{"id":84877,"date":"1989-12-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-12-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989"},"modified":"2017-03-10T03:14:50","modified_gmt":"2017-03-09T21:44:50","slug":"trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989","title":{"rendered":"Trideshwar Dayal And Anr vs Maheshwar Dayal And Ors on 19 December, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Trideshwar Dayal And Anr vs Maheshwar Dayal And Ors on 19 December, 1989<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR  485, \t\t  1989 SCR  Supl. (2) 529<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: L Sharma<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sharma, L.M. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nTRIDESHWAR DAYAL AND ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMAHESHWAR DAYAL AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT19\/12\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\nRAMASWAMI, V. (J) II\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR  485\t\t  1989 SCR  Supl. (2) 529\n 1990 SCC  (1) 357\t  1989 SCALE  (2)1436\n\n\nACT:\n    Indian  Stamp Act, 1899: Sections 33, 56 and 47-A  (U.P.\nState\t  Amendment)--Arbitration      award--Insufficiently\nstamped--Impounding-Limitation for--Chief Controlling  Reve-\nnue Authority--Whether competent to interfere with the order\nof Collector.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    A  dispute between the appellants and respondent  No.  1\nwas referred to an arbitrator who made an award and filed it\nbefore the civil court. On objection by the appellants,\t the\nprayer for making the award a rule of the court was  reject-\ned. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the same. This Court\nrefused\t special  leave and a petition for review  was\talso\ndismissed.\n    Meanwhile, respondent No. 1 applied to the Collector for\nsummoning  the award and for realising the escaped duty\t and\npenalty.  The application was allowed. The appellants  moved\nthe Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 56  of\nthe  Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the authority set aside\t the\nCollector's order. The respondents challenged the said order\nin  a writ petition before the High Court which allowed\t the\nsame and remanded the case to the Collector for deciding  it\nafresh.\n    Aggrieved,\tthe appellants filed this appeal by  special\nleave, contending inter alia, that; (a) Respondent No. 1 had\nno  locus  standi to move the Collector for  impounding\t the\naward:\t(b) the Collector had no authority to pass  the\t im-\npugned\torder after a decade; and (c) the Collector did\t not\nhave the power to enquire into the correct valuation of\t the\nproperty which was subject matter of the award.\nDisposing of the appeal, this Court,\n    HELD: 1.1 It is well settled that if a court acts  with-\nout jurisdiction, its decision can be challenged in the same\nway  as it would have been challenged if it had\t acted\twith\njurisdiction, i.e. an appeal would lie to the court to which\nit would lie if its order was with jurisdiction. [532A]\n530\n    1.2\t There is no question of limitation arising  and  it\ncannot\tbe  said that what had to be done promptly  in\t1976\ncould  not be done later. The orders of the Collector  dated\n15.7.1983  and 22.7.1983 were passed as the follow-up  steps\nin  pursuance of the civil court's direction  dated  18.3.76\nand  no valid objection can be taken against them. The\tCol-\nlector, therefore, shall have to proceed further for  reali-\nsation of the escaped duty. [532G]\n    1.3\t The  Chief Controlling Revenue Authority  had\tfull\npower  to interfere with the Collector's order, provided  it\nwas found to be erroneous. But this Court does not find\t any\ndefect in the Collector directing taking of steps for reali-\nsation of the stamp duty. [532B]\n    <a href=\"\/doc\/732516\/\">Janardan Reddy and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad and  Ors.,<\/a>\n[1951] SCR 344, relied on.\n    2.\tThe  instant  case comes from  Uttar  Pradesh  where\nexpress\t provisions have been made by the insertion of\tSec-\ntion 47-A, authorising the Collector to examine the correct-\nness of the valuation. Hence the Collector had the power  to\nenquire\t into  the valuation of the property which  was\t the\nsubject matter of the award. [533A-B]\n    <a href=\"\/doc\/1056971\/\">Himalaya  House  Co. Ltd., Bombay v.  