{"id":136905,"date":"2009-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009"},"modified":"2016-07-17T10:45:51","modified_gmt":"2016-07-17T05:15:51","slug":"amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Amar Nath Dhawan & Ors. vs Satish Dhawan & Ors. on 15 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Amar Nath Dhawan & Ors. vs Satish Dhawan & Ors. on 15 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Manmohan Singh<\/div>\n
*          HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI\n\n+          IA No.9761\/2009 in CS (OS) No.138\/2008\n\nAmar Nath Dhawan & Ors.                          ......Plaintiffs\n                  Through : Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Adv.\n\n                      Versus\n\nSatish Dhawan & Ors.                           .....Defendants\n                    Through: Mr. Rajesh Bhatia, Adv. for\n                             Defendant Nos.1-2\n                             Mr. Sameer Dewan, Adv. for\n                             Defendants No.3-9\n\n                      Judgment reserved on: 7th December , 2009\n%                     Judgment decided on : 15th December, 2009\n\nCoram:\n\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may\n   be allowed to see the judgment?                                 No\n\n2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                              No\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported                         No\n   in the Digest?\n\nMANMOHAN SINGH, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.         The application under consideration being IA No.9761\/2009<\/p>\n
has been filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure, 1908 praying for a preliminary decree of partition and for<\/p>\n
appointment of a Local Commissioner to suggest a mode of partition of<\/p>\n
the property bearing No.18UA (Municipal No.5931), Jawahar Nagar,<\/p>\n
Delhi-110007 (hereinafter referred to as the \u201esuit property\u201f) in<\/p>\n
proportion of the parties\u201f respective ownership.<\/p>\n
2.         The plaintiffs filed the present suit for partition of the suit<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No.138\/2008                                              Page 1 of 7<\/span>
\n property for mandatory injunction against the defendants. The plaintiffs<\/p>\n
and defendants are members of the same family.\n<\/p>\n
3.          The plaintiffs submit that they are lawful and admitted<\/p>\n
owners of 2\/3rd portion of the suit property while the defendants are the<\/p>\n
owners of the remaining 1\/3rd portion of the suit property.             The<\/p>\n
plaintiffs further submit that they are in physical possession and<\/p>\n
occupation of only half portion of the suit property and the defendants<\/p>\n
who are owners of 1\/3rd portion possess and occupy half portion. It is<\/p>\n
stated that the property should be physically partitioned to bring it in<\/p>\n
conformity with their proportionate ownership.<\/p>\n
4.          The case of the plaintiffs is that late Smt. Tulsi Devi<\/p>\n
(testatrix) during her lifetime executed a registered Will dated 8th June,<\/p>\n
1989 during her life in respect of the following estate :<\/p>\n
           (i)         1\/3rd share in property bearing No.18UA
\n                       (Municipal No.5931) Jawahar Nagar, Delhi-7 and<\/p>\n
           (ii)        50% share in property No.38-UA (Municipal
\n                       No.5905-5907), Jawahar Nagar, Bungalow Road,
\n                       New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
5.          The testatrix expired on 8th February, 1995 bequeathing the<\/p>\n
aforesaid estate in the follow manner :\n<\/p>\n
     (a)    50% of her share in the aforesaid properties in favour of her
\n            daughter-in-law namely Smt. Karuna Dhawan (Plaintiff No.2
\n            herein); and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (b)    Remaining 50% share to be divided equally amongst her
\n            grandsons namely Prashant and Aditya (Plaintiff Nos.3 and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            4).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.          The plaintiff No.1 is the sole executor of the Will of the<\/p>\n
testatrix. The plaintiff No.2 is the wife of the plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No.138\/2008                                                 Page 2 of 7<\/span>
\n Nos.3 and 4 are his sons. Plaintiff No.2 was bequeathed 1\/3rd share in<\/p>\n
the suit property while 1\/3rd share in the suit property came in the hands<\/p>\n
of plaintiffs No.3 and 4. Therefore, the plaintiffs became the owners of<\/p>\n
2\/3rd share in the suit property. The defendant Nos.1 to 8 are the sons<\/p>\n
and daughters of late Sh. Chand Kishan Das, brother of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
No.1.\n<\/p>\n
7.         The plaintiff No.1 being the sole executor of the Will filed<\/p>\n
the probate case bearing No.188\/2001 before the District Court which<\/p>\n
was contested by late Sh. Chand Kishan Das and the defendants herein.<\/p>\n
Vide judgment dated 23rd February, 2004, the learned Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge, Delhi granted probate of the Will in favour of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.1 filed a valuation report and paid a<\/p>\n
court fee in respect of the suit property in terms of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
judgment. The plaintiffs also executed an administration cum surety<\/p>\n
