{"id":84485,"date":"1979-11-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-11-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2"},"modified":"2016-11-09T11:52:57","modified_gmt":"2016-11-09T06:22:57","slug":"ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2","title":{"rendered":"Ram Deo vs Umrao Singh on 15 November, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ram Deo vs Umrao Singh on 15 November, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 323, \t\t 1980 SCR (2)\t 67<\/div>\n
Author: R S Sarkaria<\/div>\n
Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAM DEO\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUMRAO SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/11\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR  323\t\t  1980 SCR  (2)\t 67\n 1980 SCC  (1)\t59\n\n\nACT:\n     U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947-\nSection 3(1)(a)-Scope of\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In respect\t of arrears  of rent the respondent-landlord\nand the\t appellant  who\t was  his  tenant  entered  into  an\nagreement on  June 13,\t1960 that the tenant would pay every\nmonth Rs.  50\/- representing Rs. 25\/- as arrears of rent and\nRs.  25\/-   towards  the  current  rent.  For  sometime\t the\nappellant made the payments in accordance with the agreement\nbut thereafter\tfell in\t arrears. The  respondent  served  a\nnotice of  demand upon\tthe appellant  on August  21,  1961.\nEventually the\trespondent instituted a suit for damages and\neviction of the appellant from the premises.\n     The appellant  pleaded that  the arrears of rent due at\nthe date  of notice  were Rs. 75\/- only which did not exceed\nthree months  rent  and\t that  the  balance  of\t the  amount\ndemanded  represented  only  past  arrears  covered  by\t the\nagreement in  respect of  which the  landlord had waived his\nright of ejectment.\n     Dismissing the  suit the  trial court  held  that\tonly\nthree months  rent was in arrears and no ground for eviction\nhad  been  made\t out  under  section  3(1)(a)  of  the\tU.P.\n(Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947.\n     On appeal the Civil Judge was of the view that the rent\nin arrears  on the  date  of  agreement\t did  not  lose\t its\ncharacter as  \"arrears of  rent\" merely because there was an\nagreement to  pay it in instalments. The High Court affirmed\nthe finding of the Civil Judge.\n     In appeal\tto this\t Court it was contended on behalf of\nthe appellant that out of Rs. 150\/- due to the respondent on\nthe date  of his  notice only  Rs. 75\/-\t was due towards the\narrears of  rent for three months preceding the notice while\nthe balance  of Rs  75\/- was  a distinct liability under the\nagreement and  therefore, could not be treated and tacked on\nas arrears  of rent  to the  rent due  for the\tthree months\npreceding the  date of\tnotice, for  the purpose  of section\n3(1) (a) of the Act.\n     Allowing  the  appeal  and\t accepting  the\t appellant's\ncontention,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The appellant was not in \"arrears of rent for\nmore than  three  months\"  within  the\tmeaning\t of  section\n3(1)(a) of  the Act  and therefore  was\t not  liable  to  be\nevicted under the clause. [71 F]\n     2. As a result of the agreement dated June 13, 1960 the\npre-agreement  arrears\tlost  their  original  character  of\n\"arrears  of   rent\"  and   assumed  the   character  of   a\nconsolidated debt,  which under\t the terms of the agreement,\nwas  payable   by  the\t debtor\t  (appellant)\tin   monthly\ninstalments. The agreement\n68\nbrought into  being a  new cause  of action  and  created  a\nliability against  the tenant, independent and distinct from\nthat founded  on the rent note or the lease of the premises.\nThe arrears of three instalments due under the agreement had\nceased to be \"arrears of rent\" and could not be tacked on to\nthe rent  due for three months preceding the date of notice,\nfor the purpose of the section.[71 A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2601 of
\n1969.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the Judgment dated 21-8-
\n1069 of\t the Allahabad\tHigh  Court  in\t Second\t Appeal\t No.
\n2693\/63.\n<\/p>\n
     W.S. Barlingay and R.C. Kohli for the Appellant.
