{"id":155038,"date":"2002-05-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-05-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002"},"modified":"2018-04-28T04:46:35","modified_gmt":"2018-04-27T23:16:35","slug":"sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002","title":{"rendered":"Sumitra Devi vs Raj Rani Sehdev on 30 May, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sumitra Devi vs Raj Rani Sehdev on 30 May, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 98 (2002) DLT 355, 2003 (66) DRJ 82<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Chopra<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: R Chopra<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> R.C. Chopra, J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent<br \/>\nControl Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as &#8220;the Act&#8221; only)<br \/>\nassails an order dated 11.9.2001, passed by learned<br \/>\nAdditional Rent Controller, Delhi, in Eviction Petition<br \/>\nNo. 108\/95, passing eviction orders under Section 14(1)(e)<br \/>\nread with Section 25B of the Act in favor of the respondent<br \/>\nand against the petitioner\/tenant.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the<br \/>\nrecords.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The petitioner-tenant assails the impugned eviction<br \/>\norder on two grounds. Firstly that the petition was bad for<br \/>\nnon-joinder of necessary parties as all the LRs of the<br \/>\ndeceased-tenant Paras Ram had not been imp leaded and secondly<br \/>\nthat the respondent-landlady had bonafide need in respect<br \/>\nof the premises in question.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the<br \/>\npremises in question were let out to deceased Paras Ram and<br \/>\nafter his death the tenancy had devolved upon his widow, sons<br \/>\nand daughters but the eviction petition was filed against the<br \/>\npetitioner widow only without impleading the other LRs. He<br \/>\nrelies upon a judgment in   Mohd. Idress and Anr. v.<br \/>\nMst. Nathi  reported in 90(2001) DLT page 274 to counted that<br \/>\nthe eviction petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be<br \/>\ndismissed on this ground alone. He also argues that the<br \/>\nrespondent-landlady is permanently settled in U.K. Along with<br \/>\nher sons and daughters and has no intention of coming back to<br \/>\nIndia. It is submitted that respondent\/landlady has no<br \/>\nbonafide need in respect of premises in question for her<br \/>\nresidence. It is also pointed out that the first floor and<br \/>\nBarsati floor of the building in question are still in the<br \/>\npossession of the respondent and a sister of the respondent<br \/>\nis living there without payment of rent and as such<br \/>\nalternative accommodation is available to the<br \/>\nrespondent-landlady for stay as and when she visits India or<br \/>\nas and when she decides to shift to India. Learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner argues that the Court have to draw a<br \/>\ndistinction between s &#8220;desire&#8221; to occupy the premises and<br \/>\n&#8220;requirement&#8221; defined under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.<br \/>\nHe relies upon   <a href=\"\/doc\/1593488\/\">Sri Kempaiah v. Lingaiah and Ors.<\/a>  reported<br \/>\nin VII (2001) SLT 602,   <a href=\"\/doc\/459568\/\">Sushila Devi Etc. v. Avinash<br \/>\nChander<\/a>  reported in 1987 RLR (SC) 137 and   <a href=\"\/doc\/580380\/\">Amarjit Singh v.<br \/>\nSmt. Khatoon Quamarain<\/a>  reported in 1987 (1) RCR page 192 SC.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand<br \/>\nsubmits that after the death of the deceased-tenant Paras Ram<br \/>\nhis widow was inducted as a tenant in the year 1986 vide rent<br \/>\nagreement Ext. R-1 to which no LR had raised any objection<br \/>\ntill the eviction petition was filed. He relies upon Mohd.<br \/>\nYunus v. Nawabuddin reported in 2000 RLR page 74 to argue<br \/>\nthat the objection raised by the petitioner in this regard is<br \/>\nabsolutely frivolous. Learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent-landlady further submits that the respondent and<br \/>\ntwo of her sons are very keen to come beck to India in as much<br \/>\nas they are unemployed and are living on unemployment pension<br \/>\nonly. It is also argued that the desire of the<br \/>\nrespondent-landlady and her family to come back to India is<br \/>\nbonafide and for that reason only they had never let out the<br \/>\nfirst floor portion of the house in question and had allowed<br \/>\nthe sister of the respondent to stay there till they came<br \/>\nback to India from U.K.. It is submitted that a genuine<br \/>\ndesire to come back to one&#8217;s own country is a bonafide<br \/>\nrequirement and as such the learned ARC was fully justified<br \/>\nin passing the impugned order against the petitioner.<br \/>\nRelying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court of India in<br \/>\n  <a href=\"\/doc\/721898\/\">Shiv Sarup Gupta  v.   Mahesh Chand Gupta<\/a>  reported in AIR 1999<br \/>\nSC 2057, Learned counsel for the respondent argues that this<br \/>\nCourt should not substitute its own view in place of the view<br \/>\ntaken by the learned Rent Controller which was according to<br \/>\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Coming to the question as to whether non-impleadment<br \/>\nof the other LRs of the deceased-tenant is fatal or not to<br \/>\nthe eviction petition filed by the respondent, this Court is<br \/>\nof the considered view that all the LRs of the<br \/>\ndeceased-tenant inherited tenancy rights in the tenanted<br \/>\npremises upon the death of tenant but when one of the LRs was<br \/>\naccepted as a tenant by the landlord within their knowledge<br \/>\nand they raised no objection they are now precluded from<br \/>\nobjecting to the creation of tenancy in favor of only one<br \/>\nL.R. The agreement Ex. R-1 between the petitioner and the<br \/>\nrespondent clearly shows that after the death of the deceased<br \/>\nParas RAm fresh tenancy was created in favor of the<br \/>\npetitioner only to which no other LR objected for so many<br \/>\nyears and as such this plea has been raised merely with a<br \/>\nview to resist the eviction petition. It can be safely said<br \/>\nthat all other LRs of deceased Paras Ram had impliedly<br \/>\nsurrendered their tenancy rights and thereafter fresh tenancy<br \/>\nwas created in favor of their mother, the petitioner.