{"id":70877,"date":"1996-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996"},"modified":"2016-11-24T04:54:53","modified_gmt":"2016-11-23T23:24:53","slug":"samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996","title":{"rendered":"Samsuddin Rahman &amp; Ors vs Bihari Das &amp; Ors on 9 July, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Samsuddin Rahman &amp; Ors vs Bihari Das &amp; Ors on 9 July, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (6),    517\t  1996 SCALE  (5)299<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Punchhi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Punchhi, M.M.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSAMSUDDIN RAHMAN &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBIHARI DAS &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t09\/07\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nPUNCHHI, M.M.\nBENCH:\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1457401\/\">PUNCHHI, M.M.\nMANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)\n\nCITATION<\/a>:\n JT 1996 (6)   517\t  1996 SCALE  (5)299\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nPunchhi.J,<br \/>\n     Special leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellants  herein were  the plaintiffs  in a\tsuit<br \/>\nfiled in  the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Cachar,<br \/>\nSilchar against\t the defendants-respondents  praying  for  a<br \/>\ndecree for  declaration of title in respect of the suit land<br \/>\nmeasuring about 60 Bighas, on the basis that it was in their<br \/>\npossession and,\t in the\t alternative, for possession, if not<br \/>\nfound in  possession. On  the other  hand, the suit land was<br \/>\nclaimed by  the defendants-respondents\tto be  theirs and in<br \/>\ntheir possession,  affirmed by\tthe grant of an annual Patta<br \/>\nin their  favour by  the Deputy\t Commissioner  of  the\tarea<br \/>\nconcerned. The trial court, while concluding the matter, was<br \/>\nabout to decree the suit, buf refrained from doing so, as in<br \/>\nthe plaint,  no\t specific  claim  had  been  raised  by\t the<br \/>\nplaintiffs-appellants to get quashed the grant of the annual<br \/>\nPatta, given  by the  Deputy Commissioner  in favour  of the<br \/>\ndefendants-respondents.\t On   appeal  by   the\t plaintiffs-<br \/>\nappellants to  the  District  Judge,  Cachar,  Silchur,\t the<br \/>\nhurdle put  by the  trial court\t was cast aside and the suit<br \/>\nwas decreed  on the  basis that\t once title  stood proved in<br \/>\nfavour of  the plaintiffs-appellants,  the factual  grant of<br \/>\nannual Patta  in favour of the defendants-respondents had no<br \/>\nvalue or  sanctity and\thence the same could be ignored. The<br \/>\nHigh Court,  however, upset  the decision  of  the  District<br \/>\nJudge,\tat   the  instance  of\tthe  defendants-respondents,<br \/>\ndismissing the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants altogethers<br \/>\ntaking the  view that  the evidence  led by  the plaintiffs-<br \/>\nappellants was\tdeficient to  the point of being no evidence<br \/>\nat all\tin the\teye of law. It is within this narrow compass<br \/>\nthat the controversy in the instant appeal stands focused.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The case  of the  plaintiffs-appellants, in  brief, was<br \/>\nthat they  were the  owners of a parcel of land covered by a<br \/>\nPatta, particulars  of which  stand fully  described in\t the<br \/>\njudgments of  the courts  below. Alongside  that  parcel  of<br \/>\nland, a\t river named  Barak used to flow on the Southern and<br \/>\nEastern sides.\tIt was\tclaimed\t that  gradually  the  river<br \/>\nreceded, making\t slow and  imperceptible gains as accretions<br \/>\nto  the\t land-holding  of  the\tappellants,  which  gain  is<br \/>\nsolidified in  the form\t of the suit land. The appellants on<br \/>\nthat basis  claimed that  the suit  land had become part and<br \/>\nparcel of  their original  holding and that they had been in<br \/>\npossession thereof  till the Deputy Commissioner on grant of<br \/>\nannual Patta  to the  contesting  respondents,\thas  cast  a<br \/>\nshadow on  their  titles  which\t led  to  proceedings  under<br \/>\nSection 145 Cr.P.C., necessitating the plaintiffs-appellants<br \/>\nto approach  the Civil Court for appropriate relief. Besides<br \/>\nwhat  has  been\t said  before,\tthe  contesting\t defendants-<br \/>\nrespondents had\t also countered\t that  the  land  originally<br \/>\nbelonged to  them and as it had re-emerged on the other side<br \/>\nof the\triver, since  it changed  its course, it was theirs,<br \/>\nand with them under an annual Patta.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  the conceded  position between  the\t contestants<br \/>\nthat The Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, as amended<br \/>\nup to date, is attracted to provide solution to the dispute.<br \/>\nSuch was  the positive\tstands of  the\tparties\t before\t the<br \/>\nDistrict Judge.