bond in respect of the property which were accepted by the District<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
8.         The plaintiffs alleged that the suit property is still undivided<\/p>\n
and is in joint occupation of the parties. The defendants who are in<\/p>\n
occupation of more than half share in the suit property are seeking to<\/p>\n
create third party interest in the property. The plaintiffs thus filed the<\/p>\n
present suit seeking partition of the suit property by metes and bounds<\/p>\n
and a permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in<\/p>\n
any manner with the possession of the plaintiffs is their 2\/3rd share in<\/p>\n
the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
9.         The defendants No.1 and 2 who are sons of late Sh. Chand<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No.138\/2008                                               Page 3 of 7<\/span>
\n Kishan Das      contended that the suit property has already been<\/p>\n
partitioned by virtue of a memorandum of family settlement (MFS)<\/p>\n
dated 18th August, 1980 between Sh. Chand Kishore Das, Sh. Amar<\/p>\n
Nath Dhawan and Smt. Tulsi Devi. The defendants No.1 and 2 denied<\/p>\n
the alleged Will dated 8th June, 1989 executed by the testatrix. The<\/p>\n
contention of defendants No.1 and 2 is that Smt. Tulsi Devi during her<\/p>\n
life time executed a Will dated 25th July, 1974 and distributed her 1\/3 rd<\/p>\n
share between plaintiff No.1 and the defendants No.1 and 2.<\/p>\n
10.        The site plan relied upon by the plaintiffs was also denied.<\/p>\n
The defendants No.1 and 2 however, admitted that the District Court<\/p>\n
vide order dated 23rd February, 2004 allowed the petition for grant of<\/p>\n
probate bearing No.188\/2001 in respect of Will dated 8th June, 1989<\/p>\n
and no appeal has been preferred against the same. The defendant<\/p>\n
Nos.1 and 2 admitted that plaintiff No.1 is the owner of 1\/3 rd share of<\/p>\n
the suit property but denied any right, title or interest of the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
No.2 to 4 in the suit property. It is submitted that late Smt. Tulsi Devi<\/p>\n
during her life time had partitioned the property in question between her<\/p>\n
two sons namely late Sh. Chand Kishan Dass and Sh. Amar Nnath<\/p>\n
Dhawan by virtue of Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 18 th<\/p>\n
August, 1980     and since then the parties are in possession of their<\/p>\n
respective shares.\n<\/p>\n
11.        The defendants No.3 to 9 (daughters of late Sh. Chand<\/p>\n
Kishan Das) have not claimed any right, title or interest in the suit<\/p>\n
property and have submitted that their share in the suit property belongs<\/p>\n
to defendants No.1 and 2 by virtue of the Will dated 26th October, 1981<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No.138\/2008                                               Page 4 of 7<\/span>
\n made by their father of the defendants. It is denied that they are in<\/p>\n
possession of the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
12.          Status quo was granted on 25 th January, 2008 directing the<\/p>\n
defendants not to alienate the suit property or create any third party<\/p>\n
rights. Notice was issued to the defendants by way of a newspaper<\/p>\n
publication in the \u201eStatesman\u201f dated 25th December, 2008 and \u201eThe<\/p>\n
Tribune\u201f dated 26th December, 2008 respectively. The interim orders<\/p>\n
were made absolute on 28th August, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
13.          In probate case No.188\/2001 filed by the plaintiff No.1<\/p>\n
before the district court wherein late Sh. Chand Kishan Das was the only<\/p>\n
objector, the following two issues were framed on the basis of pleadings<\/p>\n
of the parties :\n<\/p>\n
       “(1) Whether the Will dated 8th June, 1989 propounded by the
\n            petitioner is the last Will and testament of late Smt. Tulsi
\n            Devi and was it validly executed by her while she was in
\n            her sound disposing mind ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (2)    Relief.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.          I have considered the rival submissions of the parties.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Apparently, in the probate case filed by the plaintiff No.1 in the district<\/p>\n
court, the defendants herein contested and raised objection against the<\/p>\n
grant of probate in favour of the plaintiff No.1. The Additional District<\/p>\n
Judge dismissed the objections raised by the defendants and probate was<\/p>\n
granted in favour of plaintiff No.1.       It was held by the learned<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge on issue No.1 that the Will dated 8 th June,<\/p>\n
1989 had been validly executed by the testatrix, Smt. Tulsi Devi while<\/p>\n
she had a sound disposing mind and it was the last Will and testament of<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No.138\/2008                                               Page 5 of 7<\/span>
\n the testatrix.\n<\/p>\n
15.              The contention raised by defendants No.1 and 2 that the suit<\/p>\n
property has already been partitioned during the life time of testatrix by<\/p>\n
virtue of Memorandum of Settlement dated 18th August, 1980 was not alleged<\/p>\n
by the defendants in the abovementioned probate case before the district<\/p>\n
