{"id":121918,"date":"2009-01-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009"},"modified":"2017-06-29T08:10:27","modified_gmt":"2017-06-29T02:40:27","slug":"mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mohd.Sarif & Ors vs Satya Narayan & Ors on 9 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Mohd.Sarif & Ors vs Satya Narayan & Ors on 9 January, 2009<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/pre>\n
                                1<\/span><\/p>\n
          S.B.CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.429\/2007.\n<\/p>\n
       (Mohd. Sarif & Ors. Vs. Satya Narain & Ors.)<\/p>\n
Date of Order ::       9th January 2009<\/p>\n
      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI<\/p>\n
Mr. B.N. Kalla, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. M.R. Singhvi, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
                          ……\n<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the parties have been heard on the<\/p>\n
application (IA No.10621\/2008) as moved by the appellants<\/p>\n
seeking addition of parties in this appeal.<\/p>\n
      In the civil suit for declaration, partition, and perpetual<\/p>\n
injunction as filed by the plaintiffs-appellants (12 in number)<\/p>\n
against   the      defendants-respondents     (6   in   number)<\/p>\n
[C.O.No.39\/2007 in the Court of Additional District Judge<\/p>\n
No.1, Chittorgarh], the defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3 moved an<\/p>\n
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure (CPC) questioning the very maintainability of the<\/p>\n
suit on various grounds. By the impugned order dated<\/p>\n
07.08.2007, while allowing the said application, the learned<\/p>\n
Trial Court has observed that the plaintiffs were seeking to<\/p>\n
challenge the judgments and orders of the Revenue Courts<\/p>\n
and seeking declaration against the decree as passed by the<\/p>\n
Revenue Court in favour of the defendants, essentially on<\/p>\n
compromise between the parties; and the learned Trial Court
\n                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
has been of opinion that such a suit was barred under the<\/p>\n
provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and so also Section 256<\/p>\n
of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and Section 259 of the<\/p>\n
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The learned Trial Court has<\/p>\n
proceeded to reject the plaint while stating its conclusion thus:<\/p>\n
        ”19. \u0915\u0932 \u092e \u0932 \u0915\u0930 \u0907\u0938 \u092a\u0915     \u092a\u0930 \u092f\u0939 \u092a \u092f \u091c \u0924 \u0939
\n        \u0915\u0915 \u0935 \u0926 \u0915 \u0913\u0930 \u0938 \u091c \u0926 \u0935 \u092a\u0938\u0924\u0924 \u0915\u0915\u092f \u0917\u092f \u0939
\n        \u0935\u0939 \u0930 \u091c\u0938\u0935 \u0928\u092f \u092f \u0932\u092f \u0926 \u0930 \u092a \u0930\u0930\u0924 \u0928”\u0930$\u092f \u0926\u0926” &\u0915
\n        23.5.89, 22.6.89 \u0935 14.2.90 \u0915 \u091a”(\u0924) \u0926\u0924 \u0939\u090f
\n        \u092a\u0938\u0924\u0924 \u0915\u0915\u092f \u0917\u092f \u0939 \u0914\u0930 \u0930 \u091c\u0938\u0935 \u0928\u092f \u092f \u0932\u092f \u0926 \u0930
\n        \u092a\u0928\u0924\u0935 \u0926 \u0915 \u092a\u0915 – \u091c \u0930 \u0921\/\u0915 \u0926\u0926” &\u0915 23.5.89 \u0915
\n        \u0936\u09281 \u092f \u0935 \u0928”\u0937\u092a\u092d \u0935) \u0915\u0930 \u0930 \u0926\u0926\u092f \u091c ” \u0935 \u0918 \u0937\u0930 \u0915\u0915\u092f
\n        \u091c ” \u0915 \u092c \u0924 \u0926 \u0935- – \u0915\u0939 \u0917\u0908 \u0939, \u091c\u092c\u0915\u0915 \u0907\u0938\u0915 \u092e\u0932\u092f
\n        \u0906\u0926\u0936 23 \u0928”\u092f 3 \u091c .\u0926 ., \u0927 \u0930 256 \u0930 \u091c\u0938: ” \u091f “-\u0938)
\n        \u090f\u0915\u091f \u0935 \u0927 \u0930 259 \u0930 \u091c\u0938: ” \u092d1 \u0930 \u091c\u0938\u0935 \u0905\u0927\u0927\u0928”\u092f
\n        \u0935\u091c$” \u0915\u0930\u0924) \u0939 \u0914\u0930 ? \u092a \u0924 \u09391& \u0915\u0915 \u0909\u0938 \u0938\u0938:\u0928\u0924 –\n<\/p>\n
        \u0935 \u0926 \u0915 \u092f\u0939 \u0935 \u0926 \u091a\u0932” \u092f \u0917\u092f “\u0939 & \u0939 \u0914\u0930 \u0935 \u0926 \u0926 \u0930
\n        \u092a\u0938\u0924\u0924 \u0935 \u0926 \u0909\u092a\u0930 \u0915 \u0935\u0935\u0927\u0927\u0915 \u092a \u0935\u0927 ” \u0938 \u092c \u0927\u0927\u0924 \u0939,
\n        \u092a\u0930\u0930\u0930 \u0924: \u092a\u0928\u0924\u0935 \u0926 \u0917\u0930 \u0915 \u0913\u0930 \u0938 \u092a\u0938\u0924\u0924 \u092f\u0939 \u092a :$”\n<\/p>\n
        \u092a\u0924 \u0905&\u0924\u0917$\u0924 \u0906\u0926\u0936 7 \u0928”\u092f 11 \u091c .\u0926 . \u0938\u0935)\u0915 \u0930 \u0915\u0915\u092f
\n        \u091c ” \u092f \u0917\u092f \u0939 \u0964\n<\/p>\n
