{"id":103045,"date":"2004-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004"},"modified":"2016-02-03T18:12:17","modified_gmt":"2016-02-03T12:42:17","slug":"raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004","title":{"rendered":"Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: R.C. Lahot1, Ashok Bhan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  400 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nRAJ KUMAR\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSARDARI LAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/01\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nR.C. LAHOT1 &amp; ASHOK BHAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2004 (1)SCR 838<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.C. LAHOTI, J. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>During the pendency of a civil suit relating to an immovable property,<br \/>\nrespondent No.4 herein purchased the suit property from the defendants<br \/>\n(respondent Nos. 2 &amp; 3) by a registered deed of sale dated 24.9.1995. the<br \/>\nrespondent No.4, it appears, was not aware of the pendency of the suit;<br \/>\nrather the vendors stated in the deed of sale that the property was not a<br \/>\nsubject matter of any litigation. On 27.11.1995, the suit was decreed ex-<br \/>\nparte against the defendants (respondent nos. 2 &amp; 3). On 30.5.1998, the<br \/>\nrespondent No.4 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC<br \/>\nseeking setting aside of the decree and also making a prayer under Order 22<br \/>\nRule 10 of the CPC for being brought on record. Prayer was also made for<br \/>\ncondoning the delay in filling the application inasmuch as the ex-parte<br \/>\ndecree was not in the knowledge of the respondent No.4. The trial Court has<br \/>\nallowed the application condoning the delay in filling the same and held<br \/>\nthat a sufficient cause for setting aside the decree within the meaning of<br \/>\nOrder 9 Rule 13 of the CPC was made out. The appellant preferred a civil<br \/>\nrevision in the High Court which has been dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>The only plea raised and vehemently urged by Shri S.N. Mishra, the learned<br \/>\nsenior counsel for the appellant before this Court, as was done before the<br \/>\ntrial Court and the High Court too. is that an application under Order 9<br \/>\nRule 13 of the CPC can be filed only by a defendant and by no one else. The<br \/>\nrespondent No.4 is a transferee pendente lite and in the absence of his<br \/>\nhaving promptly taken steps under Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC for being<br \/>\nbrought on record, he remains bound by the result of the suit. He must<br \/>\nsuffer the consequences of an adverse decree passed against his vendors who<br \/>\nhave not chosen to lay any challenge to the ex-parte decree, submitted the<br \/>\nlearned counsel.\n<\/p>\n<p>We have heard Shri S.N. Mishra the learned senior counsel for the appellant<br \/>\nand Shri Manoj Swarup. learned counsel for the respondent No.4 We are<br \/>\nsatisfied that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>The doctrine of Us pendens expressed in the maxim &#8216;at lite Pender nihil<br \/>\ninnovetur&#8217; (during a litigation nothing new should be introduced) has been<br \/>\nstatutorily incorporated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act<br \/>\n1882. A defendant cannot, by alienating property during the pendency of<br \/>\nlitigation, venture into depriving the successful plaintiff of the fruits<br \/>\nof the decree. The transferee pendente lite is treated in the eye of law as<br \/>\na representative-in-interest of the judgment-debtor and held bound by the<br \/>\ndecree passed against the judgment-debtor though neither the defendant has<br \/>\nchosen to bring the transferee on record by apprising his opponent and the<br \/>\nCourt of the transfer made by him nor the transferee has chosen to come on<br \/>\nrecord by taking recourse to Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC. In case of an<br \/>\nassignment creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of<br \/>\nany suit. Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC confers a discretion on the Court<br \/>\nhearing the suit to grant leave for the person in our upon whom such<br \/>\ninterest has come to vest or devolve to be brought on record. Bringing of a<br \/>\nlis pendens transferee on record is not as of right but in the discretion<br \/>\nof the Court. Though not brought on record the lis pendens transferee<br \/>\nremains bound by the decree.\n<\/p>\n<p>The present case has a peculiar feature. The transfer took place during the<br \/>\npendency of the suit but the decree passed ex-parte in the suit is sought<br \/>\nto be set aside not by the defendant on record but by a person who did not<br \/>\ncome or was not brought on record promptly and hence apparently appears to<br \/>\nbe a third party. However, as we have already stated hereinabove, the<br \/>\nperson would be a representative-in interest of the defendant judgment-<br \/>\ndebtor<\/p>\n<p>The solution lies in Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It<br \/>\nprovides &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;146. Proceedings by or against representatives -Save as otherwise provided<br \/>\nby this Court or by any law for the time being in force, where any<br \/>\nproceeding may be taken or application made by or against any person, then<br \/>\nthe proceeding may be taken or application may be made by or against any<br \/>\nperson claiming under him.