<br \/>\nTherefore the impugned order does not suffer from any<br \/>\ninfirmity on this score. In the case of Mohd. Yunus v.<br \/>\nNawabuddin (supra) a learned Single Judge of this Court also<br \/>\ntook the view that in a case in which after the death of a<br \/>\ntenant one of his LRs attorns in favor of landlord and then<br \/>\non being sued contends that other legal heirs are necessary<br \/>\nparty such a plea cannot be sustained. The judgment in<br \/>\nMohd. Idress and Ors. v. Mst. Nathi (supra) was on entirely<br \/>\ndifferent facts as tenancy was inherited by all the LRs. and<br \/>\none of them was not imp leaded. It was not a case of creation<br \/>\nof tenancy in favor of one of the LRs.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. The plea of the petitioner that the respondent and<br \/>\nher family is settled in U.K. for the last about 35 years<br \/>\nand have become citizens and green card holders and as such<br \/>\nhave no intention to shift to India, requires consideration<br \/>\nfor the reason that the Courts exercising powers under<br \/>\nSection 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act have to<br \/>\nensure that no unscrupulous landlord is able to evict a<br \/>\ntenant on a false and frivolous plea of bonafide requirement.<br \/>\nHowever, the Courts also have to ensure that no<br \/>\nlandlord\/owner is kept deprived of his property. in the hands<br \/>\nof a tenant, inspite of the fact that he bonafide needs the<br \/>\nsame for his own residence and the residence of his family<br \/>\nmembers. The respondent who appears as AW 1 made a<br \/>\nstatement on oath that she wanted to shift to India. AW 2<br \/>\nVarinder Kumar Sahdev, son of the respondent-landlady, also<br \/>\nstated that he was unemployed for the last about 10 years and<br \/>\nhe Along with his wife were desirous of shifting to India.<br \/>\nAccording to him his younger brother was also interested in<br \/>\ncoming back to India. The respondent-landlady, who is<br \/>\nsuffering from various ailments including some problems in<br \/>\nthe backbone appears to be keen to come back to India and it<br \/>\nis not un-natural also for the reason that all those who move<br \/>\nout of their own country for the sake of business or career,<br \/>\nat one stage or the other feel like going back to their roots<br \/>\nso that towards the end of their lives they are in their own<br \/>\ncountry and with their own people. In such cases the desire<br \/>\nto come back to one&#8217;s own country gives rise to bonafide need<br \/>\nand cannot be out right rejected as malafide unless there is<br \/>\nsome positive evidence to show that the desire is a hoax and<br \/>\nreal motive is somethingelse. The respondent and her family,<br \/>\neven if they do not shift to India permanently require the<br \/>\npremises for use and occupation in the course of their visits<br \/>\nand as such the plea of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner that the plea of bonafide need as set up by the<br \/>\nrespondent should be rejected cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. In Sri Kempaiah&#8217;s case (supra) the Apex Court while<br \/>\ndealing with a case of eviction on the ground of bonafide<br \/>\nrequirement emphasised that a mere wish or desire on the part<br \/>\nof the landlord is distinguishable from &#8220;bonafide<br \/>\nrequirement&#8221; and a duty is cast upon the Court to satisfy<br \/>\nitself in regard to the bonafide of the requirement. The<br \/>\nemphasis in this judgment was that Courts should not be<br \/>\ninfluenced by mere wish or desire but try to look for<br \/>\nsomething more to know as to whether the plea of requirement<br \/>\nis bonafide or not. It may be stated that in cases like the<br \/>\npresent one requirement is preceded by a wish or desire to<br \/>\nshift to one&#8217;s own country and if there is nothing on record<br \/>\nto show that the wish or desire on the part of the owner is<br \/>\nsham or mere pretence to make out a case bonafide<br \/>\nrequirement the existence of such wish or desire assists the<br \/>\nCourt in ascertaining the bonafide of the plea of<br \/>\nrequirement. The plea of the petitioner that the respondent<br \/>\nwants to sell off or let out the premises on a higher rent<br \/>\nafter evicting the petitioner cannot be accepted for the<br \/>\nreason that there is no evidence on record to suggest even<br \/>\nthat the respondent is going to sell or let out the premises<br \/>\nin question after evicting the petitioner. Moreover such<br \/>\napprehension can be echoed by every tenant to oppose an<br \/>\neviction petition, but as rightly observed by learned ARC,<br \/>\nSection 19 of the Act takes care of such apprehensions.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. A Single Judge of this Court in T.D. Dhingra v.