{"id":115757,"date":"1967-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967"},"modified":"2016-01-27T23:16:21","modified_gmt":"2016-01-27T17:46:21","slug":"madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967","title":{"rendered":"Madan Lal vs Sunderlal &amp; Another on 9 March, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Madan Lal vs Sunderlal &amp; Another on 9 March, 1967<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1233, \t\t  1967 SCR  (3) 147<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Wanchoo<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Wanchoo, K.N.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMADAN LAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSUNDERLAL &amp; ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n09\/03\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1233\t\t  1967 SCR  (3) 147\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1974 SC 968\t (51)\n\n\nACT:\nArbitration  Act  10 of 1940--S.  30,  objection  on  filing\naward--containing grounds for setting it aside-Whether\tArt.\n158 Limitation Act applicable.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nAn arbitration award in respect of certain disputes  between\nthe  appellant\tand the respondents was filed in  Court\t and\nnotice\tof the filing served on the appellant  on  September\n30,  1957.  'Me appellant filed an objection on November  3,\n1957 attacking the validity of the award on various grounds.\nThe  respondents contended before the trial Court  that\t the\nobjection  was in the nature of an application to set  aside\nthe  award and contained grounds which fell under s.  30  of\nthe Arbitration Act 10 of 1940; therefore, as the  objection\nwas  filed more than 30 days after notice was served on\t the\nappellant.,  it was barred by limitation under Art.  158  of\nthe  Limitation Act No. 9 of 1908.  The trial  Court  upheld\nthe  appellant's objection and an appeal to the\t High  Court\nwas dismissed.\nOn appeal to this Court,\nHELD:Dismissing the appeal,\nThe Arbitration Act contemplates making of an application to\nset  aside  an award on grounds mentioned in  s.  30.\tThis\napplication  must  be  made within 30 days of  the  date  of\nservice of notice as provided in Art. 158 of the  Limitation\nAct.   An  objection petition in the nature  of\t a  written-\nstatement  may\tin  appropriate cases  be  treated  as\tsuch\napplication  provided  it  is filed  within  the  period  of\nlimitation  prescribed.\t Even if the court has the power  to\nset aside an award suo motu that power cannot be used to set\naside an award on grounds falling under s. 30, if taken in a\npetition  filed\t more  than 30 days  after  the\t service  of\nnotice,\t for in that case the limitation provided  would  be\ncompletely negatived. [151 E, G-H; 152 D-E]\nHastimal  Dalichand Bora v. Hiralal Motichand Mutha,  A.I.R.\n(1954) Bom. 243, Saha &amp; Co. v. Ishar Singh v. Kripal  Singh,\nA.I.R  (1956)  Cal. 321 and Mohan Das  v.  Kessumal,  A.I.R.\n(1955) Ajm. 47, distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 990 of 1964.<br \/>\nAppeal from the judgment and decree dated April 15, 1963  of<br \/>\nthe Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in First Appeal from<br \/>\nOrder No. 30 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n<p>B.   C. Misra and C. P. Lal, for the appellant.<br \/>\nP.   K. Chatterjee, for respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.   P. Sinha and P. K. Chatterjee, for respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">148<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nWanchoo,  J. This is an appeal on a certificate\t granted  by<br \/>\nthe  Allahabad\tHigh  Court  and  arises  in  the  following<br \/>\ncircumstances.\t On May 20, 1965, an agreement\twas  entered<br \/>\ninto  between  the appellant and the  respondents  referring<br \/>\ncertain differences between them to the arbitration of three<br \/>\npersons.  On January 19, 1956, an award was made, signed  by<br \/>\ntwo out of the three arbitrators as the third arbitrator had<br \/>\nrefused to sign the award.  The award was filed in court  on<br \/>\nSeptember 7, 1957 and the respondents prayed for a decree in<br \/>\naccordance  with the award.  Notice of filing of  the  award<br \/>\nwas  issued  to\t the appellant and was served  upon  him  on<br \/>\nSeptember  30,\t1957.  On November 3,  1957,  the  appellant<br \/>\nfiled an objection in the nature of a written statement.  By<br \/>\nthis  objection the appellant attacked the validity  of\t the<br \/>\naward on various grounds.  But the objection did not contain<br \/>\nany  prayer at the end, nor did it indicate what relief\t the<br \/>\nappellant   desired,  though  there  were  as  many  as\t  43<br \/>\nparagraphs therein.  