{"id":120128,"date":"1998-03-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-03-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998"},"modified":"2016-06-19T09:07:17","modified_gmt":"2016-06-19T03:37:17","slug":"amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998","title":{"rendered":"Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: Srinivasan<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T.Thomas, M. Srinivasan<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nAMRIT LAL SOOD & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSMT. KAUSHALYA DEVI THAPAR & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t17\/03\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nK.T.THOMAS, M. SRINIVASAN\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nSRINIVASAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
     On August\t25, 1970  the fiat  car owned  by the second
\nappellant collided  with a  goods  carrier  on\tShimla-Kalka
\nNational Highway  near Kandaghat  Post office.\tThe car\t was
\nbeing driven by the first appellant, a brother of the Second
\nappellant. The\tcar was\t insured with  the fifth respondent.
\nKishan Sarup  Thapar, an  advocate  of\tChandigarh  who\t was
\ntravelling in  the car\tgot injured and was hospitalised for
\nsome  time.   He  approached   the  Motor  Accidents  claims
\nTribunal, Solan\t and Srimur  Districts claiming compensation
\nof Rs.\t1,25,000\/-. The\t owners\t and  drivers  of  both\t the
\nvehicles as  well as the insurers were impleaded as parties.
\nThe  Tribunal  found  that  the\t accident  occurred  due  to
\nnegligence of  the driver of the car and passed an award for
\nRs. 15,800\/- against the appellants and the fifth respondent
\nherein. The  claimant filed  an appeal\tin  the\t High  Court
\nclaiming  more\t compensation\twhile\tthe   insurer\t(5th
\nrespondent), filed  an appeal  disputing  its  liability  to
\nsatisfy the  claim. The\t claimant’s appeal  was allowed by a
\nlearned judge  in part\tand the compensation was enhanced to
\nRs. 20,800\/-. The learned judge held that the claimant was a
\ngratuitous passenger  travelling in  the car and the insurer
\nwas therefore not liable.\n<\/p>\n
2.   That  judgment  was  assailed  in\ttwo  Letters  Patent
\nAppeals, one  by the  legal representatives  of the Claimant
\nand another  by\t  the driver of the vehicle who is the first
\nappellant  herein.  A  Division\t Bench\tof  the\t High  Court
\ndismissed the  appeal filed  by the 1st appellant confirming
\nthe view  of the single judge that the insurer is not liable
\nas the\tclaimant was only a passenger in the vehicle. In the
\nother appeal,  the Bench  enhanced the\tcompensation to\t Rs.
\n56,600\/-. The driver and the owner of the car have preferred
\nthese appeals on special leave.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The question  to be  decided is whether the insurer, is
\nliable to  satisfy the\tclaim for  compensation made  by the
\nperson travelling  gratuitously\t in  the  car.\tthe  factual
\nfindings are not in dispute before us but for the contention
\nof the appellants that the amount of compensation awarded by
\nthe Division  Bench is\texcessive. We  have no difficulty in
\nrepelling that contention as we find the materials on record
\nto be  sufficient  to  support\tthe  award  of\tenhanced  by
\nsufficient to support the award of enhanced compensation.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The liability  of the  insurer in\tthis case depends on
\nthe terms  of the  contract  between  the  insured  and\t the
\ninsurer as  evident from the policy. Section 94 of the Motor
\nVehicles Act,  1936 compels  the owner of a motor vehicle to
\ninsure the  vehicle in\tcompliance with\t the requirements of
\nChapter Viii of the Act. Section 95 of the Act provides that
\na policy  of insurance\tmust be one which insures the person
\nagainst any  liability which  may  be  incurred\t by  him  in
\nrespect of death or bodily injury to any person or damage to
\nany property  of third party caused by or arising out of the
\nuse of\tthe vehicle  in a public place. The section does not
\nhowever require a policy to cover the risk to passengers who
\nare not\t carried for hire or reward. The statutory insurance
\ndoes not  cover injury\tsuffered by occupants of the vehicle
\nwho are\t not carried  for hire\tor reward  and\tthe  insurer
\ncannot be  held liable\tunder the  Act. But  that  does\t not
\nprevent\t an   insurer  from  entering  into  a\tcontract  of
\ninsurance covering a risk wider than the minimum requirement
\nof the\tstatute whereby\t the risk  to gratuitous  passengers
\ncould also be covered. In such cases where the policy is not
\nmerely a  statutory policy,  the terms of the policy have to
\nbe considered to determine the liability of the insurer.\n<\/p>\n
5. In  the present  case,  the\tpolicy\tis  admittedly\ta  ‘
\ncomprehensive Policy’.\tcomprehensive  insurance’  has\tbeen
\ndefined in  Black’s Law\t Dictionary 5th edition as ‘All risk
\ninsurance’ which in turn is defined as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     ” Type  of insurance  policy  which
\n     ordinarily covers\tevery loss  that
\n     may happen,  except  by  fraudulent
\n     acts  of  the  insured.  Miller  v.
