{"id":66727,"date":"2001-02-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-02-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001"},"modified":"2017-04-15T06:32:51","modified_gmt":"2017-04-15T01:02:51","slug":"dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001","title":{"rendered":"Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur vs Durga Charan Hansdah &amp; Anr on 14 February, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur vs Durga Charan Hansdah &amp; Anr on 14 February, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Sethi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K.T.Thomas, R.P.Sethi<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 186  of  2001\nSpecial Leave Petition (crl.)\t2436\t of  2000\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nDR.SURAJMANI STELLA KUJUR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDURGA CHARAN HANSDAH &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t14\/02\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nK.T.Thomas, R.P.Sethi\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>L&#8230;..I&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>      SETHI,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Leave  granted.  Who is a &#8220;Hindu&#8221; for the purposes  of<br \/>\nthe   applicability   of  the\tHindu  Marriage\t Act,\t1955<br \/>\n(hereinafter  referred\tto as &#8220;the Act&#8221;)?  is a question  of<br \/>\nlaw  to be determined in this appeal.  Section 2 of the\t Act<br \/>\nspecifies  the\tpersons\t to  whom  the\tAct  is\t applicable.<br \/>\nClauses\t (a),  (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of  Section  2<br \/>\nmake  the  Act\tapplicable  to a person who is\ta  Hindu  by<br \/>\nreligion  in  any of its forms or developments\tincluding  a<br \/>\nVirashaiva,   a\t Lingayat  or  a  follower  of\tthe  Brahmo,<br \/>\nPrarthana  or  Arya Samaj and to persons who is a  Buddhist,<br \/>\nJaina  or  Sikh by religion.  It is also applicable  to\t any<br \/>\nother  person  domiciled in the territories of India who  is<br \/>\nnot  a\tMuslim,\t Christian, Parsi or Jew by  religion.\t The<br \/>\napplicability  of  the Act is, therefore, comprehensive\t and<br \/>\napplicable  to\tall  persons domiciled in the  territory  of<br \/>\nIndia  who  are not Muslims, Christians, Parsis or  Jews  by<br \/>\nreligion.   The\t term  &#8220;Hindu&#8221; has not been  defined  either<br \/>\nunder  the  Act\t or  Indian  Succession\t Act  or  any  other<br \/>\nenactment  of  the Legislature.\t As far back as in 1903\t the<br \/>\nPrivy  Council\tin Bhagwan Koer v.  J.C.  Bose &amp; Ors.\t[ILR<br \/>\n(XXXI)\tCalcutta Series 11] observed:  &#8220;We shall not attempt<br \/>\nhere  to  lay down a general definition of what is meant  by<br \/>\nthe  term &#8216;Hindu&#8217;.  to make it accurate and at the same time<br \/>\nsufficiently  comprehensive  as\t well\tas  distinctive\t  is<br \/>\nextremely  difficult.\tThe Hindu religion  is\tmarvellously<br \/>\ncatholic and elastic.  Its theology is marked by eclecticism<br \/>\nand  tolerance\tand  almost  unlimited\tfreedom\t of  private<br \/>\nworship.   Its\tsocial\tcode  is much  more  stringent,\t but<br \/>\namongst\t its  different\t castes and sections  exhibits\twide<br \/>\ndiversity  of  practice.  No trait is more marked  of  Hindu<br \/>\nsociety\t in general than its horror of using the meat of the<br \/>\ncow.   Yet  the Chamaras who profess Hinduism, but  who\t eat<br \/>\nbeef  and the flesh of dead animals, are however low in\t the<br \/>\nscale included within its pale.\t It is easier to say who are<br \/>\nnot  Hindus,  not practically and separation of Hindus\tfrom<br \/>\nnon-Hindus  is\tnot  a matter of so  much  difficulty.\t The<br \/>\npeople know the differences well and can easily tell who are<br \/>\nHindus and who are not.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  Act,\t is,  therefore, applicable  to:   &#8220;(1)\t All<br \/>\nHindus\tincluding  a  Virashaiva,  a  Lingayat,\t a   Brahmo,<br \/>\nPrarthana Samajist and an Arya Samajist.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (2) Budhists<\/p>\n<p>      (3) Jains<\/p>\n<p>      (4) Sikhs&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      In this appeal the parties are admittedly tribals, the<br \/>\nappellant  being  a Oraon and the respondent a Santhal.\t  In<br \/>\nthe  absence of a notification or order under Article 342 of<br \/>\nthe  Constitution  they are deemed to be Hindus.  