<br \/>\nPritam Rai Khanna  upheld the<br \/>\nclaim of bonafide requirement by a landlord-owner who had<br \/>\nacquired British citizenship but was claiming eviction on the<br \/>\nground of bonafide requirement for his stay in India. In the<br \/>\npresent case the respondent-landlady and her two sons have<br \/>\ndeposed on oath before the Trial Court that they intend to<br \/>\nreturn to India. Nothing could be brought out in their cross<br \/>\nexaminations to falsify them on this issue. The petitioner<br \/>\ninspite of raising a plea that the respondent intends to sell<br \/>\nthe property in question has not produced any evidence to<br \/>\nestablish that the respondent has been negotiating with some<br \/>\none in regard to sale of this property. The fact that the<br \/>\nrespondent had never let out the first floor portion and had<br \/>\nkept it with her sister for so many years fully corroborates<br \/>\nher plea that she is not interested in any monetary gain and<br \/>\nshe genuinely intends to come back to India with her one or<br \/>\ntwo sons and stay here. The respondent being an old lady and<br \/>\nsuffering from so many ailments and physical problems is<br \/>\nunable to use the first floor portion and as such is in<br \/>\nbonafide need of premises in possession of the petitioner.<br \/>\nIn view of the status, life style, habits, six of family of<br \/>\nthe respondent and her sons their need for the ground floor<br \/>\nas well as first floor of the building in question for<br \/>\nresindential use is neither unreasonable nor exaggerated.<br \/>\nThis Court does not find any good ground for holding that the<br \/>\nplea of bonafide need as raised by the respondent is a<br \/>\npretence only and the respondent does not require the<br \/>\npremises in question for residential use.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. It is also well settled that while exercising powers<br \/>\nunder Section 25-B(8) of the Act the High Court has to test<br \/>\nthe orders of the Rent Controller on the touch- stone of<br \/>\n&#8220;whether it is according to law&#8221; or not. The High Court must<br \/>\nnot substitute its own opinion in place of the view taken by<br \/>\nthe Controller unless the view taken by him betrays lack of<br \/>\nreason or objectivity or appears to be so unreasonable that<br \/>\nno prudent man could have taken that view. The impugned<br \/>\norder passed by learned Additional Rent Controller does not<br \/>\nsuffer from any illegality, perversity or error of<br \/>\njurisdiction. The learned ARC had upheld the claim of the<br \/>\nrespondent after properly appreciating the evidence on record<br \/>\nand had come to the conclusion that the respondent was in<br \/>\nbonafide need of the premises in question. There are no good<br \/>\ngrounds for taking a different view in the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. In the result it is held that there are no goods<br \/>\ngrounds for interfering with the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. The petition stands dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Sumitra Devi vs Raj Rani Sehdev on 30 May, 2002 Equivalent citations: 98 (2002) DLT 355, 2003 (66) DRJ 82 Author: R Chopra Bench: R Chopra JUDGMENT R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as &#8220;the Act&#8221; only) assails an order [&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-155038","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>Sumitra Devi vs Raj Rani Sehdev on 30 May, 2002 - 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\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sumitra Devi vs Raj Rani Sehdev on 30 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-05-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-27T23:16:35+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\\\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sumitra Devi vs Raj Rani Sehdev on 30 May, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-05-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-27T23:16:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2085,\"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\\\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002\",\"name\":\"Sumitra Devi vs Raj Rani Sehdev on 30 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-05-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-27T23:16:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sumitra Devi vs Raj Rani Sehdev on 30 May, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Sumitra Devi vs Raj Rani Sehdev on 30 May, 2002 - 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\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sumitra Devi vs Raj Rani Sehdev on 30 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-05-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-27T23:16:35+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\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sumitra Devi vs Raj Rani Sehdev on 30 May, 2002","datePublished":"2002-05-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-27T23:16:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002"},"wordCount":2085,"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\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002","name":"Sumitra Devi vs Raj Rani Sehdev on 30 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-05-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-27T23:16:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitra-devi-vs-raj-rani-sehdev-on-30-may-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sumitra Devi vs Raj Rani Sehdev on 30 May, 2002"}]},{"@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\/155038","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=155038"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155038\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155038"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155038"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155038"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}