\t It was\t also the  admitted position that no<br \/>\nstatutory law  was applicable  in the  State of\t Assam\twith<br \/>\nregard\tthe   right  to\t any  land  gained  by\talluvion  or<br \/>\ndereliction of\ta river\t to any\t estate. A Division Bench of<br \/>\nthe Assam  High Court  in Boroji  Munipurini v. The State of<br \/>\nAssam and  Ors. (AIR  1958 Assam  34) had  elaborately to go<br \/>\ninto the  question as  to whether any such law was available<br \/>\nin  the\t  context  and\t   working   of\t the  aforementioned<br \/>\nRegulation, and\t came to the view that in the State of Assam<br \/>\nthe principles of English Law on the subject were applicable<br \/>\nas principles  of justice,  equity and\tgood conscience\t and<br \/>\nthose principles by themselves had the force of law. Some of<br \/>\nthe observations  made therein\twhich brought  the aforesaid<br \/>\nresult are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;It is  therefore clear  that it is<br \/>\n     an universal law, recognised by all<br \/>\n     that a land which has gradually and<br \/>\n     imperceptibly come out of the river<br \/>\n     bed and  added to\tthe  land  of  a<br \/>\n     riparian owner  becomes part of tme<br \/>\n     land belonging  to him and is to be<br \/>\n     considered as  his property.  This,<br \/>\n     in some  cases,  is  based\t on  the<br \/>\n     specific provisions  of the  Bengal<br \/>\n     Regulation or  other enactments, in<br \/>\n     some on  custom, and  in some cases<br \/>\n     on\t the   principles  of\tjustice,<br \/>\n     equity  and      good   conscience.<br \/>\n     &#8230;&#8230;&#8221;The law  in force&#8221;\thas  not<br \/>\n     been  defined   anywhere\tin   the<br \/>\n     regulation\t [The\tAssam  Land  and<br \/>\n     Revenue Regulation]  and we  see no<br \/>\n     reason  to\t  confine  it\tto   the<br \/>\n     statutory law.  If the law in force<br \/>\n     is that  the accreted  land becomes<br \/>\n     part of  the land\tto which  it has<br \/>\n     accreted, even  though that  may be<br \/>\n     based on the principles of justice,<br \/>\n     equity  and  good\tconscience,  the<br \/>\n     land  becomes   an\t  increment   by<br \/>\n     accretion to the tenure to which it<br \/>\n     has accreted.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     And more  than once  has this principle been reiterated<br \/>\nin the\treport while  taking stock of the English Law culled<br \/>\nout from  the reported\tdecisions of  English Courts  on the<br \/>\nsubject. We  would  not\t load  this  judgment  with  copious<br \/>\nreferences therefrom.  We would\t rather content ourselves by<br \/>\nstating that  we agree with the state of law as thus evolved<br \/>\nin the\tState of  Assam that  the English  principles on the<br \/>\nsubject as principles of justice, equity and good conscience<br \/>\nthe State  and, by  themselves, are  the law  governing\t the<br \/>\nrights between\tthe parties  on such  principles of alluvion<br \/>\nand diluvion.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High Court does not dispute either the state of law<br \/>\nas such\t or its\t applicability to  the controversy.  It\t has<br \/>\ntaken note  of the  Explanation to  Regulation 3(b) defining<br \/>\nthe word  &#8220;estate&#8221;,  explaining\t that  any  land  gained  by<br \/>\nalluvion or  by dereliction of a river to any estate as here<br \/>\ndefined, which\tunder the  laws in  force is  considered  an<br \/>\nincrement to  the tenure  to which  the land  has  accreted,<br \/>\nshall be  deemed to  be part  of that  estate. In Regulation<br \/>\n34(c) it  stands provided  that when  a settlement  has been<br \/>\naccepted and  the revenue  payable fixed, nothing more shall<br \/>\nbe payable from the date it is entered. Exception is kept in<br \/>\nthe case  of gain  by alluvion or by dereliction of a river,<br \/>\nor loss\t by diluvion, during the currency of the settlement,<br \/>\nin which  case increments  shall be  assessed and  reduction<br \/>\ngranted\t by   the  Deputy  Commissioner\t according  to\tsuch<br \/>\nlimitations as\tto the extent of gain or loss and such other<br \/>\nconditions as may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High  Court, taking stock of the case-law available<br \/>\non the\tsubject, paid  attention to  the fact  that  if\t the<br \/>\naccretion was caused gradually and imperceptibly by alluvion<br \/>\nor  by\t dereliction  of  the  river  then  the\t plaintiffs-<br \/>\nappellants were\t entitled to  succeed. But,  if the addition<br \/>\nhad come  suddenly and\tin a  single season, it would not be<br \/>\nso. It strangely termed such question to be a mixed question<br \/>\nof fact\t and laws  whereas it  could be\t nothing else than a<br \/>\nquestion  of   fact.  The  High\t Court\tcommented  that\t the<br \/>\npleadings in  the plaint were deficient inasmuch as definite<br \/>\nperiod had  not been  mentioned during\twhich  alluvion\t had<br \/>\ntaken place  but, in  the same\tbreath, observed  that\toral<br \/>\nevidence had  been led\tby the plaintiffs-appellants, to the<br \/>\neffect\tthat   there  had  been\t gradual  and  imperceptible<br \/>\naccretion within  a time-span of 15\/16 years. Then again the<br \/>\nHigh Court commented that no specific issue on the aspect of<br \/>\ngradual and  imperceptible accretion had been framed and, in<br \/>\nthe next  breath, said\tthat the  parties all  the same knew<br \/>\ntheir respective  cases and had led their evidence. The High<br \/>\nCourt  then   went  on\tto  find  fault\t in  the  plaintiffs<br \/>\nappellants&#8217;   oral    evidence\t regarding    gradual\t and<br \/>\nimperceptible accretion as, according to it, it had not been<br \/>\ndisclosed by  the witnesses as by what means of knowledge or<br \/>\nwith the  aid of  which demonstrable  facts or by the aid of<br \/>\nwhich material-on-record could they vouch safe that the gain<br \/>\nwas  gradual   and  imperceptible.   