{"id":106059,"date":"2007-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007"},"modified":"2017-11-13T02:38:23","modified_gmt":"2017-11-12T21:08:23","slug":"4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"4 Harishanker vs 2 State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
4 Harishanker vs 2 State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR        \n\n        SA No 416 of 2001\n\n        1 Rudra Singh\n\n        2 Smt Kitabmati\n\n        3 Dayanidhi\n\n        4 Kripanidhi\n\n        5 Jagdish\n\n        6 Padum Lal\n\n        7 Gend Singh\n\n        8 Goverdhan\n\n        9 Shri Ram\n\n        10 Ubelal\n\n        11 Shyam Lal\n\n        12 Bhagirathi\n\n        13 Shiv Prasad\n\n        14 Harishanker\n\n                     ...Petitioners\n\n                        VERSUS\n\n        1 Harish Chand Aghariya\n\n        2 State of Chhattisgarh\n\n                     ...Respondents\n\n!       Appellants by Shri Awadh Tripathi learned counsel\n\n^       1 Respondent No 1 by Shri H S Patel learned counsel\n\n        2 Respondent No 2 State by Shri Akhil Agrawal\n\n        learned Panel Lawyer\n\n        Honble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh J\n\n        Dated: 16\/04\/2007\n\n:       Judgment\n\n\n        Appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code\n\n\n                   J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
        (Delivered on this 16th  day of April, 2007)<\/p>\n
        Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
21-9-2001, passed in Civil Appeal No.8A\/2001  by  the<\/p>\n
IInd Additional District Judge, Mahasamund, reversing<\/p>\n
the judgment and decree passed by the Ist Civil Judge<\/p>\n
Class-I, Mahasamund in Civil Suit No.8A\/93 on  10-11-<\/p>\n
2000,  the appellants\/defendants have preferred  this<\/p>\n
second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\n(2)        Admittedly, Keshavram and Dharam  are  the<\/p>\n
sons  of  Haldhar, who owned the suit  property.   On<\/p>\n
death  of  Haldhar,  there was  a  partition  between<\/p>\n
Keshavram  and  Dharam, in which the  suit  property,<\/p>\n
i.e.,  land  in  area  8.186  hectares,  situated  in<\/p>\n
Village  Jamher, Patwari Halka No.21, Revenue  Circle<\/p>\n
Pithoura, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as `the suit property’) fell to the share<\/p>\n
of  Keshavram and he got it mutated in his name.   In<\/p>\n
the  year  1992, Keshavram and his wife died  leaving<\/p>\n
behind  sons  Harish Chand, respondent No.1\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
and    Rudra    Singh,   appellant\/defendant    No.1.<\/p>\n
Appellant\/defendant  No.2  is  the   wife   and   the<\/p>\n
appellants\/defendants No.3, 4 and 5 are the  sons  of<\/p>\n
Rudra   Singh.   Appellants  No.7  to  14   are   the<\/p>\n
purchasers of the suit property from appellants  No.1<\/p>\n
to 5 and are in possession thereof.\n<\/p>\n
\n(3)    The  suit  of  respondent  No.1\/plaintiff  was<\/p>\n
founded  on  the  pleading  that  Keshavram  did  not<\/p>\n
execute  any  Will on 26-8-1991 in  favour  of  Rudra<\/p>\n
Singh  and  cause of action for filing the  suit  for<\/p>\n
declaration, partition and mesne profits arose in his<\/p>\n
favour  when Rudra Singh started mutation proceedings<\/p>\n
on   the  basis  of  the  Will  dated       26-8-1991<\/p>\n
executed by Keshavram.\n<\/p>\n
\n(4)  The appellants\/defendants No.1 to 5 resisted the<\/p>\n
suit  on  the basis of the Will executed by Keshavram<\/p>\n
in  favour  of  Rudra  Singh, the appellant\/defendant<\/p>\n
No.1 on 26-8-1991.  It was pleaded that they acquired<\/p>\n
title over the suit property on the basis of the Will<\/p>\n
and,  therefore,  they could confer  valid  title  to<\/p>\n
defendants No.7 to 15 by executing several registered<\/p>\n
sale-deeds of the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
\n(5)   The  appellants\/defendants No.7 to  15  pleaded<\/p>\n
that in the year 1988, Keshavram had partitioned  his<\/p>\n