Chief\t Controlling\nRevenue Authority,<\/a> [1972] 3 SCR 332, referred to.\n    3.\tIt is clarified that on the strength of the  present\njudgment it will not be open to the respondent to urge\tthat\nthe effect of the High Court decision dated 8.7.1981 and the\norder  of this Court dismissing the special  leave  petition\ntherefrom and later the review application have\t disappeared\nor have got modified. [533D-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5055  of<br \/>\n1989.\n<\/p>\n<p>    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  27.2.1989  of\t the<br \/>\nAllahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 12322 of 1984.<br \/>\n    Satish Chandra, E.C. Agarwala, Atul Sharma, Ms.  Purnima<br \/>\nBhatt and V.K. Pandita for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>    G.L. Sanghi, B.D. Agarwal, G. Ganesh, K.L. John and\t Ms.<br \/>\nShobha Dikshit for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">531<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    SHARMA,  J. This case arises out of a  proceeding  under<br \/>\nthe Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Special leave is granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>    2.\tA dispute between the appellants and the  respondent<br \/>\nNo.  1,\t who  are members of a family, was  referred  to  an<br \/>\narbitrator,  who made an award on 9.10.1973, and  filed\t the<br \/>\nsame within a few days before the civil court for making  it<br \/>\na rule of the court. On objection by the present appellants,<br \/>\nthe  prayer  was  rejected on 18.3.1976 and  the  order\t was<br \/>\nconfirmed  by the High Court on 3.7.1981 in a regular  first<br \/>\nappeal.\t An application for special leave was  dismissed  by<br \/>\nthis  Court  on 18.4.1983 and a prayer for review  was\talso<br \/>\nrejected.  It is stated on behalf of the appellants that  in<br \/>\nthe meantime the respondent No.1 applied before the  Collec-<br \/>\ntor  for  summoning  the award and realising  the  duty\t and<br \/>\npenalty. A copy of the award was annexed to the application.<br \/>\nThe  respondent&#8217;s prayer was opposed by the  appellants\t but<br \/>\nwas allowed by the Collector on 15.7.1983; and, on a request<br \/>\nmade  to  the civil court for sending the award,  the  civil<br \/>\ncourt  asked the office to do so. The appellants  moved\t the<br \/>\nChief  Controlling  Revenue  Authority under s.\t 56  of\t the<br \/>\nIndian\tStamp  Act  (hereinafter referred  to  as  the\tAct)<br \/>\nagainst the Collector&#8217;s order dated 15.7.1983. The Authority<br \/>\nin  exercise of its revisional power set aside the  impugned<br \/>\norder of the Collector, inter alia, on the ground of lack of<br \/>\njurisdiction. The respondent challenged this judgment before<br \/>\nthe  High  Court  in a writ case which was  allowed  by\t the<br \/>\nimpugned  judgment dated 27.2.1989. The matter was  remanded<br \/>\nto  the Collector to decide the case afresh in the light  of<br \/>\nthe  observations. The High Court also doubted the power  of<br \/>\nthe  Chief  Controlling Revenue Authority to  entertain\t the<br \/>\nappellants&#8217;  application under s. 56 of the Act. This  judg-<br \/>\nment is the subject matter of the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>    3.\tMr.  Satish  Chander, the learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellants,  contended that there cannot be any doubt  about<br \/>\nthe  power of the Chief Controlling Authority to correct  an<br \/>\nerroneous  order of the Collector. Emphasis was laid on\t the<br \/>\nlanguage  of  s.  56 suggesting its  wide  application.\t The<br \/>\nlearned counsel was also right in arguing that the Authority<br \/>\nis  not\t only vested with jurisdiction but has the  duty  to<br \/>\nquash  an  order passed by the Collector  purporting  to  be<br \/>\nunder  Chapters\t IV  and V of the Act  by  exercising  power<br \/>\nbeyond\this jurisdiction. To hold otherwise will lead to  an<br \/>\nabsurd\tsituation  where a subordinate\tauthority  makes  an<br \/>\norder  beyond its jurisdiction, which will have to  be\tsuf-<br \/>\nfered on account of its unassailability before a higher<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">532<\/span><br \/>\nauthority.  This Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/732516\/\">Janardan Reddy and Others  v.