On\t that\tbasis,\t the<br \/>\nplaintiffs-appellants were  blamed to  have failed  to prove<br \/>\nthat  the   suit  land\t was  an   accretion,  gradual\t and<br \/>\nimperceptible. On  this basis  alone the appellants were non<br \/>\nsuited.\n<\/p>\n<p>     To us  the reasoning of the High Court appears entirely<br \/>\nerroneous in  the presence  of the bar erected under Section<br \/>\n100 of the Cr.P.C. forbidding the High Court to interfere in<br \/>\na finding  of  fact  in\t second\t appeal.  In  Boroji&#8217;s\tcase<br \/>\n[supra], there\tappears a quotation from the Halsbury&#8217;s Laws<br \/>\nof England  to say  that the  whole doctrine of accretion is<br \/>\nbased upon the theory that from day to day, week to week and<br \/>\nmonth to  months a  man cannot\tsee where  his old  line  of<br \/>\nboundary was,  and that\t which cannot  be perceived  in\t its<br \/>\nprogress is  taken to be as if it never existed at all. Such<br \/>\nbeing the  ordinary human  perception, we fail to appreciate<br \/>\nwhat did  the High Court expect of the plaintiffs&#8217; witnesses<br \/>\nto  say\t  about\t their\tmeans  of  knowledge,  or  to  their<br \/>\nobjectivity, or\t demonstration of  facts, or any document on<br \/>\nthis aspect  being available, and on that basis terming such<br \/>\nevidence merely\t as any\t expression of opinion and strangely<br \/>\nno legal  evidence Significantly, the trial court as well as<br \/>\nthe first  appellate court  had recorded  a clear finding of<br \/>\nfact that  the plaintiffs-appellants had proved on the basis<br \/>\nof the\toral evidence  that it had taken 15-16 years for the<br \/>\naccretion to be visible and demonstrable, requiring steps to<br \/>\nbe taken  by the  State of  Assam, one\tof  the\t defendants-<br \/>\nrespondents to\tstraighten matters  under the  provisions of<br \/>\nSection 34(c)  of the Regulation. The High Court was thus in<br \/>\ngrave error  in upsetting  the judgment\t and decree  of\t the<br \/>\nlower appellate\t court and  in this manner denying relief to<br \/>\nthe  plaintiffs-appellants,   as  granted   by\tthat  court.<br \/>\nTherefore, without  hesitation, we  upturn the orders of the<br \/>\nHigh  Court,  restoring\t the  judgment\tand  decree  of\t the<br \/>\nDistrict Judge, Cachar, dated 19-2-1979, with costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Samsuddin Rahman &amp; Ors vs Bihari Das &amp; Ors on 9 July, 1996 Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (6), 517 1996 SCALE (5)299 Author: M Punchhi Bench: Punchhi, M.M. PETITIONER: SAMSUDDIN RAHMAN &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: BIHARI DAS &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/07\/1996 BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. MANOHAR SUJATA [&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-70877","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>Samsuddin Rahman &amp; Ors vs Bihari Das &amp; Ors on 9 July, 1996 - 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\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Samsuddin Rahman &amp; Ors vs Bihari Das &amp; Ors on 9 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-23T23:24:53+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\\\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Samsuddin Rahman &amp; Ors vs Bihari Das &amp; Ors on 9 July, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-23T23:24:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1713,\"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\\\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996\",\"name\":\"Samsuddin Rahman &amp; Ors vs Bihari Das &amp; Ors on 9 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-23T23:24:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Samsuddin Rahman &amp; Ors vs Bihari Das &amp; Ors on 9 July, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Samsuddin Rahman &amp; Ors vs Bihari Das &amp; Ors on 9 July, 1996 - 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\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Samsuddin Rahman &amp; Ors vs Bihari Das &amp; Ors on 9 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-23T23:24:53+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\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Samsuddin Rahman &amp; Ors vs Bihari Das &amp; Ors on 9 July, 1996","datePublished":"1996-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-23T23:24:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996"},"wordCount":1713,"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\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996","name":"Samsuddin Rahman &amp; Ors vs Bihari Das &amp; Ors on 9 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-23T23:24:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samsuddin-rahman-ors-vs-bihari-das-ors-on-9-july-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Samsuddin Rahman &amp; Ors vs Bihari Das &amp; Ors on 9 July, 1996"}]},{"@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\/70877","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=70877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70877\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}