{"id":148593,"date":"2001-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001"},"modified":"2017-09-14T23:33:09","modified_gmt":"2017-09-14T18:03:09","slug":"rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001","title":{"rendered":"Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Jiwan Dass Through Legal &#8230; on 21 December, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Jiwan Dass Through Legal &#8230; on 21 December, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 IIIAD Delhi 360, 96 (2002) DLT 766<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Sikri<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  A.K. Sikri, J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1. This suit filed by the plaintiff is for<br \/>\nspecific performance of Agreement dated 3.7.1996 as<br \/>\nwell as permanent injunction and declaration. The<br \/>\nplaintiff has averred in the plaint that vide Agreement<br \/>\nto Sell dated 3.7.1996 he purchased entire ground floor<br \/>\nof property bearing Shop No. 5, New Market, Malviya<br \/>\nNagar, measuring 84 sq.yards with rear portion<br \/>\nmeasuring 12 ft 9 inch x 39 ft of the property bearing<br \/>\nShop No. 6, New Market, Malviya Nagar (hereinafter to be<br \/>\ncalled as &#8220;suit property) with structure standing<br \/>\nthereon as well as fittings and fixtures installed<br \/>\nthereon along with proportionate share to leasehold<br \/>\nrights in the land. The Agreement to Sell was entered<br \/>\ninto between the plaintiff and defendant No. 8, namely,<br \/>\nM\/s. Shiv Ram Builders Pvt. Ltd. with late Shri Jiwan<br \/>\nDass, father of defendants 2 to 7 and husband of<br \/>\ndefendant No. 1 as confirming party. The case set up is<br \/>\nthat late Shri Jiwan Dass was the owner of the property<br \/>\nin question who entered into a Construction Agreement<br \/>\ndated 3.4.1995 with defendant No. 8 by virtue of which<br \/>\ndefendant No. 8 constructed the suit properly with its<br \/>\nown fund and resources. As per this construction<br \/>\nAgreement between late Shri Jiwan Dass and defendant<br \/>\nNo. 8, late Shri Jiwan Dass was required to pay Rs. 29<br \/>\nlakhs as full and final settlement of construction.<br \/>\nClause-7 of the Agreement stipulated that this payment<br \/>\nwas to be made either during the construction or within<br \/>\nsix months from the date of sanction of the plans of<br \/>\nthe construction failing which he was liable to pay<br \/>\ninterest on delayed payment at the rate of 2% P.M. to<br \/>\ndefendant No. 8. Clause-10 further stipulated that in<br \/>\ncase late Shri Jiwan Dass failed to make full and final<br \/>\npayment and failed to return the security deposit of<br \/>\nRs. 6 lakhs to defendant No. 8 within a maximum period of<br \/>\n9 months from the date of sanction of the plans by MCD<br \/>\nthen in such an event defendant No. 8 was to become<br \/>\nsole, absolute and exclusive owner and was entitled to<br \/>\nseek possession of the entire ground floor in lieu of<br \/>\ncost of construction incurred by it and the security<br \/>\namount deposit along with interest on both the said<br \/>\namounts. Since late Shri Jiwan Dass did not make the<br \/>\npayment, defendant No. 8 became the owner and took<br \/>\npossession of the entire ground floor of the suit<br \/>\nproperty.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. Late Shri Jiwan Dass also executed several<br \/>\ndocuments on 27.3.1996 in favor of defendant No. 8<br \/>\nthereby transferring his right, title and interest in<br \/>\nthe suit property. These documents included two<br \/>\nspecial power of attorneys, affidavit, general power of<br \/>\nattorney, will etc. On the strength of this general<br \/>\npower of attorney and after becoming the owner of the<br \/>\nsuit property in the aforesaid manner, defendant No. 8<br \/>\nentered into an Agreement to Sell dated 3.7.1996 with<br \/>\nthe plaintiff whereby the suit property was agreed to<br \/>\nbe sold to the plaintiff for a total consideration of<br \/>\nRs. 27 lakhs. The plaintiff took possession of the suit<br \/>\nproperty on spot in part performance of the Agreement<br \/>\nto Sell dated 3.7.1996 when on that date the plaintiff<br \/>\nmade payment of Rs. 26.50 lakhs vide Cheque No. 511645 of<br \/>\neven date drawn on Punjab National Bank and Rs. 50,000\/-<br \/>\nwas paid by cash. Late Shri Jiwan Dass was confirming<br \/>\nparty to this