{"id":116632,"date":"2011-07-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011"},"modified":"2017-01-27T01:42:43","modified_gmt":"2017-01-26T20:12:43","slug":"most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Most.Bhagwati &amp; Ors vs Kodan Choudhary &amp; Ors on 15 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Most.Bhagwati &amp; Ors vs Kodan Choudhary &amp; Ors on 15 July, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>           APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DECREE NO. 174 OF 1991\n\n           Against the judgment and decree dated 14.8.1991            and\n           22.8.1991<\/pre>\n<p> respectively passed by 6th Additional District Judge,<br \/>\n           Palamau at Daltonganj in T.A. No. 32 of 1989 arising out of<br \/>\n           judgment and decree dated 22.5.1989 9.6. 1989 respectively<br \/>\n           passed by Sub Judge -III, Daltonganj in Partition Suit No. 9 of<br \/>\n           1985.\n<\/p>\n<pre>           Mosomat Phulmani &amp; others                .......Appellants\n\n                            Vs.\n           Kodan Choudhary and others         ...   .....Respondents\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>           For the Appellants : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate<br \/>\n           For the Respondents : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Bhaiya Bishwajeet Kumar<\/p>\n<p>                           PRESENT<br \/>\n                  HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR<\/p>\n<p>     C.A.V. ON 22.06.2011                    DELIVERED ON 15            \/07\/2011<\/p>\n<p>Prashant Kumar,J:       This appeal is directed against the judgment dated<br \/>\n     14.8.1991 passed by 6th Additional District Judge, Palamau at<br \/>\n     Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 32 of 1989 whereby he reversed the<br \/>\n     judgment of Sub Judge-III , Daltonganj dated 22.5.1989 in partition suit<br \/>\n     no. 9 of 1985 whereby Sub Judge was pleased to dismiss the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.         The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief is that Gokhul Noniya<br \/>\n     has two sons and two daughters, namely, Deoki Nonia, Laljee Nonia,<br \/>\n     Gauri Devi and Muner Devi. It is further stated that plaintiff\/respondent<br \/>\n     no. 1 is the son of Deoki Nonia, whereas defendants are descendants<br \/>\n     of Laljee Nonia. It is stated that after the death of Gokhul Nonia some<br \/>\n     time in the year 1930, his estate devolve in between Deoki Nonia and<br \/>\n     Laljee Nonia. Thus Deoki Nonia and Laljee Nonia were entitled to get<br \/>\n     half share in the property of Gokhul Noniya. It is stated that Deoki<br \/>\n     Nonia died leaving behind plaintiff and defendnat no. 17 to 24.<br \/>\n     However, aforesaid defendants 17 to 24 had relinquished their share in<br \/>\n     favour of plaintiff, thus the plaintiff become the sole owner of the half<br \/>\n     share of properties devolve by succession in Deoki Nonia. Accordingly,<br \/>\n     present suit filed for partition claiming half share in the said properties<br \/>\n     details of which given in schedule A to the plaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.         It appears that the defendant 1,2,3,5,6, and 11 to 16 had filed<br \/>\n     joint written statement and it is stated that Deoki Nonia is not the son<br \/>\n     of Gokhul Noniya rather he is son of Ramsunder Nonia of Village<br \/>\n     Khamdhi P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamau. Accordingly, it is stated<br \/>\n     that after the death of Gokhul Noniya in the year 1936 his widow Jaso<br \/>\n     Kuer and only son Laljee Nonia inherited his property. It is wrong to<br \/>\n     say that Gokhul Nonia died in the year 1930 in the State of jointness<br \/>\n     with Deoki Nonia. Accordingly, it is pleaded by the contesting<br \/>\n     defendants that Deoki Nonia and his dependents, namely<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  -2-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     plaintiff and defendant no. 17 to 24 are not entitled to get any share in<br \/>\n     the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.         The record shows that defendant no. 17 to 24            also filed a<br \/>\n     written statement and they supported the case of plaintiff\/respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.         It then appears that in the trial court, both the parties adduced<br \/>\n     oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. The trial court<br \/>\n     ( Sub Judge-III, Daltonganj) vide its judgment dated 22.5.1989<br \/>\n     dismissed     the    suit     on   contest    with    cost.    