{"id":125795,"date":"2011-08-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011"},"modified":"2017-01-10T15:29:22","modified_gmt":"2017-01-10T09:59:22","slug":"sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Sunil vs Jawaharlal on 20 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Sunil vs Jawaharlal on 20 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                        1                             A.O.107.11+ca\n\n                                           \n          IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY \n                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n              APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 107 OF 2011\n                            WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7177 OF 2011\n\n\n          Sunil S\/o Madanlal Agrawal,\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n          Age : 40 Years, Occup.: Agriculture\n          and Business, R\/o Raja Bazar,\n          Aurangaad.                 ...APPELLANT \n\n\n\n\n                           \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1.           \n          Jawaharlal S\/o Nandlal Chittarke,\n          Age: 53 Years, occup.: Agriculture,\n          and Business R\/o Kannad, Tq. And\n          District Aurangabad.\n                 \n     2.   Madhukar S\/o Trimbak Jadhav,\n          Age : 50 Years, Occup. Agriculture\n          and Business, R\/o Bahirgaon, \n      \n\n          Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad.\n                                     ...RESPONDENTS\n   \n\n\n\n                          ...\n     Mr.A.D.Kasliwal,Advocate for Appellant.\n     Mr.K.F.Shingare,Advocate for respondents.       \n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n\n                              CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J.\n\n                              DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2011\n\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n\n     JUDGMENT :\n<\/pre>\n
     1.     This Appeal from Order is filed challenging <\/p>\n
                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:42 :::<\/span>
\n                            2                                A.O.107.11+ca<\/p>\n
     the   order   passed   below   Exh.21   in   Special   Civil <\/p>\n
     Suit No. 510 of 2010, dated 17th June, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
     .       With the consent of the parties Appeal from <\/p>\n
     Order is taken up for final hearing.\n<\/p>\n
     2.     Background facts for filing this Appeal from <\/p>\n
     Order are as under:\n<\/p>\n
     .    On 04.10.2010, appellant herein filed Special <\/p>\n
     Civil   Suit   NO.   510   of   2010   for   mandatory <\/p>\n
     injunction   regarding   agreement   of   re-conveyance <\/p>\n
     dated   21th  June  2005,   executed   by   respondent   NO.1 <\/p>\n
     in   favour   of   appellant   and   for   recovery   of <\/p>\n
     possession   of   the   suit   property   from   respondent <\/p>\n
     No.1   and   further   for   perpetual   injunction <\/p>\n
     restraining respondent No.2 from creating any sort <\/p>\n
     of third party interest in the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
     3.       It   is   contention   of   the   appellant   that <\/p>\n
     financial   condition   of   respondent   NO.1   is   good, <\/p>\n
     therefore, appellant in the year 2005 on or about <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:42 :::<\/span>
\n                             3                                A.O.107.11+ca<\/p>\n
     second   week   of   June,   2005   approached   to   the <\/p>\n
     respondent   NO.1   for   an   amount   of   Rs.   1,50,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     (Rupees one Lakh Fifty Thousand) for his household <\/p>\n
     and   domestic   needs.   Accordingly,   registered   sale <\/p>\n
     deed   was   executed   by   the   appellant   in   favour   of <\/p>\n
     respondent   No.1   on   21st  June,   2005   registered   at <\/p>\n
     serial No. 3438.\n<\/p>\n
     .       On   21st  June,   2005   sale   deed   came   to   be <\/p>\n
     executed  and  the said  sale  deed according  to  the <\/p>\n
     appellant  was  for security  of the  loan  amount  of <\/p>\n
     Rs.1,50,000\/-(Rupees  one Lakh Fifty  Thousand)  and <\/p>\n
     as   transaction   was   loan   transaction,   a   Kararnama <\/p>\n
     was   executed   on   the   date   of   execution   of   the <\/p>\n
     aforesaid   sale   deed   by   respondent   No.1   in   favour <\/p>\n
     of   appellant   and   thereby   respondent   No.1   has <\/p>\n
     agreed to re-convey the suit property in favour of <\/p>\n
     the appellant. It is further case of the appellant <\/p>\n
     that   respondent   NO.1   thereafter   changed   his   mind <\/p>\n
     and   deprived   the   appellant   of   his   property   by <\/p>\n
     selling   the   suit   property   for   consideration   of <\/p>\n
