{"id":129516,"date":"2009-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009"},"modified":"2018-11-30T08:18:21","modified_gmt":"2018-11-30T02:48:21","slug":"smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Shanti And Others vs Anand Dev And Others on 14 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Smt.Shanti And Others vs Anand Dev And Others on 14 December, 2009<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                Civil Revision No.418 of 2008 (O&M)\n\n                                Date of Decision : December 14, 2009.\n\n\nSmt.Shanti and others                              .....Petitioners\n                                      through Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate\n      versus\nAnand Dev and others                         .....Respondents\n                                      through Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate\n\n\n\n                                Civil Revision No.4037 of 2008 (O&M)\n\nSmt.Shanti and others                              .....Petitioners\n                                through Mr.Pankaj Middha, Advocate\n      versus\nAnand Dev and others                         .....Respondents\n                                      through Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate\n\n\nCORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.\n                 -.-\n\n1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?\n2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n                        ---\n\n                         ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Surya Kant, J.\n<\/p>\n
            This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.418 of 2008<\/p>\n
and 4037 of 2008 as both the cases are between the same parties and<\/p>\n
common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases.
\n C.R. No.418 of 2008 (O&M)                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
[2]         These revision petitions have been preferred by the tenants<\/p>\n
against whom two eviction orders dated 16.12.2005 have been passed by<\/p>\n
the Rent Controller, Hisar in two separate eviction petitions filed by the<\/p>\n
respondent-landlord and which have been further upheld by the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority, Hisar, vide two separate judgments dated 24.12.2007.<\/p>\n
[3]         In Civil Revision No.418 of 2008, the respondent-landlord<\/p>\n
sought eviction of the petitioner-tenants, inter-alia, on the grounds that<\/p>\n
they are in arrears of rent from 1.2.2001 and have sublet the demised<\/p>\n
premises comprising a shop, in favour of the sub-tenant- now proforma<\/p>\n
respondent Nos.2 & 3.\n<\/p>\n
[4]         In Civil Revision No.4037 of 2008, the respondent-landlord<\/p>\n
sought the petitioners’ eviction on the ground that they are in arrears of<\/p>\n
rent w.e.f. 1.9.1999 till the date of filing of the eviction petition and they<\/p>\n
have sublet the demised premises to proforma respondent No.2 and that the<\/p>\n
demised premises was required by the landlord for his bonafide personal<\/p>\n
use and occupation, who after his retirement as a Branch Manager from the<\/p>\n
Life Insurance Company w.e.f. 30.4.1998, wanted to start his own business<\/p>\n
in the demised premises.\n<\/p>\n
[5]         The demised premises is a `shop’ forming part of the building<\/p>\n
No.MCH-11\/5-7, Block No.XVIII, situated near Guru Jambheshwar<\/p>\n
Market, Mohalla Udai Purian, Hisar. According to the respondent-<\/p>\n
landlord, the demised premises was let out to Puran Chand (since<\/p>\n
deceased), and predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners w.e.f. 28.5.1984 at<\/p>\n
a monthly rent of Rs.325\/- besides house tax, vide rent note dated
\n C.R. No.418 of 2008 (O&M)                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
28.5.1984 (Ex.PW4\/A). The respondent sought eviction of Puran Chand,<\/p>\n
inter-alia, on the grounds that he was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.9.1999 and<\/p>\n
has sublet the demised premises to Narinder Kumar, proforma respondent<\/p>\n
No.2, without the written consent of the respondent-landlord. It was<\/p>\n
averred that the demised premises is in exclusive possession of respondent<\/p>\n
No.2 and his brother Hoshiar Singh-respondent No.3, who are running the<\/p>\n
business under the name and style of M\/s National Electric Company. In<\/p>\n
the first eviction petition, the landlord further pleaded that he requires the<\/p>\n
demised premises for his personal use and occupation as earlier he was<\/p>\n
serving as a Branch Manager in the Life Insurance Company from where<\/p>\n
he had retired on superannuation on 30.4.1998 and wanted to start his own<\/p>\n
business of selling the greeting cards and stationery etc.<\/p>\n
[6]          Upon notice, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as<\/p>\n
well as the proforma respondents filed their joint written statements in both<\/p>\n
the eviction petitions. While admitting the fact that the demised premises<\/p>\n