        20. \u0905\u0924: \u092a\u0928\u0924\u0935 \u0926 \u0917\u0930 \u0938&. 1, 2 \u0935 3 \u0915 \u0913\u0930 \u0938
\n        \u092a\u0938\u0924\u0924 \u092a :$” \u092a\u0924 \u0905&\u0924\u0917$\u0924 \u0906\u0926\u0936 7 \u0928”\u092f 11 \u091c .\u0926 .\n<\/p>\n
        \u0938\u0935)\u0915 \u0930 \u0915\u0915\u092f \u091c \u0924 \u0939 \u0924: \u0935 \u0926 \u0915 \u0913\u0930 \u0938 \u092a\u0938\u0924\u0924
\n        \u092f\u0939 \u0935 \u0926 \u0916 \u0930\u0930\u091c \u0915\u0915\u092f \u091c \u0924 \u0939 \u0964 \u0921\/\u0915 \u092a\u091a $ \u0924\u092f \u0930
\n        \u0939 \u0964”<\/p>\n
      Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the plaintiffs have<\/p>\n
preferred this first appeal that was admitted for consideration<\/p>\n
on 30.08.2007; and, while issuing notices on the stay<\/p>\n
application   on   03.09.2007,       this   Court   restrained   the<\/p>\n
respondents from alienating the property in dispute. An<\/p>\n
application for vacating the interim order as moved by the
\n                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
contesting respondents came to be rejected on 03.04.2008.<\/p>\n
After service on all the respondents, when the matter was to<\/p>\n
be taken up for final orders on the stay application, the<\/p>\n
appellants moved applications under Order XXII Rule 9 and<\/p>\n
Order XXII Rule 4 CPC for setting aside of abatement and<\/p>\n
substitution of the legal representatives of the respondent<\/p>\n
No.4. Those applications came to be allowed on 19.05.2008<\/p>\n
and the legal representatives of the respondent No.4 were<\/p>\n
ordered to be taken on record.\n<\/p>\n
      Thereafter, while the matter was pending for service on<\/p>\n
the legal representatives of the respondent No.4, the plaintiffs-<\/p>\n
appellants chose to move the application (IA No.10621\/2008)<\/p>\n
seeking addition of parties in this appeal. Though such kind of<\/p>\n
interlocutory applications having a co-relation with and bearing<\/p>\n
on the main case are ordinarily considered at the time of final<\/p>\n
hearing of the appeal but the plaintiffs-appellants having<\/p>\n
chosen to press the application seeking impleadment of new<\/p>\n
parties at this stage of proceedings, and having regard to the<\/p>\n
overall circumstances, it is considered appropriate to dispose<\/p>\n
of the same by this order.\n<\/p>\n
      It has been suggested by way of the application that the<\/p>\n
plots of land carved out of the land in dispute have been sold<\/p>\n
by the respondents Nos.1 to 3 to one Rajesh Khandelwal,
\n                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
another Smt.Uma Nyati and yet another Smt. Maina Mundara.<\/p>\n
Though the appellants have taken care not to state the dates<\/p>\n
of such sale deeds in their elaborate application but have<\/p>\n
suggested that they were not aware of such sale deeds earlier<\/p>\n
and came to know about the same only when objections were<\/p>\n
invited or transfer certificates were issued in favour of such<\/p>\n
transferees by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board,<\/p>\n
Chittorgarh.\n<\/p>\n
      It has been suggested in the application that these<\/p>\n
transfers are the subsequent events and though restraint<\/p>\n
order has been passed whereby the respondents were<\/p>\n
required not to alienate the disputed property, yet the<\/p>\n
respondents Nos.1 to 3 sold the land as would appear from<\/p>\n
the documents filed along with the application. It is urged that<\/p>\n
such transferees are proper and necessary parties in the case;<\/p>\n
and it has been prayed in the application that the aforesaid<\/p>\n
three transferees and so also the Executive Officer, Municipal<\/p>\n
Board, Chittorgarh be permitted to be impleaded as party<\/p>\n
respondents for ”better adjudication” of the case. It has also<\/p>\n
been argued that if the named persons are not permitted to be<\/p>\n
joined, serious complications would arise and the entire case<\/p>\n
of the plaintiffs-appellants might be frustrated.<\/p>\n
      The application so moved by the appellants has been
\n                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
opposed on behalf of the contesting respondents particularly<\/p>\n
with the submissions that the suit was filed on 04.04.2007<\/p>\n
whereas the sale deeds in favour of the aforesaid three<\/p>\n
persons    were    executed     respectively   on    12.03.2003,<\/p>\n
24.05.2004, and 24.03.2004. It is maintained that the sale<\/p>\n
deeds in question were not of subsequent events but were in<\/p>\n
existence even at the time of filing of the suit and yet the said<\/p>\n
persons were not arrayed as defendants; and being not the<\/p>\n