court. It is to be noted here that this objection was raised by the defendant<\/p>\n
Nos.1 and 2 for the first time in the present suit for partition though the MFS<\/p>\n
was allegedly executed in the year 1980. I accept the contention of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the plaintiff that Memorandum of Settlement                    was<\/p>\n
executed only for the purpose of temporary arrangement for the purpose of<\/p>\n
residence of the family members in the suit property and was not a partition<\/p>\n
of the property.\n<\/p>\n
16.              As the Will dated 8th June, 1989 propounded by the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
has already been declared as a validly executed Will of the testatrix by the<\/p>\n
probate court in the probate case filed by the plaintiff No.1, the contention<\/p>\n
raised by the defendants No.1 and 2 that this Will is a forged and fabricated<\/p>\n
document was also negated by the court after trial of the case. The contention<\/p>\n
urged by the defendants No.1 and 2 regarding the propounded Will dated 25 th<\/p>\n
July, 1974 as the last testament of the testatrix has also been considered by<\/p>\n
the learned Addl. District Judge in the probate case.<\/p>\n
17.              Prima facie, I find that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2\/3 rd share in<\/p>\n
the suit property as provided in the Will. A preliminary decree is therefore,<\/p>\n
passed in terms of the Will dated 8th June, 1989. The plaintiffs are the owners<\/p>\n
of 2\/3rd share in the suit property and the defendants No.1 and 2 are the<\/p>\n
owners of remaining 1\/3rd portion in the suit property.<\/p>\n
 CS (OS) No.138\/2008                                                      Page 6 of 7<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 18.         Mr. J.S. Bakshi, Advocate (Mobile No.9811025921) is<\/p>\n
appointed as a Local Commissioner to inspect the suit property and<\/p>\n
submit a report as to whether the suit property can be partitioned by<\/p>\n
metes and bounds. The Local commissioner shall be paid a sum of Rs.<\/p>\n
60,000\/- to be paid by the parties in proportion of their respective shares<\/p>\n
in the suit property apart from administrative charges, if any, incurred<\/p>\n
by the Local commissioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19.        The parties shall give access of the suit property to the Local<\/p>\n
commissioner for the purposes of execution of the commission.<\/p>\n
20.        List the matter on 19th April, 2010 awaiting the report of the<\/p>\n
Local Commissioner. Copy of the order be given dasti to the Local<\/p>\n
Commissioner for information and compliance.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             MANMOHAN SINGH, J
\nDECEMBER 15, 2009
\nnn<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No.138\/2008                                               Page 7 of 7<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Amar Nath Dhawan & Ors. vs Satish Dhawan & Ors. on 15 December, 2009 Author: Manmohan Singh * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + IA No.9761\/2009 in CS (OS) No.138\/2008 Amar Nath Dhawan & Ors. ……Plaintiffs Through : Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Adv. Versus Satish Dhawan & Ors. …..Defendants Through: […]<\/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-136905","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAmar Nath Dhawan & Ors. vs Satish Dhawan & Ors. on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Amar Nath Dhawan & Ors. vs Satish Dhawan & Ors. on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-17T05:15:51+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Amar Nath Dhawan & Ors. vs Satish Dhawan & Ors. on 15 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-17T05:15:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1581,\"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\\\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Amar Nath Dhawan & Ors. vs Satish Dhawan & Ors. on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-17T05:15:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Amar Nath Dhawan & Ors. vs Satish Dhawan & Ors. on 15 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Amar Nath Dhawan & Ors. vs Satish Dhawan & Ors. on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Amar Nath Dhawan & Ors. vs Satish Dhawan & Ors. on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-17T05:15:51+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Amar Nath Dhawan & Ors. vs Satish Dhawan & Ors. on 15 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-17T05:15:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009"},"wordCount":1581,"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\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009","name":"Amar Nath Dhawan & Ors. vs Satish Dhawan & Ors. on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-17T05:15:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-nath-dhawan-ors-vs-satish-dhawan-ors-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Amar Nath Dhawan & Ors. vs Satish Dhawan & Ors. on 15 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/136905","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=136905"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136905\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136905"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136905"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136905"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}