\n     S.L. Aneja and K.L. Taneja for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SARKARIA, J.  This appeal\tby special leave is directed
\nagainst a judgment, dated August 21, 1969, of the High Court
\nof Allahabad, affirming on second appeal the judgment of the
\nCivil Judge, Dehra Dun. It arises out of these facts:\n<\/p>\n
     Umrao Singh,  respondent herein,  who died\t during\t the
\npendency of  proceedings in this Court and is substituted by
\nhis legal  representatives, instituted\ta suit\ton September
\n26, 1961  against Ram Deo, appellant herein, for damages and
\nfor eviction  from House No. 122B, Choharpur, District Dehra
\nDun. Umrao  Singh was the landlord of the suit premises. Ram
\nDeo was occupying the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 25.\n<\/p>\n
     On June  13, 1960,\t a sum\tof Rs.\t600 was\t due to\t the
\nrespondent from\t the appellant\tas arrears  of rent  and  an
\nagreement was  executed between\t the parties  on that  date,
\naccording to  which the tenant had to pay Rs. 50 every month
\nto the\trespondent, to wit Rs. 25 towards liquidation of the
\ncompounded arrears of rent, and Rs. 25 per month towards the
\ncurrent rent  falling due.  The appellant  fell\t in  arrears
\nagain. Thereupon,  the respondent  served a notice of demand
\nupon the  plaintiff on August 21, 1961, requiring him to pay
\nRs. 380 as the arrears of rent (Rs. 5 being balance due from
\nthe period April 10, 1960 to May 9, 1960 and Rs. 370 for the
\nperiod from May 10, 1960 to August 9, 1961) within one month
\nfrom the receipt of the notice.\n<\/p>\n
     The tenant-appellant pleaded that the parties had acted
\nupon  the  said\t agreement  dated  June\t 12,  1960,  and  on
\nsettlement of  accounts in  April 1961, a sum of Rs. 305 was
\nalleged\t to   be  due  to  the\trespondent.  Thereafter\t the
\nappellant made\tanother payment\t of Rs. 50 to the respondent
\non June 6, 1961. On September 27, 1961 appellant tendered to
\nthe respondent a sum of Rs. 200. The respondent did not
\n69<\/span>
\naccept this  tender, and  instead, instituted  the suit\t for
\ndamages\t and   eviction\t of  the  appellant  from  the\tsaid
\npremises.\n<\/p>\n
     The tenant further pleaded that the arrears of rent due
\nat the\tdate of\t notice was Rs. 75 only which did not exceed
\nthree months’  rent, that  the rest  of the  amount (Rs. 75)
\ndemanded  represented  only  past  arrears  covered  by\t the
\nagreement in  respect of  which the  landlord had waived his
\nright of ejectment.\n<\/p>\n
     The trial\tcourt held  that from  Ex. A-2, it was clear
\nthat only  three months’  rent was in arrears and therefore,
\nno ground  for eviction had been made out under Section 3(a)
\nof the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act No.
\nIII of\t1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). With this
\nreasoning,  the\t  trial\t court\tdismissed  the\trespondent’s
\npetition for eviction.\n<\/p>\n
     On appeal,\t the Additional\t Civil Judge,  Dehra Dun, by
\nhis judgment dated May 29, 1963, reversed the finding of the
\nMunsif and held that the rent which was in arrears upto June
\n13, 1960  and which  was the subject-matter of the agreement
\nof that\t date, did  not lose  its character  as “arrears  of
\nrent” merely  because there was an agreement to pay the same
\nin instalments. On these premises, he allowed the appeal and
\ndirected eviction of the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
     The tenant\t carried a further appeal to the High Court.
\nThe High  Court affirmed  the finding of the Civil Judge and
\ndismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal by the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Barlingay,  learned counsel  for the  appellant has
\nadvanced two  contentions. First,  that out of the amount of
\nRs. 150 due to the respondent at the date of the notice, Rs.