Agreement who signed the Agreement to<br \/>\nSell dated 3.7.1996 in token on his acceptance to the<br \/>\nsaid deed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. It is also averred that the plaintiff is in<br \/>\npossession of the suit property for valid consideration<br \/>\nand entire consideration has been paid for which<br \/>\ndefendant No.  8 has also executed the receipts as well<br \/>\nas other necessary documents. However, certain<br \/>\ndisputes arose when late Shri Jiwan Dass and defendants<br \/>\n1 to 7 illegally and unlawfully started obstructing the<br \/>\nbusiness activities of the plaintiff and causing<br \/>\nharassment to him and even FIR was lodged by late Shri<br \/>\nJiwan Dass on 30-9-1998.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. In these circumstances the plaintiff filed the<br \/>\npresent suit praying for decree of specific performance<br \/>\nof Agreement dated 3-7-1996 and also prayed for decree<br \/>\nof permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 7<br \/>\ntheir legal heirs, employees, servants etc. from<br \/>\nobstructing the business activities of the plaintiff in<br \/>\nthe suit property. The plaintiff has also prayed for<br \/>\ndeclaration to the effect that he is in possession of<br \/>\nthe suit property in part performance of Agreement to<br \/>\nSell dated 3-7-1996.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Along with this suit IA.No.5740\/99 being an<br \/>\napplication under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying<br \/>\nfor ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining<br \/>\ndefendants 1 to 7 from interfering in the peaceful<br \/>\npossession of the property has been filed. On<br \/>\n27.5.1999 while issuing summons in the suit, ex-parte<br \/>\ninjunction order was passed on this application<br \/>\nrestraining defendants from selling, transferring,<br \/>\nalienating or creating third party rights in the suit<br \/>\nproperty and also from obstructing ingress and egress<br \/>\nof the plaintiff in the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. On summons being served upon the defendants,<br \/>\nthe defendants have put in appearance. Defendants 1 to<br \/>\n7 have filed their written statement contesting the<br \/>\nsuit. Defendant No. 8 has filed written statement<br \/>\nsupporting the case of the plaintiff. In the written<br \/>\nstatement filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 7 the main<br \/>\ndefense set up is that late Shri Jiwan Dass was not the<br \/>\nowner of the suit property. In fact defendant No. 1 had<br \/>\nfiled Suit No. 544\/95 in which court decree was passed<br \/>\non a compromise application filed by the parties and<br \/>\ndefendant No. 8 was signatory to the said compromise<br \/>\napplication and was fully in the knowledge of the fact<br \/>\nthat it is the defendant No. 1 who had the right in the<br \/>\nground floor of the suit property. Thus the ownership<br \/>\nrights in the ground floor of Shop No. 5 were recognised<br \/>\nby both late Shri Jiwan Dass and defendant No.8 in<br \/>\ncompromise application dated 31.1.1996 and in view of<br \/>\nthis defendant No. 8 could not have entered into<br \/>\nAgreement to Sell dated 3.7.1996 in respect of the same<br \/>\nportion of the property with the plaintiff. Likewise<br \/>\nlate Shri Jiwan Dass could not act as confirming party<br \/>\nto the said Agreement. It is also sought to be<br \/>\nhighlighted that all documents relied upon by the<br \/>\nplaintiff were either forged or drawn on blank papers<br \/>\non which signatures of late Shri Jiwan Dass were<br \/>\nobtained fraudulently at the time of execution of the<br \/>\nconstruction agreement dated 3.4.1995. The defendants<br \/>\n1 to 7 have also tried to demonstrate the circumstances<br \/>\non the basis of which it is sought to be contended that<br \/>\nin normal course such documents could not have been<br \/>\nexecuted and a fraud is played by defendant No. 8 in<br \/>\ncollusion with other henchmen who are land grabbers.<br \/>\nThese circumstances are not narrated in detail as it<br \/>\nmay not be necessary to do so for the purpose of<br \/>\npresent application.