{"id":131493,"date":"1994-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994"},"modified":"2015-04-18T17:50:30","modified_gmt":"2015-04-18T12:20:30","slug":"naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994","title":{"rendered":"Naraindas Lilaram Adnani vs Narsingdas Naraindas Adnani &amp; Ors on 16 December, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Naraindas Lilaram Adnani vs Narsingdas Naraindas Adnani &amp; Ors on 16 December, 1994<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR  763, \t\t  1995 SCC  Supl.  (1) 312<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M S V.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Manohar Sujata (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nNARAINDAS LILARAM ADNANI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNARSINGDAS NARAINDAS ADNANI &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/12\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nMANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)\nBENCH:\nMANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)\nAHMADI A.M. (CJ)\nMOHAN, S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 AIR  763\t\t  1995 SCC  Supl.  (1) 312\n JT 1995 (1)   257\t  1994 SCALE  (5)310\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>1.   The deceased appellant Naraindas Lilaram Adnani was the<br \/>\noriginal  petitioner.  Respondents 1 and 2 are his  sons  by<br \/>\nhis  first wife.  The 5th respondent is also the son of\t the<br \/>\nappellant  by his first wife.  Respondent No. 3 is the\twife<br \/>\nof  the\t first\trespondent.   The  6th\trespondent   Devibai<br \/>\nNaraindas  Adnani  is  the second  wife\t of  the  appellant.<br \/>\nRespondents  7\tand 9 are the sons of the appellant  by\t his<br \/>\nsecond Wife.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.After\t filing of the Special Leave Petition the  appellant<br \/>\ndied  on 15.4.1988. The 9th respondent has filed IA  No.  1\/<br \/>\n1989 for  being substituted as the appellant in place of the<br \/>\noriginal appellant.  In the said application which is  under<br \/>\nOrder  22  Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure  read\twith<br \/>\nrelevant rules of this Court, the 9th respondent has  stated<br \/>\nthat  the  deceased appellant has left a  Will\tunder  which<br \/>\nrespondent  no. 9 is the sole executor of the  Will.   Under<br \/>\nthe  said Will the appellant has left his entire  estate  to<br \/>\nrespondent  no. 6 i.e. his second wife.\t Respondents  no.  9<br \/>\nhas,  therefore, prayed that he should be impleaded  in\t his<br \/>\ncapacity  as  the  executor  of the  Will  of  the  deceased<br \/>\nappellant  and as his legal representative.  The Will,\thow-<br \/>\never, has not been probated so far.  In view of Section\t 213<br \/>\nof  the\t Indian\t Succession Act, respondent  no.  9  cannot,<br \/>\ntherefore  be, impleaded in his capacity as the executor  of<br \/>\nthe  will  of the deceased appellant.  It  is,\thowever,  an<br \/>\naccepted  position  that the legal  representatives  of\t the<br \/>\noriginal appellant are already on record.  We therefore,  do<br \/>\nnot  see an,,, difficulty in transposing respondent  no.  9,<br \/>\none  of the legal representative of the deceased  appellant,<br \/>\nas the appellant.  For the sake of convenience, however, the<br \/>\noriginal  appellant will be hereinafter referred to  as\t the<br \/>\nappellant  and the transposed appellant will be referred  to<br \/>\nas respondent no. 9.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   At\t all times material to these proceedings there\twere<br \/>\nthree  partnership firms of which the appellant and some  of<br \/>\nhis  family  members  were partners.  One was  the  firm  of<br \/>\n&#8216;Naraindas  Sons&#8217;.   The second firm was  &#8216;N.\tSukhdev\t and<br \/>\nCompany&#8217; and the third firm was &#8216;Lilaram Kewalram  (India)&#8217;.<br \/>\nOn account of differences and disputes between the appellant<br \/>\nand the various members of his family, the parties agreed to<br \/>\nrefer  their disputes to the sole arbitration of  Shri\tD.N.<br \/>\nAbhichandani, Advocate, under a Deed of Reference dated 17th<br \/>\nof  September, 1973.  The Deed of Reference states that\t all<br \/>\ndisputes and differences between the parties are referred to<br \/>\nthe arbitration of Shri D.N. Abhichandani.  Pursuant to\t the<br \/>\nDeed  of  Reference  the said Arbitrator  entered  upon\t the<br \/>\nreference,  heard  the parties and made\t and  published\t his<br \/>\nAward  dated 15th of March, 1979.  