{"id":162158,"date":"1975-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975"},"modified":"2016-09-10T06:46:49","modified_gmt":"2016-09-10T01:16:49","slug":"roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975","title":{"rendered":"Roshan Lal vs Madan Lal on 18 September, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Roshan Lal vs Madan Lal on 18 September, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 2130, \t\t 1976 SCR (1) 878<\/div>\n
Author: N Untwalia<\/div>\n
Bench: Untwalia, N.L.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nROSHAN LAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMADAN LAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT18\/09\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR 2130\t\t  1976 SCR  (1) 878\n 1975 SCC  (2) 785\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1978 SC 952\t (2,4)\n\n\nACT:\n     Madhya  Pradesh  Accommodation  Control  Act  1961-Sec.\n12(1)(6)-Compromise decree  in a  rent act-suit,  whether  a\nnullity-C.P.C.O. 23 rule 3.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The respondent  landlord  filed  a\t suit  for  eviction\nagainst the  appellant tenant  on the  ground of  bona\tfide\npersonal requirement  and that\the has\tno  other  resonably\nsuitable accommodation\tof his\town  which  is\tone  of\t the\ngrounds of  eviction under  the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation\nControl Act. The appellant filed a Written Statement denying\nthe  claim  of\tthe  respondent.  After\t some  evidence\t was\nrecorded the  parties entered into a compromise and filed it\nin the Court. The compromise deed mentioned that \"due to the\nnecessity of  the plaintiffs  for their own business-opening\ngrocery shop,  the decree  for ejectment  may be  granted to\nthem against the defendant\". The Trial Court passed a decree\nin terms  of the  compromise after  coming to the conclusion\nthat the  compromise was  legal. the  appellant was  given 3\nyears' time  to vacate the premises under the compromise. On\nthe appellant's\t failure to vacate after the expiry of three\nyears,\tthe  respondent\t filed\tExecution  Application.\t The\nappellant objected  to the  execution on the ground that the\ncompromise decree was void and inexecutable as being against\nthe provisions of the Act.\n     The Execution  Court accepted the appellant's objection\nand  dismissed\t the  Execution\t Case.\tThe  District  Judge\ndismissed the appeal filed by the respondent. The High Court\nallowing  the\tSecond\tMiscellaneous  Appeal  came  to\t the\nconclusion that the decree was not a nullity and that it was\nexecutable.\n     In an  appeal by  Special Leave the Appellant contended\nthat  the  decree  was\tnullity\t since\tthe  Court  was\t not\nsatisfied that\tthe eviction  was  in  accordance  with\t the\nprovisions of  the Act.\t The counsel  further contended that\neven if\t what is  stated in  the compromise  deed  might  be\naccepted as  admission, the admission is only about the bona\nfide requirement  and that  there is  no admission about the\nlandlord not having any other suitable accommodation.\n^\n     HELD: dismissing the appeal:\n     1. In  order to  get a  decree or\torder  for  eviction\nagainst a  tenant whose\t tenancy is  governed  by  any\tRent\nRestriction or Eviction Control Act the Suitor must make out\na case for eviction in accordance with the provisions of the\nAct. When the suit is contested the issue goes to trial. The\nCourt passes  a decree\tfor eviction only if it is satisfied\non evidence  that a  ground for\t passing such  a  decree  in\naccordance with\t the requirement  of the  Statute  has\tbeen\nestablished. Even  when the trial proceeds ex-parte, this is\nso. If,\t however, parties  choose to enter into a compromise\ndue to\tany reason  such as  to avoid the risk of protracted\nlitigation, expenses  it is open to them to do so. The Court\ncan pass  a decree on the basis of the compromise. In such a\nsituation  the\t only  thing  to  be  seen  is\twhether\t the\ncompromise is in violation of the requirement of the law. In\nother words,  parties cannot be permitted to have a tenant's\neviction merely\t by agreement  without\tanything  more.\t The\ncompromise must\t indicate either  on  its  face\t or  in\t the\nbackground of  other materials\tin the\tcase that the tenant\nexpressly or  impliedly is  agreeing to\t suffer a decree for\neviction because  the landlord,\t in  the  circumstances,  is\nentitled to have such a decree under the law. The case of K.