properties between his two sons, namely, Rudra  Singh<\/p>\n
and  Harish Chand, wherein the suit property fell  to<\/p>\n
the  share of Rudra Singh, who was in sole possession<\/p>\n
thereof.  After the execution of the sale-deed by the<\/p>\n
appellants\/defendants No.1 to 5 in  their  favour  in<\/p>\n
the   year  1995-96,  by  registered  sale-deeds  the<\/p>\n
appellants\/defendants No.7 to 15 acquired  title  and<\/p>\n
were in cultivating possession of the suit property.<\/p>\n
(6)   The  learned trial Court dismissed the suit  on<\/p>\n
the  basis of a mere assumption recorded in  para  24<\/p>\n
that  probably  in  the year 1988, a  partition  took<\/p>\n
place  between  Rudra  Singh  and  Harish  Chand  and<\/p>\n
thereafter  Harish Chand was never in  possession  of<\/p>\n
the  suit  property.  However, it recorded a  finding<\/p>\n
that  execution  of Will by Keshavram  in  favour  of<\/p>\n
Rudra Singh was not proved.\n<\/p>\n
\n(7)   Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed  by<\/p>\n
the  learned  trial Court, respondent  No.1\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
preferred first appeal before the Additional District<\/p>\n
Judge,   Mahasamund.   The  First   Appellate   Court<\/p>\n
affirmed the finding recorded by the lower Court that<\/p>\n
execution  of  Will by Keshavram in favour  of  Rudra<\/p>\n
Singh  on 26-8-1991 was not proved and that the  said<\/p>\n
document  was  void  and  ineffective.   However,  it<\/p>\n
reversed  the  finding  regarding  partition  on  the<\/p>\n
ground  that  the  appellants\/defendants  No.1  to  5<\/p>\n
herein did not plead the fact of an oral partition in<\/p>\n
the  year  1988 in the written statement and  such  a<\/p>\n
pleading was raised only by the purchasers, i.e., the<\/p>\n
appellants\/defendants  No.7   to   15   herein.    On<\/p>\n
appreciation  of  evidence  also,  it  reversed   the<\/p>\n
finding  that  an oral partition took  place  between<\/p>\n
Rudra  Singh  and  Harish Chand  in  the  year  1988,<\/p>\n
wherein the suit property fell to the share of  Rudra<\/p>\n
Singh.  On these premises, the First Appellate  Court<\/p>\n
decreed    the   suit   in   favour   of   respondent<\/p>\n
No.1\/plaintiff  herein  for a declaration  that  both<\/p>\n
respondent  No.1\/plaintiff  Harish  Chand   and   the<\/p>\n
appellant\/defendant No.1, Rudra Singh were the owners<\/p>\n
of 1\/2 share of the suit property and, therefore, the<\/p>\n
sale-deed of the entire suit property executed by the<\/p>\n
appellants\/defendants No.1 to  5  in  favour  of  the<\/p>\n
appellants\/defendants No.7 to 15 did not  affect  the<\/p>\n
title  of  respondent No.1\/plaintiff herein over  his<\/p>\n
share,  i.e., 1\/2  of the suit property.  It  further<\/p>\n
declared  that respondent No.1\/plaintiff  herein  was<\/p>\n
entitled  to  1\/2  share  of the  suit  property  and<\/p>\n
possession  thereof after partition.   Mesne  profits<\/p>\n
against  the appellants\/defendants No.1 to  5  herein<\/p>\n
for  Rs.15,000\/- were awarded and thereafter  at  the<\/p>\n
rate of Rs.15,000\/- per year were awarded against the<\/p>\n
appellants\/defendants No.7 to 15 herein.<\/p>\n
(8)   The second appeal was admitted on the following<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law :-\n<\/p>\n
          “1.    Whether   the  learned   lower
\n          appellate  Court  was  justified   in
\n          reversing  the well reasoned  finding
\n          of  the  trial Court that  there  was
\n          partition in the joint family in  the
\n          year  1988  and in the said partition
\n          the  suit property fell in the  share
\n          of defendant No.1?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          2.     Whether   the  learned   lower
\n          appellate  Court  was  justified   in
\n          awarding mesne profit at the rate  of
\n          Rs.15,000\/-  per annum for  the  year
\n          1994-95 from defendant Nos.1 to 5 and
\n          mesne   profit   at   the   rate   of
\n          Rs.15,000\/-  per annum for  the  year