     Rs.4,21,000\/-(Rupees   Four   Lakhs   Twenty   One <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:42 :::<\/span>
\n                              4                                 A.O.107.11+ca<\/p>\n
     Thousand) to respondent NO.1 vide sale deed dated <\/p>\n
     31st  August,2010.   The   appellant   got   knowledge <\/p>\n
     regarding execution of the sale deed on or before <\/p>\n
     first week of September, 2010 when respondent NO.1 <\/p>\n
     came   to   the   suit   property   with   10   to   15   persons <\/p>\n
     and by force unlawfully dispossessed the appellant <\/p>\n
     from the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
     .       It is further case of the appellant that on <\/p>\n
     6th  October,   2010,   appellant   moved   an   application <\/p>\n
     for temporary injunction in the pending suit.  The <\/p>\n
     trial   Court   was   pleased   to   grant   ad-interim   ex-\n<\/p>\n
     parte   injunction   against   present   respondent   No.2 <\/p>\n
     vide   order   dated   6th  October,   2010   and   thereby <\/p>\n
     restrained   respondent   No.2   from   creating   third <\/p>\n
     party interest over the suit property and further <\/p>\n
     restrained from alienating the suit property till <\/p>\n
     further orders.\n<\/p>\n
     4.     It is further case of the appellant that in <\/p>\n
     response to the suit summons and show cause notice <\/p>\n
     issued   by   the   trial   Court,   respondent   No.2   filed <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:42 :::<\/span>
\n                            5                                A.O.107.11+ca<\/p>\n
     written statement and thereby contended that sale <\/p>\n
     deed executed by appellant in favour of respondent <\/p>\n
     NO.1   is   out   and   out   sale   and   further   denied <\/p>\n
     execution   of   Kararnama   dated   21st  June,   2005   and <\/p>\n
     thereby   prayed   for   dismissal   of   the   suit   and <\/p>\n
     rejection of the application Exh.5.\n<\/p>\n
     5.    On 17th June, 2011 after hearing arguments of <\/p>\n
     parties, the trial Court was pleased to reject the <\/p>\n
     application filed by the appellant at Exh.5 by his <\/p>\n
     judgment and order dated 17th  June, 2011.   On the <\/p>\n
     same day, the appellant herein, after rejection of <\/p>\n
     the application at Exh.5 by the trial Court, moved <\/p>\n
     an   application   at   Exh.21   and   thereby   prayed   for <\/p>\n
     extension of ad-interim order. The trial Court was <\/p>\n
     pleased to pass the order on the said application <\/p>\n
     and   thereby   continued   ad-interim   ex-parte   order <\/p>\n
     passed on 6th  October, 2010, till 24th  June, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
     Hence,   Appeal   from   Order   challenging   the   order <\/p>\n
     dated   17th  June,   2011   passed   below   Exh.21   in <\/p>\n
     Special Civil Suit NO. 510 of 2010.\n<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:42 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                             6                                A.O.107.11+ca<\/p>\n
     6.         Learned   counsel   appearing   for   appellant <\/p>\n
     submits   that   appellant   has   placed   on   record <\/p>\n
     affidavit   of   one   of   attesting   witness   of   the <\/p>\n
     Kararnama   dated   21st  June,   2005   executed   by <\/p>\n
     respondent No.1 in favour of appellant.  According <\/p>\n
     to   the   learned   counsel   for   appellant,   the   lower <\/p>\n
     Court   ought   to   have   taken   into   consideration   the <\/p>\n
     affidavit   of   attesting   witness   of   the   Kararnama <\/p>\n
     dated   21st  June,   2005,   however,   the   trial   Court <\/p>\n
     failed   to   appreciate   the   said   affidavit.   It   is <\/p>\n
     submitted   that,   an   application   filed   by   the <\/p>\n
     appellant   for   temporary   injunction   ought   to   have <\/p>\n
     been allowed by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
     7.       It   is   further   submitted   that   trial   Court <\/p>\n
     while   passing   impugned   order   observed   that,   the <\/p>\n
     appellant has failed to demonstrate that this case <\/p>\n
     falls under the caption of ‘rear cases’ where the <\/p>\n
     protection   under   section   52   of   the   Transfer   of <\/p>\n
     Property   Act,   is   inadequate   to   protect   his   right <\/p>\n
     and   interest.   However,   trial   Court   while   making <\/p>\n
     such observations has not considered the fact that <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:42 :::<\/span>
\n                             7                                A.O.107.11+ca<\/p>\n
     the   respondents   have   to   make   out   the   case   that <\/p>\n
     there   is   irreparable   loss   or   damage   to   them   in <\/p>\n
     case   interim   relief   is   granted   in   favour   of   the <\/p>\n
     plaintiff.  It is further submitted that the trial <\/p>\n