parties before the Trial Court, such persons cannot be<\/p>\n
permitted to be arrayed as respondents in this appeal. It is<\/p>\n
also pointed out that the Executive Officer of the Municipal<\/p>\n
Board has been sought to be joined as a party for no reason.<\/p>\n
The contesting respondents submit that the appellants have<\/p>\n
neither disclosed the source of their knowledge nor stated<\/p>\n
complete details of the sale deeds and the application<\/p>\n
deserves to be rejected for want of material particulars. The<\/p>\n
contesting respondents have also referred to the fact that the<\/p>\n
appellants have filed a regular suit for partition in the Court of<\/p>\n
SDO, Chittorgarh, being Revenue Suit No.169\/2008; and a<\/p>\n
certified copy of the plaint has been placed on record as<\/p>\n
Annexure R\/3\/1.\n<\/p>\n
      Having given a thoughtful consideration to the matter,<\/p>\n
this Court is clearly of opinion that the application as moved by
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
the appellants deserves to be rejected with costs.<\/p>\n
      As    noticed,   the   plaintiffs-appellants   attempted   to<\/p>\n
maintain the suit for declaration, partition, and perpetual<\/p>\n
injunction in the civil Court. The plaint was presented on<\/p>\n
04.04.2007 but came to be rejected by the order dated<\/p>\n
07.08.2007 that has been challenged in this appeal. Thus, the<\/p>\n
point for determination in this appeal would essentially be as<\/p>\n
to whether the plaint was liable to be rejected? Though, at this<\/p>\n
stage of proceedings, this Court would not like to make any<\/p>\n
comment on the merits of the case of either of the parties or<\/p>\n
on the considerations as adopted by the learned Trial Court<\/p>\n
but certain it is that for an answer in their favour on the legality<\/p>\n
and correctness of the impugned order dated 07.08.2007, the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs-appellant shall have to show the error, if any,<\/p>\n
committed by the learned Trial Court and shall have to<\/p>\n
establish that cognizance of the suit in question was not<\/p>\n
barred by any law.\n<\/p>\n
      Noticeable it is that the learned Trial Court has not<\/p>\n
rejected the plaint by its impugned order dated 07.08.2007 for<\/p>\n
want of any necessary party to the suit. It cannot be said that<\/p>\n
the presence of any other person than the plaintiffs and<\/p>\n
defendants, as arrayed before the Trial Court, is necessary in<\/p>\n
order to enable this Court to effectively and completely
\n                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
adjudicate upon and determine the questions involved in this<\/p>\n
appeal. The application as moved by the appellants for<\/p>\n
addition of parties, thus, remains fundamentally baseless.<\/p>\n
      There is yet another strong ground wherefor the<\/p>\n
application does not merit acceptance. From the documents<\/p>\n
as produced on record by the plaintiffs-appellants with the<\/p>\n
application, it is but apparent that the sale deeds in question<\/p>\n
were executed on 12.03.2003, 24.05.2004, and 24.03.2004<\/p>\n
respectively. Obviously, the said sale deeds had been<\/p>\n
executed much before filing of the suit by the plaintiffs-<\/p>\n
appellants on 04.04.2007. The suggestion as made in the<\/p>\n
application that the appellants came to know about such sale<\/p>\n
deeds only when the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board,<\/p>\n
Chittorgarh proceeded to issue transfer certificates or issued<\/p>\n
the notices inviting objections, in the first place does not<\/p>\n
inspire confidence and in any case, does not lead to a position<\/p>\n
that the sale deeds in favour of said three persons were<\/p>\n
anything of subsequent events. The substantive event of<\/p>\n
transfer of title under the said sale deeds had already taken<\/p>\n
place much prior to filing of the suit by the plaintiffs-appellants.<\/p>\n
The said purchasers do not answer to the description of the<\/p>\n
transferees pendente lite so as to consider their impleadment<\/p>\n
in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
      Apart from the aforesaid, the application deserves to be<\/p>\n
rejected for yet another reason that even while seeking<\/p>\n
impleadment of the said three transferees and the Executive<\/p>\n
Officer of the Municipal Board as parties in this first appeal,<\/p>\n
the appellants have not stated a word about any cause of<\/p>\n
action against them nor have claimed any relief against them<\/p>\n
nor have prayed for any amendment of the plaint. On the other<\/p>\n
hand, the appellants have filed a revenue suit claiming their<\/p>\n
rights in the suit land as would appear from the document<\/p>\n
Annex.R\/3\/1    produced    by   the   contesting   respondents.<\/p>\n
