{"id":126298,"date":"1968-09-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-09-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968"},"modified":"2017-09-20T09:51:34","modified_gmt":"2017-09-20T04:21:34","slug":"lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968","title":{"rendered":"Lakhi Prasad Agarwal vs Nathmal Dokania on 6 September, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Lakhi Prasad Agarwal vs Nathmal Dokania on 6 September, 1968<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR  583, \t\t  1969 SCR  (2)\t 41<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Mitter<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Mitter, G.K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nLAKHI PRASAD AGARWAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNATHMAL DOKANIA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n06\/09\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1969 AIR  583\t\t  1969 SCR  (2)\t 41\n\n\nACT:\nRepresentation\tof the People Act, 1951 s. 123(2),  (3)\t and\n(4)-Allegations\t of  corrupt  practice-Necessity  of  proper\npleadings-Contentions cannot be considered if not borne\t out\nby   pleadings-Arrest\tof  candidate\timmediately   before\nelection-Whether  inference of mala fide or  collusion\twith\nopposing candidate can be drawn.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The election of the respondent to the Bihar\t Legislative\nAssembly at the 1967 general election was challenged by\t the\nappellant---one\t of the defeated candidates- in an  election\npetition.  Annexure 2 to the petition was a pamphlet alleged\nto have been issued by the respondent and his supporters  in\nwhich reference was made to the call of two Muslim religious\nheads that Muslims should not vote for the Congress party to\nwhich  Islam  was opposed.  The High Court   dismissed\t the\nelection  petition whereupon appeal was filed in this Court.\nThe  appellant urged that (i) In the aforesaid\tpamphlet  an\nattempt\t was made to induce muslim voters not to vote for  a\nCongress candidate in opposition to the mandate of two named\nreligious heads and this amounted to the corrupt practice of\n\"undue\tinfluence\" under s. 123(2) of the Representation  of\nthe  People Act 1951; (ii) The reference to the\t mandate  of\nIslam  amounted to the use of a religious symbol within\t the\nmischief  of  s. 123(3); (iii) The said pamphlet  also\tcame\nwithin the mischief in s. 123(4); (iv) The Returning Officer\nwho  was  also the Sub-Divisional Officer  of  the  District\nordered\t the arrest of the appellant immediately before\t the\nelection;  this\t was done mala fide, in collusion  with\t the\nrespondent  and\t the appellant was thereby hampered  in\t his\nelection campaign.\n     HELD:  (i)\t The pleadings in the  appellant's  election\npetition  did  not permit consideration\t of  his  contention\nbased on s. 123(2) of the Act.\n     In order that a pleading may be sufficient to make\t out\na case\tof undue influence it must set out full\t particulars\nof  it in compliance with s. 83(1)(c) of the Act  comparable\nto  Order 6 r. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.   The\tsaid\nprovision of the Act read with s. 123(2) makes it obligatory\non a party setting up a case of corrupt practice by exercise\nof  undue influence as suggested, to give  full\t particulars\nthereof\t by  stating  inter alia who  attempted'  to  induce\nelectors  to  believe that .voting for a  particular  person\nwould  render  them  objects  of   divine   displeasure\t  or\nspiritual  censure and in what manner such   attempts\twere\nmade.\tThe  real charge in the relevant  paragraph  of\t the\npetition   in  the  present  case  was\tthat  the   pamphlet\ncomplained of misled the electors by false statements.\tSuch\na pleading falls short of an allegation of unique  influence\nby an attempt to make electors exercise their franchise in a\nparticular manner.  [43 H---44 C]\n     (ii) The contention that the case fell under s. 123.