{"id":131065,"date":"2010-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-11-15T22:26:46","modified_gmt":"2018-11-15T16:56:46","slug":"pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Pt. Ganga Prasad Sharma vs Dr. Beni Prasad Sharma on 9 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Pt. Ganga Prasad Sharma vs Dr. Beni Prasad Sharma on 9 July, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Aruna Suresh<\/div>\n
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n+                       RSA No. 116\/1982\n\n                                      Date of Decision: July 09, 2010\n\n       PT. GANGA PRASAD SHARMA              ......Appellant\n                         Through: Mr. Jos Chiramel, Mr. Joel\n                                  John and Mr. Rohan\n                                  Chapagain, Advocates.\n                  versus\n       DR. BENI PRASAD SHARMA             .....Respondent\n                         Through: Mr.Seeraj Bagga,\n                                  Advocate.\n       %\n       CORAM:\n       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH\n\n(1)    Whether reporters of local paper may be\n       allowed to see the judgment?\n(2)    To be referred to the reporter or not?                     Yes\n(3)    Whether the judgment should be reported\n       in the Digest ?                                            Yes\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
ARUNA SURESH, J.\n<\/p>\n
CM No.3088\/2006 (U\/s 100(4) read with Section 151 CPC)\n<\/p>\n
1.                Respondent\/plaintiff had filed a suit for possession in<\/p>\n
respect of suit property admeasuring 186.5 square yards, which is in<\/p>\n
possession of the appellant\/defendant. Trial Court dismissed the suit<\/p>\n
of the respondent holding that the land conveyed to the respondent<\/p>\n
vide Ex.PW-1\/1 was not the land for which possession was sought<\/p>\n
and that respondent had failed to prove his ownership qua the land<\/p>\n
RSA No.116\/1982                                                 Page 1 of 9<\/span>
\n shown in yellow color in the site plan Ex.PW-4\/1. Trial Court also<\/p>\n
observed that appellant was in continuous possession of the suit<\/p>\n
property for more than twelve years before filing of the suit.<\/p>\n
2.                Respondent filed an appeal challenging the judgment<\/p>\n
and decree of the Trial Court. Appellate Court vide its impugned<\/p>\n
judgment and decree dated 26th March 1982, set aside the judgment<\/p>\n
and decree of the Trial Court and decreed the suit of the respondent.<\/p>\n
Hence, this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as \u201eCPC\u201f).\n<\/p>\n
3.                This application has been filed by the appellant seeking<\/p>\n
formulation of substantial questions of law, as according to him no<\/p>\n
substantial question of law was formulated by this Court and without<\/p>\n
formulating substantial question of law; appeal could not be heard<\/p>\n
and finally decided by this Court. He suggested substantial questions<\/p>\n
of law in para-4 of the application.\n<\/p>\n
4.                Application has been duly contested by the respondent<\/p>\n
alleging that it is misuse of process of law. This Court after taking<\/p>\n
into consideration the grounds of appeal and the decisions of the<\/p>\n
courts below admitted this appeal on 26th April, 1982 by formulating<\/p>\n
a substantial question of law. Therefore, the applicant while seeking<\/p>\n
review of the said order has sought reformulation of substantial<\/p>\n
RSA No.116\/1982                                                  Page 2 of 9<\/span>
\n questions of law and introducing them in the order of admission<\/p>\n
dated 26th April, 1982 cannot be allowed as the said order can neither<\/p>\n
be reviewed nor modified after twenty five years. It is also averred<\/p>\n
that application under Section 100 sub-section (4) CPC is not<\/p>\n
maintainable and no substantial question of law, as sought by the<\/p>\n
appellant can be framed now at this stage and that on 26th April<\/p>\n
1982, appellant did not plead, nor urged before the Court to frame<\/p>\n
any other question mentioned in ground No. XXII, meaning thereby<\/p>\n
that the Court had declined to frame any substantial question of law<\/p>\n
on the said grounds on 26th April, 1982. It is also averred that the<\/p>\n
application is patently barred by period of limitation as without<\/p>\n
suggesting formulation of substantial questions of law, appeal could<\/p>\n
not have been filed. This application having been filed now makes<\/p>\n
the appeal barred by period of limitation. It is urged that under these<\/p>\n
circumstances,       application   being   not   maintainable   deserves<\/p>\n
dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
5.                Section 100 CPC permits a party to file an appeal from<\/p>\n
a decree passed in appeal by any court subordinate to the High Court<\/p>\n