\t The<br \/>\nState of Hyderabad and Others,<\/a> [1951] SCR 344, after  refer-<br \/>\nring  to  a number of decisions, observed that\tit  is\twell<br \/>\nsettled\t that  if  a court acts\t without  jurisdiction,\t its<br \/>\ndecision can be challenged in the same way as it would\thave<br \/>\nbeen challenged if it had acted with jurisdiction, i.e.,  an<br \/>\nappeal\twould lie to the court to which it would lie if\t its<br \/>\norder  was with jurisdiction. We, therefore, agree with\t the<br \/>\nappellants that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority\t had<br \/>\nfull power to interfere with the Collector&#8217;s order, provided<br \/>\nit was found to be erroneous. Their difficulty, however,  is<br \/>\nthat we do not find any defect in the Collector directing to<br \/>\ntake steps for the realisation of the stamp duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>    4. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the<br \/>\nrespondent  No. 1 had no locus standi to move the  Collector<br \/>\nfor impounding the award and sub-section (1) of s. 33 of the<br \/>\nAct had no application. The learned counsel proceeded to say<br \/>\nthat  in  the circumstances it has to be  assumed  that\t the<br \/>\nCollector  acted suo motu under sub-section (4) of the\tsaid<br \/>\nsection\t and  since the proviso to sub-section\t(5)  directs<br \/>\nthat no action under sub-section (4) shall be taken after  a<br \/>\nperiod\tof  four  years from the date of  execution  of\t the<br \/>\ninstrument,  the  Collector  had no authority  to  pass\t the<br \/>\nimpugned  order\t after about a decade. In  reply,  Mr.\tG.L.<br \/>\nSanghi\turged  that the order for impounding the  award\t was<br \/>\npassed\tby  the\t civil court itself on\t18.3.1976,  and\t the<br \/>\nfurther\t orders of the Collector dated 22.7.1983 and of\t the<br \/>\ncivil  court  dated 27.8.1983 were passed merely by  way  of<br \/>\nimplementing  the  same.  The learned counsel  is  right  in<br \/>\nrelying\t upon  the concluding portion of the  order  of\t the<br \/>\ncivil court dated 18.3.1976 directing the impounding of\t the<br \/>\naward and sending it to the Collector for necessary  action.<br \/>\nIt is true that further steps in pursuance of this  judgment<br \/>\nwere not taken promptly and it was the respondent No. 1\t who<br \/>\ndrew the attention to this aspect, but it cannot be  legiti-<br \/>\nmately\tsuggested that as the reminder for implementing\t the<br \/>\norder  came  from  the respondent, who was  motivated  by  a<br \/>\ndesire\tto salvage the situation to his\t advantage,  further<br \/>\nsteps could not be taken. There is no question of limitation<br \/>\narising\t in this situation and it cannot be said  that\twhat<br \/>\nhad to be done promptly in 1976 would not be done later. The<br \/>\norders of the Collector dated 15.7.1983 and 22.7.1983  must,<br \/>\ntherefore, in the circumstances, be held to have been passed<br \/>\nas  the\t follow-up steps in pursuance of the  civil  court&#8217;s<br \/>\ndirection  dated  18.3.1976, and no valid objection  can  be<br \/>\ntaken against them. The Collector, therefore, shall have  to<br \/>\nproceed further for realisation of the escaped duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. It was next contended that in any event the Collector did<br \/>\nnot<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">533<\/span><br \/>\nhave the power to enquire into the correct valuation of\t the<br \/>\nproperty which was the subject-matter of the award. Reliance<br \/>\nwas  placed on the observations in <a href=\"\/doc\/1056971\/\">Himalaya House Co.  Ltd..<br \/>\nBombay v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,<\/a> [1972] 3\t SCR\n<\/p>\n<p>332. There is no merit in this point either. The case  comes<br \/>\nfrom  Uttar Pradesh where express provisions have been\tmade<br \/>\nby  the insertion of s. 47-A, authorising the  Collector  to<br \/>\nexamine the correctness of the valuation.\n<\/p>\n<p>    6. Lastly Mr. Satish Chandra argued that the  respondent<br \/>\nNo.  1 is taking keen interest in the present proceeding  in<br \/>\nan  attempt to illegally re-open the question of making\t the<br \/>\naward  a  rule of the court, which stood  concluded  by\t the<br \/>\nimpugned  judgment of the High Court and the order  of\tthis<br \/>\nCourt dismissing the special leave petition therefrom and he<br \/>\ncan  not  be allowed to do so. The reply of Mr.