\n75 was due under the agreement dated June 12, 1960, and that
\namount could  not be  treated as arrears, of rent and tacked
\non to  three months current rent in arrears, for the purpose
\nof clause  (a) of Section 3(1) of the Act. It is argued that
\nthe liability to pay the past amount of Rs. 75 arises out of
\nthe aforesaid agreement which furnished an independent cause
\nof action  different from  that founded\t on the rent note or
\nthe lease  of the  premises. Second, that Section 114 of the
\nTransfer of Property Act will be applicable to the situation
\nbecause this  is a  matter on  which the Rent Act is silent.
\nSince the  tenant has cleared all the arrears of rent on the
\nfirst hearing  of the  suit, he could not be evicted in view
\nof the\tprovisions contained  in Section 114 of the Transfer
\nof Property Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In reply,\tMr. Aneja  submits  that  the  pre-agreement
\narrears of  rent did  not lose\ttheir original\tcharacter as
\narrears of  rent, merely  because the landlord had agreed to
\nallow the tenant to clear them in instal-\n<\/p>\n
70<\/span><\/p>\n
ments. It  is emphasised  that what  was intended  to be  an
\naccommodation could  not be  turned into  a handicap for the
\nlandlord. It  is argued that since on the date of the demand
\nnotice served  upon the appellant, the latter was admittedly
\nliable to  pay Rs.  150; Rs. 75 towards the rent of 3 months
\nprior to  August 12,  1961 and\tRs. 75\ttowards the  rent of
\nthree months  preceding the demand notice, he was in arrears
\nof rent\t for a period of “more than three months” within the
\nmeaning of clause (a) of Section 3 of the Act, and, as such,
\nwas liable to be evicted.\n<\/p>\n
     We will now deal with the first contention canvassed by
\nDr. Barlingay.\n<\/p>\n
     The material  part of  Section 3  of the  Act reads  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “3(1). Subject  to any  order\t passed\t under\tsub-
\n     section (3)  no suit  shall, without  the permission of
\n     the District  Magistrate, be  filed in  any civil court
\n     against  a\t  tenant   for\t his   eviction\t  from\t any
\n     accommodation, except  on one  or more of the following
\n     grouds:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  That the tenant is in arears of rent for more
\n\t       than three  months and  has failed to pay the
\n\t       same to\tthe landlord within one month of the
\n\t       service upon him of a notice of demand.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) to (g)…………………….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In order  to make out a ground for eviction under clause (a)
\nof Section 3(1) the landlord must establish three facts: (i)
\nthat the  tenant is  in arrears\t of  rent;  (ii)  that\tsuch
\narrears are  of rent  for more\tthan three months, and (iii)
\nthe tenant has failed to pay the same to the landlord within
\none month  of the service upon him of a notice of demand. If
\nany one\t of these factual ingredients is not established, no
\norder of  eviction can\tbe passed  under this Clause. In the
\npresent case,  there is\t no dispute  that at the date of the
\nnotice, the  tenant  owed  an  amount  of  Rs.\t150  to\t the
\nlandlord, out of which Rs. 75 represented three months’ rent
\npreceding the  notice. There  is also  no dispute  that\t the
\nbalance of  Rs. 75 due from the tenant related to the period
\nprior to  the agreement,  dated June 12, 1960, and under the
\nagreement, the\ttenant was  bound to  pay the  same in three
\nmonthly\t instalments,\twhich  he  had,\t in  breach  of\t the
\nagreement, failed  to pay.  Controversy\t centres  round\t the
\nquestion, whether  this balance\t of Rs.\t 75  could  also  be
\ntreated as “arrears of rent” and tacked on to the arrears of
\nrent relating  to the  three months preceding the notice for
\nthe purpose of clause (a) of Section 3(1) of the Act. In our
\nopinion,  the  answer  to  this\t question  must\t be  in\t the
\nnegative. As a result of the aforesaid
\n71<\/span>
\nagreement, the\tpre-agreement arrears  lost  their  original
\ncharacter as  “arrears of rent” and assumed the character of
\na consolidated debt which, under the terms of the agreement,
\nwas  payable   by  the\t debtor\t  (appellant)\tin   monthly
\ninstalments. The  agreement  had  in  respect  of  the\tpast
\narrears, brought  into being  a\t new  cause  of\t action\t and
\ncreated a  liability against  the  tenant,  independent\t and
\ndistinct from  that founded on the rent note or the lease of
\nthe premises.  Consequently if\tthe appellant,\tin breach of
\nthe agreement,\tdefaulted to  pay any instalment, the remedy
\nof the respondent (creditor) would be to file a suit for the
\nrecovery of  the amount\t due on\t the basis of the agreement,
\ndated June  12, 1960. Thus, the arrears of three instalments
\ndue under  the agreement  had ceased to be “arrears of rent”
\nand could  not be  tacked on  to the arrears of three months
\nrent due  at the  date of  the notice,\tfor the\t purposes of
\nclause (a) of Section 3(1).\n<\/p>\n
     The proposition  can be  tested by\t taking an  example.