When the matter came to be heard in the<br \/>\ntrial  court, the respondents contended that  the  so-called<br \/>\nobjection  was in the nature of an application to set  aside<br \/>\nthe  award and contained grounds coming under s. 30  of\t the<br \/>\nArbitration Act, No. 10 of 1940, (hereinafter referred to as<br \/>\nthe  Act).  Therefore, as the objection was filed more\tthan<br \/>\n30 days after the notice was served on the appellant, it was<br \/>\nbarred by limitation under Art. 158 of the Indian Limitation<br \/>\nAct, No. 9 of 1908.\n<\/p>\n<p>The trial court held that the appellant&#8217;s objection was\t not<br \/>\nmaintainable, as his remedy was to apply under s. 33 of\t the<br \/>\nAct,  if he wanted the award to be set aside on the  grounds<br \/>\nraised\tin the objection.  As he had not done so and as\t the<br \/>\nobjection  was\titself\tfiled more than 30  days  after\t the<br \/>\nservice\t of  notice on him, he was barred from\traising\t any<br \/>\nground for setting aside the award which fell under S. 30 of<br \/>\nthe Act.  The trial court also held that the objection could<br \/>\nnot  be treated as an application under s. 33 of the Act  in<br \/>\nview  of the fact that it was beyond 30 days as required  by<br \/>\nArt.  158 of the Limitation Act.  The trial court  therefore<br \/>\npassed a decree in terms of the award.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant then went in appeal to the High Court, and the<br \/>\nmain  question urged there was whether the  appellant  could<br \/>\nmaintain  his  objection  when\the had\tfailed\tto  make  an<br \/>\napplication  under  s. 33 of the Act for setting  aside\t the<br \/>\naward on grounds contained in the objection.  It seems\tthat<br \/>\nthere were other points. also before the High Court, but the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  held  that if the main  question  was  answered<br \/>\nagainst\t the appellant it would not be necessary to go\tinto<br \/>\nother points.  It seems therefore that other points were not<br \/>\npressed\t before the High Court.\t The High Court came to\t the<br \/>\nconclusion that the award could not be set aside on  grounds<br \/>\nwhich fell under s. 30 of the Act, except on an\t application<br \/>\nunder s. 33<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">149<\/span><br \/>\nof  the Act within thirty days of the service of  notice  of<br \/>\nfiling\tof  the\t award\tas  required  by  Art.\t158  of\t the<br \/>\nLimitation  Act.   The\tHigh Court  further  held  that\t the<br \/>\nobjection  of  the  appellant could not\t be  treated  as  an<br \/>\napplication  under  s.\t33, as, if it was  treated  as\tsuch<br \/>\napplication,  it  would be barred by time.  The\t High  Court<br \/>\ntherefore dismissed the appeal, but granted a certificate to<br \/>\nthe appellant to appeal to this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on the main.<br \/>\nquestion raised in the High Court.  We may add that  learned<br \/>\ncounsel wanted to raise other points which were not  pressed<br \/>\nbefore\tthe High Court, but we have not permitted him to  do<br \/>\nso.\n<\/p>\n<p>We  are of opinion that this appeal must fail.\tThe Act\t was<br \/>\npassed\tin 1940 and as the long title shows it is an Act  to<br \/>\nconsolidate  and  amend\t the law  relating  to\tarbitration.<br \/>\nBefore\t1940,  the law relating to  arbitration\t was  mainly<br \/>\ncontained  in  the  Second Schedule to\tthe  Code  of  Civil<br \/>\nProcedure,  which  was repealed by the Act which  is  now  a<br \/>\nself-contained\tcode  in  the matter  of  arbitration.\t The<br \/>\nscheme\tof  the\t Act is to  divide  arbitration\t into  three<br \/>\nclasses.    The\t first\tconsists  of   arbitration   without<br \/>\nintervention of a court and is contained in Chap. 11 of\t the<br \/>\nAct  which has 17 sections from s. 3 to s. 19.\t The  second<br \/>\nconsists  of arbitration with intervention of a court  where<br \/>\nthere is no suit pending, which is in Chap.  III of the Act,<br \/>\nand there is only one section (s. 20) therein, as sub-s. (5)<br \/>\nthereof applies the other provisions contained in the Act to<br \/>\nthis  type  of arbitration also so far as they can  be\tmade<br \/>\napplicable.   The third type of arbitration is contained  in<br \/>\nChap.\tIV,  namely,  arbitration in  suits.   This  chapter<br \/>\ncontains  5  sections, and s. 25 thereof applies  the  other<br \/>\nprovisions of the Act so far as they can be made applicable.<br \/>\nChapter\t  11  makes  various  provisions  with\trespect\t  to<br \/>\narbitrations of the first type.\t Reference may be made to  a<br \/>\nfew which are material for our purpose.\t Section 5 lays down<br \/>\nthat  the  authority of an appointed  arbitrator  or  umpire<br \/>\nshall  not be revocable except with the leave of the  court,<br \/>\nunless a contrary intention is expressed in the\t arbitration<br \/>\nagreement.   Section 8 gives power to court to.