     Court ought to have  taken into consideration that <\/p>\n
     in   the   event   of   appellant’s   claim   being   found <\/p>\n
     baseless   ultimately,   it   is   always   open   to <\/p>\n
     respondent   No.2   to   claim   damages,   or   in <\/p>\n
     appropriate   case   the   Court   itself   can   award   for <\/p>\n
     damages for the loss suffered, if any.\n<\/p>\n
     8.     Learned   counsel   appearing   for   appellant <\/p>\n
     invited my attention to grounds in the Appeal from <\/p>\n
     Order   and   submitted   that   since   respondent   No.   2 <\/p>\n
     was   restrained   from   creating   third   party   right <\/p>\n
     during   pendency   of   the   application   and   the   said <\/p>\n
     order  has  been  continued   by the trial  Court  even <\/p>\n
     after rejection of application and thereafter this <\/p>\n
     Court  on 21st  June, 2011, while issuing notice in <\/p>\n
     Appeal   From   Order   and   on   Civil   Application     has <\/p>\n
     directed the parties to maintain status quo as to <\/p>\n
     the   suit   property   as   on   today,   therefore, <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:42 :::<\/span>
\n                             8                                A.O.107.11+ca<\/p>\n
     according   to   learned   counsel   for   appellant,   said <\/p>\n
     interim order needs to be continued till disposal <\/p>\n
     of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     9.     On the other hand, learned counsel appearing <\/p>\n
     for   respondents   submits   that   reasons   recorded   by <\/p>\n
     the   trial   Court,   while   rejecting   the   application <\/p>\n
     for   temporary   injunction   are   based   upon   proper <\/p>\n
     appreciation   of   evidence   and   after   appreciating <\/p>\n
     rival   contentions,   therefore,   this   court   may   not <\/p>\n
     interfere   in   this   Appeal   from   Order.     It   is <\/p>\n
     further   submitted   that,   the   appellant   herein <\/p>\n
     failed   to   establish   his   case.   He   invited   my <\/p>\n
     attention   to   the   sale   deed   dated   21st  June,   2005 <\/p>\n
     and   submitted   that   said   sale   deed   is   registered <\/p>\n
     and   executed   on   21st  June,   2005   and   nothing   has <\/p>\n
     been   mentioned   in   the   said   sale   deed   about   any <\/p>\n
     Kararnama.   After execution of the said sale deed <\/p>\n
     mutation  entry  is taken  in  the name  of defendant <\/p>\n
     No.1.   Defendant   No.1   has   sold   the   property   to <\/p>\n
     original defendant No.2 in the year 2010.   It is <\/p>\n
     further   submitted   that,   even   if   Kararnama   at <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:42 :::<\/span>
\n                             9                                A.O.107.11+ca<\/p>\n
     Exh.”C”   of   this   petition   is   considered,   in   that <\/p>\n
     case also within three years from 21st  June, 2005, <\/p>\n
     the   appellant   should   have   returned   the   entire <\/p>\n
     amount   of   Rs.   1,50,000\/-(Rupees   one   Lakh   Fifty <\/p>\n
     Thousand)     with   interest   @   24%,   however,   the <\/p>\n
     appellant has not taken any steps, therefore, such <\/p>\n
     period of three years come to an end on 21 st June, <\/p>\n
     2008.       Therefore,   according   to   the   learned <\/p>\n
     counsel   for   respondents,   original   defendant   NO.1 <\/p>\n
     has   sold   the   property   to   original   defendant   NO.2 <\/p>\n
     in the year 2010 by executing sale deed, therefore <\/p>\n
     no   interference   in   the   impugned   order   is <\/p>\n
     warranted.\n<\/p>\n
     10.     Learned   counsel   appearing   for   respondents <\/p>\n
     invited   my   attention   to   impugned   order   passed   by <\/p>\n
     the  trial  Court  and submitted  that  the  Court  has <\/p>\n
     taken   into   consideration   all   the   aspects   of   the <\/p>\n
     matter   including   possession   and   also   Kararnama, <\/p>\n
     hence he prays that  application filed by original <\/p>\n
     plaintiff\/appellant may not be entertained.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:42 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                           10                                   A.O.107.11+ca\n\n     .       Learned counsel further invited my attention \n\n<\/pre>\n
     to the reported judgment of this Court in the case <\/p>\n
     of     Kacchi   Properties,   Satara   Vs.   Ganpatrao <\/p>\n
     Shankarrao   Kadam   and   others  reported   in  2010(5) <\/p>\n
     Mh.L.J.903,  and   submitted   that   provisions   of <\/p>\n
     section   52   of   the   Transfer   of   Property   Act <\/p>\n
     provides   adequate   protection   to   parties   to   lis.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore,   there   is   no   occasions   for   invoking <\/p>\n
     powers under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of <\/p>\n