(3)\nbecause\t of the use of the mandate of Islam as\ta  religious\nsymbol\twas  'also  not\t borne\tout  by\t the  pleadings\t and\ntherefore could not be considered. [44 D]\n      (iii) To bring the case under s. 123(4) there must  be\na  publication\t   by  the candidate or\t his  agent  of\t any\nstatement of same fact which is up. CI\/69--4\n42\nfalse, and which is believed to be false or not believed  to\nbe true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of\nany  candidate,\t or  in\t relation  to  the  candidature\t  or\nwithdrawal  of any candidate being  a ,statement  reasonably\ncalculated  to prejudice the prospects of  that\t candidate's\nelection.   The\t pamphlet  in  question\t did  not  cast\t any\naspersion  on  the  personal character\tor  conduct  of\t the\nelection  petitioner.  Nor was there any false statement  in\nrelation  to  the candidature, of the  petitioner.  .Section\n123(4) was therefore not attracted to the case. [44 E-F]\n    (iv)  The. evidence in the case did not prove  that\t the\nReturning Officer  caused the appellant to be arrested\tmala\nfide  or  in  collusion with  the  respondent.\t The  arrest\nimmediately   before  the  election  surely   hampered\t the\ncampaign of the election petitioner, but by itself the\tmere\nfact  of  arrest does. not lead to the conclusion  that\t the\nReturning  Officer  was\t trying to  bring  pressure  on\t the\nelection  petitioner  not to contest the election  and\tmuch\nless  that  the\t arrest\t was  made  in\tcollusion  with\t the\nsuccessful  candidate. [45 G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1968.<br \/>\n    Appeal  under  Section 116-A of the\t Representation\t  of<br \/>\nthe  People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated\t the<br \/>\nNovember  30,  1967  of the Patna  High\t Court\tin  Election<br \/>\nPetition 19 of\n<\/p>\n<p>967.<br \/>\nDanial A. Latifi, and R.A. Gupta, for the appellant.<br \/>\nD. Goburdhun, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    Mitter,  J.\t  This\tis  an\tappeal\tby  an\tunsuccessful<br \/>\ncandidate at an election held in February 1967 for the Bihar<br \/>\nState  Legislative Assembly from the Single Member  Rajmahal<br \/>\nConstituency   No.   139.   Originally\tthere\twere   eight<br \/>\ncandidates.: we are concerned only with two of them, namely,<br \/>\nthe  election petitioner and respondent,  Nathumal  Dokania,<br \/>\nthe  returned  candidate as a result of the  election.\t The<br \/>\nelection petitioner lost before\t the  High Court.  The\tmain<br \/>\nground\ton which he presses this appeal\t are based on  paras<br \/>\n4(c) and 4(e) of the petition.\tThe relevant issue framed by<br \/>\nthe learned trial Judge with regard to paragraph 4 (c) issue<br \/>\nNo. 5 reading :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t    &#8220;Did  the  respondent  or  his  election<br \/>\n\t      agent or his workers with his or his  election<br \/>\n\t      agent&#8217;s consent resort to corrupt practices in<br \/>\n\t      the election, as alleged by the petitioner and<br \/>\n\t      has the result of the election been materially<br \/>\n\t      affected thereby ?&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>para 4(c) it is pleaded that the respondent himself and\t his<br \/>\nagents and workers including certain named persons with\t his<br \/>\nconsent\t &#8220;committed  a corrupt practice\t of  publication  of<br \/>\nstatements  of facts throughout the constituency and  mainly<br \/>\nat  Shahebganj, Teen Pahar and Rajmahal during the  election<br \/>\ncampaign during<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">      43<\/span><br \/>\nthe period 11th February 1967 to 15th February\t1967   which<br \/>\ninduced\t and  caused deception in the mind of  the  electors<br \/>\nwhereby\t the  respondent procured a large number  of   votes<br \/>\nwhich\the  would  not otherwise have secured  but  for\t the<br \/>\ncorrupt\t practice aforesaid.&#8221; Copies of the  pamphlets\tfrom<br \/>\nAnnexure 2 series to the petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Mr.\t Latifi appearing for the appellant  submitted\tthat<br \/>\nAnnexure  2(A)\tdoes not further his  client&#8217;s\tcause.\t His<br \/>\ngrievance  is based on Annexure 2.  The translation of\tthis<br \/>\nAnnexure  of which the original was in Hindi shows  that  it<br \/>\nwas  a\tcall to the Muslim voters of Rajmahal to  &#8220;hear\t the<br \/>\nmessage\t and  prepare  the  graveyard  for  the\t  Congress.