The award has been  filed<br \/>\nin the Bombay High Court being Award No. 46\/1979.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   Four petitions were filed in the Bombay High      Court<br \/>\nchallenging this Award. The 6th respondent, Devibai<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">260<\/span><br \/>\nNaraindas  Adnani, filed Arbitration Petition No.  102\/1979.<br \/>\nRespondent  no. 7 filed Arbitration Petition  No.  103\/1979.<br \/>\nThe  9th respondent filed Arbitration Petition No.  104\/1979<br \/>\nand  the appellant filed Arbitration Petition No.  105\/1979,<br \/>\nAll these petitions were heard and disposed of by a  learned<br \/>\nSingle\tJudge by his common judgment and order\tdated  April<br \/>\n20\/21,\t1983,  under  which  all  the  four  petitions\twere<br \/>\ndismissed.   Being  aggrieved by this  order  the  appellant<br \/>\npreferred  an  appeal before a Division Bench  of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  being Appeal No. 563\/83.\t No appeal was filed in\t the<br \/>\nother three petitions which were also dismissed by the\tsaid<br \/>\njudgment and order.  The Division Bench has, by its judgment<br \/>\nand order dated 10th of November, 1987 dismissed the appeal.<br \/>\nHence  the appellant filed a special leave  petition  before<br \/>\nthis Court which has been granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   The  grievance of the appellant relates to the  failure<br \/>\nof  the Arbitrator to give certain consequential reliefs  in<br \/>\nhis  Award.   One of the properties which was  the  subject-<br \/>\nmatter of dispute before the Arbitrator was a property known<br \/>\nas Narain Niwas situated at Vile Parle.\t Respondents 1 and 2<br \/>\ncontended  that this was a partnership property of the\tfirm<br \/>\nof  Lilaram Kewalram (India).  They claimed a 1\/3rd  or\t 28%<br \/>\nshare  in  the said property as partners of the\t said  firm.<br \/>\nTheir  contention was negatived by the Arbitrator  who\theld<br \/>\nthat  Narain Niwas at Vile Parle was the exclusive  personal<br \/>\nproperty  of the appellant Naraindas.  Having held  so,\t the<br \/>\nArbitrator  considered\twhat  should  be  the  consequential<br \/>\nrelief\twhich  could  be  granted  to  the  appellant.\t The<br \/>\nArbitrator  noted  that a part of this property was  in\t the<br \/>\npossession  of\trespondents  1 and  2  while  the  remaining<br \/>\nproperty  was  in  the possession  of  the  appellant.\t The<br \/>\nArbitrator  has\t stated\t in his Award  at  paragraph  61  as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;With  my\t aforesaid decision  that  the\tsaid<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;Narain  Niwas&#8221;  is  the\texclusive   personal<br \/>\n\t      property\tof  the\t Naraindas  my\tjurisdiction<br \/>\n\t      stops   there  as\t the  relationship   between<br \/>\n\t      Naraindas,  Narsingdas  and  Parshotamdas\t  as<br \/>\n\t      regards the said possession of Narsingdas\t and<br \/>\n\t      Parshotamdas   will   be\t governed   by\t the<br \/>\n\t      provisions  of  the  Bombay  Rent\t Act   which<br \/>\n\t      possession  however,  shall not  be  disturbed<br \/>\n\t      except by due process of law.  &#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The appellant contends that the Arbitrator, having held that<br \/>\nNarain\tNiwas  was his exclusive personal  property,  should<br \/>\nhave granted the consequential relief of possession.  It  is<br \/>\nsubmitted by the appellant that there is no question of\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  of\tBombay\tRent Hotel  &amp;  Lodging\tHouse  Rates<br \/>\nControl\t Act  (hereinafter referred to as the  &#8216;Bombay\tRent<br \/>\nAct&#8217;)  being  attracted in this case.  It is  nobody&#8217;s\tcase<br \/>\nthat  either the 1st or the 2nd respondent  (Narsingdas\t and<br \/>\nParshotamdas) are tenants in respect of the portions of\t the<br \/>\nsaid  property\tin their possession.  Nor was  it  anybody&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase  that either the 1st or 2nd respondent  were  protected<br \/>\nlicensees  in  respect\tof it.\tIt was\talso  not  contended<br \/>\nbefore the Arbitration that any rent or any compensation was<br \/>\nbeing  paid by the 1st and\/or the 2nd respondent in  respect<br \/>\nof  their occupation of portions of the said property.