{"id":145930,"date":"1982-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982"},"modified":"2017-01-30T08:32:11","modified_gmt":"2017-01-30T03:02:11","slug":"smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Kalloo & Ors vs Dhakadevi & Ors on 9 February, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Smt. Kalloo & Ors vs Dhakadevi & Ors on 9 February, 1982<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 813, \t\t 1982 SCR (3) 201<\/div>\n
Author: B Islam<\/div>\n
Bench: Islam, Baharul (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSMT. KALLOO & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDHAKADEVI & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/02\/1982\n\nBENCH:\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\nBENCH:\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1982 AIR  813\t\t  1982 SCR  (3) 201\n 1982 SCC  (1) 633\t  1982 SCALE  (1)177\n\n\nACT:\n     Code of Civil Procedure 1908 s. 47 and Or. XXI.\n     Landlord and  Tenant-Decree for  possession obtained by\nlandlord execution  against tenant-Matter compromised-Tenant\nto continue  in portion\t of property and pay damages for use\nand occupation\twithout default-Breach\tby  tenant-Execution\npetition by  landlord-Whether maintainable-Test-Whether\t the\ncompromise extinguishes\t decrees and  creates fresh lease or\nprovides mere mode for discharge of decree.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The predecessor  of the  respondents filed\t a suit\t for\neviction of  the predecessor  of the  appellants from a shop\nand obtained  a decree\ton March  21, 1960 for eviction. The\ndecree-holder filed  an application for the execution of the\ndecree on  March 22,  1966 and\tduring the pendency of these\nproceedings, a\tcompromise  was\t entered  into\tbetween\t the\nparties, and the Executing Court passed an order dated March\n21, 1968 in terms of the compromise. The compromise provided\nfor the\t judgment-debtor to  give vacant  possession of\t the\nremaining half\tof the shop to the decree-holder by December\n31, 1972  and to  pay damages  for use and occupation by the\n5th of\tevery month  to the  decree-holder at  Rs. 110\/- per\nmonth, and  that on six months damages being due the decree-\nholder will be entitled to have the shop vacated.\n     The  decree-holder\t filed\tan  execution  petition\t for\nrecovery of  possession on  November 25,  1975 alleging that\nthe judgment  debtor had not paid damages at the rate of Rs.\n110\/- per  month from  July  1,\t 1975.\tThe  judgment-debtor\ncontested the  execution  proceedings  contending  that\t the\nterms of  compromise created  a fresh lease in favour of the\njudgment-debtor in  respect of\tthe remaining  half  of\t the\nshop, and  that the decree was therefore not executable. The\nExecuting  Court  upheld  the  objection  holding  that\t the\ncompromise dated March 21, 1968 amounted to a fresh lease.\n     On appeal,\t the District  Judge, set aside the order of\nthe Executing  Court, but  in Second  Appeal, the High Court\nupheld the  order of  the District  Judge, and dismissed the\nappeal.\n     In the  appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf\nof the\tappellant\/judgment-debtor, that the compromise dated\nMarch 21,  1968 created\t a fresh  lease, in  favour  of\t the\njudgment-debtor in  respect of\tthe undelivered\t half of the\nshop and the decree-holder's remedy was by way of a suit for\nrecovery of possession.\n202\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: When\t a compromise  takes place  in the course of\nexecution of  a\t decree\t for  eviction\tthe  compromise\t may\nextinguish the\tdecree and  create a  fresh  lease,  or\t the\ncompromise may\tprovide a mere mode for the discharge of the\ndecree. What actually takes place depends upon the intention\nof the\tparties to  the compromise, and the intention has to\nbe gathered  from  the\tterms  of  the\tcompromise  and\t the\nsurrounding circumstances  including the  order recorded  by\nthe Court on the basis of the compromise. [205 C-D]\n     In the  instant case  para 1 of the compromise petition\nand  the   order  of   the  Executing  Court  recording\t the\ncompromise  disclose  the  intention  of  the  parties.\t The\njudgment-debtor had  already vacated  \"half of\tthe shop and\ngiven its possession\" and time was granted till December 31,\n1972 for  vacating and\tdelivering possession  of the  other\nhalf of\t the shop  as the  judgment-debtor wanted  time till\nthen lest  his business \"will be ruined by vacating the shop\nin hurry.\"  This shows that the intention of the parties was\nnot to\tcreate a  fresh lease  in respect of the half of the\nshop in possession of the judgment-debtor but to help him to\nfind out alternative accommodation and time for vacating was\ngiven till  December 31,  1972. Further, the term 'damages',\nand not\t 'rents' is  used in the compromise petition as well\nas the\torder of  the Executing\t Court. The intention of the\nparties\t clearly  was  not  to\textinguish  the\t decree\t for\neviction but to create a mode of its full discharge. [205 E-\nH]\n     Konchada Ramamurthy  Subudhi &  Anr. v.  Gopinath Naik,<\/a>\n[1968] 2 SCR 559, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2612 of
