{"id":132341,"date":"1967-03-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-03-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967"},"modified":"2016-10-15T09:17:38","modified_gmt":"2016-10-15T03:47:38","slug":"mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967","title":{"rendered":"Mulraj vs Murti Raghonathji Maharaj on 2 March, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mulraj vs Murti Raghonathji Maharaj on 2 March, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1386, \t\t 1967 SCR (3)\t 84<\/div>\n
Author: K Wanchoo<\/div>\n
Bench: Wanchoo, K.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMULRAJ\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMURTI RAGHONATHJI MAHARAJ\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n02\/03\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1386\t\t  1967 SCR  (3)\t 84\n\n\nACT:\nStay order-When takes effect.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nWhile\tan  application\t of  the   respondent-landlord\t for\npermission   to\t sue  for  ejectment  of  his  tenant,\t the\nappellant,  under the U.P. (Temporary) Rent Control Act\t was\npending\t before a Magistrate, the appellant applied for\t the\ntransfer  of  proceedings relating to permission  from\tthat\nMagistrate's  Court.  On that transfer application an  order\nwas  passed ,staying further proceedings.  This\t stay  order\nwas not communicated to the Magistrate with the result\tthat\nthe  Magistrate granted permission to sue.   The  respondent\nfiled the suit for ejectment where the appellant -raised the\nplea  that the permission granted subsequent to\t stay  order\nwas a nullity as the Magistrate dealing with the matter\t had\nlost his jurisdiction thereunder.  The trial court  accepted\nthe appellant's plea, but High Court in appeal rejected\t it.\nIn appeal to this court\nHELD : The appealmust be dismissed.\nAn order of stay inan execution matter is in the nature\t of\na  prohibitory order and is addressed to the court  that  is\ncarrying out execution.\t It is not of the same nature as  an\norder allowing an appeal and quashing execution proceedings.\nThat  kind of order takes effect immediately it\t is  passed,\nfor  such an order takes away the very jurisdiction  of\t the\ncourt  executing  the  decree as there is  nothing  left  to\nexecute\t thereafter.  But a mere order of stay of  execution\ndoes not take away the jurisdiction of the court.  All\tthat\nit  does is to prohibit the court from proceedings with\t the\nexecution  further,  and the court, unless it knows  of\t the\norder cannot be expected to carry it out.  As soon as a stay\norder is withdrawn, the executing court is entitled to carry\non execution and there is no question of fresh conferment of\njurisdiction  by  the  fact that the  stay  order  has\tbeen\nwithdrawn.   The  jurisdiction\tof the court  is  there\t all\nalong.\t In effect a stay order is more or less in the\tsame\nposition as an order of injunction with one difference.\t  An\norder of injunction is generally issued to a party and it is\nforbidden from doing certain acts. [87G-88D, H]\nThe  court  may receive knowledge either on  receipt  of  an\norder  of stay from the court that passed it or through\t one\nparty  or  the other supported by an affidavit or  in  other\nway. [89E-F]\nThe  court can always act under s. 151 C.P.C. and set  aside\nsteps  taken between the time the stay order was passed\t and\nthe time it was brought to its notice, if that is  necessary\nin the ends of justice and the party concerned asks it to do\nso. [90E]\nWhat have been said about execution proceedings applies with\ngreater\t  force\t  to   stay  orders   passed   in   transfer\napplications. [90H]\nThe above principle may not be applicable where stay is made\nfor ministerial officers. [91D]\n85\nBessesswari Chowdhurany v.  Horro Sunder Mozmadar  (1896-97)\n1  C.W.N. 226, Hukum Chand Bold v. Kamalanand Singh,  I.L.R.\n(1906)\tXXXIII Cal. 227, Liakat Mian v. Padampat  Singhania,\nA.I.R. 1951 Pat. 130, Din Dyal Lakhi Ram v. Union of  India,\nA.I.R.\t1954 Punj. 46 and Kasaribada Venkatachalpati Rao  v.\nMaddipatla  Kameshwaramma,  I.L.R.  (1918)  XLI\t Mad.\t151,\napproved.\nHukum Chand Boid v.  Kamalanand Singh, I.L.R. (1906)  XXXIII\nCal.  227 and L. Parsotam Saran v.  D. Barhma  Nand,  A.I.R.\n1927 All. 401, disapproved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1938  of
\n1966.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nApril 20, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Second  Appeal
\nNo. 2648 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n
Yogeshwar Prasad and S. S. Khanduja, for the appellant.