&#8221;<br \/>\nReference  was\tmade therein to &#8220;the appeal of\tthe  day  by<br \/>\nMaulana Syed Usman Ghani Saheb of  Phulwari  Sharif Khankah&#8221;<br \/>\n&#8220;that nobody should be in illusion that Muslims have to vote<br \/>\nfor the Congress. this. time also.&#8221;.  It was also  suggested<br \/>\nthat  on  account of high-handedness of the  Congress  group<br \/>\nMuslims should\tnot support it.\t There was also a  reference<br \/>\nto the appeal of Pit Saheb of the Dargah of Phulwari  Sharif<br \/>\nthat  Muslims should  not vote for any\tCongress  candidate.<br \/>\nThe appeal ends with the sentence, &#8220;when you have  life-long<br \/>\nconnection  with Sri Nathmal Dokania, the candidate  of\t the<br \/>\nSwantantra  Party and when the Head of your  religion,\tyour<br \/>\nIslam also  opposes  the Congress, then it becomes your duty<br \/>\nto  come  out victorious by affixing stamps  on\t the  &#8220;Star&#8221;<br \/>\nsymbol.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    Mr. Latifi tried to argue that by the publication of the<br \/>\npamphlet an attempt was made to. induce Muslim electors\t not<br \/>\nto  vote  for  a Congress candidate  in\t opposition  to\t the<br \/>\nmandates   of  the  two. named religious  heads.   In  other<br \/>\nwords,\this contention was that undue influence\t within\t the<br \/>\nmeaning\t of s. 123(2) of the Act was sought to be  exercised<br \/>\non  the\t Muslim voters in the name of  the  religious  heads<br \/>\nmentioned  in  the  pamphlet  under  the  threat  of  divine<br \/>\ndispleasure  or spiritual censure.  He also sought to  argue<br \/>\nthat  the  reference  to  the  mandate\tof  Islam   in\t the<br \/>\npamphlet  amounted to the use of a religious symbol  and  as<br \/>\nsuch the appeal by the pamphlet came within the mischief  of<br \/>\ns. 123 (3) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Under  8. 123(2), a candidate may be guilty\t of  corrupt<br \/>\npractice if he uses &#8220;undue influence&#8221; which in the words  of<br \/>\nthe  section  means any direct or indirect  interference  or<br \/>\nattempt to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral<br \/>\nright  of  a voter.  Mr. Latifi&#8217;s submission was.  that\t the<br \/>\npamphlet  came\twithin\tthe mischief of\t subclause  (ii)  of<br \/>\nproviso,  (a)  to  section 123(2).   Unfortunately  for\t Mr.<br \/>\nLatifi, although the pamphlet might have sustained a plea of<br \/>\nundue influence about which we express no opinion, there  is<br \/>\nno pleading to that effect in the petition.  In order that a<br \/>\npleading  may  be  sufficient to make out a  case  of  undue<br \/>\ninfluence, it must<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">44<\/span><br \/>\nset  out full particulars of it under the provisions  of  s.<br \/>\n83(1)(c) of the Act which may be compared with Order 6\trule<br \/>\n4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  The said provision of the<br \/>\nAct   read  with s. 123(2) makes it obligatory\ton  a  party<br \/>\nsetting .up a case of corrupt practice by exercise of  undue<br \/>\ninfluence as suggested, to give full particulars thereof  by<br \/>\nstating\t inter\talia  who attempted to\tinduce\telectors  to<br \/>\nbelieve\t that  voting for a particular person  would  render<br \/>\nthem objects of divine displeasure or spiritual censure\t and<br \/>\nin what manner such attempts were made.\t The real charge  in<br \/>\nparagraph  4(c)\t of  the  petition  is\tthat  the   pamphlet<br \/>\ncomplained of misled the electors by false statements.\tSuch<br \/>\na  pleading  falls  far\t short of  an  allegation  of  undue<br \/>\ninfluence  by  an attempt to make  electors  exercise  their<br \/>\nfranchise  in a particular manner.  Para 4(c) does not\teven<br \/>\nmention\t Muslim voters and does not contain any averment  to<br \/>\nthe  effect  that they were sought to be influenced  by\t the<br \/>\nopinion of the religious heads.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Mr. Latifi&#8217;s attempt to bring his  case under  s. 123(3)<br \/>\nis  equally futile.  Mr. Latifi sought to argue\t that  Islam<br \/>\nwas a religious symbol of Muhamedans and the publication  of<br \/>\nthe pamphlet containing a reference to the mandate of  Islam<br \/>\nwas  an attempt to prejudicially affect the election of the,<br \/>\npetitioner.   