{"id":154806,"date":"2010-07-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-02-05T05:22:27","modified_gmt":"2017-02-04T23:52:27","slug":"nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Nanhku &amp; Ors. vs Brij Nath &amp; Ors. on 19 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Nanhku &amp; Ors. vs Brij Nath &amp; Ors. on 19 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                                                          'Reserved\"\n\nCourt No. - 4\n\nCase :- WRIT - C No. - 20718 of 2010\n\nPetitioner :- Nanhku &amp; Ors.\nRespondent :- Brij Nath &amp; Ors.\nPetitioner Counsel :- C.K. Parekh\nRespondent Counsel :- Raghvendra Sh. Srivastava\n\nHon'ble Krishna Murari, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>Heard Sri C. K. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri<br \/>\nRaghuvendra Shanker Srivastava, who has put in appearance on<br \/>\nbehalf of respondent no. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>Undisputed facts, giving rise to the dispute, are as under.<br \/>\nSuit was filed by plaintiff-respondents for a decree of mandatory<br \/>\ninjunction to direct the defendant-petitioners to hand over vacant<br \/>\npossession of the suit property and in the alternative relief of<br \/>\neviction and possession was claimed on the allegations that house<br \/>\nshown by letters &#8216;E&#8217;, &#8216;F&#8217;, &#8216;G&#8217; and &#8216;H&#8217; in the plaint map belong to<br \/>\ndefendants which was in a very dilapidated stage and since they<br \/>\nwere not in a position to carry out repairs immediately hence the<br \/>\nplaintiff-respondent no. 1 permitted them to live in the building<br \/>\nshown by letters &#8216;A&#8217;, &#8216;B&#8217;, &#8216;C&#8217; and &#8216;D&#8217; in the plaint map as a licensee<br \/>\nwith the condition that they will maintain the same and shall not<br \/>\nmake any alteration and shall vacate the same within five years.<br \/>\nThe defendant-petitioners contested the proceedings by filing<br \/>\nwritten statement. During the pendency of the proceedings, the<br \/>\ndefendant-petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 11<br \/>\nread with Section 151 C. P. C. for rejection of the plaint. The<br \/>\napplication was filed on the ground that since no notice under<br \/>\nSection 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given which was<br \/>\nessential before filing of the suit for dispossession as such there<br \/>\n was no cause of action and the plaint was liable to be rejected<br \/>\nunder Order VII Rule 11 C. P. C. Trial court vide order dated<br \/>\n25.8.2009 rejected the application. The defendant-petitioners went<br \/>\nup in revision which has also been dismissed. Aggrieved by the<br \/>\nsaid two orders, present petition has been filed.<br \/>\nIt has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that<br \/>\nsince no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act<br \/>\nwas served before filing of the suit, there was no cause of action<br \/>\nand the plaint was liable to be rejected and both the courts below<br \/>\ncommitted material illegality in rejecting the application. It has<br \/>\nfurther been submitted that if the plaint was not liable to be<br \/>\nrejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC since the suit could not<br \/>\nhave been filed without serving a notice under Section 106 of the<br \/>\nTransfer of Property Act, the plaint ought to have been rejected<br \/>\nunder Section 151 C. P. C. The next contention advanced on<br \/>\nbehalf of the petitioners is that suit being vexatious and merit-less<br \/>\nand plaint not disclosing any clear right to sue, the court ought not<br \/>\nto have been misled by clever drafting creating an illusion of cause<br \/>\nof action and ought to have rejected the plaint.<br \/>\nIn reply, it has been submitted that since the plaint was filed on the<br \/>\nallegations that defendant-petitioners were only licensee and for<br \/>\nrevoking licence, no notice under Section 106 of Transfer of<br \/>\nProperty Act is required as such the plaint was not liable to be<br \/>\nrejected on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action.<br \/>\nIt has further been submitted that since there is a specific provision<br \/>\ncontained in Order VII Rule 11 prescribing conditions whereunder<br \/>\nplaint is liable to be rejected, the provision of Section 151 cannot<br \/>\nbe invoked for rejection of the plaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the parties and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n<p> A perusal of the allegations made in the plaint and in particular<br \/>\nparagraph 6 thereof go to show that suit was filed by the plaintiff-<br \/>\nrespondents on the allegations that defendant-petitioners were<br \/>\npermitted to live in the suit property as licensee.<br \/>\nThe question which arises for consideration is as to whether notice<br \/>\nunder Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is required for<br \/>\nrevocation of licence and whether suit for ejectment can be filed<br \/>\nagainst a licensee without notice under Section 106 of the Transfer<br \/>\nof Property Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 defines license as<br \/>\nunder :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Where one person grants to another, or to a definite number of<br \/>\nother persons, a right to do, or continue to do, in or upon the<br \/>\nimmovable the immovable property of the grantor, something<br \/>\nwhich would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful, and such<br \/>\nright does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property,<br \/>\nthe right is called a license.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 61 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 prescribed that<br \/>\nrevocation of a license may be express or implied which<br \/>\nnecessarily means that it could be either by notice in writing or<br \/>\neven without notice impliedly from the acts of grantor. Section 62<br \/>\nof the Indian Easements Act further prescribes the condition that<br \/>\nwhen the license could be deemed to have been revoked. Relevant<br \/>\nsub-clause (c) of Section 62 of Indian Easements Act reads as<br \/>\nunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;62. License when deemed revoked.- A license is deemed to be<br \/>\nrevoked &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p>       (c) where it has been granted for a limited period, or<br \/>\n      acquired on condition that it shall become void on the<br \/>\n      performance or non-performance of a specified act, and the<br \/>\n      period expires, or the condition is fulfilled.