\nHardev Singh, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nWanchoo,  j This is an appeal by special leave\tagainst\t the
\njudgment  of  the  High Court  of  Allahabad.\tBrief  facts
\nnecessary  for present purposes are these.   The  respondent
\nfiled a suit against the appellant for eviction from a\tshop
\nwhich  the  appellant  had taken on monthly  rent  from\t the
\nrespondent.   The suit was filed after permission  had\tbeen
\nobtained  under\t the  U.P. (Temporary Control  of  Rent\t and
\nEviction  Act, No. III of 1947, (hereinafter referred to  as
\nthe  Act),  in the court of the Munsif in  Jhansi.   It\t was
\ncontested  by  the appellant and one of\t the  points  raised
\nbefore the trial court was that as the permission to sue had
\nbeen  granted  at a time when there was a  stay\t order,\t the
\nMagistrate granting the permission had no jurisdiction to do
\nso  and\t therefore the permission was a\t nullity.   On\tthat
\nbasis it was contended that the suit should fail for no suit
\ncould continue under the Act without such permission.
\nThe Munsif dismissed the suit. – The respondent then went in
\nappeal.\t  The  appeal court upheld the order of\t the  Munsif
\ntaking\tthe view that the permission granted after the\tstay
\norder  had been passed was a nullity.  The  respondent\tthen
\ncame in second appeal to the High Court, and the only  point
\nconsidered  there was whether the permission granted by\t the
\nMagistrate  was a nullity or not.  It may be mentioned\tthat
\nthough the stay order had been passed on September 29,\t1961
\nby  the District Magistrate, the Magistrate who was  dealing
\nwith  the matter of permission, had no knowledge of it\twhen
\nhe granted the permission on October 4, 1961.  The  question
\nthat  arose before the High Court therefore was whether\t the
\npermission granted in
\n86<\/span>
\nthese circumstances could be said to be a nullity.  The High
\nCourt  held that the stay order could not and did  not\ttake
\naway  the jurisdiction of the Magistrate from the moment  it
\nwas passed and that as the Magistrate had no knowledge of or
\ninformation  about  the\t stay  order  when  he\tgranted\t the
\npermission  on\tOctober 4, 1961, that  permission  was\twith
\njurisdiction  and the suit would therefore be  maintainable.
\nAs  no\tother point was apparently in dispute  in  the\tHigh
\nCourt  it  allowed  the\t appeal and  granted  a\t decree\t for
\nejectment  and\trent  in  favour  of  the  respondent.\t The
\nappellant,  then obtained special leave from this Court,  as
\nthere is some conflict of opinion between the High Courts on
\nthis question.\n<\/p>\n
As  we\thave already indicated, the facts  on  the  question
\nraised\tbefore us are not in dispute.  When the\t application
\nfor  permission was pending before Sri Nigam,  Magistrate  I
\nClass, who had jurisdiction to deal with that application by
\nvirtue\tof  the authority delegated to him by  the  District
\nMagistrate,  it appears that the appellant applied  for\t the
\ntransfer  of  proceedings relating to  permission  from\t Sri
\nNigam’s\t court.\t On that transfer application, the  District
\nMagistrate passed an order staying further proceedings\ttill
\nthe  disposal of the transfer application.  This  order\t was
\nnot  communicated to the Magistrate concerned by the  office
\nof  the\t District Magistrate.  Nor does it appear  that\t the
\nappellant informed the Magistrate of the order of stay\twith
\nthe,  result  that on October 4, 1961, the  Magistrate\tgave
\npermission  to the respondent to file a suit  for  eviction.