\nK. Chari v. P. M. Seshadri,<\/a> followed\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   [882-A-D]\n     2. It  is too  late in  the day  to  contend  that\t the\nprovisions of order 23 rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure\ncannot apply  to eviction  suits  governed  by\tthe  special\nstatutes. A compromise of suit is permissible under the said\nprovisions of law. [882-E-F]\n879\n     3. If  the compromise for the eviction of the tenant is\nfound on  the facts  of a particular case to be in violation\nof a  Rent Control Act, the Court would refuse to record the\ncompromise as  it would\t not be\t a lawful  agreement. If the\nCourt is  satisfied on\tconsideration of  the terms  of\t the\ncompromise and\tif necessary  by  considering  them  in\t the\ncontext of  the pleadings  and other  materials in  the case\nthat the  agreement is\tlawful as  in any  other suit  in an\neviction suit  the court  is bound  to record the compromise\nand pass a decree in accordance therewith. [882 F-G]\n     4. The meaning of the term the bona fide requirement in\nthe compromise\tdeed is\t clear and definite specially in the\nbackground of  the pleadings of the parties and it makes out\na case of eviction within the meaning of the Act. [883-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2473 of
\n1972.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  order
\ndated the 30th October 1972 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
\nin Misc. Second Appeal No. 33\/72.\n<\/p>\n
     S. N. Andley, H. B. Mangal, Rameshwar Nath and Rajinder
\nNarain for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     G. B.  Pai, S. K. Bagga, Mrs. S. Bagga, R. K. Mehta and
\nV. C. Parashar for respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     UNTWALIA, J.  This appeal\tby special  leave  has\tbeen
\nfiled by  the tenant-defendants.  The plaintiff-respondents,
\nthe landlords,\tfiled a\t suit against  the appellants in the
\nCourt of  Second Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior for a decree
\nfor eviction  from the\tsuit premises  and for certain other
\nreliefs. The appellants’ eviction was sought on statement of
\nfacts mentioned\t in paragraph 3 of the plaint which squarely
\nfell within  clause (f)\t of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of
\nthe  Madhya   Pradesh  Accommodation   Control\t Act,\t1961
\n(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The appellants filed
\na written  statement and  in paragraph\t3, they\t denied\t the
\nrespondents’ assertion\tin plaint,  paragraph 3.  It appears
\nthat the  suit which was filed in the year 1966 proceeded to
\ntrial in  October, 1967\t and some  evidence was adduced. But
\neventually, the\t parties entered  into a compromise, filed a
\npetition to  that effect  in the  Trial Court which passed a
\ndecree for  eviction and  other reliefs\t in January, 1968 in
\naccordance with the terms of the compromise. Pursuant to the
\nsaid compromise\t decree the  appellants were  to vacate\t the
\nshop-the suit promises by-31-12-1970. On their failure to do
\nso, execution  was levied by the respondents. The appellants
\nobjected to  the execution on the ground that the compromise
\ndecree was  void  and  inexecutable  as\t being\tagainst\t the
\nprovisions of  the Act.\t The execution\tcourt  accepted\t the
\nappellants’ objection  to the  execution of  the decree\t and
\ndismissed the  execution case.\tA miscellaneous appeal filed
\nby the\trespondents was\t dismissed by  the Third  Additional
\nDistrict   Judge    Gwalior.   They   preferred\t  a   second
\nmiscellaneous appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. A
\nlearned single\tJudge following\t the Bench  decision of that
\nCourt  in   Smt.  Chandan  Bai\tv.  Surja,(1)  came  to\t the
\nconclusion that the decree was not a
\n880<\/span>
\nnullity and was executable. Hence this appeal by the tenant-
\njudgment-deobtors.\n<\/p>\n
     The point\twhich fails for determination in this appeal
\nis not\tresintegra  and\t has  been  the\t subject  matter  of
\nconsideration in several decisions of this Court. In Bahadur
\nSingh &\t Anr. v.  Muni Subrat  Dass &  Anr.<\/a>(1) a  decree for
\neviction based\ton an  award without anything more was found
\nto be  a nullity  as it was held to have been passed against
\nthe prohibitory\t mandate of  section 13(1)  of the Delhi and
\nAjmer Rent  Control Act,  1952. Following  the said decision
\nthe compromise\tdecree was  also held to be a nullity in the
\ncase of\t Kaushalya Devi\t & Ors. v. Shri K. L. Bansal.<\/a>(2) The
\nearlier two decisions were followed again in Ferozi Lal Jain
\nv. Man\tLal and Anr.<\/a>(3) In all these three cases the decrees
\nwere found  to have  violated section 13(1) of the Delhi Act
\nof 1952.\n<\/p>\n
     The law  was reviewed  exhaustively by this Court in K.
