{"id":58375,"date":"2006-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006"},"modified":"2018-06-02T20:40:50","modified_gmt":"2018-06-02T15:10:50","slug":"shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006","title":{"rendered":"Shanti Devi \u00c3 Appellant vs Daropti Devi &amp; Ors. \u00c3 Respondents on 14 December, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shanti Devi \u00c3 Appellant vs Daropti Devi &amp; Ors. \u00c3 Respondents on 14 December, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5813 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nShanti Devi\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAppellant\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDaropti Devi &amp; Ors.\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondents\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/12\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha &amp; Markandey Katju\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4127 of 2004]<\/p>\n<p>S.B. SINHA , J :\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAn order of remand passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High<br \/>\nCourt  dated 07.11.2003 passed in R.F.A. No. 435 of 1992 is in appeal<br \/>\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe parties are sisters being the daughters of Shri Tara Chand Madan<br \/>\nand Smt. Budho Bai (since deceased). Tara Chand Madan died on<br \/>\n21.03.1954.   Smt. Budho Bai executed a deed of sale in respect of the<br \/>\nproperty bearing No.16\/26, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, by a registered<br \/>\ndeed dated 14.06.1965.  She allegedly disowned Respondent No.1 as her<br \/>\ndaughter.  A Will was executed by her on 22.02.1977, beneficiary whereof<br \/>\nwas said to be the appellant.  Smt. Budho Bai died on 20.04.1980.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAppellant filed an application for mutation of her name.  Respondent<br \/>\nfiled a suit for perpetual injunction, which was marked as Civil Suit No. 308<br \/>\nof 1980, claiming, inter alia, for the following reliefs :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;(a)\tA decree for perpetual injunction restraining the<br \/>\nDefendant No. 3 from dealing the said property in<br \/>\nany manner whatsoever and from getting the said<br \/>\nproperty No. 16\/26, situated at Old Rajinder<br \/>\nNagar, New Delhi, together with the lease hold<br \/>\nrights of the land thereunder admeasuring 85 sq.<br \/>\nyds. Or thereabouts substituted\/transferred<br \/>\nexclusively in her name to the exclusion of the<br \/>\nPlaintiffs from Defendentrs Nos. 1 &amp; 2 on the<br \/>\nbasis of the alleged WILL dated 22.02.1977 and<br \/>\nalso restraining the Defendants 1 and 2 from<br \/>\nenforcing or acting in any manner whatsoever on<br \/>\nthe basis of the said alleged WILL dated<br \/>\n22.02.1977 and thereby transferring and\/or<br \/>\nsubstituting the said property in favour of the<br \/>\nDefendant No. 3 to the exclusion of the Plaintiffs<br \/>\nbe passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the<br \/>\nDefendants.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tThe costs of the suit be also awarded against the<br \/>\nDefendants.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAccording to the appellant, the said suit was not maintainable.  It was<br \/>\ndismissed as such by an order dated 18.12.1981, holding :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The allegations of the plaintiffs being out of<br \/>\npossession have not been denied and controverted with<br \/>\nspecifically and categorically in the corresponding<br \/>\nparagraph of the replication to the written statement of<br \/>\ndefendant no. 3 and the suit is not maintainable unless the<br \/>\nplaintiffs seek the remedy of possession in respect of<br \/>\ntheir shares in the property in dispute.  I do not agree<br \/>\nwith the counsel of the plaintiff that provisions of Section<br \/>\n31 are permissive.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThe respondent filed another suit, which was marked as Suit No. 276<br \/>\nof 1992,  for declaration and consequential relief.  The said suit was also<br \/>\ndismissed being not maintainable being hit under Order II Rule 2 of the<br \/>\nCode of Civil Procedure.   The learned judge, however,  also dealt with the<br \/>\nother issues involved in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the Appeal filed by the respondents, the High Court observed that<br \/>\nas the learned Trial Judge wrongly framed the issue and opined that the onus<br \/>\nof proof was on the plaintiffs and not on the defendant, the matter should be<br \/>\nremitted to the Trial Judge, stating :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;18.\tIn the case in hand, we are of the view that the<br \/>\nlearned trial court did not frame Issue No. 4 in its<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">true perspective. The onus to prove Issue No. 4 <\/span><br \/>\nought to have been put on the respondent who<br \/>\npleaded about the existence of the Will instead of<br \/>\nbeing put on the appellants and that too in<br \/>\nnegative.  