\n     Boston Ins. Co. 218 A. 2d 275, 278,
\n     420 Pa.  566. Type\t of policy which
\n     protects  against\t all  risks  and
\n     perils  except  those  specifically
\n     enumerated.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.   The relevant  clauses in the policy before us are found
\nin ‘SECTION – II LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES’. They are:-\n<\/p>\n
     “1. The  Company will indemnify the
\n     Insured in\t the event  of\taccident
\n     caused by or arising out of the use
\n     of the  Motor Car\tagainst all sums
\n     including\tclaimant’s   costa   and
\n     expenses which  the  Insured  shall
\n     become legally  liable  to\t pay  in
\n     respect of\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) death\tof or  bodily injury  to
\n     any person\t but except so far as is
\n     necessary to  meet the requirements
\n     of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles
\n     Act, 1939, the Company shall not be
\n     liable where  such death  or injury
\n     arises out\t of and in the course of
\n     the employment  of such  person  by
\n     the insured.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) damage\t to property  other than
\n     property belonging\t to the\t Insured
\n     or held  in  trust\t by  or\t in  the
\n     custody or control of the insured.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t  The Company will pay all costs
\n     and  expenses   incurred  with  its
\n     written consent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t  In terms  of\tand  subject  to
\n     the limitations  of  the  indemnity
\n     which is  granted by this Section b
\n     to the  insured  the  Company  will
\n     indemnify and Driver who is driving
\n     the Motor\tCar on the insured order
\n     or\t with  his  permission\tprovided
\n     that such Driver\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) is not entitled indemnity under
\n     any other Policy\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) shall\tas though  he  were  the
\n     Insured  observe\tfulfil\tand   be
\n     subject  to  the  terms  exceptions
\n     conditions and  limitations of this
\n     policy  in\t  so  far  as  they  can
\n     apply.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.   Under the\theading\t General  Exceptions  the  company’s
\nliability is  excluded inter alia in respect of any accident
\noccurred whilst\t the car  is being  used otherwise  than  in
\naccordance with the limitations as to use or bring driven by
\nany person  other than\ta Driver.  The Limitations as to use
\nset out in the policy are not relevant in this case as it is
\nnot the\t case of  the insurer  that  there  is\ta  violation
\nthereof. The  term ‘Driver’  is\t expressly  defined  in\t the
\npolicy as any of the following:\n<\/p>\n
     ” (a) Any person,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) The  insured may  also drive  a
\n     Motor car belonging to him\t and not
\n     hired to  him under a Hire Purchase
\n     Agreement. Provided that the person
\n     driving hold  is a licence to drive
\n     the Motor\tcar or\thas held  and is
\n     not  disqualified\tfor  holding  or
\n     obtaining such a licence”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.   Thus under\t Section 11  1(a) of  the policy the insurer
\nhas agreed  to indemnify  the insured against all sums which
\nthe insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of
\ndeath of  or bodily  injury to\tany person.’  The expression
\n‘any person’  would undoubtedly\t include an  occupant of the
\ncar who\t is gratuitously traveling in the car. The remaining
\npar of\tclause (a)  relates to\tcases  of  death  or  injury
\narising out  of and  in the  course of\temployment  of\tsuch
\nperson by  the insured.\t In such  cases the liability of the
\ninsurer\t is  only  to  the  extent  necessary  to  meet\t the
\nrequirements of\t Section  95  of  the  Act.  In\t so  far  as
\ngratuitous passengers  are concerned  there is no limitation
\nin the\tpolicy as such. Hence under the terms of the policy,
\nthe insurer  is liable to satisfy the award passed in favour
\nof the\tclaimant. We  are unable  to  agree  with  the\tview
\nexpressed by the High Court in this case as the terms of the
\npolicy are unambiguous.\n<\/p>\n
9.   Learned  counsel\tof  the\t appellants  has  drawn\t our
\nattention  to  the  following  judgments  in  which  similar
\nclauses in  insurance policy  have  been  considered  and  a
\nsimilar view has been expressed:\n<\/p>\n
(i) Madras  Motor and  General\tInsurance  Co.\tLtd.  Versus
\nKatanreddi Subbareddy and others 1975 A.C.J. 95,\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The  premier  Insurance  Co.  Ltd.\t and  others  Versus
\nGambhirsing Galabsing and others AIR 1975 Gujarat 133,\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Prabhudayal  Agarwal versus  Saraswati Bai and another
\n1975 A.C.J.  355, We  approve of  the reasoning in the above
\njudgments.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The High  Court has  placed reliance on the judgment of
\nthis court in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors. Versus M\/S.