Even if  a<br \/>\nnotification  is issued under the Constitution, the Act\t can<br \/>\nbe  applied  to\t Scheduled  Tribes  as\twell  by  a  further<br \/>\nnotification in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the<br \/>\nAct.   It is not disputed before us that in the Constitution<br \/>\n(Scheduled  Tribes)  Order,  1950 as  amended  by  Scheduled<br \/>\nCastes\tand  Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Acts  63  of<br \/>\n1956,  108  of\t1976, 18 of 1987 and 15 of  1990,  both\t the<br \/>\ntribes\tto  which the parties belong are specified  in\tPart<br \/>\nXII.  It is conceded even by the appellant that &#8220;the parties<br \/>\nto  the\t petition  are two Tribals,  who  otherwise  profess<br \/>\nHinduism,  but\ttheir marriage being out of the\t purview  of<br \/>\nHindu  Marriage\t Act, 1955 in light of Section 2(2)  of\t the<br \/>\nAct,  are  thus\t governed only by their Santal\tCustoms\t and<br \/>\nusage&#8221;.\t  The appellant has, however, relied upon an alleged<br \/>\ncustom\tin the Tribe which mandates monogamy as a rule.\t  It<br \/>\nis  submitted that as the respondent has solemnised a second<br \/>\nmarriage  during the subsistence of the first marriage\twith<br \/>\nthe   appellant,  the  second\tmarriage  being\t void,\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  is\tliable\tto  be prosecuted  for\tthe  offence<br \/>\npunishable  under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.\t  No<br \/>\ncustom\tcan  create an offence as it essentially deals\twith<br \/>\nthe  civil  rights  of\tthe parties and\t no  person  can  be<br \/>\nconvicted  of  any  offence except for violation of  law  in<br \/>\nforce  at the time of commission of the act charged.  Custom<br \/>\nmay  be proved for the determination of the civil rights  of<br \/>\nthe  parties  including their status, the  establishment  of<br \/>\nwhich\tmay  be\t used  for   the  purposes  of\tproving\t the<br \/>\ningredients  of an offence which, under Section 3(37) of the<br \/>\nGeneral\t Clauses  Act,\twould  mean   an  act  or   omission<br \/>\npunishable  by\tany  law  by way of  fine  or  imprisonment.<br \/>\nArticle\t 20 of the Constitution, guaranteeing protection  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  conviction of offence, provides that no  person<br \/>\nshall  be  convicted of any offence except for violation  of<br \/>\nlaw in force at the time of commission of the act charged as<br \/>\nan  offence.   Law  under  Article  13\tclause\t(3)  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution means the law made by the Legislature including<br \/>\nintravires  statutory, orders and orders made in exercise of<br \/>\npowers\tconferred  by the statutory rules.   The  expression<br \/>\n&#8220;custom\t and  usage&#8221; has been defined under Section 3(a)  of<br \/>\nthe  Act as:  &#8220;the expression &#8216;custom&#8217; and &#8216;usage&#8217; and\trule<br \/>\nwhich, having been continuously and uniformly observed for a<br \/>\nlong time, has obtained the force of law among Hindus in any<br \/>\nlocal area, tribe, community, group or family:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Provided that the rule is certain and not unreasonable<br \/>\nor opposed to public policy;  and<\/p>\n<p>      Provided further that in the case of a rule applicable<br \/>\nonly  to  a  family  it has not\t been  discontinued  by\t the<br \/>\nfamily.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      For  custom to have the colour of a rule or law, it is<br \/>\nnecessary  for the party claiming it to plead and thereafter<br \/>\nprove  that such custom is ancient, certain and\t reasonable.<br \/>\nCustom\tbeing in derogation of the general rule is  required<br \/>\nto  be construed strictly.  The party relying upon a  custom<br \/>\nis  obliged  to\t establish  it\t by  clear  and\t unambiguous<br \/>\nevidence.   In\tRamalakshmi  Ammal   v.\t  Sivanatha  Perumal<br \/>\nSethuraya, [14 Moo.  Ind.  App.\t 570 at p.585] held:  &#8220;It is<br \/>\nof  the essence of special usage modifying the ordinary\t law<br \/>\nof  succession\tthat they should be ancient and\t invariable;<br \/>\nand  it is further essential that they should be established<br \/>\nto  be so by clear and unambiguous evidence.  It is only  by<br \/>\nmeans  of  such evidence that the courts can be\t assured  of<br \/>\ntheir  existence,  and that they possess the  conditions  of<br \/>\nantiquity  and certainty on which alone their legal title to<br \/>\nrecognition depends.