{"id":110398,"date":"2000-05-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-05-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000"},"modified":"2017-10-31T01:30:32","modified_gmt":"2017-10-30T20:00:32","slug":"jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000","title":{"rendered":"Jai Prakash Khadria vs Shyam Sunder Agarwalla &amp; Anr on 12 May, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jai Prakash Khadria vs Shyam Sunder Agarwalla &amp; Anr on 12 May, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Y.K.Sabharwal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B.Majumdar, Y.K.Sabharwal<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nJAI PRAKASH KHADRIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHYAM SUNDER AGARWALLA &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t12\/05\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.B.Majumdar, Y.K.Sabharwal\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>      Y.K.SABHARWAL J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Leave granted in SLP(C) No.5357\/2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Two  grand  fathers  &#8211;  maternal and  paternal  &#8211;\t are<br \/>\nfighting  bitter  litigation to secure the custody of  their<br \/>\ngrandson,  Ankur.   It is second time that they\t are  before<br \/>\nthis  Court.   Our efforts for amicable\t settlement  between<br \/>\nthem  have  not\t succeeded.  We, however, hope that  in\t the<br \/>\ninterest  of their grandchild at last they will resolve\t the<br \/>\ncontroversy  in near and not distant future and bring to end<br \/>\nthe  litigation\t which commenced after respondent no.1\tlost<br \/>\nhis son and the appellant his son-in-law.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In May 1990, marriage was solemnised between Meera and<br \/>\nSanjay and out of wedlock, Ankur was born in December, 1991.<br \/>\nOn  attaining three years of age, he was admitted into Maria<br \/>\nMontessory    School,\tGuwahati   in\t the   year    1995.<br \/>\nUnfortunately,\tall  of\t a sudden, Sanjay died\tin  a  heart<br \/>\nattack\tin  the year 1995.  Ankur&#8217;s paternal  grandfather  &#8211;<br \/>\nrespondent  no.1, on 27.2.97 filed a case under Section 7 of<br \/>\nGuardians  and\tWards  Act,  1890,  for\t appointing  him  as<br \/>\nguardian  and  custodian of Ankur and an ex-parte  order  of<br \/>\ninjunction  was\t also sought restraining Meera\tfrom  giving<br \/>\nAnkur  in adoption to her parents or any other person.\t The<br \/>\nPrincipal  Judge, family court, directed the maintenance  of<br \/>\nstatus-quo  with respect to Ankur.  In opposition, the stand<br \/>\ntaken  by  the\tappellant  &#8211; maternal  grandfather  and\t his<br \/>\ndaughter  &#8211; was that Ankur had been adopted by appellant  on<br \/>\n9.2.97\tand subsequently on 27.2.97, a deed of adoption\t was<br \/>\nexecuted  and  the  said  deed was  registered\tat  Golaghat<br \/>\nsub-Registry  as  the adoption took place at  Dergaon.\t The<br \/>\ndeed of adoption, it seems, was registered on 28th February,<br \/>\n1997.\tThe  family court rejected the prayer of  respondent<br \/>\nno.1  for  interim custody of the child but respondent\tno.1<br \/>\nsucceeded  in the revision petition filed in the High  Court<br \/>\nagainst\t the  order  of the family court.   The\t High  Court<br \/>\ndirected  on 19.2.98 that interim custody of Ankur be  given<br \/>\nto   respondent\t no.1  till   disposal\tof  application\t for<br \/>\nappointment of guardian.  That order was, however, varied by<br \/>\nthis  Court  in\t the  Special Leave petition  filed  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant  on agreement of the parties in terms of order  of<br \/>\nthis  Court  dated  15th September, 1998.   The\t said  order<br \/>\ndirected  access of Ankur being given to respondent no.1 and<br \/>\nhis  wife  on certain days and the arrangement in  the\tsaid<br \/>\norder was directed to continue till the disposal of the case<br \/>\npending before Family Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  Family  Court by order dated 7th  December,\t1998<br \/>\nappointed  respondent no.1 as guardian of minor Master Ankur<br \/>\nand  the  appellant was directed to hand over the  child  to<br \/>\nrespondent  no.1  as soon as his examination is\t over.\t The<br \/>\nchallenge  of  the appellant and his daughter of  the  order<br \/>\npassed\tby the Family Court did not succeed before the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt.\t Their\tappeal\twas dismissed and the order  of\t the<br \/>\nFamily\tCourt  was maintained.\tThese are the  circumstances<br \/>\nunder  which  the matter is once again before this court  on<br \/>\nthis   appeal\thaving\tbeen   preferred  by  the   maternal<br \/>\ngrandfather.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  Family  Court and the Division Bench of the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  have  extensively examined the matter and  given\t due<br \/>\nweight to the relevant factors for considering the aspect of<br \/>\nthe welfare of the minor which is of paramount importance in<br \/>\nthe  custody  matters.\t It has also been noticed  in  these<br \/>\norders\tthat  in May 1997, Meera remarried and\ther  husband<br \/>\nfrom first marriage has two children &#8211; one now aged about 14<br \/>\nyears and other 9 years.  She is settled with her husband in<br \/>\nCalcutta.   The\t dispute  regarding   the  validity  of\t the<br \/>\nadoption  is  subject  matter  of Title Suit  No.4  of\t1997<br \/>\npending\t between the parties.  The observations made in\t the<br \/>\njudgments  of  the  High Court and of the  Family  Court  in<br \/>\nrespect of the adoption and deed of adoption are prima facie<br \/>\nfor  deciding the question of custody.\tWe find no fault  in<br \/>\nthis approach.\tUndoubtedly the substantive rights in regard<br \/>\nto  adoption  would be decided in the title suit on its\t own<br \/>\nmerits.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It  seems\t evident  that none of the parties  has\t any<br \/>\noblique\t motive.  All of them have utmost love and affection<br \/>\nfor  Ankur and we suppose that with that object in view, the<br \/>\ncustody\t is being sought by maternal grandfather on the\t one<br \/>\nhand  and paternal grandfather on the other.  Another reason<br \/>\nmay  be\t to  have  a  male member  in  the  family  as\tboth<br \/>\ngrandparents have only daughters, the only male member being<br \/>\nfather of Ankur having died.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Ankur  had  been studying at Maria Montessory  School,<br \/>\nGuwahati from 1995 till he shifted to Dergaon along with the<br \/>\nappellant  in  April 1999.  Dergaon is about 200  kilometers<br \/>\naway  from Guwahati.  He has been admitted in a school which<br \/>\nis  25 kilometers from Dergaon though he daily travels about<br \/>\n50  kilometers\tboth  ways  in\t the  personal\tcar  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant.   Both  the\tparties seem to\t be  quite  affluent<br \/>\nthough\tby that itself cannot be the only criteria.  We\t are<br \/>\ninformed  that the Maria Montessory School is only about one<br \/>\nkilometer from the place where paternal grandparents reside.<br \/>\nNone says that it is not a good school.\t Serious doubts that<br \/>\nhave  been expressed about the validity of the adoption were<br \/>\nsought to be explained by learned counsel for the appellant.<br \/>\nWe,  however,  refrain from commenting upon the validity  of<br \/>\nadoption in view of the pendency of the suit challenging it.<br \/>\nThe  reasons  given by the Family Court and High  Court\t for<br \/>\ndirecting  custody  of Ankur being given to  the  respondent<br \/>\nno.1  cannot  be faulted.  In the custody  proceedings,\t the<br \/>\ncase  of the daughter of the appellant also was that as\t she<br \/>\nhas  given Ankur in adoption of her father, he alone is\t the<br \/>\nlawful\tguardian and thus her father-in-law does not deserve<br \/>\nto  be appointed a guardian and given custody of Ankur.\t  We<br \/>\nmay  also  note\t that initially, she did not  challenge\t the<br \/>\norder  of  the\tHigh Court but during the  pendency  of\t the<br \/>\nSpecial\t Leave\tPetition filed by her father, she has  filed<br \/>\nSpecial\t Leave\tPetition.   In\tview   of  her\tstand  about<br \/>\nadoption,  we  cannot entertain her Special Leave  Petition,<br \/>\nalso  now  contending  that  she may  be  appointed  as\t the<br \/>\nguardian of Ankur.  This was not the claim before the Family<br \/>\nCourt or the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  orders relating to custody of children are by the<br \/>\nvery  nature  not final but are interlocutory in nature\t and<br \/>\nsubject\t to  modification at any future time upon  proof  of<br \/>\nchange of circumstances requiring change of custody but such<br \/>\nchange\tin  custody  must be proved to be in  the  paramount<br \/>\ninterest of the child <a href=\"\/doc\/270778\/\">(Rosy Jacob v.  