\n          1995-96  till delivery of  possession
\n          after  partition from defendant Nos.7
\n          to 15?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          3.    Whether  the above  finding  is
\n          contrary   to  oral  and  documentary
\n          evidence available on record  and  as
\n          such perverse?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(9)   Shri  Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel  for  the<\/p>\n
appellants\/defendants conceded during arguments  that<\/p>\n
he  would not assail the finding recorded by both the<\/p>\n
Courts  below  relating  to  execution  of  Will   by<\/p>\n
Keshavram  in favour of Rudra Singh on 26-8-1991  and<\/p>\n
also  the  finding  recorded by the  First  Appellate<\/p>\n
Court  that  oral partition in the year 1988  between<\/p>\n
Rudra Singh and Harish Chand was not established  and <\/p>\n
would  confine  his challenge to the  impugned  order<\/p>\n
only  on  the  question  of mesne  profits.   It  is,<\/p>\n
therefore,  not  necessary for me to dwell  upon  the<\/p>\n
substantial  question No.1 mentioned  above  in  this<\/p>\n
judgment.  I would, therefore, confine myself only to<\/p>\n
the question of mesne profits.\n<\/p>\n
\n(10)  The  First Appellate Court, on appreciation  of<\/p>\n
evidence, has recorded a finding that the yield  from<\/p>\n
the  suit  property per year was about  100  bags  of<\/p>\n
paddy.     On    this    basis,   since    respondent<\/p>\n
No.1\/plaintiff  herein was not in possession  of  the<\/p>\n
suit  property,  calculating the  1\/2  share  of  the<\/p>\n
respondent No.1\/plaintiff herein at 50 bags per  year<\/p>\n
and the value thereof at the rate of Rs.300\/-, it has<\/p>\n
awarded mesne profits at the rate of Rs.15,000\/-  per<\/p>\n
year against the appellants\/defendants No.1 to 5 till<\/p>\n
1994-95  and thereafter by the purchasers, i.e.,  the<\/p>\n
appellants\/defendants No.7 to 15.\n<\/p>\n
\n(11) The claim for mesne profits is virtually a claim<\/p>\n
for  damages.  There is no rigid rule for determining<\/p>\n
the amount of mesne profits and it has to be assessed<\/p>\n
by  a  proper exercise of judicial discretion.  Where<\/p>\n
the  plaintiffs  had  led  evidence  regarding  mesne<\/p>\n
profits,  it  was not necessary to order  a  separate<\/p>\n
enquiry as contemplated by Order 20 Rule 12(1)(c)  of<\/p>\n
the  Code  of Civil Procedure.  The test for awarding<\/p>\n
mesne  profits is not what the plaintiff has lost  by<\/p>\n
his  exclusion, but what the defendant has, or  might<\/p>\n
reasonably have, made by his wrongful possession.  In<\/p>\n
such  a  case, the cultivation profits would  be  the<\/p>\n
primary  consideration and not the gross  yield  from<\/p>\n
the  agricultural land.  The true test for  assessing<\/p>\n
mesne   profits   is   what   an   ordinary   prudent<\/p>\n
agriculturist would have grown.\n<\/p>\n
\n(12) The entitlement of respondent No.1\/plaintiff  to<\/p>\n
mesne  profits cannot be questioned in the facts  and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case.  Respondent No.1\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
Harish  Chand stated in paragraph 3 of his deposition<\/p>\n
that  the total yield from the suit property was  200<\/p>\n
bags of paddy, but admitted in cross-examination,  at<\/p>\n
paragraph 10, that the total yield was only 100  bags<\/p>\n
of  paddy every year.  Relying upon the admission  of<\/p>\n
respondent No.1\/plaintiff, the First Appellate  Court<\/p>\n
has  assessed the total yield from the suit  property<\/p>\n
at  100 bags of paddy every year, but overlooked  the<\/p>\n
fact that 50% of the total yield needs to be deducted<\/p>\n
towards expenses as narrated by Harish Chand, P.W.-1,  <\/p>\n
Samaru, P.W.-2 and Dharamsingh, P.W.-3.  In this  way <\/p>\n
of  the  matter, the net yield from the suit property<\/p>\n
every  year, from which the respondent No.1\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