if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial<\/p>\n
question of law. As per sub-section (4) of Section 100 CPC, where<\/p>\n
the High Court is satisfied that substantial question of law is<\/p>\n
RSA No.116\/1982                                                 Page 3 of 9<\/span>
\n involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. By virtue of<\/p>\n
sub-section (5) this Court is required to hear the party on the<\/p>\n
question so formulated and the respondent at the hearing of the<\/p>\n
appeal has to be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such<\/p>\n
question. Proviso to this Section protects the powers of this Court to<\/p>\n
hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial<\/p>\n
question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case<\/p>\n
involves such question.\n<\/p>\n
6.                Appellant suggested substantial questions of law which<\/p>\n
are required to be formulated in this appeal in para XXII of the<\/p>\n
appeal.    These very questions, as suggested, have also been<\/p>\n
suggested in the instant application.       On 26th April 1982, while<\/p>\n
admitting the appeal, this Court passed the following order:-<\/p>\n
       ”          Admitted.\n<\/p>\n
               The appeal involves substantial question of law
\n       as to the interpretation of boundaries of the properties
\n       forming subject matter of the two sale deeds in the
\n       suit, namely PW.1\/1 and DW. 3\/1.”\n<\/p>\n
7.                Perusal of this order makes it clear that while<\/p>\n
observing that appeal involved substantial question of law, this Court<\/p>\n
did not formulate any substantial question of law and the notice was<\/p>\n
sent to the respondent on admission of the appeal. Since the appeal<\/p>\n
RSA No.116\/1982                                                 Page 4 of 9<\/span>
\n was admitted, it seems that it was listed before the Court in the<\/p>\n
category of \u201eRegular Matters\u201f. However, it was dismissed for non-<\/p>\n
prosecution on 11th October, 2004.         On an application of the<\/p>\n
appellant, it was restored on 11th January, 2005. Court had asked the<\/p>\n
appellant to file translated copies of the documents which were in<\/p>\n
Urdu. On 8th May 2007, this Court listed the matter for 29th August,<\/p>\n
2007 for arguments on admission\/formulation of substantial<\/p>\n
questions of law, if any.\n<\/p>\n
8.                As stated above, appeal had already been admitted on<\/p>\n
26th April, 1982.       Substantial question of law had not yet been<\/p>\n
formulated and therefore, it was rightly listed for formulation of<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law. It is pertinent that appellant had already<\/p>\n
filed the present application in February, 2006 i.e. much before the<\/p>\n
Court listed the matter for formulation of substantial questions of<\/p>\n
law, though the application remained pending. It is no longer res<\/p>\n
integra that substantial question of law is required to be formulated<\/p>\n
at the time of admission of the appeal and the respondent is entitled<\/p>\n
to show that the question so formulated by this Court does not<\/p>\n
involve such a question.        If the Court does not formulate such<\/p>\n
question at the time of admission and after hearing parties purports to<\/p>\n
formulate questions, which according to it arise for determination,<\/p>\n
RSA No.116\/1982                                               Page 5 of 9<\/span>
\n acts against settled principle of law. It is not legally permissible for<\/p>\n
a Court to formulate such purported questions while determining the<\/p>\n
issue in the judgment itself for want of adequate notice to the<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n
9.                In ‘Corporation of City of Bangalore Vs. Syed Iqbal<\/p>\n
Hussain’, (2005) 9 SCC 362, Supreme Court has observed that:-<\/p>\n
       “8.    It is no longer res integra that a second appeal
\n       can be admitted for hearing; only in the event the High
\n       Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial
\n       question of law, whereupon it shall formulate such a
\n       question in terms of sub-section(4) of Section 100 of
\n       the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-section (5) of
\n       Section 100 mandates that the appeal shall be heard on
\n       the question so formulated and the respondent shall at
\n       the hearing of the appeal be allowed to argue that the
\n       case does not involve such a question. In view of the
\n       provisions contained in sub-sections (4) and (5) of
\n       Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there
\n       cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a substantial
\n       question of law is required to be formulated at the time
\n       of the admission of the second appeal and the
\n       respondent can be called upon to respond only thereto.