We fail to comprehend as to how the<br \/>\nappellants shall give proof of the non-existence of<br \/>\nthe Will.  Respondent ought to have brought<br \/>\nevidence on Issue No. 4 and of course it was open<br \/>\nto the appellants to cross-examine the witnesses of<br \/>\nthe respondent on this issue to prove that the Will<br \/>\non which the respondent was placing reliance was<br \/>\nin fact fictitious and not executed by Smt. Budho<br \/>\nBai.  The appellants by no stretch of imagination<br \/>\ncould lead evidence on this issue.  Therefore, it<br \/>\nseems to us that this issue was not correctly<br \/>\nadjudicated primarily because of the reason that<br \/>\nonus to prove this issue was erroneously put on the<br \/>\nappellants instead of being put on the respondent<br \/>\nwho was under legal obligation to prove this issue<br \/>\nstrictly in terms of Section 63 of the Indian<br \/>\nSuccession Act, the document in question being<br \/>\nWill and its prove being governed by Indian<br \/>\nSuccession Act, 1925.\n<\/p>\n<p>19.\tAs discussed above the appellant on whom the<br \/>\nonus was to prove Issue No. 4 did not adduce any<br \/>\nevidence excepting the bald statement of PW 1<br \/>\nwhereas, the respondent did not lead any evidence<br \/>\nas they thought that onus to prove this issue was on<br \/>\nthe appellants and perhaps for these reasons, this<br \/>\nissue could not be determined in its true spirit.\n<\/p>\n<p>20.\tSince Issue No. 4 is an important and material<br \/>\nissue for determination of the rights of the parties,<br \/>\ntherefore, we deem it fit and proper and fit that this<br \/>\nissue be determined afresh after the same is framed<br \/>\nby the trial court in the affirmative as referred<br \/>\nabove putting the onus to prove this issue on the<br \/>\nrespondent.  The trial court shall also look into the<br \/>\naspect as to the effect of the will, it being not<br \/>\nprobated as provided under Section 218 of the<br \/>\nIndian Succession Act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of<br \/>\nthe appellant, would submit that having regard to the fact that the four issues<br \/>\nwere framed by the learned Trial Judge, the High Court could not have<br \/>\nindirectly set aside the findings on all the issues, although it purported to<br \/>\nhave remitted the matter only on the premise that the learned Trial Judge<br \/>\nwas not correct in holding that the burden of proof  on Issue No. 4 was on<br \/>\nthe plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt was submitted that having regard to the provisions of Order II Rule<br \/>\n2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit itself was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn view of the order proposed to be passed by us, it may not be<br \/>\nnecessary to arrive at a definite conclusion one way or the other on the said<br \/>\nquestion.  The issues framed by the learned Trial Judge are as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;(1)\tWhether the suit is not maintainable in the present<br \/>\n\tform ?  OPD<\/p>\n<p>(2)\tWhether the suit is barred as alleged in para 12 of<br \/>\n\tthe written statement ?  OPD<\/p>\n<p>(3)\tWhether the suit property valued for the purpose of<br \/>\n\tcourt fee and jurisdiction ? OPP<\/p>\n<p>(4)\tWhether the Will dated 22.2.1977 is invalid as<br \/>\n\talleged in the plaint ?  OPP<\/p>\n<p>(5)\tWhether the plaintiff is entitled for relief ?  OPP.\n<\/p>\n<p>(6)\tRelief&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe High Court, in our opinion, rightly opined that the merit of the<br \/>\nmatter revolved round the legality of the Will.   It would also depend upon<br \/>\nthe nature of the property held by the father of the original parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tA bare perusal of the plaint filed by Respondent No.1 herein would<br \/>\nshow that the validity and\/or legality of the Will has been challenged on a<br \/>\nnumber of grounds; one  of them being suspicious circumstances<br \/>\nsurrounding the execution of  the Will purported to have been executed by<br \/>\nSmt. Budho Bai.  There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition<br \/>\nof law that the onus of proof to establish that the Will was validly executed<br \/>\nby the testator was on the person who was a beneficiary thereunder.<br \/>\nExistence of suspicious circumstances may not lead to an inference that the<br \/>\nWill was invalid in law, but  would certainly be a relevant factor to arrive at<br \/>\na finding that the Will was not executed by the testator in a sound and<br \/>\ndisposing state of mind.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBut the same by itself could not be a ground for remitting the entire<br \/>\nsuit to the learned Trial Judge upon setting aside  the decree of the learned<br \/>\nTrial Court.  