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>A Us pendens transferee from the defendant, though not arrayed as a party<br \/>\nin the suit, is still a person claiming under the defendant. The same<br \/>\nprinciple of law is recognized in a different perspective by Rule 16 of<br \/>\nOrder 21 of the CPC which speaks of transfer or assignment inter vivos or<br \/>\nby operation of law made by the plaintiff-decree-holder. The transferee may<br \/>\napply for execution of the decree of the Court which passed it and the<br \/>\ndecree will be available for execution in the same manner and subject to<br \/>\nthe same conditions as if the application were made by the decree-holder.<br \/>\nIt is interesting to note that a provision like Section 146 of the CPC was<br \/>\nnot be found in the preceding Code and was for the first time incorporated<br \/>\nin the CPC of 1908. In Order 21 Rule 16 also an explanation was inserted<br \/>\nthrough amendment made by Act No. 104 of 1976 w.e.f. 1.2.1977 where by the<br \/>\noperation of Section 146 of CPC was allowed to prevail independent of Order<br \/>\n21 Rule 16 CPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>A decree passed against the defendant is available for execution against<br \/>\nthe transferee or assignee of the defendant-judgment-debtor and it does not<br \/>\nmake any difference whether such transfer or assignment has taken place<br \/>\nafter the passing of the decree or before the passing of the decree without<br \/>\nnotice or leave of the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>The law laid down by a four-Judges Bench of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1262724\/\">Smt. Saila Bala<br \/>\nDassi v. Sm. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and Anr.,<\/a> [1958] SCR 1287. is apt for<br \/>\nresolving the issue arising for decision herein. A tansferee of property<br \/>\nfrom defendant during the pendency of the suit sought himself to be brought<br \/>\non record at the stage of appeal. The High Court dismissed the application<br \/>\nas it was pressed only by reference to Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC and it<br \/>\nwas conceded by the applicant that, not being a person who had obtained a<br \/>\ntransfer pending appeal, he was not covered within the scope of Older 22<br \/>\nRule 10. In an appeal preferred by such transferee this Court upheld the<br \/>\nview of the High Court that a transferee prior to the filing of the appeal<br \/>\ncould not be brought on record in appeal by reference to Order 22 Rule 10<br \/>\nof the CIV. However, the Court held that an appeal is a proceeding for the<br \/>\npurpose of Section 146 and further the expression &#8220;&#8216;claiming under&#8217; is wide<br \/>\nenough to include cases of devolution and assignment mentioned in Order 22<br \/>\nRule 10. Whoever is entitled to be but has not been brought on record under<br \/>\nOrder 22 Rule 10 in a pending suit or proceeding would be entitled to<br \/>\nprefer an appeal against the decree or order passed therein if his assignor<br \/>\ncould have filed such an appeal, there being no prohibition against it in<br \/>\nthe Code A person having acquired an interest in suit property during the<br \/>\npendency of the suit and seeking to be brought on record at the stage of<br \/>\nthe appeal can do so by reference to section 146 of the CPC which provision<br \/>\nbeing a beneficent provision should be construed liberally and so as to<br \/>\nadvance justice and not in a restricted or technical sense. Their Lordships<br \/>\nheld that being a purchaser pendente lite, a person will be bound by the<br \/>\nproceedings taken by the successful party in execution of decree and<br \/>\njustice requires that such purchaser should be given an opportunity to<br \/>\nprotect his rights. In sm. Salla Bala Dassi case (supra) an earlier<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1108235\/\">Jugalkishore Saraf v. M\/s. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd.,<\/a><br \/>\n[1955] I SCR 1369 was followed. It was a case where during the pendency of<br \/>\na suit for recovery of a debt from the defendant the plaintiff in that suit<br \/>\nhad transferred to a third person all the book and other debts. This Court<br \/>\nheld that the position of the transferor vis-a-vis the transferee is<br \/>\nnothing more than that of a benamidar for the latter and when the decree is<br \/>\npassed for the recovery of that debt it is the latter who is the real owner<br \/>\nof the decree. When the transferee becomes the owner of the decree<br \/>\nimmediately on its passing, he must, in relation to the decree, be also<br \/>\nregarded as person claiming under the transferor. The transferee is<br \/>\nentitled under Section 146 to make an application for execution which the<br \/>\noriginal decree-holder could do.