\n1981.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t judgment and  order
\ndated the 6th January, 1981 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
\n(Jabalpur Bench) in M.P. No. 87 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     Amlan Ghosh for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     Sobhagmal Jain and S.K. Jain for the Respondents.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     BAHARUL ISLAM,  J. This  appeal by\t special leave is by
\nthe judgment-debtors.  The material  facts which  are not in
\ndispute may be stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
     2. The  predecessor  of  the  respondents\t(hereinafter
\nreferred  to  as  ‘the\tdecree-holder’)\t filed\ta  suit\t for
\neviction of  the predecessor  of the appellants (hereinafter
\nreferred to  as ‘the judgment-debtor’) and obtained a decree
\non 21.3.1960, inter alia, for eviction from a
\n203<\/span>
\nshop. The  decree-holder filed\ta petition  for execution of
\nthe decree  for eviction in the executing court on 3.1.1961.
\nThe petition  was dismissed  on 20.1.1961.  A fresh petition
\nfor execution  was filed on 19.1.1965. It was also dismissed
\non 20.3.1965.  The decree-holder  again filed an application
\nfor  execution\tof  the\t decree\t on  22.6.1966.\t During\t the
\npendency of  this execution  proceeding, the parties filed a
\ncompromise  petition   on  31.3.1968.\tThe  terms   of\t the
\ncompromise on the interpretation of which the result of this
\nappeal depends were as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     (Material portions only):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “In the  above case,\ta compromise has taken place
\n     between the parties as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (1)  That for  the present\t the judgment-debtor  is not
\n\t  getting a  shop. His\testablished business will be
\n\t  ruined by  vacating the  shop in hurry. Therefore,
\n\t  the judgment-debtor  wants  time  till  31.12.1972
\n\t  from the  decree-holder for vacating half the shop
\n\t  in his  possession. So  the  judgment-debtor\twill
\n\t  vacate the shop and give possession thereof to the
\n\t  decree-holder by  31.12.1972. He  has vacated half
\n\t  the shop and given its possession.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  That during  this period the judgment-debtor shall
\n\t  pay damages  to the  decree-holder for  use of the
\n\t  shop @ 110\/- per month.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3)  That the  damages shall  be paid  upto the  5th of
\n\t  every\t month.\t In  the  event\t of  non-payment  of
\n\t  damages for  any  six\t months,  the  decree-holder
\n\t  shall be  entitled to\t get  the  shop\t immediately
\n\t  vacated, by  filing execution, from the possession
\n\t  of the  judgment-debtor, without  any objection as
\n\t  regards limitation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4)  The decree-holder  wants to  have new shutters put
\n\t  up after  removing the  present  shutters  in\t the
\n\t  front portion\t of the\t shop.\tThe  judgment-debtor
\n\t  will not be entitled to object to this.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     He will  help in  the putting  of girders\tand he\twill
\nvacate the portion.\n<\/p>\n
     If he  will demur to it, the decree-holder can have the
\nshop vacated,  without any  objection as  regards the  above
\nlimitation.\n<\/p>\n
204<\/span><\/p>\n
     So, the  aforesaid compromise  be accepted\t and kept on
\nrecord.”\n<\/p>\n
     3. It  is also  not in  dispute that at the time of the
\ncompromise, half  of the  shop\thad  been  vacated  and\t its
\npossession delivered  to the  decree-holder as stated in the
\ncompromise petition. In order to appreciate the intention of
\nthe parties to the compromise, it is also necessary to refer
\nto the order dated 21.3.1968 recorded by the execution court
\non the\tbasis of  the compromise.  The material\t para of the
\norder is para 3 and it is in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The judgment-debtor\tto give vacant possession of
\n     the shop  to the decree-holder by 31.12.72 according to
\n     the compromise  and he  will pay  damages for  use\t and
\n     occupation by  the 5th  of every  month to\t the decree-
\n     holder according  to the  compromise @  Rs.  110\/-\t per
\n     month. On\tsix months’  damages being  due, the decree-
\n     holder will  be entitled  to have the shop vacated. The
\n     decree-holder  will   provide  shutters  in  the  front
\n     portion. The judgment-debtor will not object to them.