\nWhen  however the respondent filed the suit in the  Munsif’s
\nCourt,\tthe  appellant raised the question that\t as  a\tstay
\norder had been passed on September 29, 1961, the  permission
\ngranted on October 4, 1961, was a nullity as the  Magistrate
\ndealing\t  with\t the  matter  had  lost\t  his\tjurisdiction
\nthereunder.\n<\/p>\n
There  has been difference of opinion among the High  Courts
\non the question of the effect of a stay order,\tparticularly
\nwith reference to execution proceedings.  The High Courts of
\nCalcutta, Patna and Punjab have held that in such a case the
\nstay order takes effect from the moment it is passed and the
\nfact that the court executing the decree has no knowledge of
\nit  makes  no  difference  and\tall  proceedings  taken\t  in
\nexecution  after the stay order has been passed are  without
\njurisdiction.  On the other hand, the High Courts of  Madras
\nand Kerala have taken the view that the executing court does
\nnot lose its jurisdiction from the moment the stay order  is
\npassed\tand  that  the\torder  being  in  the  nature  of  a
\nprohibitory  order the court carrying on execution does\t not
\nlose  its jurisdiction to do so till the order comes to\t its
\nknowledge  and that proceedings taken in between are  not  a
\nnullity.   The Allahabad High Court seems to have  taken  an
\nintermediate  view and has held that where rights’ of  third
\nparties\t like a stranger auction-purchaser  have  intervened
\nthe  fact  that the executing court had no  knowledge  would
\nprotect third parties.\n<\/p>\n
87<\/span><\/p>\n
The earliest case on the point is Bessesswari Chowdhurany v.
\nHorro  Sunder  Mozmadar\t and  others(1).   In  that  case  a
\nDivision  Bench\t of the Calcutta High Court  held  that\t “an
\norder staying execution of a decree against which an  appeal
\nis  pending is in the nature of a prohibitory order, and  as
\nsuch  would  only  take\t effect\t when  communicated.   If  a
\nproperty is sold before such an order is communicated to the
\ncourt holding the sale, such sale is not void and cannot  be
\ntreated\t as a nullity”.\t In Hukum Chand Boid  v.  Kamalanand
\nSingh(2),  another  Division Bench of the  same\t High  Court
\ndissented  from the view taken in  Besseswari  Chowdhurany’s
\ncase(1) and held that an order of stay takes effect from the
\nmoment it is passed and the knowledge of the court to  which
\nit is addressed is immaterial and from the moment the  order
\nis  passed  the court to which the application is  made\t for
\nexecution  has no authority to execute it.  It is these\t two
\ncases of the Calcutta High Court which are the basis of\t the
\ndecisions  of  other  High Courts.   Some  High\t Courts.  as
\nalready\t indicated,  have accepted the view  in\t Bessesswari
\nChowdhurany’s case(1) while other High Courts have  followed
\nthe view taken in Hukum Chand Boid’s(2) case.
\nBefore\twe  consider the question raised before us,  we\t may
\nindicate  the leading cases on the two sides  briefly.\t The
\nPatna High Court in Liakat Mian v. Padampat Singhania(3) and
\nthe  Punjab  High Court in Din Dayal Lakhi Ram v.  Union  of
\nIndia(4) follow Hukum Chand Boid’s(2) case.  The Madras High
\nCourt  in  Kasaribada  Venkatachalpati\tRao  v.\t  Maddipatla
\nKameshwaramma(5) follows Bessesswari Chowdhurany’s  case(6).
\nThe   Kerala  High  Court  in\tCheeramparambilalikutty\t  v.
\nThalavanaparambilalikutty(6)   also   follows\t Bessesswari
\nChowdhurany’s case(1).\tIt is unnecessary to refer to  other
\ncases  of these courts which were cited before us  for\tthey
\nfollow the view taken in these leading cases.