Jacob A.\tChakramakkal<\/a><br \/>\n[(1973) 1 SCC 840]).\n<\/p>\n<p>      Having  heard Mr.\t Gopal Subramaniam, Dr.\t Singhvi and<br \/>\nDr.   Rajeev Dhavan, and on examination of the record, we do<br \/>\nnot  think that the impugned order deserves to be interfered<br \/>\nwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  High\t Court in the impugned judgment\t has  agreed<br \/>\nwith the reasoning and final conclusion to which the learned<br \/>\nPrinciple   Judge,  Family  Court   reached  in\t favour\t  of<br \/>\nrespondent  no.1.  It has to be kept in view that respondent<br \/>\nno.1 is the paternal grandfather of child Ankur.  He appears<br \/>\nto  have lot of attachment to him.  In fact, it was the case<br \/>\nof  the\t maternal grandfather himself that during  the\ttime<br \/>\nminor  Ankur was with respondent no.1, he and his wife\twere<br \/>\nover- fondling him.  This shows their attachment to him.  It<br \/>\nhas  also  to  be noted that the evidence  laid\t before\t the<br \/>\nPrincipal  Judge, Family Court shows that earlier respondent<br \/>\nno.1   had  executed  wills   bequeathing  his\tmovable\t and<br \/>\nimmovable  properties in favour of his daughters but he\t has<br \/>\ncancelled  the\tsaid Wills and by two Wills (Ex.  4  and  5)<br \/>\nexecuted   by  his  wife   and\thimself\t respectively,\tthey<br \/>\nbequeathed their entire property in favour of minor Ankur on<br \/>\ncondition  that\t he comes and live with them.  It  has\talso<br \/>\nbeen  noted by the Principal Judge, Family Court that during<br \/>\nthe  time  minor Ankur was in the custody of  the  appellant<br \/>\npursuant to the interim order in these proceedings, he spent<br \/>\nmost of his time with servants in the house of the appellant<br \/>\nat Guwahati as he lived mostly in Dergaon which is about 200<br \/>\nkms.  from Guwahati.  As all the daughters of appellant were<br \/>\nliving\toutside,  there\t was  no  other\t person\t except\t the<br \/>\nservants  of  appellant\t in his house to  look\tafter  minor<br \/>\nAnkur.\t All these circumstances well established on  record<br \/>\nclearly\t show  that  there is no infirmity in  the  decision<br \/>\nrendered  by the Family Court as confirmed by the High Court<br \/>\ndirecting  custody  of\tminor  Ankur to be  handed  over  to<br \/>\nrespondent no.1, his paternal grandfather.\n<\/p>\n<p>      However,\twe  feel  that the impugned  custody  orders<br \/>\nrequire to be worked out for three years so that there is no<br \/>\ninterruption  of Ankur&#8217;s study every now and then.  If after<br \/>\nthe  expiry of the said period, circumstances warrant in the<br \/>\ninterests  of Ankur, the matter of custody can be reagitated<br \/>\nbefore an appropriate forum.  However, appropriate orders in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  visitation rights deserve to be passed so\tthat<br \/>\nthe  maternal  grandparents  and the mother have  access  to<br \/>\nAnkur.\tWe, therefore, direct as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p>      1.   The\tcustody\t of Ankur would be  handed  over  to<br \/>\nrespondent  no.1  forthwith  so\t that there  is\t no  further<br \/>\ndisruption  in\this  studies and he can be admitted  in\t the<br \/>\nschool at Guwahati without any delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.   During  half period of summer, winter  and  other<br \/>\nlong vacation, the temporary custody of Ankur would be given<br \/>\nto  the\t appellant.  It would be for the appellant  and\t his<br \/>\ndaughter  to  decide  where  Ankur  should  spend  the\tsaid<br \/>\nvacation period.  The appellant, his wife and the mother can<br \/>\nmeet  Ankur as and when they like in the house of respondent<br \/>\nno.1 so long as it does not hinder his studies.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.   The\tappellant would also have the right to\ttake<br \/>\nAnkur  to  Dergaon on any one week-end in a month by  taking<br \/>\nhim  on Friday evening or Saturday morning but ensuring that<br \/>\nhe reaches back Guwahati by Sunday evening.  This is subject<br \/>\nto the condition that school is for five days.\tOtherwise he<br \/>\ncan be taken after school on Saturday and returned on Sunday<br \/>\nevening.\n<\/p>\n<p>      SLP(C)  No&#8230;&#8230;..\/2000 [CC 2745 of 2000] is dismissed<br \/>\nand  the  appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.5357 of  2000  is<br \/>\ndisposed of in the above terms.\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..J.  (S.B.  