\t appoint  an<br \/>\narbitrator  or umpire in certain circumstances.\t Section  11<br \/>\ngives  power to court to remove an arbitrator or  umpire  in<br \/>\ncertain circumstances and s. 12 gives consequential power to<br \/>\ncourt  to appoint persons to fill vacancies which  may\thave<br \/>\narisen.\t  Section 13 provides for powers of the\t arbitrators<br \/>\nand  s.\t 14 provides for the award to be signed\t and  filed.<br \/>\nWhen the award is filed the court has to give no ice to\t the<br \/>\nparties of the filing of the award under s. 14(2).  Under s.<br \/>\n15,  the court is given power to modify or correct an  award<br \/>\nand  under  s.\t16  the\t court\tcan  remit  the\t award\t for<br \/>\nreconsideration.  Section 17 provides for judgment in  terms<br \/>\nof the award and reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\"> 150<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Where the court sees no cause to remit  award<br \/>\n\t      on any of the matters referred to\t arbitration<br \/>\n\t      for reconsideration or to set aside the award,<br \/>\n\t      the court shall, after the time for making  an<br \/>\n\t      application   to\tset  aside  the\t award\t has<br \/>\n\t      expired, or such application having been made,<br \/>\n\t      after   refusing\tit,  proceed  to   pronounce<br \/>\n\t      judgment according to the award, and upon\t the<br \/>\n\t      judgment\tso pronounced a decree shall  follow<br \/>\n\t      and  no  appeal  shall lie  from\tsuch  decree<br \/>\n\t      except on the ground that it is in excess\t of,<br \/>\n\t      or  not  otherwise  in  accordance  with,\t the<br \/>\n\t      award.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Section\t 19  gives  power  to the  court  to  supersede\t the<br \/>\narbitration agreement in certain circumstances.<br \/>\nThis  analysis\tof  the\t relevant  provisions  of  the\t Act<br \/>\ncontained  in  Chapter 11 which apply  mutates\tmutandis  to<br \/>\narbitrations of the other two types shows that the court has<br \/>\nto  pronounce  judgment in accordance with the award  if  it<br \/>\nsees  no  cause\t to remit the award or any  of\tthe  matters<br \/>\nreferred  to arbitration for reconsideration, or if it\tsees<br \/>\nno cause to set aside the award.  The court has to wait\t for<br \/>\nthe time given to a party to make an application for setting<br \/>\naside the award and where such an application has been\tmade<br \/>\nthe  court has to decide it first and if it rejects  it\t the<br \/>\ncourt proceeds to pronounce judgment according to the award.<br \/>\nIt is clear therefore from s. 17 that an application to\t set<br \/>\naside the award is contemplated therein and it is only\twhen<br \/>\nno such application has been made within the time allowed or<br \/>\nif such an application has been filed and has been  rejected<br \/>\nthat  the court proceeds to pronounce judgment in  terms  of<br \/>\nthe award.  The Act therefore contemplates the making of  an<br \/>\napplication  to set aside an award and the grounds on  which<br \/>\nsuch  an application can be made are to be found in  s.\t 30.<br \/>\nThe grounds on which an application can be made for  setting<br \/>\naside  the  award are-(a) that an arbitrator or\t umpire\t has<br \/>\nmisconducted  himself or the proceedings, (b) that an  award<br \/>\nhas  been  made\t after the issue of an order  by  the  court<br \/>\nsuperseding the arbitration or after arbitration proceedings<br \/>\nhave  be-come invalid under s. 35, or (c) that an award\t has<br \/>\nbeen improperly procured or is otherwise invalid.  These are<br \/>\nthe only grounds on which an award cat be set aside under s.<br \/>\n30 and it will be seen that if a party wants an award to  be<br \/>\nset  aside  on\tany  of these grounds  it  has\tto  make  an<br \/>\napplication.   Thus any party wishing to have an  award\t set<br \/>\naside  on  the\tground that it was  improperly\tprocured  or<br \/>\notherwise  invalid has to make an application.\tWe may\talso<br \/>\nrefer to s. 32 which lays down that &#8220;notwithstanding any law<br \/>\nfor the time being in force, no suit shall lie on any ground<br \/>\nwhatsoever  for\t a decision upon the  existence,  effect  or<br \/>\nvalidity  of an arbitration agreement or&#8217; award,  nor  shall<br \/>\nany  arbitration agreement or award be set  aside,  amended,<br \/>\nmodified  or in any way affected otherwise than as  provided<br \/>\nin this Act.&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">151<\/span><\/p>\n<p>It  is clear therefore from the scheme of the Act that it  a<br \/>\nparty  wants an award to be set aside on any of the  grounds<br \/>\nmentioned in S. 30 it must apply within 30 days of the\tdate<br \/>\nof  service of notice of filing of the award as provided  in<br \/>\nArt.  158 of the Limitation Act.  