\nThe  Allahabad High Court in L. Parsotam Saran v. B.  Barhma
\nNand(7)\t , as already indicated, took an  intermediate\tview
\nand held that where a third party’s interest intervened, the
\nstay  order  does not nullify a sale in favour\tof  a  third
\nparty.:\t But  where  only  the\tparties\t to  the   execution
\nproceedings  were  concerned it followed the view  taken  in
\nHukum Chand Bold’s case(2).\n<\/p>\n
We  are of opinion that the view taken in Bessesswari  Chow-
\ndhurany’s  case(1) is the correct one.\tAn order of stay  in
\nan  execution  matter is in our opinion in the nature  of  a
\nprohibitory  order  and is addressed to the  court  that  is
\ncarrying
\n(1)  [1896-97] 1 C.W.N. 226.\n<\/p>\n
(3) A.I.R. 1951 Pat. 130.\n<\/p>\n
(5)I.L.R. (1918) XLI Mad. 151.\n<\/p>\n
(2)I. L.R. [1906] XXXIII Cal 227.\n<\/p>\n
(4)   A.I.R. 1954 Punj. 46.\n<\/p>\n
(6)  I.L.R. (196) Ker. 528.\n<\/p>\n
(7) A.I.R. 1927 All. 401.\n<\/p>\n
88<\/span><\/p>\n
out  execution.\t  It is not of the same nature as  an  order
\nallowing an appeal and quashing execution proceedings.\tThat
\nkind  of  order takes effect immediately it is\tpassed,\t for
\nsuch an order takes away the very jurisdiction of the  court
\nexecuting  the\tdecree as there is nothing left\t to  execute
\nthereafter.  But a mere order of stay of execution does\t not
\ntake  away the jurisdiction of the court.  All that it\tdoes
\nis to prohibit the court from proceeding with the  execution
\nfurther,  and the court unless it knows of the order  cannot
\nbe  expected  to carry it out.\tTherefore,  till  the  order
\ncomes  to  the knowledge of the court  its  jurisdiction  to
\ncarry  on  execution is not affected by a stay\torder  which
\nmust  in  the  very  nature of things be  treated  to  be  a
\nprohibitory  order  directing  the  executing  court   which
\ncontinues to have jurisdiction to stay its hand till further
\norders.\t  It  is  clear\t that as soon as  a  stay  order  is
\nwithdrawn,  the\t executing  court is entitled  to  carry  on
\nexecution  and there is no question of fresh  conferment  of
\njurisdiction  by  the  fact that the  stay  order  has\tbeen
\nwithdrawn.   The  jurisdiction\tof the court  is  there\t all
\nalong.\tThe only effect of the stay order is to prohibit the
\nexecuting  court from proceeding further and that  can\tonly
\ntake  effect when the executing court has knowledge  of\t the
\norder.\tThe executing court may have knowledge of the  order
\non  the order being communicated to it by the court  passing
\nthe stay order or the executing court may be informed of the
\norder by one party or the other with an affidavit in support
\nof  the information or in any other way.  As soon  therefore
\nas the executing court has come to know of the order  either
\nby communication from the court passing the stay order or by
\nan affidavit from one party or the other or in any other way
\nthe executing court cannot proceed further and if it does so
\nit acts illegally.  There can be no doubt that no action for
\ncontempt  can  be taken against an executing  court,  if  it
\ncarries\t on execution in ignorance of the order of stay\t and
\nthis  shows the necessity of the knowledge of the  executing
\ncourt before its jurisdiction can be affected by the  order.
\nIn effect therefore a stay order is more or less in the same
\nposition as an order of injunction with one difference.\t  An
\norder of injunction is generally issued to a party and it is
\nforbidden from doing certain acts.  It is well-settled\tthat
\nin  such  a  case  the party  must  have  knowledge  of\t the
\ninjunction order before it could be penalised for disobeying
\nit.  Further it is equally well-settled that the  injunction
\norder  not  being  addressed  to the  court,  if  the  court
\nproceeds  in  contravention  of the  injunction\t order,\t the
\nproceedings are not a nullity.\tIn the case of a stay order,
\nas  it\tis  addressed to the court  and\t prohibits  it\tfrom
\nproceeding  further, as soon as the court has  knowledge  of
\nthe order it is bound to obey it and if it does not, it acts
\nillegally, and all proceedings taken after the knowledge  of
\nthe  order would be a nullity.\tThat in our opinion  is\t the
\nonly  difference between, an order of injunction to a  party
\nand an order of stay to a court.  In both cases knowledge of
\nthe
\n 89<\/span>
\nparty  concerned  or of the court is  necessary\t before\t the
\nprohibition takes effect.  Take the case where a  stay order
\nhas been passed but it is never brought to the notice of the
\ncourt,\tand  the  court\t carries  on  proceedings  ignorance
\nthereof.   It  can hardly be said that the  court  has\tlost
\njurisdiction\tbecause\t of  some order\t of  which   has  no
\nknowledge.  This to our mind clearly follows from the  words
\nof O. XLI R. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure which  clearly
\nlays down that mere filling of an appeal does not operate as
\nstay  of proceedings in execution, but the  appellate  court
\nhas  the  power\t stay  of  execution.  Obviously  when\t the
\nappellate  court orders the stay of execution the order\t can
\nhave  affect  only when it is made known  to  the  executing
\ncourt.\t We cannot agree that an order staying execution  is
\nsimilar\t to  an\t order\tallowing  an  appeal  and   quashing
\nexecution  proceedings.\t  In the case  where  the  execution
\n‘Proceeding.   is  quashed,  the  order\t takes\t effect\t  in
\nimmediately and there is nothing left to execute.  But where
\na stay order is passed, execution still stands and can go on
\nunless\tthe court executing the decree has knowledge of\t the
\nstay  order.   It  is  only when  the  executing  court\t has
\nknowledge  of  the stay order that the court must  stay\t its
\nhands and anything it does thereafter would be a nullity  so
\nlong as the stay order is in force.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\targued that this view  would  introduce\t uncertainty
\ninasmuch us proceedings may go on and it may take  sometime-
\nwhether long or short-for the stay order to reach the court.