\t The<br \/>\nonly case of respondents 1 and 2 was that this property\t was<br \/>\na partnership property; and because respondents 1 and 2 were<br \/>\npartners  in  the  partnership\tfirm  of  Lilaram   Kewalram<br \/>\n(India), they had a 1\/3rd or 28% share in the said property.<br \/>\nThis having been negatived by the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator<br \/>\nought to have granted the consequential relief possession.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">261<\/span><\/p>\n<p>6.   There  is\tmuch force in this  contention.\t  The  above<br \/>\npassage\t in the Award clearly indicates the reasons why\t the<br \/>\nArbitrator has not granted possession to the appellant.\t The<br \/>\nlearned\t Arbitrator  seems  to have been  under\t a  mistaken<br \/>\nimpression  that the right to possession of the portions  of<br \/>\nthe  property  occupied\t by respondents 1  and\t2  would  be<br \/>\ngoverned by the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.  He\thas,<br \/>\ntherefore,  observed  that  their possession  shall  not  be<br \/>\ndisturbed  except by due process of law.  Since it is  clear<br \/>\nthat  the  provisions of the said Act are not  attracted  at<br \/>\nall, the Arbitrator ought to have granted the  consequential<br \/>\nrelief\tof  possession\tto  make  his  Award  complete\t and<br \/>\neffective.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   During  the pendency of the appeal before the  Division<br \/>\nBench of the High Court, the appellant, in view of the above<br \/>\nquoted\tobservations of the Arbitrator, filed two suits\t for<br \/>\npossession  of the portions of the said Vile Parle  property<br \/>\nin  the possession of respondents 1 and 2, being  Suit\tnos.<br \/>\n1338\/83 and 1339\/83.  In the Memorandum of Appeal in  Appeal<br \/>\nNo.  563\/83 filed by the appellant it has been\tstated\tthat<br \/>\nthese suits are being filed without prejudice to the  rights<br \/>\nand contentions of the appellant in the appeal.\t Even other-<br \/>\nwise, in the context in which the suits have been filed,  it<br \/>\nis  clear that these suits have been filed by the  appellant<br \/>\nex abundanti cautela.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   The Division Bench of the High Court, however, declined<br \/>\nto  grant  the consequential relief of possession  as  these<br \/>\nsuits for possession had been already filed.  In the present<br \/>\ncase, the Arbitration Award was made as far back as on\t15th<br \/>\nof  March,  1979.  It would not now be fair  to\t direct\t the<br \/>\nappellant  to seek his remedy of possession through the\t two<br \/>\nsuits  which  he has filed and which may  take\tconsiderable<br \/>\ntime  to  be  finally disposed of,  when  the  consequential<br \/>\nrelief\tof possession could have been granted to  him  under<br \/>\nthe Award itself\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   Under  Section 15(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940,\t the<br \/>\nCourt  may, by order, modify or correct an Award inter\talia<br \/>\nwhere  the  Award  is imperfect in  form,  or  contains\t any<br \/>\nobvious\t error which can be amended without  affecting\tsuch<br \/>\ndecision.   Obviously  the court cannot substitute  its\t own<br \/>\norder  for  the Award of the Arbitrator.   But\tany  obvious<br \/>\nerror in the Award can be corrected by the court provided it<br \/>\ndoes  not affect the decision given by the  Arbitrator.\t  In<br \/>\nthe  present case the decision of the Arbitrator  is  clear,<br \/>\nnamely,\t that the Narain Niwas property is  exclusively\t the<br \/>\npersonal  property of the appellant Naraindas.\tIt  is\talso<br \/>\nclear  that respondents 1 and 2 cannot claim any part of  it<br \/>\nby  virtue  of their being partners in the firm\t of  Lilaram<br \/>\nKewalram  (India).  The only reason why the  Arbitrator\t has<br \/>\nnot  granted  any  consequential  relief  seems\t to  be\t his<br \/>\nimpression  that the possession of respondents 1 and  2\t was<br \/>\ngoverned  by  the provisions of the Bombay Rent\t Act.\tThis<br \/>\nbeing clearly a mistake, it is possible to correct the\tsame<br \/>\nwithout\t affecting  the decision of the\t Arbitrator.   After<br \/>\nall, the Award must be couched in a form which would lead to<br \/>\nfinality.   It\tshould not be in a form\t which\tcompels\t the<br \/>\nparties\t to embark upon further litigation.  If the  mistake<br \/>\nof  the\t Arbitrator is allowed to stand as it is,  it  would<br \/>\nclearly\t lead  to  further litigation  between\tthe  parties<br \/>\nalthough their rights, inter se, are clearly decided by\t the<br \/>\nArbitrator.  