Thereafter<br \/>\n     plaintiff\/respondent filed appeal i.e. Title Appeal No. 32 of 1989 and<br \/>\n     the same was allowed by the impugned judgment. Against that the<br \/>\n     present appeal filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.         It appears that vide order dated 24.7.1992 this appeal admitted<br \/>\n     on the following substantial question of law :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>           A. Whether the learned lower appellate court could have<br \/>\n           reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court<br \/>\n           without assigning its own reason ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           B. Whether the learned lower appellate court erred in deciding<br \/>\n           the question of relationship without considering the evidence in<br \/>\n           the light of section 50 of the Evidence Act?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>7.         It is submitted by Sri Manjul Prasad, learned Senior Advocate<br \/>\n     appearing for the appellant, that learned trial court had not assigned<br \/>\n     any reason as to why it reversed the finding of trial court. It is<br \/>\n     submitted that the trial court had given good reason for not accepting<br \/>\n     the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, but the appellate<br \/>\n     court without assigning any reason had accepted said documents.<br \/>\n     Therefore the learned appellate court had committed serious illegality<br \/>\n     by reversing the Judgment of the trial court. It is further submitted that<br \/>\n     the learned appellate court had not appreciated evidences in the light<br \/>\n     of section 50 of the Evidence Act. Accordingly it is submitted that the<br \/>\n     impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.         On the other hand, Sri Bhaiya Bishwajeet Kumar appearing for<br \/>\n     the plaintiff\/respondent submits that the learned appellate court<br \/>\n     considered oral evidence adduced by the party in the light of provision<br \/>\n     contained under section 50 of the Evidence Act, which manifest from<br \/>\n     the finding of appellate court at paragraph no. 10 to 14. It is submitted<br \/>\n     that in the aforesaid paragraphs, learned appellate court had given its<br \/>\n     own reason for accepting the evidence adduced on behalf of<br \/>\n     plaintiff\/respondent and on thorough discussion came to the conclusion<br \/>\n     that the finding of the trial court that Deoki Nonia was not the son of<br \/>\n     Gokhul Noniya is not sustainable. It is submitted that the appellants, in<br \/>\n     the garb of aforesaid substantial questions of law, want that this court<br \/>\n     will re-appreciate the evidence, which is beyond the scope of Second<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      -3-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      Appeal. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present Second Appeal is<br \/>\n      liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.          Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>      From perusal of impugned judgment, I find that the learned appellate<br \/>\n      court at paragraph no. 10 of the judgment had stated that since the<br \/>\n      question to be decided in this appeal is whether Deoki Nonia,( father<br \/>\n      of plaintiff\/appellant), was the son of recorded tenant Gokhul Noniya<br \/>\n      and as there is no direct oral evidence to prove aforesaid relationship,<br \/>\n      it is incumbent upon the court to form an opinion regarding the<br \/>\n      relationship as per the provision contained under section 50 of the<br \/>\n      Evidence Act. It appears that the learned appellate court had discussed<br \/>\n      the scope of the provision contained under section 50 of the Evidence<br \/>\n      Act and   proceeded to consider the evidence adduced on        behalf of<br \/>\n      parties in that regard. It further appears that learned appellate court<br \/>\n      after discussing the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 7 had<br \/>\n      given a finding that they had special knowledge about the relationship<br \/>\n      of Gokhul Noniya with Deoki Nonia, accordingly the learned appellate<br \/>\n      court below came to the conclusion at the end of paragraph no. 11 of<br \/>\n      its judgment that the oral evidence of aforesaid witnesses is relevant<br \/>\n      to prove the relationship of Deoki Nonia with Gokhul Nonia under<br \/>\n      section 50 and 60 of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.         From perusal of paragraph no. 12 of the impugned judgment, I<br \/>\n      find that the learned court below considered documentary evidence<br \/>\n      adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and after examining Exts.