&#8221;<br \/>\nSection 63 of the Indian Easements Act further prescribes that<br \/>\nwhere a license is revoked, the licensee is entitled to a reasonable<br \/>\ntime to leave the property affected thereby and to remove any<br \/>\ngoods which he has been allowed to place on such property.<br \/>\nAn analysis of the aforesaid provisions clearly go to show that no<br \/>\nnotice is required to be given for revocation of a license and where<br \/>\nit is for a limited period, it is deemed to be revoked on the expiry<br \/>\nof the period.\n<\/p>\n<p>Notice for termination of lease is contained under Chapter V of the<br \/>\nTransfer of Property Act pertaining to lease of immovable<br \/>\nproperty. It is, thus, clear that Section 106 of the Transfer of<br \/>\nProperty Act is applicable in cases of lease and not licence.<br \/>\nLearned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any such<br \/>\nprovisions either in the Transfer of Property Act or in the Indian<br \/>\nEasements Act, 1882 prescribing a notice for termination of a<br \/>\nlicense.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the above, the first argument advanced by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioners is devoid of any force and not liable to<br \/>\nbe accepted and both the courts below have committed no<br \/>\nillegality in rejecting the application filed by the defendant-<br \/>\npetitioners for rejection of the plaint for want of notice under<br \/>\nSection 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>In so far as second argument is concerned that is also devoid of<br \/>\nany merits. It is very well settled that if there is express provision<br \/>\ncovering a particular topic then provisions of Section 151 C. P. C.<br \/>\ncannot be revoked. Reference may be made to the judgment of the<br \/>\n Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Chandra &amp; Sons Sugar<br \/>\nMills (P) Ltd. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Bhargava and others, A. I. R.<br \/>\n1966 SC 1899 and Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Ghevarghese,<br \/>\nAIR 2004 SC 3992 wherein it has been held that inherent powers<br \/>\ncan be exercised only in cases where circumstances do not fall<br \/>\nunder any of the rules prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure.<br \/>\nSince Order VII Rule 11 C. P. C. specifically provides for cases in<br \/>\nwhich the plaint could be rejected, the provisions of Section 151 C.<br \/>\nP. C. cannot be revoked for the said purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, since the suit was<br \/>\nfiled on the allegation that defendant-petitioners were licensee for<br \/>\na fixed term and have not vacated the suit property despite expiry<br \/>\nof the period of licence, no notice under Section 106 of the<br \/>\nTransfer of Property Act was required to be given before filing of<br \/>\nthe suit and it cannot be said that plaint failed to disclose any cause<br \/>\nof action and was not liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11<br \/>\nC. P. C.. Both the courts below have rightly rejected the<br \/>\napplication of the defendant-petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>The third contention is also merit-less. A bare reading of the plaint<br \/>\nallegations go to show that suit is not vexatious and there is clear<br \/>\nright to sue.\n<\/p>\n<p>From the above discussions, the impugned orders do not suffer<br \/>\nfrom any such infirmity and illegality and do not require any<br \/>\ninterference.\n<\/p>\n<p>The writ petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed in limine.<br \/>\nOrder Date :- 19.7.2010<br \/>\nDcs\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Nanhku &amp; Ors. vs Brij Nath &amp; Ors. on 19 July, 2010 &#8216;Reserved&#8221; Court No. &#8211; 4 Case :- WRIT &#8211; C No. &#8211; 20718 of 2010 Petitioner :- Nanhku &amp; Ors. Respondent :- Brij Nath &amp; Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- C.K. Parekh Respondent Counsel :- Raghvendra Sh. Srivastava Hon&#8217;ble Krishna Murari, [&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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154806","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-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>Nanhku &amp; Ors. vs Brij Nath &amp; Ors. on 19 July, 2010 - 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\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nanhku &amp; Ors. vs Brij Nath &amp; Ors. on 19 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-04T23:52:27+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nanhku &amp; Ors. vs Brij Nath &amp; Ors. on 19 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-04T23:52:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1389,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Nanhku &amp; Ors. vs Brij Nath &amp; Ors. on 19 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-04T23:52:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nanhku &amp; Ors. vs Brij Nath &amp; Ors. on 19 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Nanhku &amp; Ors. vs Brij Nath &amp; Ors. on 19 July, 2010 - 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\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nanhku &amp; Ors. vs Brij Nath &amp; Ors. on 19 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-04T23:52:27+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nanhku &amp; Ors. vs Brij Nath &amp; Ors. on 19 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-04T23:52:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010"},"wordCount":1389,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010","name":"Nanhku &amp; Ors. vs Brij Nath &amp; Ors. on 19 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-04T23:52:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nanhku-ors-vs-brij-nath-ors-on-19-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nanhku &amp; Ors. vs Brij Nath &amp; Ors. on 19 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/154806","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=154806"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154806\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154806"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154806"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154806"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}