The mistake, therefore, can be corrected  under<br \/>\nSection 15(b) of the Arbitration Act 1940.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">262<\/span><\/p>\n<p>10.  It was contended by learned Advocate for respondent no.<br \/>\n1 that the Award should be remitted to the Arbitrator  under<br \/>\nSection 16 of the Arbitration Act.  In the first place,\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t Arbitrator has also expired.  Secondly,  the  Award<br \/>\nhas  not  left\tany matter  undetermined.   It\thas  clearly<br \/>\ndecided the rights of the appellant and respondents 1 and  2<br \/>\nin  the\t Narain\t Niwas property.  Hence\t the  provisions  of<br \/>\nSection\t 16  are not required to be invoked in\tthe  present<br \/>\ncase.  The appellant being entitled exclusively to the\tsaid<br \/>\nproperty,   is\t entitled  to\tpossession   thereof   since<br \/>\nrespondents 1 and 2 do not have nay right, title or interest<br \/>\nin  the said property or any part thereof and have no  right<br \/>\nto  possession\tthereof.   The respondents  1  and  2  shall<br \/>\naccordingly hand over possession of the portions of the said<br \/>\nproperty in their occupation to the present appellant  i.e.,<br \/>\nrespondent  No. 9 who shall hold the same for and on  behalf<br \/>\nof the estate of the deceased appellant. respondents 1 and 2<br \/>\nhave  asked for time to hand over  possession.\t Considering<br \/>\nthe  period  that has elapsed since the Award  during  which<br \/>\nperiod\trespondents 1 and 2 have enjoyed possession  of\t the<br \/>\nportions of the said property, we are not inclined to  grant<br \/>\na long time but we direct that each of them shall hand\tover<br \/>\npossession of the portions of Narain Niwas in his possession<br \/>\nwithin 6 months from today.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  The  next\tproperty  which\t is  the  subject-matter  of<br \/>\ndispute\t in this appeal is a tenanted property,\t being\troom<br \/>\nno.  13 of the second floor of Vasantwadi,  Kalbadevi  road,<br \/>\nBombay.\t The appellant had contended that the tenancy rights<br \/>\nin the said room belonged to him exclusively.  Respondents 1<br \/>\nand 2, however, claimed the tenancy rights in the said\troom<br \/>\nas a partnership asset of Lilaram Kewalram (India).\n<\/p>\n<p>12.  At\t the time when Appeal no. 563\/ 83 was heard  by\t the<br \/>\nDivision Bench of the High Court, learned counsel  appearing<br \/>\nfor  respondents 1 and 2 had stated that in order to put  an<br \/>\nend to the dispute relating to this property, respondents  1<br \/>\nand 2 were agreeable either (a) to buy out the share of\t the<br \/>\nappellant or (b) to get the property valued by a Valuer\t and<br \/>\nto  pay off the appellant&#8217;s share or (c) that  the  property<br \/>\nmay  be auctioned inter se and be taken over by the  highest<br \/>\nbidder.\t Learned Advocate for the appellant, however, stated<br \/>\nthat he was unable to express any view in the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.  It\t is necessary to note that the first respondent\t has<br \/>\n40%  share in this property, the second respondent  has\t 17%<br \/>\nshare in this property while the appellant has 43% share  in<br \/>\nthe  said property.  Respondent No. 1 in possession  of\t the<br \/>\nsaid  room.  The respondents 1 and 2 have stated  before  us<br \/>\nthat  the present appellant i.e. respondent no. 9 may  state<br \/>\nthe  value of the said property and respondents 1  and\/or  2<br \/>\nshould\tbe given the first option either to accept the\tsaid<br \/>\nproperty  on the valuation as made by the present  appellant<br \/>\nand pay off the share of the present appellant on the  basis<br \/>\nof the said valuation, or in the alternative, they or either<br \/>\nof  them would be free to accept their respective shares  in<br \/>\nthe said property in monetary terms on the basis of the said<br \/>\nvaluation.  On such amounts being paid they would hand\tover<br \/>\nthe   possession  of  the  said\t property  to  the   present<br \/>\nappellant.  In our view, this seems to be a very fair offer.<br \/>\nWe, therefore, direct the par-ties to act accordingly.\t The<br \/>\npresent\t appellant, i.e., respondent No. 9 shall  state\t his<br \/>\nvaluation of the said property in monetary terms in  writing<br \/>\nand convey the same to respondent nos.\t1 and 2<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">263<\/span><br \/>\nthe same in writing to the present appellant or his advocate<br \/>\nwithin 8 weeks thereafter.  