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. At this stage while deciding the application<br \/>\nunder Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC the Court has to<br \/>\nsatisfy itself about the presence of three conditions<br \/>\nbefore the plaintiff becomes entitled to an injunction,<br \/>\nnamely, whether the plaintiff has good prima facie case<br \/>\nand is likely to succeed; whether balance of<br \/>\nconvenience is in his favor and; whether the<br \/>\nplaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if<br \/>\nthe injunction is not granted.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. In order to appreciate the controversy in the<br \/>\nlight of aforesaid parameters, let us first scan<br \/>\nthrough the admitted facts. Defendants 1 to 7 in fact<br \/>\nhave not denied the existence of either Construction<br \/>\nAgreement dated 3.4.1995 between late Shri Jiwan Dass<br \/>\nand defendant No. 8, or for that matter other documents<br \/>\nexecuted between these two parties. They have also not<br \/>\ndenied the execution of Agreement to Sell dated<br \/>\n3.7.1996 between the plaintiff and defendant No. 8 on<br \/>\nwhich late Shri Jiwan Dass signed as confirming party.<br \/>\nThe thrust of the defense raised by defendants 1 to 7<br \/>\nis that these documents were got signed from late Shri<br \/>\nJiwan Dass when they were blank and late Shri Jiwan<br \/>\nDass was duped. However, at the time Construction<br \/>\nAgreement dated 3.4.1995 was executed between late Shri<br \/>\nJiwan Dass and the defendant No. 8, the defendant No. 8<br \/>\nwas to pay a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs by way of deposit and<br \/>\namount of Rs. 5,40,000\/- was paid by means of account<br \/>\npayee cheque drawn in favor of late Shri Jiwan Dass.<br \/>\nReceipt of this amount is also not denied. Although<br \/>\nthere is a dispute about the payment of balance sum of<br \/>\nRs. 60,000\/-, fact remains that a sum of Rs. 5,40,000\/-<br \/>\nwas paid by cheque and accepted by Shri Jiwan Dass. If<br \/>\nthere was no such Construction Agreement, on what<br \/>\naccount he received the payment, needs to be answered<br \/>\nby the defendants 1 to 7. Agreement dated 3.7.1996  is<br \/>\nalso not in dispute. The defendant No. 8 has accepted<br \/>\nhaving signed this Agreement. As afore-mentioned<br \/>\nsignatures of late Shri Jiwan Dass as confirming party<br \/>\non this Agreement are not denied the only averment made<br \/>\nis that his signatures were taken on blank document.<br \/>\nThe sale consideration as per Agreement dated 3.7.1996<br \/>\nwas Rs. 27 lakhs and on this very date cheque No. 511645<br \/>\nin the sum of Rs. 26,50,000\/- drawn on Punjab National<br \/>\nBank, Section-27, Noida was given by the plaintiff. The<br \/>\npayment of such a huge amount by means of cheque given<br \/>\nby the plaintiff on the execution of this Agreement<br \/>\nlends credence to the plaintiff&#8217;s case that such an<br \/>\nagreement was in fact entered into. When the plaintiff<br \/>\nmade the payment of entire consideration on the same<br \/>\ndate, his averment that possession of the suit premises<br \/>\nwas given to him on that very date is highly probable.<br \/>\nFact remains that admittedly as on date of the filing<br \/>\nof the suit, the plaintiff was in possession and<br \/>\ncontinues to remain in possession. It would be<br \/>\nworthwhile to mention at this stage that the defendants<br \/>\n1 to 7 filed various complaints against the plaintiff<br \/>\nand the defendant No. 8 including complaint dated<br \/>\n11.6.1999 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi<br \/>\nand these complaints admit the possession of the<br \/>\nplaintiff in the suit property. The plaintiff is<br \/>\nrunning its business from this property. Thus<br \/>\npossession of the plaintiff in the suit property also<br \/>\nstands established.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. It may also be significant to point out that<br \/>\nthe defendants 1 to 7 have not filed any case against<br \/>\nthe plaintiff to obtain possession of the property<br \/>\nwhich they claim has been illegally usurped from them<br \/>\nsince 1995. They have also not filed any case against<br \/>\ndefendant No. 8 or the plaintiff alleging that defendant<br \/>\nNo. 8 or late Shri Jiwan Dass could not enter into<br \/>\nAgreement to Sell dated 3.7.1996 on the ground that it<br \/>\nis the defendant No. 1 who is the owner of ground floor<br \/>\nof the property.