- 3,4,5,6,<br \/>\n      and 7 held that all the documents show that Deoki Nonia and Laljee<br \/>\n      Nonia are sons of Gokhul Noniya. At paragraph no. 13 of the impugned<br \/>\n      judgment, the learned court below      considered the oral evidence of<br \/>\n      D.W. 1, D.W. 2, D.W. 3, D.W. 4, 5,6,7,8,9, and 12 and concluded that<br \/>\n      their evidences with regard to relationship of Deoki Nonia with Gokhul<br \/>\n      Nonia are not in consonance with section 50 of the Evidence Act. The<br \/>\n      learned court below had given finding that D.W. 2 in para 30 of his<br \/>\n      cross examination admitted that Deoki Nonia and Laljee Nonia were<br \/>\n      brothers. So far D.W. 3 is concerned, appellate court said that this<br \/>\n      witness have no special means of knowledge with regard to<br \/>\n      relationship of Deoki with Gokhul. The appellate court below further<br \/>\n      held that D.W. 4 not stated anything about the relationship of Deoki<br \/>\n      with Gokhul. So far D.W. 5 is concerned, the appellate court below<br \/>\n      again come to the conclusion that         this witness had no special<br \/>\n      knowledge about the family of Gokhul Noniya. So far D.W. 6 and 7 are<br \/>\n      concerned, it is stated that they are hear say witnesses. It is stated by<br \/>\n      learned appellate court that D.W. 8 has not stated anything about the<br \/>\n      special means of knowledge regarding the relationship of Deoki with<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      Gokhul. So far D.W. 9 is concerned, it is stated that at paragraph no. 5,<br \/>\n      she stated that after the death of Gokhul Noniya, Deoki Nonia<br \/>\n      performed last rituals. Thus she admitted that Deoki is son of Gokhul.<br \/>\n      D.W. 12 had accepted at paragraph 21 that he has no personal<br \/>\n      knowledge that the Deoki was the son of Sunder. D.W. 13 is defendant<br \/>\n      no. 16 himself.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.         From paragraph no. 14 of the judgment, I find               that learned<br \/>\n      appellate court had considered the documentary evidence adduced by<br \/>\n      the defendants and after considering the same had given a definite<br \/>\n      finding that the said documents          are not relevant for deciding the<br \/>\n      parentage of Deoki Nonia.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.         Thus from perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the<br \/>\n      learned appellate court below thoroughly discussed evidence, keeping<br \/>\n      in view section 50 of the Evidence Act. I also meticulously examined<br \/>\n      oral and documentary evidences adduced by both the parties and<br \/>\n      found that the reason given by the appellate court below are correct<br \/>\n      and does not require any interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.         The documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff\/respondent<br \/>\n      no. 1 are public documents and the same were exhibited without any<br \/>\n      objection. Under the Evidence Act, there is a presumption of<br \/>\n      genuineness of public document unless the same is proved otherwise.<br \/>\n      In the instant case defendants\/appellants had not adduced any<br \/>\n      evidence to show that Ext.- 3,4,5,6 and 7 are forged and fabricated<br \/>\n      documents. The learned trial court ( Sub Judge -III, Daltonganj) had<br \/>\n      rejected the said documents on irrelevant ground. Ext.-III is certified<br \/>\n      copy of Register-II which was prepared by the government officials as<br \/>\n      per provisions contained under section 3 of Bihar Tenant&#8217;s Holdings<br \/>\n      ( Maintenance of Records), Act. As per the aforesaid provision, Circle<br \/>\n      Officer prepares Register -II on the basis of name of raiyats find place<br \/>\n      in survey khatiyan. There is provision in the aforesaid Act for raising<br \/>\n      objection against the wrong entry, but in the instant case, there is<br \/>\n      nothing   on      record    to   show    that   any   objection    raised   by<br \/>\n      defendant\/appellant. Under the said circumstance, finding of learned<br \/>\n      trial court appears to be misconceived. Ext. &#8211; 4 &amp; 5 were discarded by<br \/>\n      the trial court by saying that the same were prepared on the basis of<br \/>\n      information given by Deoki Nonia. Defendants brought no evidence to<br \/>\n      impeach   Ext.-4&amp;5.        It is wroth   mentioning that in a mutation<br \/>\n      proceeding, father of defendants\/appellants admitted that Deoki Nonia<br \/>\n      is son of Gokhul Nonia. Ext.