Majmudar)<\/p>\n<p>      &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..J.   (Y.K.   Sabharwal) New  Delhi<br \/>\nMay 12, 2000<\/p>\n<p>      Before  parting  with  this matter we put\t it  to\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t counsel for appellant no.1-Jay Prakash Khadria\t and<br \/>\nto   learned  counsel  for   respondent\t no.1-Shyam   Sunder<br \/>\nAgarwalla  to be good enough to deposit in fixed deposits in<br \/>\na   nationalised   bank\t at  Guwahati\ta  net\t amount\t  of<br \/>\nRs.10,00,000\/-\t(Rupees\t Ten Lac only) each in the  name  of<br \/>\nminor  Ankur.\tRs.10,00,000\/- be deposited in the  name  of<br \/>\nminor  Ankur  represented by Jay Prakash  Khadria.   Another<br \/>\namount\tof Rs.10,00,000\/- be deposited in the name of  minor<br \/>\nAnkur  represented  by\tShyam Sunder Agarwalla,\t each  being<br \/>\nshown  as  guardian  of minor for the  limited\tpurposes  of<br \/>\ntaking\tout  these fixed deposit receipts.  Learned  counsel<br \/>\nfor  the  said parties have agreed to this  suggestion.\t  WE<br \/>\ndirect accordingly.  The said amounts, on being deposited as<br \/>\naforesaid,  shall  remain  deposited and the  Fixed  Deposit<br \/>\nReceipts  may  be got renewed from time to time\t till  minor<br \/>\nAnkur  attains majority.  Neither the principal amounts\t nor<br \/>\nthe  interest  accrued\tthereon\t shall be  permitted  to  be<br \/>\nwithdrawn  by the respective persons who have deposited\t the<br \/>\nsame  in  the name of minor Ankur till he attains  majority.<br \/>\nThe aforesaid deposits shall be made within eight weeks from<br \/>\ntoday.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Jai Prakash Khadria vs Shyam Sunder Agarwalla &amp; Anr on 12 May, 2000 Author: Y.K.Sabharwal Bench: S.B.Majumdar, Y.K.Sabharwal PETITIONER: JAI PRAKASH KHADRIA Vs. RESPONDENT: SHYAM SUNDER AGARWALLA &amp; ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/05\/2000 BENCH: S.B.Majumdar, Y.K.Sabharwal JUDGMENT: Y.K.SABHARWAL J. Leave granted in SLP(C) No.5357\/2000. Two grand fathers &#8211; maternal and paternal [&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-110398","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jai Prakash Khadria vs Shyam Sunder Agarwalla &amp; Anr on 12 May, 2000 - 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\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jai Prakash Khadria vs Shyam Sunder Agarwalla &amp; Anr on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-30T20:00:32+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\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jai Prakash Khadria vs Shyam Sunder Agarwalla &amp; Anr on 12 May, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-30T20:00:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1931,\"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\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000\",\"name\":\"Jai Prakash Khadria vs Shyam Sunder Agarwalla &amp; Anr on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-30T20:00:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jai Prakash Khadria vs Shyam Sunder Agarwalla &amp; Anr on 12 May, 2000\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Jai Prakash Khadria vs Shyam Sunder Agarwalla &amp; Anr on 12 May, 2000 - 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\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jai Prakash Khadria vs Shyam Sunder Agarwalla &amp; Anr on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-30T20:00:32+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\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jai Prakash Khadria vs Shyam Sunder Agarwalla &amp; Anr on 12 May, 2000","datePublished":"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-30T20:00:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000"},"wordCount":1931,"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\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000","name":"Jai Prakash Khadria vs Shyam Sunder Agarwalla &amp; Anr on 12 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-30T20:00:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-prakash-khadria-vs-shyam-sunder-agarwalla-anr-on-12-may-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jai Prakash Khadria vs Shyam Sunder Agarwalla &amp; Anr on 12 May, 2000"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/110398","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=110398"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110398\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}