The consequential payments shall<br \/>\nbe  made  within 2 weeks thereafter and\t the  possession  be<br \/>\neither retained by respondents 1 and\/or 2 or handed over  to<br \/>\nrespondent  no.\t 9 as heir and legal representative  of\t the<br \/>\noriginal appellant, as the case may be.\t In the latter\tcase<br \/>\nrespondent  no.\t 9  shall  retain  possession  of  the\tsaid<br \/>\nproperty  for  and on behalf of the estate of  the  deceased<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.The last property which is required to be &#8216;considered  is<br \/>\nthe  property at Ganeshpuri.  The present appellant  has  no<br \/>\nobjection to handing over possession of the portion of\tthis<br \/>\nproperty  originally in the occupation of the  appellant  to<br \/>\nrespondents  1 and 2, although the Arbitrator has held\tthat<br \/>\nthe   appellant,  the  first  respondent  and\tthe   second<br \/>\nrespondent  are owners of the said property having an  equal<br \/>\nshare therein.\tHe shall, therefore, do so within 4, weeks.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.The\tappeal is, therefore, allowed to the  above  extent.<br \/>\nThere will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">264<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Naraindas Lilaram Adnani vs Narsingdas Naraindas Adnani &amp; Ors on 16 December, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 763, 1995 SCC Supl. (1) 312 Author: M S V. Bench: Manohar Sujata (J) PETITIONER: NARAINDAS LILARAM ADNANI Vs. RESPONDENT: NARSINGDAS NARAINDAS ADNANI &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/12\/1994 BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) BENCH: [&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-131493","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Naraindas Lilaram Adnani vs Narsingdas Naraindas Adnani &amp; Ors on 16 December, 1994 - 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\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Naraindas Lilaram Adnani vs Narsingdas Naraindas Adnani &amp; Ors on 16 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994\" \/>\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=\"1994-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-18T12:20:30+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\\\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Naraindas Lilaram Adnani vs Narsingdas Naraindas Adnani &amp; Ors on 16 December, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-18T12:20:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994\"},\"wordCount\":2391,\"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\\\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994\",\"name\":\"Naraindas Lilaram Adnani vs Narsingdas Naraindas Adnani &amp; Ors on 16 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-18T12:20:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Naraindas Lilaram Adnani vs Narsingdas Naraindas Adnani &amp; Ors on 16 December, 1994\"}]},{\"@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":"Naraindas Lilaram Adnani vs Narsingdas Naraindas Adnani &amp; Ors on 16 December, 1994 - 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\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Naraindas Lilaram Adnani vs Narsingdas Naraindas Adnani &amp; Ors on 16 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-18T12:20:30+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\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Naraindas Lilaram Adnani vs Narsingdas Naraindas Adnani &amp; Ors on 16 December, 1994","datePublished":"1994-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-18T12:20:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994"},"wordCount":2391,"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\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994","name":"Naraindas Lilaram Adnani vs Narsingdas Naraindas Adnani &amp; Ors on 16 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-18T12:20:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naraindas-lilaram-adnani-vs-narsingdas-naraindas-adnani-ors-on-16-december-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Naraindas Lilaram Adnani vs Narsingdas Naraindas Adnani &amp; Ors on 16 December, 1994"}]},{"@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\/131493","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=131493"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131493\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}