     Civil Procedure.  According to the learned counsel <\/p>\n
     for   respondents,   the   Court   has   rightly   placed <\/p>\n
     reliance   on   the   aforesaid   judgment   and   rejected <\/p>\n
     the        application        of           the              original <\/p>\n
     plaintiff\/appellant, therefore, this Court may not <\/p>\n
     interfere in this Appeal from order.\n<\/p>\n
     11.   I have given due consideration to the rival <\/p>\n
     submissions   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
     parties. Perused the entire compilation placed on <\/p>\n
     record   and   also   other   documents   and   judgments <\/p>\n
     cited   by   the   counsels   appearing   for   respective <\/p>\n
     parties.\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:42 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                            11                                A.O.107.11+ca\n\n     .     On careful perusal of the impugned order, it \n\n<\/pre>\n
     appears to me that, the trial Court mainly placed <\/p>\n
     reliance upon the reported decision of this Court <\/p>\n
     in   the   case   of    Kacchi   Properties,   Satara   Vs. <\/p>\n
     Ganpatrao Shankarrao Kadam and others  reported in <\/p>\n
     2010(5) Mh.L.J.903  and has come to the conclusion <\/p>\n
     that   provisions   under   section   52   of   the   Transfer <\/p>\n
     of   Property   Act   provides   adequate   protection   to <\/p>\n
     the   appellant,   and   therefore   it   is   not   necessary <\/p>\n
     to   entertain   the   application   filed   by   the <\/p>\n
     appellant for temporary injunction.  On reading of <\/p>\n
     para   No.   22   of   the   impugned   judgment\/order,   it <\/p>\n
     appears that the trial Court has recorded finding <\/p>\n
     that, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that <\/p>\n
     his  case  falls  under  the caption   of ‘rare  cases’ <\/p>\n
     where   the   protection   under   section   52   of   the <\/p>\n
     Transfer of Property Act is inadequate to protect <\/p>\n
     his   rights   and   interest.     In   fact,   such <\/p>\n
     observation\/findings   recorded   by   the   trial   Court <\/p>\n
     arecontrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme <\/p>\n
     Court in the case of  Maharwal Khewaji Trust(Regd) <\/p>\n
     Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass, reported in  2004(8) SCC <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:42 :::<\/span>
\n                             12                                A.O.107.11+ca<\/p>\n
     488.   In fact,  as per  aforementioned  Judgment  of <\/p>\n
     the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court,   respondents   have   to <\/p>\n
     make   out   case   that   there   is   irreparable   loss   or <\/p>\n
     damage   to   them   if   such   injunction   is   granted   to <\/p>\n
     the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
     12.     This   Court   had   an   occasion   to   consider   the <\/p>\n
     judgment   in      Kacchi   Properties,   Satara   Vs. <\/p>\n
     Ganpatrao Shankarrao Kadam and others  reported in <\/p>\n
     2010(5)   Mh.L.J.903,  in   the   case   of    Pralhad <\/p>\n
     Jaganath   Jawale   and   others   Vs.   Sitabai   Chander <\/p>\n
     Nikam and others, reported in  2011(4) Mh.L.J.137.\n<\/p>\n
     This   Court   in   para   NO.14   held   that,   “as   far   as <\/p>\n
     Section  52 of the  said  Transfer  of  Property  Act,<\/p>\n
     1882   is   concerned,   it   is   apparent   that   the   same <\/p>\n
     does not put any restraint on a party to the suit <\/p>\n
     from alienating the suit property, but it provides <\/p>\n
     for   legal   effect   of   the   transfer   pendente   lite.\n<\/p>\n
     Such pendente lite without permission of the Court <\/p>\n
     is neither illegal nor void.”\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:42 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                             13                                 A.O.107.11+ca\n\n     .       In   para   No.17,   it   is   further   held   that,\"the \n\n<\/pre>\n
     order  of prohibitory  injunction  grants  protection <\/p>\n
     which   is   not   available   under   section   52   in   the <\/p>\n
     event   of   transfer   pending   a   suit.   Moreover,   the <\/p>\n
     party   who   breaches   the   order   of   temporary <\/p>\n
     injunction   may   have   to   face   the   drastic <\/p>\n
     consequences provided in Rules 2A and 11 of Order <\/p>\n
     XXXIX of the said Code The consequences are in the <\/p>\n
     nature   of   an   order   of   detention   or   striking   out <\/p>\n
     the defence.” (emphasis added)  <\/p>\n
     13.       In para No. 24 of the said Judgment, this <\/p>\n
     Court has considered the Judgment of Apex Court in <\/p>\n
     the case of  Maharwal Khewaji Trust(Regd) Faridkot <\/p>\n
     Vs.   Baldev   Dass,   cited   supra,  in   which   it   is <\/p>\n