was let out to Puran Chand vide rent note dated 28.5.1984, they denied that<\/p>\n
the shop had been sub-let to Narinder Kumar-proforma respondent No.2 or<\/p>\n
his brother. In the first eviction petition, it was pleaded that the shop was<\/p>\n
still in exclusive possession of Puran Chand and that respondent No.2 is a<\/p>\n
Motor Winding Mechanic who frequently visits the shop of Puran Chand<\/p>\n
“for purchasing the copper wires and other goods for his business”. In the<\/p>\n
second eviction petition also, the allegation of subletting was denied and in<\/p>\n
respect of proforma respondent No.3-Hoshiar Singh (who was impleaded<\/p>\n
in the second eviction petition only), it was averred that the he is a
\n C.R. No.418 of 2008 (O&M)                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
practicing lawyer in the District Courts at Hisar and had no concern with<\/p>\n
the shop in dispute. It was reiterated that even after the death of the<\/p>\n
original tenant-Puran Chand, the shop was still in exclusive possession of<\/p>\n
his widow and two sons, namely, the present petitioners.<\/p>\n
[7]         It may be noticed here that since the arrears of rent for the<\/p>\n
different periods mentioned in the two eviction petitions were tendered by<\/p>\n
the tenants, the first ground of eviction, namely, non-payment of rent, did<\/p>\n
not survive. Similarly, the Rent Controller did not accept the plea of the<\/p>\n
respondent-landlord regarding his bonafide personal necessity for the shop<\/p>\n
in dispute. The said finding has not been assailed by the respondent-<\/p>\n
landlord. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority in both<\/p>\n
the eviction petitions have, however, concurrently held that Puran Chand-<\/p>\n
the original tenant and predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had sublet<\/p>\n
the demised premises to proforma respondent Nos.2 & 3. The impugned<\/p>\n
eviction orders have been passed on that count alone.\n<\/p>\n
[8]         The solitary question which arises for consideration, is as to<\/p>\n
whether or not the original tenant (deceased Puran Chand) had sublet the<\/p>\n
demised premises in favour of the proforma respondent Nos.2 & 3?<\/p>\n
[9]         I have heard S\/Sh.Akshay Bhan and Pankaj Midha,<\/p>\n
Advocates, counsel for the petitioners and Sh.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate,<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent-landlord at some length and perused the records<\/p>\n
of the Courts below which have been summoned.\n<\/p>\n
[10]        In my considered view, there is over-whelming documentary<\/p>\n
evidence on record to substantiate the plea of subletting, successfully
\n C.R. No.418 of 2008 (O&M)                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
proved by the respondent-landlord before the Courts below and resultantly,<\/p>\n
no interference with the impugned orders is called for by this Court in<\/p>\n
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
[11]         There is indeed no dispute that the shop in dispute was let out<\/p>\n
to Puran Chand (since deceased) vide rent note dated 28.5.1984<\/p>\n
(Ex.PW4\/A). In order to prove that Puran Chand, during his life time,<\/p>\n
parted with the possession of the demised premises exclusively in favour<\/p>\n
of respondent Nos.2 & 3, the respondent-landlord has produced on record<\/p>\n
the statement of respondent No.3 dated 17.6.1997 (Ex.PW2\/4), made<\/p>\n
before the Sales Tax Authority to the effect that he is the proprietor of M\/s<\/p>\n
National Electric Company who runs its business from the shop in dispute.<\/p>\n
He claimed himself to be a tenant under the respondent-landlord. The site<\/p>\n
plan of the shop in dispute produced by respondent No.3 before the Excise<\/p>\n
and Sales Tax Authorities, has also been brought on record (Ex.PW\/2).<\/p>\n
The original application Form submitted by respondent No.3 for obtaining<\/p>\n
the Sales Tax No. of his firm, wherein also M\/s National Electric Company<\/p>\n
has been shown to be operating from the demised shop, has also been<\/p>\n
produced (Ex.PW3\/1). Similarly, the registration certificates issued to the<\/p>\n
aforesaid firm under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, at the<\/p>\n
address of the demised premises, have been brought on record (Ex.P3\/3<\/p>\n
and Ex.P3\/4). Likewise, the registration certificate issued under Section 7<\/p>\n
(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, issued on the same address, has<\/p>\n
also been got exhibited (Ex.PW3\/5). Respondent No.3 has also furnished a<\/p>\n
surety bond at the time of obtaining the registration certificate, a copy
\n C.R. No.418 of 2008 (O&M)                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
whereof has also been got exhibited (Ex.PW3\/7), besides a copy of his<\/p>\n
affidavit dated 4.6.1997 (Ex.PW3\/8).\n<\/p>\n
[12]        The aforesaid documentary evidence has a direct and material<\/p>\n