If no such application  is<br \/>\nmade  the  award cannot be set aside on any of\tthe  grounds<br \/>\nspecified  in  s. 30 of the Act.  It may  be  conceded\tthat<br \/>\nthere  is  no  special form prescribed for  making  such  an<br \/>\napplication  and in an appropriate case an objection of\t the<br \/>\ntype   made  in\t this  case  may  be  treated  as  such\t  an<br \/>\napplication, if it is filed within the period of limitation.<br \/>\nBut  if\t an  objection like this has been  filed  after\t the<br \/>\nperiod of limitation it cannot be treated as an\t application<br \/>\nto  set aside the award, for if it is so treated it will  be<br \/>\nbarred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is not in dispute in the present case that the objections<br \/>\nraised\tby the appellant were covered by S. 30 of  the\tAct,<br \/>\nand though the appellant did not pray for setting aside\t the<br \/>\naward  in his objection that was what he really\t wanted\t the<br \/>\ncourt to do after hearing his objection.  As in the  present<br \/>\ncase  the  objection was filed more than 30 days  after\t the<br \/>\nnotice it could not be treated as an application for setting<br \/>\nthe  award, for it would then be barred by  limitation.\t The<br \/>\nposition  thus\tis  that in the present case  there  was  no<br \/>\napplication  to set aside the award as grounds mentioned  in<br \/>\nS.  30\twithin the period of limitation\t and  therefore\t the<br \/>\ncourt could not set aside the award on those grounds.  There<br \/>\ncan be no doubt on the scheme of the Act that any  objection<br \/>\neven in the nature of a written-statement which falls  under<br \/>\ns.  30\tcannot\tbe considered by the court  unless  such  an<br \/>\nobjection  is made within the period of limitation  (namely,<br \/>\n30  days),  though  if\tsuch an\t objection  is\tmade  within<br \/>\nlimitation  that  objection  may  in  appropriate  cases  be<br \/>\ntreated as an application for setting aside the award.<br \/>\nLearned\t counsel for the appellant however urges that S.  17<br \/>\ngives  power  to the court to set aside the award  and\tthat<br \/>\nsuch  power can be exercised even where an objection in\t the<br \/>\nform of a written statement has been made more than 30\tdays<br \/>\nafter  the service of the notice of the filing of the  award<br \/>\nas the court can do so suo motu.He relies in this connection<br \/>\non Hastimal Dalichand Bora v. Hiralal Motichand Mutha(1) and<br \/>\nSaha  &amp; Co. v. Ishar Singh Kripal Singh (2).  Assuming\tthat<br \/>\nthe court has power to set aside the award suo motu, we\t are<br \/>\nof  opinion that power cannot be exercised to set  aside  an<br \/>\naward on grounds which fall under s. 30 of the Act, if taken<br \/>\nin  an\tobjection  petition filed more than  30\t days  after<br \/>\nservice\t of notice of filing of the award, for if that\twere<br \/>\nso the limitation provided under Art. 158 of the  Limitation<br \/>\nAct  would be completely negatived. The two cases  on  which<br \/>\nthe  appellant relies do not in our opinion support him.  In<br \/>\nHastimars case(1) it was<br \/>\n(1) A.I.R. 1954 Bom. 243.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) A.I.R. 1956 Cal. 321.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">152<\/span><\/p>\n<p>observed  that\t&#8220;if the award directs a party to do  an\t act<br \/>\nwhich  is prohibited by law or if it is\t otherwise  patently<br \/>\nillegal\t or void it would be open to the court\tto  consider<br \/>\nthis patent defect in the award suo motu, and when the court<br \/>\nacts  suo motu no question of limitation prescribed by\tArt.<br \/>\n158 can arise&#8221;.\t These observations only show that the court<br \/>\ncan act suo motu in certain circumstances which do not\tfall<br \/>\nwithin s. 30 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Saha  &amp;\t Co.&#8217;s case(1) was a decision of five  Judges  by  a<br \/>\nmajority  of 3 : 2 and the majority judgment is against\t the<br \/>\nappellant.   The minority judgment certainly takes the\tview<br \/>\nthat  the  non-existence  or invalidity\t of  an\t arbitration<br \/>\nagreement  and an order of reference to arbitration  may  be<br \/>\nraised\tafter  the period of limitation for the\t purpose  of<br \/>\nsetting\t aside\tan award because they are  not\tgrounds\t for<br \/>\nsetting aside the award under s. 30.  It is not necessary in<br \/>\nthe  present  case  to\tresolve\t the  conflict\tbetween\t the<br \/>\nmajority  and the minority Judges in Saha &amp;  Co.&#8217;s  case(1),<br \/>\nfor  even the minority judgment shows that it is only  where<br \/>\nthe  grounds  are not those falling within s. 30,  that\t the<br \/>\naward  may  be\tset aside on an objection  made\t beyond\t the<br \/>\nperiod\tof limitation, even though no application  has\tbeen<br \/>\nmade  for  setting  aside the award  within  the  period  of<br \/>\nlimitation.  