     observed   that,   “A   defendant   is   required   to   make <\/p>\n
     out a case that irreparable loss or damage will be <\/p>\n
     caused to him during the pendency of the suit if <\/p>\n
     he   is   not   allowed   to   alter   the   status <\/p>\n
     quo.”(emphasis added)  <\/p>\n
     14.   In para No.25 and 26, it is further observed <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:42 :::<\/span>
\n                            14                                A.O.107.11+ca<\/p>\n
     that,   “where   there   is   apprehension   established <\/p>\n
     that   defendant   may   create   third   party   rights   and <\/p>\n
     all three ingredients are satisfied, if temporary <\/p>\n
     injunction   is   not   granted,   it   may   result   into <\/p>\n
     multiplicity   of   proceedings   in   as   much   as   the <\/p>\n
     alienee   pendente   lite   may   apply   for   impleadment, <\/p>\n
     which  will  result  in  delay  in proceedings  of  the <\/p>\n
     suit.”(emphasis added)     <\/p>\n
     15.     In   the   present   case   defendants   i.e. <\/p>\n
     respondents herein have not made out any case that <\/p>\n
     irreparable loss or damages will be caused to them <\/p>\n
     during   pendency   of   the   suit   if   they   are   not <\/p>\n
     allowed to alter the status-quo.\n<\/p>\n
     16.     In that view of the matter, in my opinion, <\/p>\n
     during   pendency   of   the   suit   interest   of   the <\/p>\n
     appellant is required to be protected, therefore, <\/p>\n
     interim   order   granted   by   the   trial   Court   during <\/p>\n
     pendency   of   the   application   and   which   was <\/p>\n
     continued even after rejection of the application <\/p>\n
     of   the   appellant   deserves   to   be   continued   till <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:42 :::<\/span>
\n                           15                                    A.O.107.11+ca<\/p>\n
     disposal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     17.     In   the   result,   respondent   NO.2   herein   is <\/p>\n
     restrained       from         creating           third              party <\/p>\n
     rights\/interest in the suit property till disposal <\/p>\n
     of the suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 510 of <\/p>\n
     2010. Appeal From order and Civil Application are <\/p>\n
     allowed to above extent and same stand disposed of <\/p>\n
     accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                                            Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                      [S.S. SHINDE, J.] <\/p>\n
     MTK<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:39:42 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Sunil vs Jawaharlal on 20 August, 2011 Bench: S. S. Shinde 1 A.O.107.11+ca IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 107 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7177 OF 2011 Sunil S\/o Madanlal Agrawal, Age : 40 Years, Occup.: Agriculture and Business, R\/o Raja […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-125795","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSunil vs Jawaharlal on 20 August, 2011 - 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\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sunil vs Jawaharlal on 20 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-10T09:59:22+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sunil vs Jawaharlal on 20 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T09:59:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2086,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Sunil vs Jawaharlal on 20 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T09:59:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sunil vs Jawaharlal on 20 August, 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":"Sunil vs Jawaharlal on 20 August, 2011 - 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\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sunil vs Jawaharlal on 20 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-10T09:59:22+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sunil vs Jawaharlal on 20 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T09:59:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011"},"wordCount":2086,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011","name":"Sunil vs Jawaharlal on 20 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T09:59:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-vs-jawaharlal-on-20-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sunil vs Jawaharlal on 20 August, 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\/125795","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=125795"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125795\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125795"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=125795"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=125795"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}