\nK. Chari  v. R.\t M. Seshadri.<\/a>(4) Vaidialingam, J. delivering
\nthe judgment  on his  behalf as\t also on  behalf of  Dua, J.
\npointed out  that under\t the terms  of the  compromise under
\nconsideration in  that case  the defendant had withdrawn all
\nhis defence  to the  application filed\tby the\tlandlord and
\nsubmitted to  a decree\tfor  eviction  unconditionally.\t The
\nthree earlier  cases of this Court were distinguished and it
\nwas said  at page 704. “The true position appears to be that
\nan order  of eviction based on consent of the parties is not
\nnecessarily void”.  And finally\t it was held “it is no doubt
\ntrue that before making an order for possession the Court is
\nunder a\t duty to  satisfy itself  as to\t the  truth  of\t the
\nlandlord’s claim, if there is a dispute between the landlord
\nand tenant.  But if  the tenant\t in  fact  admits  that\t the
\nlandlord is  entitled to  possession on\t one or other of the
\nstatutory grounds  mentioned in\t the Act,  it is open to the
\nCourt to  act on  that\tadmission  and\tmake  an  order\t for
\npossession  in\t favour\t of  the  landlord  without  further
\nenquiry”. One  of us  (Alagiriswami, J.) while agreeing with
\nVaidialingam, J.  added a  few words  of  his  own.  In\t the
\nseparate judgment  it has  been pointed\t out that  the\tview
\ntaken by  Grover, J.  of the Punjab High Court in Vas Dev v.
\nMilkhi Ram(5)  was exactly  the position  in K.\t K.  Chari’s
\ncase. Sarkaria,\t J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the
\nCourt in  Nagindas Ramdas  v. Dalpatram\t Inchharam<\/a> @ Brijram
\nand Otheres(6)\ttook pains to go into the matter elaborately
\nonce more and said at page 552:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “From a  conspectus of the cases cited at the bar,
\n     the principle  that emerges  is, that if at the time of
\n     the passing  of the  decree, there\t was  some  material
\n     before the\t Court, on  the basis  of which,  the  Court
\n     could be  prima facie satisfied, about the existence of
\n     a statutory  ground for  eviction, it  will be presumed
\n     that the  Court was  so satisfied\tand the\t decree\t for
\n     eviction, though apparently passed on the basis
\n881<\/span>
\n     of a compromise, would be valid. Such material may take
\n     the shape\teither of  evidence recorded  or produced in
\n     the case,\tor it  may partly or wholly be in the shape,
\n     of\t an   express  or  implied  admission  made  in\t the
\n     compromise agreement, itself.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On facts  of the  case of\tNagindas Ramdas was found to
\nfall in\t line with  that of  K. K. Chari. Distinguishing the
\nearlier cases, Chari’s case was followed.\n<\/p>\n
     Before we\tstate the principles of law governing such a
\ncase we would like to point out that the language of Section
\n12 of  the Act is somewhat different from many similar State
\nStatutes. Section 12(1) says:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Notwithstanding   anything\t to   the   contrary
\n     contained in  any other  law or contract, no suit shall
\n     be filed  in any  Civil Court  against a tenant for his
\n     eviction from  any accommodation  except on one or more
\n     of the following grounds only, namely :”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thereafter grounds  (a) to  (p) have  been enumerated.\tOn a
\nsuperficial reading  of the  provision\taforesaid  it  would
\nappear that the inhibition related to the filing of the suit
\nonly. No  suit can  be filed for eviction of a tenant except
\non one\tor more of the grounds enumerated in Section 12(11).