\nRanjit Ginning\t& Pressing  Co. (p)  Ltd. &  Anr.  (1977)  2
\nS.C.C. 745. That judgment was based upon the relevant clause
\nin the\tinsurance policy  in that  case which restricted the
\nlegal liability\t of the insurer to the statutory requirement
\nunder Section  95 of  Motor vehicles Act. That decision will
\nhave no\t bearing in the present case in as much as the terms
\nof the\tpolicy here  are wide  enough to  cover a gratuitous
\noccupant of the vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Our attention  has also  been drawn  to the judgment of
\nthis court in National Insurance. Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus
\nJugal Kishore  and others  AIR 1988  S.C. 719. It is held in
\nthat case that though it is not permissible to use a vehicle
\nunless it is covered at least under an “act only” policy, it
\nis not\tobligatory for\tthe owner  of a\t vehicle to  get  it
\ncomprehensively insured,  but it  is open  to the insurer to
\ntake a policy covering a higher risk.\n<\/p>\n
12.  Learned counsel  for the appellants has placed reliance
\non the\tJudgment in  New Asiatic  Insurance Co.\t Ltd. Versus
\nPessumal Dhanamal  Aswani and  Ors. 1964  (7) S.C.R.  867 in
\nsupport of  the claim  of the first appellant. In that case,
\nthe insurer  permitted another\tperson to  drive his car and
\nwhile the  said person\twas driving  the car, it met with an
\naccident. The driver of the car faced an action for damages.
\nThe question  was whether  the insurance policy would enable
\nthe said  driver  to  claim  indemnity\tfrom  the  insurance
\ncompany. On  a consideration of the terms of the policy, the
\ncourt held  that the  company would  be liable\tto indemnify
\nhim. In the course of the judgment, the court said:\n<\/p>\n
     ”\t The\tAct   contemplates   the
\n     possibility  of   the   policy   of
\n     insurance undertaking  liability to
\n     third  parties   providing\t such  a
\n     contract between  the  insurer  and
\n     insured, that  is, the  person  who
\n     effected the  policy, as would make
\n     the company entitled to recover the
\n     whole or  part of the amount it has
\n     paid to  the third\t party from  the
\n     insured. The  insurer thus\t acts as
\n     security for  the third  party with
\n     respect to\t its  realising\t damages
\n     for the  injuries suffered, but vis
\n     a vis the insured, the company does
\n     not  undertake  that  liability  or
\n     undertakes it  to a limited extent.
\n     It is in view of such a possibility
\n     that various  conditions  are  laid
\n     down   in\t  the\t policy.    Such
\n     conditions, however,  are effective
\n     only between  the insured\tand  the
\n     company, and  have\t to  be\t ignored
\n     when considering  the liability  of
\n     the company  to third parties. this
\n     is\t mentioned  prominently\t in  the
\n     policy  itself   and  is  mentioned
\n     under  the\t heading  ‘Avoidance  of
\n     certain   terms   and   rights   of
\n     recover’, as well as in the form of
\n     ‘An  Important   Notice’\tin   the
\n     schedule\tto   the   policy.   the
\n     avoidance clause  says that nothing
\n     in the  policy or\tany  endorsement
\n     there an  shall affect the right of
\n     any  person   indemnified\tby   the
\n     policy   or    any\t  other\t  person
\n     indemnified by  the policy\t or  any
\n     other person  to recover  an amount
\n     under   or\t  by   virtue\tof   the
\n     provisions\t of  the  Act.\tIt  also
\n     provides  that   the  insured  will
\n     repay to  the company all sums paid
\n     by it  which the  company would not
\n     have been liable to pay but for the
\n     said provisions  of  the  Act.  The
\n     ‘Important\t Notice’  mentions  that
\n     any payment  made by the company by
\n     reason of\twider terms appearing in
\n     the  by   reason  of   wider  terms
\n     appearing\tin  the\t certificate  in
\n     order to  comply with  the\t Act  is
\n     recoverable from  the insured,  and
\n     refers to t he avoidance clause.