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      This   Court  in\t<a href=\"\/doc\/435717\/\">Mirza\tRaja  Pushpavati   Vijayaram<br \/>\nGajapathi   Raj\t &amp;  ors.   v.\tSri   Pushavathi   Visweswar<br \/>\nGajapathiraj  Rajkumar\tof Vizianagram &amp; Ors.<\/a>  [AIR 1964  SC<br \/>\n118] again reiterated the same position of law regarding the<br \/>\nestablishment  of  a  custom upon which a party\t intends  to<br \/>\nrely.\tThe  importance\t of the custom in  relation  to\t the<br \/>\napplicability  of  the\tAct  has been  acknowledged  by\t the<br \/>\nLegislature  by incorporating Section 29 saving the validity<br \/>\nof  a  marriage solemnised prior to the commencement of\t the<br \/>\nAct which may otherwise be invalid after passing of the Act.<br \/>\nNothing\t in  the  Act can affect any  right,  recognised  by<br \/>\ncustom\tor  conferred  by any said enactment to\t obtain\t the<br \/>\ndissolution of a Hindu Marriage whether solemnised before or<br \/>\nafter  the commencement of the Act even without the proof of<br \/>\nthe  conditions precedent for declaring the marriage invalid<br \/>\nas  incorporated  in Sections 10 to 13 of the Act.  In\tthis<br \/>\ncase  the appellant filed a complaint in the Court of  Chief<br \/>\nMetropolitan  Magistrate, New Delhi stating therein that her<br \/>\nmarriage  was  solemnised  with\t  the  respondent  in  Delhi<br \/>\n&#8220;according  to Hindu rites and customs&#8221;.  Alleging that\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  has solemnised another marriage with the Accused<br \/>\nNo.2,  the complainant pleaded:\t &#8220;That the accused No.1\t has<br \/>\nnot  obtained  any divorce thro&#8217; the Court of Law upto\tthis<br \/>\ndate and hence the action of the accused No.1 is illegal and<br \/>\ncontravene  the provision of law as laid down under  Section<br \/>\n494 IPC.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      Nowhere in the complaint the appellant has referred to<br \/>\nany  alleged custom having the force of law which  prohibits<br \/>\nthe  solemnisation of second marriage by the respondent\t and<br \/>\nthe  consequences  thereof.  It may be emphasised that\tmere<br \/>\npleading  of  a custom stressing for monogamy by itself\t was<br \/>\nnot  sufficient\t unless it was further pleaded\tthat  second<br \/>\nmarriage  was void by reason of its taking place during\t the<br \/>\nlife  of such husband or wife.\tIn order to prove the second<br \/>\nmarriage  being void, the appellant was under an  obligation<br \/>\nto  show the existence of a custom which made such  marriage<br \/>\nnull, ineffectual, having no force of law or binding effect,<br \/>\nincapable of being enforced in law or non- est.\t The fact of<br \/>\nsecond\tmarriage  being\t void  is a sine  qua  non  for\t the<br \/>\napplicability of Section 494 IPC.  It is settled position of<br \/>\nlaw   that  for\t fastening   the  criminal  liability,\t the<br \/>\nprosecution  or\t the  complainant is obliged  to  prove\t the<br \/>\nexistence  of  all  the ingredients constituting  the  crime<br \/>\nwhich  is  normally and usually defined by a  statute.\t The<br \/>\nappellant  herself  appears  to be not clear  in  her  stand<br \/>\ninasmuch  as in her statement in the court recorded on\t24th<br \/>\nOctober,  1992\tshe  has  stated  that\t&#8220;I  am\ta  Hindu  by<br \/>\nreligion&#8221;.   The complaint was dismissed by the trial  court<br \/>\nholding,  &#8220;there  is  no mention of any such custom  in\t the<br \/>\ncomplaint  nor\tthere  is evidence of such custom.   In\t the<br \/>\nabsence of pleadings and evidence reference to Book alone is<br \/>\nnot  sufficient&#8221;.  the High Court vide the judgment impugned<br \/>\nin  this appeal held that in the absence of notification  in<br \/>\nterms of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act no case for<br \/>\nprosecution  for the offence of bigamy was made out  against<br \/>\nthe respondent because the alleged second marriage cannot be<br \/>\ntermed to be void either under the Act or any alleged custom<br \/>\nhaving\tthe force of law.  In view of the fact that  parties<br \/>\nadmittedly belong to the Scheduled Tribes within the meaning<br \/>\nof  clause  (25)  of  Article 366  of  the  Constitution  as<br \/>\nnotified  by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950<br \/>\nas  amended  by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  Order<br \/>\n(Amendment)  Acts 63 of 1956, 108 of 1976, 18 of 1987 and 15<br \/>\nof 1990 passed in terms of Article 342 and in the absence of<br \/>\nspecific pleadings, evidence and proof of the alleged custom<br \/>\nmaking\tthe  second marriage void, no offence under  Section<br \/>\n494  of\t the  Indian  Penal Code can possibly  be  made\t out<br \/>\nagainst\t the respondent.  