\nIn sub-sections (2) to (11) of Section 12 certain conditions
\nhave been  engrafted to\t show under  what  circumstances  an
\norder for  the\teviction  of  tenant  cannot  be  passed  in
\nrelation to  some of  the grounds  enumerated in sub-section
\n(1). Reading  the section  as a\t whole and  remembering\t the
\nbeneficial object  of the Act for the protection of a tenant
\nbased upon  public policy, we do not find much difficulty in
\nbringing  the  section\tat  par\t with  other  similar  State
\nStatutes and  holding as  a matter  of construction  that no
\ndecree for  the eviction  of a tenant from any accommodation
\ncan be passed except on one or more of the grounds mentioned
\nin Section  12(1). A  Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
\nin Smt.\t Chandan Bai’s\tcase (supra) seems to have taken too
\nliteral a  view of  the section\t when in  paragraph 5 of the
\njudgment it  says “There is nothing in Section 12 of the Act
\nor any other provision which prevents the tenant in vacating
\nthe accommodation  in spite  of the  fact that\tnone of\t the
\ngrounds mentioned  in Section 12 exists. Similarly, there is
\nnothing in  the Act which may prevent the tenant in agreeing
\nto vacate  the accommodation  in future”. It says further in
\nparagraph 10  “Merely enumeration of grounds on which relief
\ncan be\tclaimed\t does  not  either  expressly  or  impliedly
\nexclude the  operation of  Order 23, rule 3, because grounds
\nfor claiming relief are always limited whether the relief be
\nclaimed under  the general  law or  a  statute”.  A  similar
\nargument advanced  in the  case of  Nagindas Ramdas  (supra)
\nwith reference\tto the\trelevant provisions  of Bombay\tRent
\nAct, 1947  was repelled\t at page 550 and the view taken by a
\nBench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Shah Rasiklal
\nChunilal v. Sindhi Shyamlal
\n882<\/span>
\nMulchand (1)  “that in\tspite of  the fact  that there is no
\nexpress\t provisions  in\t the  Bombay  Rent  Act\t prohibiting
\ncontracting out, such a prohibition would have to be read by
\nimplication consistently  with the  public policy underlying
\nthis welfare measure” was approved.\n<\/p>\n
     In order  to get a decree or order for eviction against
\na tenant  whose tenancy\t is governed by any Rent Restriction
\nor Eviction  Control Act the suitor must make out a case for
\neviction in  accordance with the provisions of the Act. When
\nthe suit  is contested\tthe issue  goes to  trial. The Court
\npasses a  decree for  eviction only  if it  is satisfied  on
\nevidence  that\ta  ground  for\tpassing\t such  a  decree  in
\naccordance with\t the requirement  of the  Statute  has\tbeen
\nestablished. Even  when the trial proceeds ex-parte, this is
\nso. If,\t however, parties  choose to enter into a compromise
\ndue to\tany reason  such as  to avoid the risk of protracted
\nlitigating expenses,  it is open to them to do so. The Court
\ncan pass  a decree on the basis of the compromise. In such a
\nsituation  the\t only  thing  to  be  seen  is\twhether\t the
\ncompromise is in violation of the requirement of the law. In
\nother words,  parties cannot be permitted to have a tenant’s
\neviction merely\t by agreement  without\tanything  more.\t The
\ncompromise must\t indicate either  on  its  face\t or  in\t the
\nbackground of  other materials\tin the\tcase that the tenant
\nexpressly or  impliedly is  agreeing to\t suffer a decree for
\neviction because  the  landlord,  in  the  circumstances  is
\nentitled to have such a decree under the law.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is  too  late\tin  the\t day  to  contend  that\t the
\nprovisions of  Order  23,  Rule\t 3  of\tthe  Code  of  Civil
\nProcedure cannot  apply to  eviction suits  governed by\t the
\nspecial statutes.  Undoubtedly, a compromise of such suit is
\npermissible under  the said provision of law. The protection
\nof the\ttenant is inherent in the language of Order 23, Rule
\n3 when\tit says\t “Where it  is proved to the satisfaction of
\nthe Court  that a  suit has  been  adjusted  by\t any  lawful
\nagreement or  compromise….  the  Court  shall\t order\tsuch
\nagreement, compromise  or satisfaction\tto be  recorded, and
\nshall pass  a decree  in accordance  therewith so  far as it
\nrelates to the suit”. If the agreement or compromise for the
\neviction  of  the  tenant  is  found,  on  the\tfacts  of  a
\nparticular case,  to be\t in violation  of a  particular Rent
\nRestriction or Control Act, the Court would refuse to record
\nthe compromise\tas it  will not be a lawful agreement. If on
\nthe other  hand, the  Court is satisfied on consideration of
\nthe  terms   of\t the   compromise  and,\t  if  necessary,  by
\nconsidering them  in the  context of the pleadings and other
\nmaterials in  the case,\t that the agreement is lawful, as in
\nany other suit, so in an eviction suit the Court is bound to
\nrecord the  compromise\tand  pass  a  decree  in  accordance
\ntherewith. Passing  a decree for eviction on adjudication of
\nthe requisite  facts on\t or their admission in a compromise,
\neither express or implied, is not different.\n<\/p>\n
     We now  proceed to\t consider the  facts of\t the case in
\nhand. The ground for eviction from the accommodation let for
\nnon-residential purposes  mentioned in clause (f) of section
\n12(1) of the Act is that the accommodation “is required bona
\nfide by\t the landlord  for  the\t purpose  of  continuing  or
\nstarting his business……….and that the land-\n<\/p>\n
883<\/span><\/p>\n
lord………  has   no\t other\t reasonably  suitable\tnon-
\nresidential accommodation  of his  own in  his occupation in
\nthe city  or town  concerned”. In  paragraph 3 of the plaint
\nthe respondents’  necessity was pleaded both in the positive
\nand the\t negative aspects of clause (f). Both were denied in
\nparagraph 3  of the  written statement\tof  the\t appellants.