bearing on the question of subletting, as it is the specifically pleaded case<\/p>\n
of the respondent-landlord that the demised shop has been sublet by Puran<\/p>\n
Chand, the original tenant (since deceased) to respondent Nos.2 & 3 who<\/p>\n
are running their business therein under the name and style of M\/s<\/p>\n
National Electric Company.\n<\/p>\n
[13]        It appears that as soon as the first eviction petition was filed<\/p>\n
and the proforma respondents realized that their own documents are likely<\/p>\n
to support the plea of the landlord, respondent No.3 immediately moved an<\/p>\n
application for cancellation of registration of the firm and submitted an<\/p>\n
affidavit dated 28.3.2002 (Ex.PW4\/B) before the Sales Tax Authority. The<\/p>\n
landlord has also brought on record the Form ST-3, issued to M\/s National<\/p>\n
Electric Company on 9.9.1987 (Ex.PW4\/C), as well as the Form-B, issued<\/p>\n
by the Central Sales Tax Authority on the same date (Ex.PW4\/D).<\/p>\n
[14]        Taking no chance, the respondent-landlord got appointed one<\/p>\n
Virender Singh Malik, Advocate, as a Local Commissioner who after<\/p>\n
visiting the demised premises, submitted his report dated 20.7.2000<\/p>\n
(Ex.P4\/E) wherein he has mentioned that two persons, namely, Hoshiar<\/p>\n
Singh and Narinder Singh both sons of Mangat Ram (proforma<\/p>\n
respondents) were found sitting and claimed themselves to be tenants in<\/p>\n
the shop in dispute. The Local Commissioner further reported that there<\/p>\n
was a sign-board of M\/s National Electric Company in front of the shop in
\n C.R. No.418 of 2008 (O&M)                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
dispute.\n<\/p>\n
[15]        The respondent-landlord has also produced Ashok Kumar,<\/p>\n
Photographer (PW1) who has categorically deposed that he was asked to<\/p>\n
accompany Virender Singh Malik, Advocate-Local Commissioner and he<\/p>\n
had taken the photographs on the asking of the Local Commissioner.<\/p>\n
Suffice it to observe that these photographs also said to have depicted that<\/p>\n
respondent Nos.2 & 3 were sitting in the shop in dispute. Mr.Gulzari Lal<\/p>\n
Mittal, Inspector from the department of Excise and Taxation, appeared<\/p>\n
(PW2) and proved the series of the documents referred to above. This<\/p>\n
witness further deposed that M\/s National Electric Company has now been<\/p>\n
closed down on a written request to this effect alongwith his affidavit<\/p>\n
given by respondent No.3. Mr.R.N.Sheoran, Excise and Taxation Officer<\/p>\n
has been produced as PW-3 who remained posted as Assistant Excise and<\/p>\n
Taxation Officer at Hisar in the year 1996-97. The said witness too has<\/p>\n
testified the genuineness of the documents of the office record, referred to<\/p>\n
above. The respondent-landlord himself has also stepped into the witness<\/p>\n
box (PW-4) and deposed that Puran Chand-original tenant (since<\/p>\n
deceased) had handed over the exclusive possession of the shop in dispute<\/p>\n
to proforma respondent Nos.2 & 3 who are running the business there<\/p>\n
under the name and style of M\/s National Electric Company. The Local<\/p>\n
Commissioner-Virender Singh Malik, Advocate, has also been produced<\/p>\n
as PW5.\n<\/p>\n
[16]        As against it, the petitioner-tenants preferred to lead oral<\/p>\n
evidence only. Petitioner No.2 Jaswant S\/o late Puran Chand, appeared as
\n C.R. No.418 of 2008 (O&M)                                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
RW-2 and has virtually conceded the claim of the respondent-landlord. In<\/p>\n
his lengthy cross-examination, this witness has admitted that their entire<\/p>\n
family was permanently residing at Bhiwani and their ration card has also<\/p>\n
been issued at Bhiwani. He has conceded that the business activities in the<\/p>\n
shop in dispute are being run under the name and style of M\/s National<\/p>\n
Electric Company. He has further admitted that he does not know as to<\/p>\n
whether the shop is “single storied”, “double storied”, or “triple storied”.<\/p>\n
He also does not know as to what is on the eastern or western side of the<\/p>\n
shop. He does not know the rate of rent also. He has also admitted that at<\/p>\n
the time when the Local Commissioner visited the shop, Hoshiar Singh,<\/p>\n
Narinder Singh and a son of Narinder Singh were working at the shop.<\/p>\n
There is, however, a bald assertion by the said witness that he alongwith<\/p>\n
his other family members are still in possession of the shop in dispute.<\/p>\n
[17]        It may be noticed here that no documentary proof of any<\/p>\n
business activities still being run by the petitioners from the demised<\/p>\n
premises has been produced by them. Similarly, there is no evidence<\/p>\n
whatsoever to show that there has been any business activity from the<\/p>\n
demised shop other than what is being carried on by M\/s National Electric<\/p>\n
Company. The evidence clearly suggests that the legal heirs of the<\/p>\n
deceased-tenant, namely, the petitioners, do not reside even at Hisar and<\/p>\n
