhy  Pradesh  into  a
\nseparate State, and under Art. 239, the administration of it
\nwas  to be done by the President through such person, as  he
\nnotified.   Under the notification, the\t Lieutenant-Governor
\nwas appointed as the person to discharge the functions under\n<\/p>\n
0. 27 and under s. 38(2) of the Government of Part C  States
\nAct he exercised the executive power of Government.    The
\nGovernment of the State of Vindhya Pradesh entered into\t the
\ncontract  with the plaintiffs in respect of the property  of
\nthe State.  The definitions to which we have referred,\tmade
\nthe  State the proper authority to be sued, even though\t the
\nState  Government was defined in the General Clauses Act  as
\nthe  Central Government, because the definition\t of  Central
\nGovernment”  takes us to the Lieutenant-Governor,  and\tfrom
\nthe Lieutenant-Governor we go to the State.  In this veiw of
\nthe matter, s. 79(a) of the Code, which says that in a\tsuit
\nby  or against the Central Government, the proper  plaintiff
\nor defendant, as the case may be, is the Union
\n(1) (1955) 1 S.C.R. 549.\n<\/p>\n
802<\/span><\/p>\n
of  India,  does not apply to a Part C State, and  only\t the
\ndefinition in el. (b) of the section applies to this  State,
\neven though a Part C State.  In our opinion, therefore,\t the
\ndecision of the Judicial Commissioner was correct.
\nSince no other point was urged in this appeal, it must fail,
\nand  it\t is accordingly dismissed with costs.  There  is  no
\nneed  to pass any order on C. M. P. No. 40 of 1960 by  which
\nthe  respondents  asked\t for amendment\tof  the\t plaint\t and
\naddition   of  the  Union  Government  as  a   party.\t The
\napplication shall be filed.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shri Mouia Bux And Others on 5 May, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 145, 1962 SCR (2) 794 Author: Hidayatullah Bench: Kapur, J.L., Subbarao, K., Hidayatullah, M., Shah, J.C., Dayal, Raghubar PETITIONER: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI MOUIA BUX AND OTHERS DATE […]<\/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-52082","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shri Mouia Bux And Others on 5 May, 1961 - 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\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shri Mouia Bux And Others on 5 May, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961\" \/>\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=\"1961-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-26T08:24:50+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\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shri Mouia Bux And Others on 5 May, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-26T08:24:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961\"},\"wordCount\":2202,\"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\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961\",\"name\":\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shri Mouia Bux And Others on 5 May, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-26T08:24:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shri Mouia Bux And Others on 5 May, 1961\"}]},{\"@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":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shri Mouia Bux And Others on 5 May, 1961 - 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\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shri Mouia Bux And Others on 5 May, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-26T08:24:50+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\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shri Mouia Bux And Others on 5 May, 1961","datePublished":"1961-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-26T08:24:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961"},"wordCount":2202,"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\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961","name":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shri Mouia Bux And Others on 5 May, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-26T08:24:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shri-mouia-bux-and-others-on-5-may-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shri Mouia Bux And Others on 5 May, 1961"}]},{"@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\/52082","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=52082"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52082\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52082"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52082"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52082"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}