\n     Thus  the\t contract  between   the
\n     insured and  t he\tcompany may  not
\n     provide for  all  take  liabilities
\n     which the\tcompany has to undertake
\n     vis a  vis the  third  parties,  in
\n     view of  the provisions of the Act.
\n     We are  of opinion\t that  once  the
\n     company had undertaken liability to
\n     third  parties   incurred\tby   the
\n     persons specified\tin  the\t policy,
\n     the third parties’ right to recover
\n     any amount\t under or  by virtue  of
\n     the provisions  of the  Act is  not
\n     affected by  any condition\t in  the
\n     policy. Considering  this aspect of
\n     the terms\tof  the\t policy,  it  is
\n     reasonable to conclude that proviso\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) of  para 3  of Section\t it is a
\n     mere condition affecting the rights
\n     of the  insured  who  effected  the
\n     policy and\t the persons to whom the
\n     cover of the policy was extended by
\n     the company,  and does  not come in
\n     the  way  of  third  parties  claim
\n     against the  company on  account of
\n     its   claim    against   a\t  person
\n     specified in  para 3 as one to whom
\n     cover of the policy was extended”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.  In the  policy in\tthe present  case also,\t there is  a
\nclause under  the heading:\n<\/p>\n
     ” AVOIDANCE  OF CERTAIN  TERMS  AND
\n     RIGHT OF  RECOVERY\t –  Which  reads
\n     thus: “Nothing  in this  policy  or
\n     any endorsement hereon shall effect
\n     the right of any person indemnified
\n     by this  policy or any other person
\n     to recover\t an amount  under or  by
\n     virtue of\tthe  provisions\t of  the
\n     Motor Vehicles  Act. 1939,\t Section
\n     96, But  the Insured shall repay to
\n     the Company  all sums  paid by  the
\n     Company which the Company would not
\n     have been\tliable to  pay\tbut  the
\n     said provisions”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.  The above\tclause does not enable the insurance company
\nto resist  or avoid  the claim\tmade by\t the  claimant.\t the
\nclause will  arise  for\t consideration\tonly  in  a  dispute
\nbetween he  insurer and\t insured. The question whether under
\nthe said  clause the  insurer can  claim repayment  from the
\ninsured is left open. The circumstance that the owner of the
\nvehicle did  not file  an appeal  against t  he judgment  of
\nsingle judge  of the High court under the letters Patent may
\nalso be\t relevant in  the event\t of a claim by the insurance
\ncompany against\t the insured for repayment of the amount. We
\nare not concerned with that question here.\n<\/p>\n
15.  In the  result, we\t hold that  the insurance company is
\nalso liable  to meet  the claim\t of the claimant and satisfy
\nthe award  passed by  the Tribunal  and modified by the High
\nCourt. The  judgment of\t the High  Court in  so\t far  as  it
\nexonerates the\tinsurance company  (5th\t respondent  herein)
\nfrom the  liability, is\t set aside.  The award passed by the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court can be enforced against the
\n5th respondent\talso. The  appeal is  allowed to t he extent
\nindicated above.  The parties  will  bear  their  respective
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998 Author: Srinivasan Bench: K.T.Thomas, M. Srinivasan PETITIONER: AMRIT LAL SOOD & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: SMT. KAUSHALYA DEVI THAPAR & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/03\/1998 BENCH: K.T.THOMAS, M. SRINIVASAN ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/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-120128","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAmrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-19T03:37:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-19T03:37:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2455,\"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\\\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998\",\"name\":\"Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-19T03:37:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-19T03:37:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998","datePublished":"1998-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-19T03:37:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998"},"wordCount":2455,"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\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998","name":"Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-19T03:37:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrit-lal-sood-anr-vs-smt-kaushalya-devi-thapar-ors-on-17-march-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998"}]},{"@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\/120128","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=120128"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120128\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120128"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120128"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120128"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}