\nThere is in our opinion no question of uncertainty, even  if
\nwe  hold that the stay order must come to the  knowledge  of
\nthe  court to which it is addressed before it takes  effect.
\nThe  court  may receive knowledge either on  receipt  of  an
\norder  of stay from the court that passed it or through\t one
\nparty or the other supported by an affidavit or in any other
\nway.   There is in our opinion no uncertainty by  reason  of
\nthe fact that the court to which the stay order is addressed
\nmust have knowledge of it before it takes effect for it\t can
\nalways be proved that the court to which the stay order\t was
\naddressed had knowledge of it and that is not a matter which
\nshould really create any difficulty or uncertainty.  Once it
\nis clear that a stay order is in the nature of a prohibitory
\norder,\tknowledge of it by the court which is prohibited  is
\nessential before the court is deprived of the power to carry
\non  the\t proceedings.\tAs was pointed\tout  in\t Bassesswari
\nChowdhurany’s  case(1), “the appellate court has nothing  to
\ndo with the execution of the decree; the execution  proceeds
\nunder  the direction of the court which made the decree\t and
\nit has full authority to execute it.  An order of stay\tdoes
\nnot undo anything which has been done; its utmost affect  is
\nto stop further action in the direction of execution, but it
\nwould  only  have that effect when it reached the  court  or
\nperson whose duty it was to obey it.”\n<\/p>\n
 (1)(1896-97) 1 C. W. N. 226.\n<\/p>\n
Sup. CI\/67–7
\n90<\/span>
\nAs we have already indicated, an order of stay is as much  a
\nprohibitory  order  as an injunction order  and\t unless\t the
\ncourt  to which it is addressed has knowledge of  it  cannot
\ndeprive\t that court of the jurisdiction to proceed with\t the
\nexecution before it.  But there is one difference between an
\norder of injunction and an order of stay arising out of\t the
\nfact  that an injunction order is usually passed  against  a
\nparty while a stay order is addressed to the court.  As\t the
\nstay  order is addressed to the court; as soon as the  court
\nhas  knowledge of it must stay its hand; if it does  not  do
\nso,  it\t acts illegally.  Therefore, in the case of  a\tstay
\norder  as opposed to an order of injunction, as soon as\t the
\ncourt  has  knowledge of it must stay its hand\tand  further
\nproceedings  are  illegal; but so long as the court  has  no
\nknowledge   of\tthe  stay  order  it  does  not\t  lose\t the
\njurisdiction  to deal with the execution which it has  under
\nthe Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
Though\tthe court which is carrying on execution is not\t de-
\nprived\tof  the\t jurisdiction the moment  a  stay  order  is
\npassed, even though it has no knowledge of it, this does not
\nmean  that when the court gets knowledge of it is  powerless
\nto  undo any possible injustice that might have been  caused
\nto  the\t party\tin whose favour the stay  order\t was  passed
\nduring\tthe period till the court has knowledge of the\tstay
\norder.\t We are of opinion that s. 151 of the Code of  Civil
\nProcedure  would always be available to the court  executing
\nthe  decree,  for  in such a case, when the  stay  order  is
\nbrought\t to its notice it can always act under S.  151,\t and
\nset  aside steps taken between the time the stay  order\t was
\npassed and the time it was brought to its notice, if that is
\nnecessary  in  the ends of justice and the  party  concerned
\nasks  it to do so.  Though, therefore, the  court  executing
\nthe  decree  cannot  in\t our  opinion  be  deprived  of\t its
\njurisdiction to carry on execution till it has knowledge  of
\nthe  stay order, the court has the power in our view to\t set
\naside  the proceedings taken between the time when the\tstay
\norder  was  passed and the time when it was brought  to\t its
\nnotice, if it is asked to do so and it considers that it  is
\nnecessary  in  the  interests of justice  that\tthe  interim
\nproceedings should be set aside.  But that can only be\tdone
\nby the court which has taken the interim proceedings in\t the
\ninterest  of  justice  under s. 151 of\tthe  Code  of  Civil
\nProcedure provided the order is brought to its knowledge and
\na prayer is made to set aside the interim proceedings within
\na reasonable time.  Otherwise the interim proceedings in our
\nopinion\t are  not  a  nullity and in  the  absence  of\tsuch
\nexercise of power by the court executing the decree under S.