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. Be that as it may, in view of there being<br \/>\nAgreement to Sell dated 3.7.1996 in favor of the<br \/>\nplaintiff in respect of suit property for which the<br \/>\nplaintiff has paid the consideration and settled<br \/>\npossession of the suit property, the plaintiff has made<br \/>\nout a prima facie case in his favor. Balance of<br \/>\nconvenience also lies in favor of the plaintiff as the<br \/>\npurpose of temporary injunction pending the suit is to<br \/>\nmaintain status quo in respect of the suit property.<br \/>\nFurthermore the injury likely to be suffered by the<br \/>\nplaintiff if the injunction is not granted would be<br \/>\nmore than the injury that may be caused to the<br \/>\ndefendants 1 to 7, in case injunction is granted and<br \/>\nthe plaintiff ultimately fails in the suit inasmuch as<br \/>\nthe defendants can take out appropriate proceedings for<br \/>\nalleged unlawful possession by the plaintiff in case<br \/>\nthey ultimately succeed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. The defendants 1 to 7 are trying to argue that<br \/>\nthis Court should infer that the documents signed by<br \/>\nlate Shri Jiwan Dass were either blank or fraudulently<br \/>\ntaken by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 8. These<br \/>\nare all disputed facts which can be thrashed out only<br \/>\nafter the evidence is led. At this stage these<br \/>\nallegations cannot be presumed to be gospel truth and<br \/>\nthe injunction to the plaintiff cannot be refused who<br \/>\nhas produced on record number of documents in support<br \/>\nof his case and has also proved his settled possession.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that<br \/>\nthis IA.5740\/99 stands allowed. Interim order dated<br \/>\n27th May, 1999 is made absolute till the disposal of the<br \/>\nsuit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Jiwan Dass Through Legal &#8230; on 21 December, 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 IIIAD Delhi 360, 96 (2002) DLT 766 Author: A Sikri Bench: A Sikri JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. 1. This suit filed by the plaintiff is for specific performance of Agreement dated 3.7.1996 as well as permanent [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-148593","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Jiwan Dass Through Legal ... on 21 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Jiwan Dass Through Legal ... on 21 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-14T18:03:09+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Jiwan Dass Through Legal &#8230; on 21 December, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-14T18:03:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2018,\"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\\\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001\",\"name\":\"Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Jiwan Dass Through Legal ... on 21 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-14T18:03:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Jiwan Dass Through Legal &#8230; on 21 December, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Jiwan Dass Through Legal ... on 21 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Jiwan Dass Through Legal ... on 21 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-14T18:03:09+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Jiwan Dass Through Legal &#8230; on 21 December, 2001","datePublished":"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-14T18:03:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001"},"wordCount":2018,"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\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001","name":"Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Jiwan Dass Through Legal ... on 21 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-14T18:03:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-sharma-vs-jiwan-dass-through-legal-on-21-december-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Jiwan Dass Through Legal &#8230; on 21 December, 2001"}]},{"@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\/148593","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=148593"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148593\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148593"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148593"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148593"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}