they are permanently settled at Bhiwani. It, thus, stands proved beyond any<\/p>\n
doubt that the deceased-tenant Puran Chand during his life time had parted<\/p>\n
with the possession of the demised shop and had handed-over the same<\/p>\n
exclusively in favour of respondent Nos.2 & 3.\n<\/p>\n
 C.R. No.418 of 2008 (O&M)                                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
[18]          It is true that in order to prove subletting, the landlord must<\/p>\n
prove the parting with possession by the tenant and that too for a valuable<\/p>\n
consideration. So far as parting with the possession for valuable<\/p>\n
consideration is concerned, it deserves to be noticed that the proforma<\/p>\n
respondent Nos.2 & 3 are not even remotely related to the deceased-tenant<\/p>\n
Puran Chand. It is not their case that they were inducted in the shop by<\/p>\n
Puran Chand on account of any love and affection. The monetary<\/p>\n
consideration, if any, behind handing over of the possession in favour of<\/p>\n
the sub-tenant, is a secret arrangement between the tenant and the sub-<\/p>\n
tenant to which the landlord can have no privy. Once the landlord proves<\/p>\n
that a stranger has been brought into exclusive possession of the rental<\/p>\n
premises and the original tenant has not retained even the legal possession,<\/p>\n
the Rent Controller would be justified in law to draw an inference of<\/p>\n
valuable consideration as the foundation of such transaction. The onus<\/p>\n
would then be on the tenant to prove otherwise. In this regard, the<\/p>\n
petitioners as well as the proforma respondents have miserably failed to<\/p>\n
discharge the onus on them.\n<\/p>\n
[19]          No case of misreading of evidence or of any perversity in the<\/p>\n
concurrent findings of fact returned by the Courts below, is made out on<\/p>\n
behalf of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
[20]          For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in these<\/p>\n
revision petitions which are accordingly dismissed but no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
14-12-2009                                            (SURYA KANT)\n   Mohinder                                               JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Smt.Shanti And Others vs Anand Dev And Others on 14 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.418 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : December 14, 2009. Smt.Shanti and others …..Petitioners through Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate versus Anand Dev and others …..Respondents through Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-129516","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.Shanti And Others vs Anand Dev And Others on 14 December, 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\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Shanti And Others vs Anand Dev And Others on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-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=\"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-30T02:48:21+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\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Shanti And Others vs Anand Dev And Others on 14 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-30T02:48:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2216,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt.Shanti And Others vs Anand Dev And Others on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-30T02:48:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Shanti And Others vs Anand Dev And Others on 14 December, 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:\/\/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":"Smt.Shanti And Others vs Anand Dev And Others on 14 December, 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\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Shanti And Others vs Anand Dev And Others on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-30T02:48:21+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\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Shanti And Others vs Anand Dev And Others on 14 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-30T02:48:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009"},"wordCount":2216,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009","name":"Smt.Shanti And Others vs Anand Dev And Others on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-30T02:48:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-shanti-and-others-vs-anand-dev-and-others-on-14-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Shanti And Others vs Anand Dev And Others on 14 December, 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:\/\/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\/129516","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=129516"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129516\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}