-6 is the certified copy of that mutation<br \/>\n      proceeding, but      learned trial court refused to accept the same by<br \/>\n      saying that it is not clear who admitted aforesaid fact. Since the case is<br \/>\n      in between Laljee Nonia and plaintiff, therefore, it is presumed that the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         -5-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      same was admitted by the parties of that case. Thus the aforesaid<br \/>\n      finding of learned trial court also appears to be incorrect. The learned<br \/>\n      trial court had rejected Ext-7, certified copy of Khas Mahal Continous<br \/>\n      Khatiyan, by saying that there is no correction in the Ext-G filed by the<br \/>\n      defendants. In this respect, it is worth mentioning that Ext.-7 and Ext.-<br \/>\n      G are certified copies of Khatiyan of different villages. Ext.-G relates<br \/>\n      to village-Tawar, whereas Ext.-7 relates to village-Rajderba. Thus,<br \/>\n      aforesaid findings given by learned trial court are without application<br \/>\n      of mind.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.           Under the said circumstance, I find that in fact trial court had not<br \/>\n      appreciated evidence correctly. I further find that learned appellate<br \/>\n      court   after re-appreciating the evidence had rightly concluded that<br \/>\n      Deoki Nonia was the son of Gokhul Nonia.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.           I find that learned appellate court    assigned sound and valid<br \/>\n      reasons for reversing the judgment and decree of the learned court<br \/>\n      below. I further find that the learned lower appellate court decided the<br \/>\n      question of relationship after appreciating the evidence in the light of<br \/>\n      section 50 of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.           In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this<br \/>\n      appeal, the same is dismissed. However parties shall bear their own<br \/>\n      cost.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                      ( Prashant Kumar,J.)<\/p>\n<p>      Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi<br \/>\n      Dated 15 \/07\/2011<br \/>\n      Sharda\/NAFR\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Most.Bhagwati &amp; Ors vs Kodan Choudhary &amp; Ors on 15 July, 2011 APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DECREE NO. 174 OF 1991 Against the judgment and decree dated 14.8.1991 and 22.8.1991 respectively passed by 6th Additional District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in T.A. No. 32 of 1989 arising out of judgment and decree [&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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-116632","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Most.Bhagwati &amp; Ors vs Kodan Choudhary &amp; Ors on 15 July, 2011 - 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\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Most.Bhagwati &amp; Ors vs Kodan Choudhary &amp; Ors on 15 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-26T20:12:43+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\\\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Most.Bhagwati &amp; Ors vs Kodan Choudhary &amp; Ors on 15 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-26T20:12:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1958,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Most.Bhagwati &amp; Ors vs Kodan Choudhary &amp; Ors on 15 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-26T20:12:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Most.Bhagwati &amp; Ors vs Kodan Choudhary &amp; Ors on 15 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Most.Bhagwati &amp; Ors vs Kodan Choudhary &amp; Ors on 15 July, 2011 - 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\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Most.Bhagwati &amp; Ors vs Kodan Choudhary &amp; Ors on 15 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-26T20:12:43+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\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Most.Bhagwati &amp; Ors vs Kodan Choudhary &amp; Ors on 15 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-26T20:12:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011"},"wordCount":1958,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011","name":"Most.Bhagwati &amp; Ors vs Kodan Choudhary &amp; Ors on 15 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-26T20:12:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/most-bhagwati-ors-vs-kodan-choudhary-ors-on-15-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Most.Bhagwati &amp; Ors vs Kodan Choudhary &amp; Ors on 15 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/116632","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=116632"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116632\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=116632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=116632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=116632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}