\nSupposing, the\tappellant had  defaulted to pay four monthly
\ninstalments of\tRs. 25 each in accordance with the aforesaid
\nagreement, but\thad regularly  paid the\t rent as it fell due
\nevery  month   for  the\t  post-agreement  period.  Will\t the
\nrespondent in  such a  situation be  entitled to sue for the
\neviction of  the tenant\t on the ground that he has committed
\nfour  successive   breaches  and  defaults  under  the\tsaid
\nagreement ?  The answer is an obvious ‘No’. The respondent’s
\nremedy in  such a  situation, will  only be  to sue  for the
\nrecovery of  the amounts  due on  the foot  of the aforesaid
\nagreement.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  light of the above discussion the conclusion is
\ninescapable that  for the  purposes of clause (a) of Section
\n3(1) the  appellant was in arrears of rent for three months,
\nonly. In  other words,\the was\tnot in\t“arrears of rent for
\nmore than  three months”  within the  meaning of  clause (a)
\nand, as\t such, was  not liable\tto  be\tevicted\t under\tthat
\nclause. The High Court and the first appellate court were in
\nerror in holding to the contrary.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  view we  take, it is not necessary to deal with
\nthe second contention canvassed by Dr. Barlingay.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result, we\t allow this  appeal, set  aside\t the
\ndecree of  the High Court and dismiss the respondent’s suit.
\nIn the\tcircumstances of  the case  however,  we  leave\t the
\nparties to pay and bear their own costs in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n72<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ram Deo vs Umrao Singh on 15 November, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 323, 1980 SCR (2) 67 Author: R S Sarkaria Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh PETITIONER: RAM DEO Vs. RESPONDENT: UMRAO SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT15\/11\/1979 BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) CITATION: 1980 AIR […]<\/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-84485","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Deo vs Umrao Singh on 15 November, 1979 - 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\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Deo vs Umrao Singh on 15 November, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2\" \/>\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=\"1979-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-09T06:22:57+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Deo vs Umrao Singh on 15 November, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-09T06:22:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2\"},\"wordCount\":1676,\"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\\\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2\",\"name\":\"Ram Deo vs Umrao Singh on 15 November, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-09T06:22:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Deo vs Umrao Singh on 15 November, 1979\"}]},{\"@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":"Ram Deo vs Umrao Singh on 15 November, 1979 - 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\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Deo vs Umrao Singh on 15 November, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-09T06:22:57+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Deo vs Umrao Singh on 15 November, 1979","datePublished":"1979-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-09T06:22:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2"},"wordCount":1676,"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\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2","name":"Ram Deo vs Umrao Singh on 15 November, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-09T06:22:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-deo-vs-umrao-singh-on-15-november-1979-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Deo vs Umrao Singh on 15 November, 1979"}]},{"@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\/84485","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=84485"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84485\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}