\n151, they remain good for all purposes.\n<\/p>\n
What  we have said about execution proceedings applies\twith
\ngreater\t  force\t  to   stay  orders   passed   in   transfer
\napplications,  as  ‘in\tthe present case.  In  the  case  of
\nexecution proceedings at
\n91<\/span>
\nany rate there is an appeal in which a stay order is passed;
\nthe  transfer  proceedings are collateral  _proceedings\t and
\neven  though  the superior authority may have the  power  to
\nstay  it  cannot  deprive  the\tinferior  authority   having
\njurisdiction  of  that\tjurisdiction,  unless  the  inferior
\nauthority   is\tapprised  of  the  order  by  the   superior
\nauthority.  In the present case the order of stay never came
\nto  the knowledge of the Magistrate concerned till  he\tgave
\nthe  permission on October 4, 1961.  Later on  the  District
\nMagistrate  himself  dismissed the transfer  petition.\t The
\norder  was  not brought to the knowledge of  the  Magistrate
\nconcerned  by  the appellant at any time.  Nor did  he\tever
\napply  to the Magistrate to set aside the permission  passed
\nin   ignorance\tin  the\t interest  of  justice.\t  In   these
\ncircumstances, the appellant cannot challenge the permission
\nas a nullity in the suit which has been brought on the basis
\nof that permission.\n<\/p>\n
We  may,  however, add that what we have said  above  refers
\nonly   to  proceedings\tbeing  carried\ton  by\t courts\t  or
\nauthorities after the stay order has been passed and  before
\nthey have knowledge of it.  But this may not apply in a case
\nwhere stay is made for ministerial officers, as for  example
\nin the case of a court asking a bailiff not to sell and\t the
\nbailiff selling without knowledge of the order of the  court
\nprohibiting it to carry on the sale.  The position in such a
\ncase  may be different, but as to that we express  no  final
\nopinion in the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal  therefore fails and is  hereby  dismissed\twith
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\t\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n92<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mulraj vs Murti Raghonathji Maharaj on 2 March, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1386, 1967 SCR (3) 84 Author: K Wanchoo Bench: Wanchoo, K.N. PETITIONER: MULRAJ Vs. RESPONDENT: MURTI RAGHONATHJI MAHARAJ DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/03\/1967 BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BACHAWAT, R.S. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA CITATION: 1967 AIR 1386 1967 SCR […]<\/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-132341","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMulraj vs Murti Raghonathji Maharaj on 2 March, 1967 - 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\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mulraj vs Murti Raghonathji Maharaj on 2 March, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967\" \/>\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=\"1967-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-15T03:47:38+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mulraj vs Murti Raghonathji Maharaj on 2 March, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-15T03:47:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967\"},\"wordCount\":3260,\"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\\\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967\",\"name\":\"Mulraj vs Murti Raghonathji Maharaj on 2 March, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-15T03:47:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mulraj vs Murti Raghonathji Maharaj on 2 March, 1967\"}]},{\"@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":"Mulraj vs Murti Raghonathji Maharaj on 2 March, 1967 - 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\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mulraj vs Murti Raghonathji Maharaj on 2 March, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-15T03:47:38+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mulraj vs Murti Raghonathji Maharaj on 2 March, 1967","datePublished":"1967-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-15T03:47:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967"},"wordCount":3260,"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\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967","name":"Mulraj vs Murti Raghonathji Maharaj on 2 March, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-15T03:47:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mulraj-vs-murti-raghonathji-maharaj-on-2-march-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mulraj vs Murti Raghonathji Maharaj on 2 March, 1967"}]},{"@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\/132341","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=132341"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132341\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132341"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132341"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132341"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}