\nParagraph 1  of the  compromise petition  says: “That due to
\nthe necessity  of the  plaintiffs for  their  own  business-
\nopening grocery shop, decree for ejectment may be granted to
\nthem against  the  defendants”.\t In  this  case\t it  is\t not
\nnecessary to  refer to\tany piece of evidence adduced at the
\ninconclusive trial.  The  meaning  of  paragraph  1  of\t the
\ncompromise petition  is clear and definite especially in the
\nbackground of  the pleadings  of  the  parties\tand  in\t our
\nopinion it  squarely makes out a case of eviction within the
\nmeaning of  Section 12(1) (f) of the Act on admission of the
\nappellants. We\treject the  argument of\t Mr. Andley, learned
\ncounsel\t for   the  appellants,\t that  paragraph  1  of\t the
\ncompromise petition  was an admission in respect of only the
\nfirst part,  namely, the  positive aspect  of clause (f) and
\nnot of\tthe second  part, namely,  that the  landlord has no
\nother reasonably  suitable nonresidential accommodation. The
\nadmission, by necessary implication, was in respect of both.\n<\/p>\n
     In the order recording the compromise the Court said:
\n\t  “On a perusal of the joint compromise it was found
\n     that the same is legal and is within the purview of the
\n     plaint. Therefore,\t plaint verification is accepted and
\n     the case  is decreed  in accordance with the conditions
\n     of the compromise as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  1. That  the defendants  shall vacate\t the shop in
\n     dispute by 31-12-1971″.\n<\/p>\n
The order so recorded in our judgment was in full compliance
\nwith the  requirement of  Order 23,  Rule 3  of the  Code of
\nCivil Procedure.  The Court  found that\t the compromise\t was
\nlegal, that is to say, lawful and was in accordance with the
\nplaint. The  averment in the plaint was, therefore, accepted
\nand the\t suit was decreed. It is regrettable that though the
\nappellants got about three years’ time to vacate the shop in
\ndispute from  the date\tof the\tcompromise decree, they were
\nill-advised to\tfight the  litigation further and thus cause
\ndelay in  the vacating of the shop by another five years. We
\nhave no\t doubt in  our mind  that on  the facts\t and in\t the
\ncircumstances of this case the compromise decree was clearly
\nvalid and  executable. We  uphold the  decision of  the High
\nCourt but on a slightly different basis.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  reasons stated  above, the appeal fails and is
\ndismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.H.P.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n884<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Roshan Lal vs Madan Lal on 18 September, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 2130, 1976 SCR (1) 878 Author: N Untwalia Bench: Untwalia, N.L. PETITIONER: ROSHAN LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: MADAN LAL DATE OF JUDGMENT18\/09\/1975 BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. ALAGIRISWAMI, A. GOSWAMI, P.K. CITATION: 1975 AIR 2130 1976 SCR (1) […]<\/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-162158","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRoshan Lal vs Madan Lal on 18 September, 1975 - 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\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Roshan Lal vs Madan Lal on 18 September, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975\" \/>\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=\"1975-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-10T01:16:49+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Roshan Lal vs Madan Lal on 18 September, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-10T01:16:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975\"},\"wordCount\":2396,\"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\\\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975\",\"name\":\"Roshan Lal vs Madan Lal on 18 September, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-10T01:16:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Roshan Lal vs Madan Lal on 18 September, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Roshan Lal vs Madan Lal on 18 September, 1975 - 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\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Roshan Lal vs Madan Lal on 18 September, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-10T01:16:49+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Roshan Lal vs Madan Lal on 18 September, 1975","datePublished":"1975-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-10T01:16:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975"},"wordCount":2396,"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\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975","name":"Roshan Lal vs Madan Lal on 18 September, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-10T01:16:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roshan-lal-vs-madan-lal-on-18-september-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Roshan Lal vs Madan Lal on 18 September, 1975"}]},{"@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\/162158","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=162158"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162158\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}