The power of remand vests in the Appellate Court either in<br \/>\nterms of Order XLI Rules 23 &amp; 23A or XLI Rule 25 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure.  Issue No. 4 was held to have been wrongly framed.  Onus of<br \/>\nproof was also wrongly placed and only in that view of the matter the High<br \/>\nCourt thought it fit to remit it to the learned Trial Judge permitting the<br \/>\nparties to adduce fresh evidence.  It, therefore, required the learned Trial<br \/>\nJudge to determine a question of fact, which according to it was essential,<br \/>\nupon reframing the issue.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOnly, thus, additional evidences were required to be adduced upon<br \/>\nreframing the issue and having regard to the fact that onus of proof was<br \/>\nwrongly placed on the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, it would have been<br \/>\nproper for the High Court not to remit the matter in its entirety, which could<br \/>\nhave been done by the court in exercise  of its jurisdiction under Order XLI<br \/>\nRule 23 or Order XLI Rule 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure.  The<br \/>\nimpugned judgment must in the aforementioned situation be held to have<br \/>\nbeen passed in terms of Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment should be<br \/>\ndirected to be modified.  We, therefore, in modification of the impugned<br \/>\njudgment, direct that the learned Trial Judge may allow the parties to adduce<br \/>\nevidence, whereupon it shall return the evidence to the Appellate Court<br \/>\ntogether with its findings thereupon and reasons therefor within four months<br \/>\nfrom the date of communication of this order, whereupon the High Court<br \/>\nmay proceed to determine the appeal on its own merit. The appeal is allowed<br \/>\nto the aforementioned extent.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Shanti Devi \u00c3 Appellant vs Daropti Devi &amp; Ors. \u00c3 Respondents on 14 December, 2006 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5813 of 2006 PETITIONER: Shanti Devi Appellant RESPONDENT: Daropti Devi &amp; Ors. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/12\/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha &amp; Markandey Katju JUDGMENT: [&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-58375","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shanti Devi \u00c3 Appellant vs Daropti Devi &amp; Ors. \u00c3 Respondents on 14 December, 2006 - 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\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shanti Devi \u00c3 Appellant vs Daropti Devi &amp; Ors. \u00c3 Respondents on 14 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-02T15:10:50+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shanti Devi \u00c3 Appellant vs Daropti Devi &amp; Ors. \u00c3 Respondents on 14 December, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-02T15:10:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1586,\"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\\\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006\",\"name\":\"Shanti Devi \u00c3 Appellant vs Daropti Devi &amp; Ors. \u00c3 Respondents on 14 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-02T15:10:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shanti Devi \u00c3 Appellant vs Daropti Devi &amp; Ors. \u00c3 Respondents on 14 December, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Shanti Devi \u00c3 Appellant vs Daropti Devi &amp; Ors. \u00c3 Respondents on 14 December, 2006 - 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\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shanti Devi \u00c3 Appellant vs Daropti Devi &amp; Ors. \u00c3 Respondents on 14 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-02T15:10:50+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shanti Devi \u00c3 Appellant vs Daropti Devi &amp; Ors. \u00c3 Respondents on 14 December, 2006","datePublished":"2006-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-02T15:10:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006"},"wordCount":1586,"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\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006","name":"Shanti Devi \u00c3 Appellant vs Daropti Devi &amp; Ors. \u00c3 Respondents on 14 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-02T15:10:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-devi-a-appellant-vs-daropti-devi-ors-a-respondents-on-14-december-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shanti Devi \u00c3 Appellant vs Daropti Devi &amp; Ors. \u00c3 Respondents on 14 December, 2006"}]},{"@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\/58375","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=58375"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58375\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58375"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58375"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58375"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}