Clearly therefore where an objection as in\t the<br \/>\npresent case raises grounds which fall squarely within s. 30<br \/>\nof  the Act that objection cannot be heard by the court\t and<br \/>\ncannot\tbe treated as an application for setting  aside\t the<br \/>\naward  unless  it is made within the period  of\t limitation.<br \/>\nThe  Saha &amp; Co.&#8217;s case(-&#8216;) therefore also does not help\t the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned\t counsel for the appellant also relies on Mohan\t Das<br \/>\nv.  Kessumal(2).  In that case the objection which was\tmade<br \/>\nmore  than 30 days after the service of notice was that\t the<br \/>\naward  had  been  filed by a person not\t authorised  by\t the<br \/>\narbitrator to do so.  The court held that such an  objection<br \/>\ndid not fall within s. 30 of the Act and therefore Art.\t 158<br \/>\nof  the\t Limitation Act did not apply.\tOn these  facts\t the<br \/>\ndecision in that case may be right.  But-the court seems  to<br \/>\nhave  made a general observation that Art. 158 cannot  apply<br \/>\nto  a  written-statement  by  a defendant  in  reply  to  an<br \/>\napplication to have the award made a rule of the court.\t  If<br \/>\nby  ,that general observation the court means that  even  if<br \/>\nthe  objection is of the nature falling within s. 30 and  is<br \/>\nfiled more than 3O days after service of notice, it would be<br \/>\nopen to the court to set aside the award on such  objection,<br \/>\nwe are of the opinion that the view is incorrect.<br \/>\nIn the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed\twith<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>R. K. P. S.\n<\/p>\n<p>(1) A.I.R. 1956 Cal. 321.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) A.I.R. 1955 Aim. 47<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">153<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Madan Lal vs Sunderlal &amp; Another on 9 March, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1233, 1967 SCR (3) 147 Author: K Wanchoo Bench: Wanchoo, K.N. PETITIONER: MADAN LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: SUNDERLAL &amp; ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/03\/1967 BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BACHAWAT, R.S. RAMASWAMI, V. CITATION: 1967 AIR 1233 [&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-115757","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>Madan Lal vs Sunderlal &amp; Another on 9 March, 1967 - 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\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madan Lal vs Sunderlal &amp; Another on 9 March, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967\" \/>\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=\"1967-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-27T17:46:21+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madan Lal vs Sunderlal &amp; Another on 9 March, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-27T17:46:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967\"},\"wordCount\":2650,\"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\\\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967\",\"name\":\"Madan Lal vs Sunderlal &amp; Another on 9 March, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-27T17:46:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madan Lal vs Sunderlal &amp; Another on 9 March, 1967\"}]},{\"@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":"Madan Lal vs Sunderlal &amp; Another on 9 March, 1967 - 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\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madan Lal vs Sunderlal &amp; Another on 9 March, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-27T17:46:21+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madan Lal vs Sunderlal &amp; Another on 9 March, 1967","datePublished":"1967-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-27T17:46:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967"},"wordCount":2650,"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\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967","name":"Madan Lal vs Sunderlal &amp; Another on 9 March, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-27T17:46:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-vs-sunderlal-another-on-9-march-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madan Lal vs Sunderlal &amp; Another on 9 March, 1967"}]},{"@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\/115757","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=115757"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115757\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115757"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115757"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115757"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}