\n<\/p>\n<p>The executing Court can apply its mind to the simple equitable principle<br \/>\nwhich operates to transfer the beneficent interest in the after-acquired<br \/>\ndecree under Section 146. As the assignee from the plaintiff of the debt<br \/>\nwhich was the entire subject matter of the suit the transferee was entitled<br \/>\nto be brought on record under Order 22 Rule 10 and must, therefore, be also<br \/>\nregarded as a representative of the plaintiff within the meaning of Section<br \/>\n47 of the CPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>In Sardar Govindrao Mahadik and Anr. v. Devi Sahai and Ors.. [1982] 1 SCC<br \/>\n237, this held that an application not falling under Order 22 Rule 10 of<br \/>\nthe CPC stricto sensu could yet be held to be maintainable by having<br \/>\nrecourse to Section 146 of the CPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant cannot dispute that the decree though passed against the<br \/>\nrespondent Nos. 2 and 3 could be executed even against the respondent No.4,<br \/>\nhe being a Us pendens transferee though not having been joined in the suit<br \/>\nas a party. Such a person can prefer an appeal being a person aggrieved.<br \/>\nClearly the person who is liable to be proceeded against in execution of<br \/>\nthe decree, or can file an appeal against in decree, though not a party to<br \/>\nthe suit or decree does have locus standi to move an application for<br \/>\nsetting aside an ex-parte decree, passed against the person in whose shoes<br \/>\nhe has stepped in. In the expression employed in Rule 13 of Order 9 of the<br \/>\nCPC that &#8220;in any case in which a decree is passed ex-parte against a<br \/>\ndefendant he may apply for an order to set it aside&#8217; the word &#8216;he&#8217; cannot<br \/>\nbe construed with such rigidity and so restrictively as to exclude the<br \/>\nperson who has stepped into the shoes of the defendant, from moving an<br \/>\napplication for setting aside the ex-parte decree especially in the<br \/>\npresence of Section 146 of the CPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>Incidentally we may observe that in Surjit Singh and Ors. v. Harbans Singh<br \/>\nand Ors., [1995] 6 SCC 50, the assignees pendente lite were refused by this<br \/>\nCourt to be brought on record as they had purchased the suit property after<br \/>\nthe passing of the preliminary decree and in clear defiance of the restrain<br \/>\norder passed by the Court injuncting any alienation\/assignment. It was a<br \/>\ncase of exercising discretion not to grant leave under Order 22 Rule 10 of<br \/>\nthe CPC, in the circumstance of the case, as in the opinion of this court<br \/>\npermitting impleadment and recognizing the alienation\/assignment would<br \/>\namount to defeating the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy.<br \/>\nThat case is clearly distinguishable.\n<\/p>\n<p>We hold that a lis pendens transferee, though not brought on record under<br \/>\nOrder 22 Rule 10 of the CPC, is entitled to move an application under Order<br \/>\n9 rule 13 to set aside a decree passed against his transferor-the defendant<br \/>\nin the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>As to the availability of sufficient cause for setting aside the decree<br \/>\nwithin the meaning of Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC and for condoning the<br \/>\ndelay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the finding in favour of<br \/>\nrespondent No.4 is purely one of fact and well reasoned.\n<\/p>\n<p>The attack against the locus standi of respondent No. 4 to maintain the<br \/>\napplication under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC fails and so does the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal is dismissed with no order as to the costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004 Bench: R.C. Lahot1, Ashok Bhan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 400 of 2004 PETITIONER: RAJ KUMAR RESPONDENT: SARDARI LAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/01\/2004 BENCH: R.C. LAHOT1 &amp; ASHOK BHAN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2004 (1)SCR 838 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.C. [&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-103045","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>Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004 - 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\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-03T12:42:17+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\\\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-03T12:42:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2020,\"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\\\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004\",\"name\":\"Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-03T12:42:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004 - 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\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-03T12:42:17+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\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004","datePublished":"2004-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-03T12:42:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004"},"wordCount":2020,"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\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004","name":"Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-03T12:42:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-vs-sardari-lal-on-20-january-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004"}]},{"@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\/103045","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=103045"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103045\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103045"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103045"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103045"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}