\n     The case is decided in terms of the compromise.
\n     The compromise be recorded.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4. On  25.11.1975, the decree-holder filed an execution
\npetition for  recovery of  possession of the portion of shop
\nin possession  of the  judgment-debtor,\t alleging  that\t the
\njudgment-debtor had  not paid  damages at  the rate  of\t Rs.
\n110\/- per  month from  1.7.1975.  Notice  of  the  execution
\npetition was  issued to the judgment-debtor who appeared and
\nraised several\tobjections to the execution proceedings. But
\nwe are concerned in this appeal only with one which was that
\nin terms  of the  compromise, a\t fresh lease  was created in
\nfavour of  the judgment-debtor\tin respect  of the remaining
\nhalf of the shop. It was therefore submitted that the decree
\nwas not executable. The Executing Court upheld the objection
\nholding that  the compromise  dated 21.3.1968  amounted to a
\nfresh lease.  An appeal\t was  taken  to\t the  Court  of\t the
\nDistrict Judge\twho set\t aside the  order of  the  Executing
\nCourt. In  a second  appeal, the High Court upheld the order
\nof the\tDistrict Judge,\t and dismissed\tthe  appeal.  It  is
\nagainst this  order of\tthe High  Court is  this  appeal  by
\nspecial leave.\n<\/p>\n
205<\/span><\/p>\n
     5. The  only point urged before us by Shri Amlan Ghosh,
\nlearned\t counsel   for\tthe  judgment-debtor  was  that\t the
\ncompromise dated  21.3.1968 created  a fresh lease in favour
\nof the judgment-debtor in respect of the undelivered half of
\nthe shop,  and the  decree-holder’s remedy was by a suit for
\nrecovery of its possession.\n<\/p>\n
     6. When  a compromise petition is filed in an execution
\nproceeding, and\t a contention  is raised  by  the  judgment-
\ndebtor on  a  subsequent  execution  being  started  by\t the
\ndecree-holder that  the compromise has given rise to a fresh
\ncontract between  the parties  and that the decree sought to
\nbe executed is not executable, what is to be seen is whether
\nthe  decree  has  been\textinguished  as  a  result  of\t the
\ncompromise  and\t  a  fresh  contract  has  emerged.  When  a
\ncompromise takes  place in  the course\tof  execution  of  a
\ndecree-for  eviction,  the  compromise\tmay  extinguish\t the
\ndecree and  create a  fresh lease,  or\tthe  compromise\t may
\nprovide a  mere mode  for the  discharge of the decree. What
\nactually takes place depends on the intention of the parties
\nto the compromise. And the intention has to be gathered from
\nthe  terms   of\t  the\tcompromise   and   the\t surrounding
\ncircumstances including\t the order  recorded by the Court on
\nthe basis of the compromise.\n<\/p>\n
     7. In  the instant\t case, paragraph 1 of the compromise
\npetition quoted\t above and  the order of the Executing Court
\nrecording the  compromise are  important  and  disclose\t the
\nintention of  the parties.  Paragraph 1\t of  the  compromise
\npetition shows that the judgment-debtor had already “vacated
\nhalf of\t the shop  and given  its possession”  and time\t was
\ngranted\t till\t31.12.1972  for\t  vacating  and\t  delivering
\npossession of  the other  half of  the shop as the judgment-
\ndebtor wanted  time till  then lest  his business  “will  be
\nruined by  vacating the\t shop in  hurry”. This clearly shows
\nthat the  intention of the parties was not to create a fresh
\nlease in  respect of  the half\tof the shop in possession of
\nthe judgment-debtor,  but to  help the\tjudgment-debtor find
\nout, not  in a hurry; alternative accommodation for his shop
\nso that\t his established  business was not ‘ruined’ and time
\nfor vacating the half of the room was given till 31.12.1972.