\n       Even the respondent is entitled to show that the
\n       question so formulated by the High Court does not
\n       involve such a question. The hearing of the second
\n       appeal, thus, must be confined to the substantial
\n       question of law so formulated subject to the exceptions
\n       contained in the proviso appended to sub-section (5) of
\n       Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.               Thus, it is clear that under Section 100 CPC,<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of this Court to entertain a second appeal is confined<\/p>\n
only to such appeals which involve a substantial question of law and<\/p>\n
RSA No.116\/1982                                               Page 6 of 9<\/span>
\n it does not confer any jurisdiction on the Court to interfere with a<\/p>\n
pure question of fact while exercising its jurisdiction under Section<\/p>\n
100 CPC. (Reference is made to ‘Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade Vs.<\/p>\n
Maroti Bhaurao Marnor’, [(1999) 2 SCC 471]<\/p>\n
11.               As per the proviso, the Court should be satisfied that a<\/p>\n
case involves a substantial question of law and not a mere question<\/p>\n
of law and the Court must record the reason permitting a substantial<\/p>\n
question of law to be raised. It is the duty of this Court to formulate<\/p>\n
the substantial question of law involved in the case at the initial stage<\/p>\n
and in exceptional cases at a later point of time. When the Court<\/p>\n
exercises its jurisdiction under the provisio to sub-Section (5) of<\/p>\n
Section 100 CPC in formulating substantial question of law, the<\/p>\n
opposite party should be put on notice thereon and should be given a<\/p>\n
fair or proper opportunity to meet the point. Proceeding to hear the<\/p>\n
appeal without formulating substantial question of law involved in<\/p>\n
the appeal is illegal and is an abnegation or abdication of the duty<\/p>\n
cast on the Court. (Reference is made to ‘Kshitish Chandra Purkait<\/p>\n
Vs. Santosh Kumar Purkait & Ors.’, (1997) 5 SCC 438).<\/p>\n
12.               In the instant appeal, appellant has challenged the<\/p>\n
findings of the Appellate Court. This Court can interfere with the<\/p>\n
findings recorded by the courts below only on substantial question of<\/p>\n
RSA No.116\/1982                                                 Page 7 of 9<\/span>
\n law, either framed at the time of admission of the appeal or reframed<\/p>\n
or substituted later on at the time of arguments. (Reference is made<\/p>\n
to ‘K.G. Shivalingappa (Dead) by LRS. & Ors. Vs. G.S.Eswarappa<\/p>\n
& Ors.’ (2004) 12 SCC 189).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.               While admitting the appeal, this Court, in a way,<\/p>\n
formulated a substantial question of law by observing that appeal<\/p>\n
involved substantial question of law as to the interpretation of<\/p>\n
boundaries of the properties forming subject matter of the two sale<\/p>\n
deeds in the suit, namely PW.1\/1 and DE. 3\/1. According to the<\/p>\n
appellant, this is not a formulation of substantial question of law by<\/p>\n
the Court whereas according to the respondent, substantial question<\/p>\n
of law was formulated. However, under the circumstances, keeping<\/p>\n
in mind the provisions of Section 100 CPC, it can be safely said that<\/p>\n
while admitting the appeal, certain observations were made by the<\/p>\n
Court that appeal involved substantial question of law but, no<\/p>\n
substantial question of law was properly formulated. Therefore, this<\/p>\n
Court at the time of hearing is within its right to formulate<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.               As discussed above, vide order dated 8th May 2007,<\/p>\n
matter was listed by this Court for formulation of substantial<\/p>\n
RSA No.116\/1982                                             Page 8 of 9<\/span>
\n questions of law, if any, on 29th August, 2007. Without formulating<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law and without affording a fair and proper<\/p>\n
opportunity to the respondent to submit on the same, appeal cannot<\/p>\n
be finally decided on merits. Under these circumstances, application<\/p>\n
stands disposed of in favour of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\nRSA No. 116\/1982<\/p>\n
        Parties shall submit their arguments on formulation of<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law, if any, before the Regular Bench.<\/p>\n
        Parties shall appear before the Regular Bench on 19th July,<\/p>\n
2010.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ARUNA SURESH
\n                                                   (JUDGE)
\nJULY 09, 2010
\nsb<\/p>\n
RSA No.116\/1982                                            Page 9 of 9<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Pt. Ganga Prasad Sharma vs Dr. Beni Prasad Sharma on 9 July, 2010 Author: Aruna Suresh * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No. 116\/1982 Date of Decision: July 09, 2010 PT. GANGA PRASAD SHARMA ……Appellant Through: Mr. Jos Chiramel, Mr. Joel John and Mr. Rohan Chapagain, […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131065","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPt. Ganga Prasad Sharma vs Dr. Beni Prasad Sharma on 9 July, 2010 - 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\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pt. Ganga Prasad Sharma vs Dr. Beni Prasad Sharma on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-15T16:56:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pt. Ganga Prasad Sharma vs Dr. Beni Prasad Sharma on 9 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-15T16:56:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1793,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Pt. Ganga Prasad Sharma vs Dr. Beni Prasad Sharma on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-15T16:56:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pt. Ganga Prasad Sharma vs Dr. Beni Prasad Sharma on 9 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Pt. Ganga Prasad Sharma vs Dr. Beni Prasad Sharma on 9 July, 2010 - 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\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pt. Ganga Prasad Sharma vs Dr. Beni Prasad Sharma on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-15T16:56:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pt. Ganga Prasad Sharma vs Dr. Beni Prasad Sharma on 9 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-15T16:56:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010"},"wordCount":1793,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010","name":"Pt. Ganga Prasad Sharma vs Dr. Beni Prasad Sharma on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-15T16:56:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ganga-prasad-sharma-vs-dr-beni-prasad-sharma-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pt. Ganga Prasad Sharma vs Dr. Beni Prasad Sharma on 9 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/131065","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=131065"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131065\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131065"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131065"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131065"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}