was  deprived of, ought to have been assessed  at  50<\/p>\n
bags  per  year.  Deducting therefrom  1\/2  share  of<\/p>\n
respondent No.1\/plaintiff, the mesne profit ought  to<\/p>\n
have  been assessed on the basis of the value  of  25<\/p>\n
bags  of  paddy  every  year,  which  would  come  to<\/p>\n
(25xRs.300\/-=)   Rs.7,500\/-.   The  First   Appellate<\/p>\n
Court,  without deducting the expenses, assessed  the<\/p>\n
net  yield, which would have fallen to the  share  of<\/p>\n
respondent No.1\/plaintiff at 50 bags of paddy,  which<\/p>\n
was not correct.  It is, therefore, held that the net<\/p>\n
yield,  which  would  have fallen  to  the  share  of<\/p>\n
respondent  No.1\/plaintiff  from  the  suit  property<\/p>\n
every  year,  were  25  bags  of  paddy,  valued   at<\/p>\n
Rs.7,500\/-.  Substantial question No.2 is, therefore,<\/p>\n
answered that the learned Lower Appellate Court ought<\/p>\n
to   have  awarded  mesne  profits  at  the  rate  of<\/p>\n
Rs.7,500\/-  per annum for the year 1994-95  from  the<\/p>\n
appellants\/defendants No.1 to 5 and at  the  rate  of<\/p>\n
Rs.7,500\/-  for  the year 1995-96  till  delivery  of<\/p>\n
possession from the appellants\/defendants No.7 to 15.<\/p>\n
(13)  In  the result, this appeal is partly  allowed.<\/p>\n
The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate<\/p>\n
Court  dated 21-9-2001 is modified only to the extent<\/p>\n
of  quantum of mesne profits, which are reduced  from<\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/- to Rs.7,500\/- per year.  There  shall  be<\/p>\n
no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\nJUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court 4 Harishanker vs 2 State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No 416 of 2001 1 Rudra Singh 2 Smt Kitabmati 3 Dayanidhi 4 Kripanidhi 5 Jagdish 6 Padum Lal 7 Gend Singh 8 Goverdhan 9 Shri Ram 10 Ubelal 11 Shyam Lal […]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-106059","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n4 Harishanker vs 2 State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2007 - 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\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"4 Harishanker vs 2 State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-12T21:08:23+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"4 Harishanker vs 2 State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-12T21:08:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1597,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007\",\"name\":\"4 Harishanker vs 2 State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-12T21:08:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"4 Harishanker vs 2 State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"4 Harishanker vs 2 State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2007 - 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\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"4 Harishanker vs 2 State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-12T21:08:23+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"4 Harishanker vs 2 State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-12T21:08:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007"},"wordCount":1597,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007","name":"4 Harishanker vs 2 State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-12T21:08:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/4-harishanker-vs-2-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-16-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"4 Harishanker vs 2 State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/106059","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=106059"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106059\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106059"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106059"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106059"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}