\nAnd this was also how the compromise petition was understood
\nby the\tExecuting Court\t when it  recorded in  para 3 of its
\norder: “The judgment-debtor to give vacant possession of the
\nshop to\t the decree-holder  by 31.12.1972  according to\t the
\ncompromise…..”. The  intention of  the parties clearly was
\nnot to\textinguish the\tdecree for  eviction but to create a
\nmode of its full discharge.\n<\/p>\n
206<\/span><\/p>\n
     8. The  above interpretation  gets support from the use
\nof the\tterm ‘damages’,\t and not  ‘rents’, in the compromise
\npetition as  well as  the order\t of the Executing Court. The
\nview we have taken gets support also from a decision of this
\nCourt reported\tin [1968]  2 SCR  559.(1). In that case, the
\nappellant filed\t a suit\t for eviction of the respondent from
\nthe appellant’s\t house. The  suit was dismissed by the trial
\ncourt In  appeal compromise  was entered  into\tbetween\t the
\nparties\t and   the  decree   was  passed  in  terms  of\t the
\ncompromise. The\t compromise provided  for  the\trespondent’s
\ncontinuation of\t possession of the house for five years, but
\nit enabled  the appellant  to execute the decree by evicting
\nthe respondent,\t if the\t latter failed to pay rent for three
\nconsecutive months.  When the  appellant sought to evict the
\nrespondent, the\t latter claimed\t protection from eviction on
\nthe ground  that the  compromise decree\t created a lease. It
\nwas held by this Court that the facts that the appellant had
\nfiled  a  suit\tfor  eviction  of  the\trespondent  and\t the
\ncompromise decree  enabled him\tto  execute  the  decree  by
\nevicting the  respondent, showed  that the  intention of the
\nparties, which\twas the decisive test, was not to enter into
\na relationship of landlord and tenant.\n<\/p>\n
     9- This  appeal has  no merit  and\t is  dismissed\twith
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n207<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Smt. Kalloo & Ors vs Dhakadevi & Ors on 9 February, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 813, 1982 SCR (3) 201 Author: B Islam Bench: Islam, Baharul (J) PETITIONER: SMT. KALLOO & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: DHAKADEVI & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/02\/1982 BENCH: ISLAM, BAHARUL (J) BENCH: ISLAM, BAHARUL (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. […]<\/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-145930","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Kalloo & Ors vs Dhakadevi & Ors on 9 February, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Kalloo & Ors vs Dhakadevi & Ors on 9 February, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982\" \/>\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=\"1982-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-30T03:02:11+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Kalloo & Ors vs Dhakadevi & Ors on 9 February, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-30T03:02:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982\"},\"wordCount\":1454,\"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\\\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982\",\"name\":\"Smt. Kalloo & Ors vs Dhakadevi & Ors on 9 February, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-30T03:02:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Kalloo & Ors vs Dhakadevi & Ors on 9 February, 1982\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt. Kalloo & Ors vs Dhakadevi & Ors on 9 February, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Kalloo & Ors vs Dhakadevi & Ors on 9 February, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-30T03:02:11+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Kalloo & Ors vs Dhakadevi & Ors on 9 February, 1982","datePublished":"1982-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-30T03:02:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982"},"wordCount":1454,"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\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982","name":"Smt. Kalloo & Ors vs Dhakadevi & Ors on 9 February, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-30T03:02:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalloo-ors-vs-dhakadevi-ors-on-9-february-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Kalloo & Ors vs Dhakadevi & Ors on 9 February, 1982"}]},{"@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\/145930","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=145930"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145930\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145930"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145930"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145930"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}