\t Sanghi\t has<br \/>\nbeen  that this aspect is not relevant in the  present\tpro-<br \/>\nceeding for realisation of the duty and need not be  decided<br \/>\nat this stage. His stand is that an award which is not\tmade<br \/>\nrule of the court is not a useless piece of paper and can be<br \/>\nof  some use, say by way of defence in a suit. He said\tthat<br \/>\nthis  question\twill have to be considered if and  when\t the<br \/>\noccasion  arises. Having regard to the limited scope of\t the<br \/>\npresent proceeding, we agree with Mr. Sanghi that we may not<br \/>\ngo into this aspect in the present case, but we would clari-<br \/>\nfy the position that on the strength of the present judgment<br \/>\nit  will  not  be open to the respondent to  urge  that\t the<br \/>\neffect\tof  the High Court decision dated 8.7.1981  and\t the<br \/>\norders\tof this Court dismissing the special leave  petition<br \/>\ntherefrom  and later the review application has\t disappeared<br \/>\nor has got modified.\n<\/p>\n<p>    7. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms, but the<br \/>\nparties are directed to bear their own costs of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<pre>G.N.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal disposed\nof.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">534<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Trideshwar Dayal And Anr vs Maheshwar Dayal And Ors on 19 December, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 485, 1989 SCR Supl. (2) 529 Author: L Sharma Bench: Sharma, L.M. (J) PETITIONER: TRIDESHWAR DAYAL AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: MAHESHWAR DAYAL AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT19\/12\/1989 BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. [&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-84877","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>Trideshwar Dayal And Anr vs Maheshwar Dayal And Ors on 19 December, 1989 - 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\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Trideshwar Dayal And Anr vs Maheshwar Dayal And Ors on 19 December, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989\" \/>\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=\"1989-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-09T21:44:50+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Trideshwar Dayal And Anr vs Maheshwar Dayal And Ors on 19 December, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-09T21:44:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989\"},\"wordCount\":1344,\"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\\\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989\",\"name\":\"Trideshwar Dayal And Anr vs Maheshwar Dayal And Ors on 19 December, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-09T21:44:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trideshwar Dayal And Anr vs Maheshwar Dayal And Ors on 19 December, 1989\"}]},{\"@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":"Trideshwar Dayal And Anr vs Maheshwar Dayal And Ors on 19 December, 1989 - 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\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Trideshwar Dayal And Anr vs Maheshwar Dayal And Ors on 19 December, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-09T21:44:50+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Trideshwar Dayal And Anr vs Maheshwar Dayal And Ors on 19 December, 1989","datePublished":"1989-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-09T21:44:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989"},"wordCount":1344,"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\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989","name":"Trideshwar Dayal And Anr vs Maheshwar Dayal And Ors on 19 December, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-09T21:44:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trideshwar-dayal-and-anr-vs-maheshwar-dayal-and-ors-on-19-december-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trideshwar Dayal And Anr vs Maheshwar Dayal And Ors on 19 December, 1989"}]},{"@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\/84877","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=84877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84877\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}