Interesting it is to notice that in the said revenue suit, the<\/p>\n
appellants have joined not only the present respondents and<\/p>\n
the aforesaid three persons as parties-defendants but have<\/p>\n
impleaded several other persons as defendants and it has<\/p>\n
been prayed that the sale deeds executed by the defendants<\/p>\n
Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the defendants Nos.12 to 26 (in the<\/p>\n
said revenue suit) be declared null and void. It is apparent<\/p>\n
that the present application seeking impleadment of only three<\/p>\n
of the transferees has been moved by the appellants while<\/p>\n
concealing the facts too many and seems to be nothing but an<\/p>\n
attempt to somehow enlarge the scope of this appeal even<\/p>\n
beyond that of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
      Even the conduct of the plaintiffs-appellants does not
\n                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
     inspire confidence. In the application as moved, the plaintiffs-<\/p>\n
     appellants have consciously chosen not to state the dates of<\/p>\n
     sale deeds though have otherwise stated elaborate particulars<\/p>\n
     with dates and months. The appellants had not been forthright<\/p>\n
     while moving the said application; and the application lacking<\/p>\n
     in bona fide, deserves to be rejected with costs.<\/p>\n
            The application (IA No.10621\/2008), therefore, stands<\/p>\n
     rejected with costs quantified at Rs.5,000\/- (five thousand)<\/p>\n
     half of which shall be deposited in legal aid by the plaintiffs-<\/p>\n
     appellants and the remaining shall be paid to the contesting<\/p>\n
     respondents Nos.1,2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n
           Payment\/deposit of the amount of costs within 30 days<\/p>\n
     from today shall be the condition precedent for the appellants<\/p>\n
     to proceed further with this appeal; and on default, this appeal<\/p>\n
     shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.<\/p>\n
                                        (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.\n<\/p>\n
MK\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Mohd.Sarif & Ors vs Satya Narayan & Ors on 9 January, 2009 1 S.B.CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.429\/2007. (Mohd. Sarif & Ors. Vs. Satya Narain & Ors.) Date of Order :: 9th January 2009 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. B.N. Kalla, for the appellants. Mr. M.R. Singhvi, for the respondents. […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-121918","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nMohd.Sarif & Ors vs Satya Narayan & Ors on 9 January, 2009 - 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\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohd.Sarif & Ors vs Satya Narayan & Ors on 9 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-29T02:40:27+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohd.Sarif & Ors vs Satya Narayan & Ors on 9 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T02:40:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1750,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Mohd.Sarif & Ors vs Satya Narayan & Ors on 9 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T02:40:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohd.Sarif & Ors vs Satya Narayan & Ors on 9 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohd.Sarif & Ors vs Satya Narayan & Ors on 9 January, 2009 - 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\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohd.Sarif & Ors vs Satya Narayan & Ors on 9 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-29T02:40:27+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohd.Sarif & Ors vs Satya Narayan & Ors on 9 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T02:40:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009"},"wordCount":1750,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009","name":"Mohd.Sarif & Ors vs Satya Narayan & Ors on 9 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T02:40:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-sarif-ors-vs-satya-narayan-ors-on-9-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohd.Sarif & Ors vs Satya Narayan & Ors on 9 January, 2009"}]},{"@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\/121918","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=121918"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121918\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121918"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121918"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121918"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}