This  case  too  is  not\tborne  out  by\t the<br \/>\npleadings.  Failing in his attempt to bring the&#8217; case  under<br \/>\nthe  two sub-sections mentioned already, he tried  to  bring<br \/>\nhis  case under s. 123 (4) of the Act.\tIn this too, in\t our<br \/>\nview, he cannot succeed.  To bring the case under this\tsub-<br \/>\nsection, there must be a publication by the candidate or his<br \/>\nagent  of  any statement of some fact which  is\t false,\t and<br \/>\nwhich he believed to be false or did not believe to be true,<br \/>\nin  relation  to the personal character or  conduct  of\t any<br \/>\ncandidate,  or in relation to the candidature or  withdrawal<br \/>\nof any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to<br \/>\nprejudice the prospects\t of  that candidate&#8217;s election.\t The<br \/>\npamphlet  does\tnot  cast  any\taspersion  on  the  personal<br \/>\ncharacter  or  conduct of the election\tpetitioner.  Nor  is<br \/>\nthere any false statement in relation to the candidature  of<br \/>\nthe  petitioner.  In fact there is no reference to  him\t  at<br \/>\nall.  Consequently, the election petition does\tnot  attract<br \/>\nthe  operation of the aforementioned sub-sections of s.\t 123<br \/>\nof  the\t Act.  The  learned  trial  Judge  should  not\thave<br \/>\nentertained  any argument under subsections 3 and 3A  of  s.<br \/>\n123  of the Act as in view of the pleadings issue No. 5\t did<br \/>\nnot permit the raising of such contentions.   In view of the<br \/>\npleadings  we  did  not\t permit Mr.  Latifi  to\t pursue\t his<br \/>\narguments on this issue on the basis of s. 123 sub-ss. (2)or<br \/>\n(3) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    That leaves us only with the allegation in para 4(e)  of<br \/>\nthe petition which runs thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;The  election of the respondent is void, because\t the<br \/>\nReturning Officer who is also the Sub-Divisional Magis-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">      45<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      trate  of\t the area, in collusion\t  with\t the<br \/>\n\t      respondents  harassed  the petitioner  in\t all<br \/>\n\t      possible\t ways  so  much\t so  that   a\tmere<br \/>\n\t      application for correction in the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\n\t      name was allowed at the last juncture and\t the<br \/>\n\t      petitioner had been arrested the very next day<br \/>\n\t      of  the said application, was put in jail\t for<br \/>\n\t      eight valuable days and thereby prevented from<br \/>\n\t      pursuing the election campaign.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The issue under which the above complaint was  sought to  be<br \/>\nraised was the general one, namely, whether the election  of<br \/>\nthe respondent is liable to be set aside ?  Mr. Latifi\tdrew<br \/>\nour  attention\tto  portions  of  the\ttestimony   of\t the<br \/>\nReturning  Officer   where  he\tdenied\tthat   he   was\t  in<br \/>\ncollusion   with  Nathmal Dokania or that  because  of\tsuch<br \/>\ncollusion  he\tgot  the petitioner arrested  after  he\t had<br \/>\nfiled  applications  for  correction  of  the  entries\twith<br \/>\nrespect\t to his name in the electoral roll.  He also  denied<br \/>\nthat  he  got  the petitioner arrested with  any  mala\tfide<br \/>\nintention  so  that  he might not be  able  to\tcontest\t the<br \/>\nelection.  in his cross-examination, the Returning.  Officer<br \/>\nreferred to. the proceedings started against the  petitioner<br \/>\nand  said  that\t the petitioner had been  arrested  once  in<br \/>\nJanuary and for a second time in February 1967.\t The  arrest<br \/>\nin January 1967 was in connection with proceedings under  s.<br \/>\n107  of\t the  Code of Criminal\tProcedure.   The  arrest  in<br \/>\nFebruary  1967\twas  in\t connection with  a  case  for\tsome<br \/>\nsubstantive  offences. He added however that he\t was not  in<br \/>\na position to say what was the offence alleged to have\tbeen<br \/>\ncommitted  by  the  petitioner by a mere  reference  to\t the<br \/>\ncertified  copy of the order sheet.  