The Trial Magistrate and the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt have rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant.<br \/>\nLearned\t Counsel  appearing  for   the\tappellant,  however,<br \/>\nsubmitted  that even if the second marriage was not void for<br \/>\nthe  purposes of attracting the applicability of Section 494<br \/>\nand  holding the respondent guilty of bigamy, the  appellant<br \/>\nis entitled to maintenance, succession and other benefits on<br \/>\naccount\t of  her  being\t the  legally  wedded  wife  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.   We  cannot adjudicate upon such  a  proclaimed<br \/>\nright  of the appellant.  The appellant is at liberty to get<br \/>\nher  right  established\t by way of civil  proceedings  in  a<br \/>\ncompetent  court  of jurisdiction.  If any such\t proceedings<br \/>\nare  initiated, the same would be decided on their merits in<br \/>\naccordance  with the principles of pleadings and proof,\t not<br \/>\nbeing  influenced  by  any of the observations made  by\t the<br \/>\ntrial  magistrate  or the High Court.  There is no merit  in<br \/>\nthis appeal which is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur vs Durga Charan Hansdah &amp; Anr on 14 February, 2001 Author: Sethi Bench: K.T.Thomas, R.P.Sethi CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 186 of 2001 Special Leave Petition (crl.) 2436 of 2000 PETITIONER: DR.SURAJMANI STELLA KUJUR Vs. RESPONDENT: DURGA CHARAN HANSDAH &amp; ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/02\/2001 BENCH: K.T.Thomas, R.P.Sethi 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-66727","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>Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur vs Durga Charan Hansdah &amp; Anr on 14 February, 2001 - 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\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur vs Durga Charan Hansdah &amp; Anr on 14 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-15T01:02:51+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur vs Durga Charan Hansdah &amp; Anr on 14 February, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-15T01:02:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1860,\"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\\\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001\",\"name\":\"Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur vs Durga Charan Hansdah &amp; Anr on 14 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-15T01:02:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur vs Durga Charan Hansdah &amp; Anr on 14 February, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur vs Durga Charan Hansdah &amp; Anr on 14 February, 2001 - 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\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur vs Durga Charan Hansdah &amp; Anr on 14 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-15T01:02:51+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur vs Durga Charan Hansdah &amp; Anr on 14 February, 2001","datePublished":"2001-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-15T01:02:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001"},"wordCount":1860,"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\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001","name":"Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur vs Durga Charan Hansdah &amp; Anr on 14 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-15T01:02:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-surajmani-stella-kujur-vs-durga-charan-hansdah-anr-on-14-february-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur vs Durga Charan Hansdah &amp; Anr on 14 February, 2001"}]},{"@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\/66727","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=66727"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66727\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66727"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66727"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66727"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}