On this evidence  there<br \/>\nwas  nothing  before the court to justify  a  conclusion  in<br \/>\nfavour\tof the petitioner on the general issue.\t  Only\tsome<br \/>\nsuggestions had been made  to  the Returning Officer in\t his<br \/>\ncross-examination  that he had ,acted mala fide and that  he<br \/>\nhad  a acted in collusion with the successful candidate.  No<br \/>\ndetails\t with  regard to the complaints\t leading to  or\t the<br \/>\ngrounds\t for  the  arrests were\t forthcoming.\tWe  find  it<br \/>\ndifficult  to believe that the petitioner did not  know\t the<br \/>\n&#8216;grounds  on  which  he was put under  arrest.\t The  arrest<br \/>\nimmediately before the election surely hampered the campaign<br \/>\nof  the election petitioner, but by itself the\tarrest\tdoes<br \/>\nnot  lead to the conclusion that the Returning\tOfficer\t was<br \/>\ntrying to bring pressure upon the election petitioner not to<br \/>\ncontest the election and much less that the arrest was\tmade<br \/>\nin collusion with the successful candidate.<br \/>\n    These being the only two points which were urged  before<br \/>\nus  in\tthe appeal, the appeal must fail and  it  is  hereby<br \/>\ndismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>G.C.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">46<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Lakhi Prasad Agarwal vs Nathmal Dokania on 6 September, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 583, 1969 SCR (2) 41 Author: G Mitter Bench: Mitter, G.K. PETITIONER: LAKHI PRASAD AGARWAL Vs. RESPONDENT: NATHMAL DOKANIA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/09\/1968 BENCH: MITTER, G.K. BENCH: MITTER, G.K. HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) CITATION: 1969 AIR 583 1969 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126298","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Lakhi Prasad Agarwal vs Nathmal Dokania on 6 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lakhi Prasad Agarwal vs Nathmal Dokania on 6 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1968-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-20T04:21:34+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\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lakhi Prasad Agarwal vs Nathmal Dokania on 6 September, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-20T04:21:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968\"},\"wordCount\":1705,\"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\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968\",\"name\":\"Lakhi Prasad Agarwal vs Nathmal Dokania on 6 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-20T04:21:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lakhi Prasad Agarwal vs Nathmal Dokania on 6 September, 1968\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Lakhi Prasad Agarwal vs Nathmal Dokania on 6 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lakhi Prasad Agarwal vs Nathmal Dokania on 6 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-20T04:21:34+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\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lakhi Prasad Agarwal vs Nathmal Dokania on 6 September, 1968","datePublished":"1968-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-20T04:21:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968"},"wordCount":1705,"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\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968","name":"Lakhi Prasad Agarwal vs Nathmal Dokania on 6 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-20T04:21:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakhi-prasad-agarwal-vs-nathmal-dokania-on-6-september-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lakhi Prasad Agarwal vs Nathmal Dokania on 6 September, 1968"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/126298","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=126298"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126298\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126298"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126298"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126298"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}