{"id":174339,"date":"2008-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008"},"modified":"2018-01-16T02:39:19","modified_gmt":"2018-01-15T21:09:19","slug":"kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"Kamlesh Babu &amp; Ors vs Lajpat Rai Sharma &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kamlesh Babu &amp; Ors vs Lajpat Rai Sharma &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A. K. Mathur, Altamas Kabir<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2815 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nKAMLESH BABU &amp; ORS\n\nRESPONDENT:\nLAJPAT RAI SHARMA &amp; ORS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/04\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nA. K. MATHUR &amp; ALTAMAS KABIR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<br \/>\nAltamas Kabir,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NO.    2815          OF 2008<br \/>\n(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10058 of 2006)<\/p>\n<p>1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThis appeal involves a dispute between the parties who<br \/>\nare related to each other, having a common ancestor.  The<br \/>\ndispute involves a registered Will dated 5th August, 1972,<br \/>\nexecuted in favour of the appellants by one Brijlal (deceased),<br \/>\nwho had four sons.  Except for his youngest son, Onkar<br \/>\nPrasad, all the other sons were allegedly separated from him<br \/>\nand were staying separately.  Brijlal was staying with Onkar<br \/>\nPrasad and excluding the descendants of his other children<br \/>\nexecuted the said Will dated 5th August, 1972, in favour of his<br \/>\ngrand-children through Onkar Prasad.  Brijlal died on 5th<br \/>\nNovember, 1976, and on the basis of the Will executed by him,<br \/>\nthe appellants moved an application for mutation of the<br \/>\nbequeathed properties in their names.  The respondent No. 1,<br \/>\nwho is one of the grand-sons of the testator through another<br \/>\nson, Shanti Swarup, also filed an application for mutation,<br \/>\nwhich was rejected.  An appeal preferred therefrom was also<br \/>\ndismissed.  On 29th April, 1977, the Tehsildar passed an order<br \/>\nfor mutation of the properties in the name of the appellants on<br \/>\nthe basis of the aforesaid Will dated 5th August, 1972.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tOn 2nd January, 1978, the respondent No.1 herein filed a<br \/>\nsuit for declaration that the registered Will dated 5th August,<br \/>\n1972, had been procured by practising fraud.  The suit was<br \/>\nduly contested by the appellants herein by filing written<br \/>\nstatement.  On the basis of the pleadings, in order to arrive at<br \/>\na decision in the suit, the following issues were framed: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tWhether the Will dated 5th August, 1972 executed<br \/>\nby Brijlal, in favour of defendants 2 to 6 is forged<br \/>\nand not binding upon the plaintiff?\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tWhether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession<br \/>\non the disputed property of his share?\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)\tWhether the suit was undervalued and the court<br \/>\nfee paid is insufficient?\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv)\tWhether Brijlal had got a right to execute the Will<br \/>\nof his property?\n<\/p>\n<p>(v)\tWhether Brijlal was the exclusive owner of the<br \/>\ndisputed property?\n<\/p>\n<p>(vi)\tTo what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tAll the aforesaid issues were decided against the plaintiff<br \/>\nand the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court.  While deciding<br \/>\nissue No. 6, The Trial Court also held that the suit was barred<br \/>\nunder Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, because the<br \/>\nplaintiff had failed to prove that the Will was not within the<br \/>\nknowledge of the plaintiff within three years of the filing of the<br \/>\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tAggrieved by the decision in the suit, the plaintiff-<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 herein, preferred an appeal before the Civil<br \/>\nJudge, Aligarh, which was allowed and the judgment of the<br \/>\nTrial Court was reversed without deciding the question of<br \/>\nlimitation which had been decided against the plaintiff-<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 and in favour of the defendants-appellants<br \/>\nherein.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThe defendants-appellants herein filed a second appeal<br \/>\nbefore the Allahabad High Court on 3rd October, 1983, and the<br \/>\nsame was also dismissed on 6th February, 2006, affirming the<br \/>\njudgment and order of the Appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIn this appeal, the main point which was urged on behalf<br \/>\nof the appellant is that although all the issues in the suit were<br \/>\ndecided against the plaintiff-respondent No.1 by the Trial<br \/>\nCourt, in addition, the Trial Court had also held that the suit<br \/>\nwas barred by limitation.   It was submitted that while<br \/>\nreversing the judgment of the Trial Court, the First Appellate<br \/>\nCourt had neither gone into the question of limitation nor<br \/>\nreversed the finding that the suit was barred by limitation<br \/>\nunder Article 59 of the Limitation Act.   While affirming the<br \/>\njudgment of the First Appellate Court, even the High Court<br \/>\nappears to have lost sight of the said finding.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tAppearing in support of the appeal, Mr. S.B. Sanyal,<br \/>\nlearned senior advocate, submitted that both the First<br \/>\nAppellate Court and the High Court erred in reversing the<br \/>\njudgment of the Trial Court without deciding the question<br \/>\nrelating to limitation and that the judgment both of the High<br \/>\nCourt as well as of the First Appellate Court were liable to be<br \/>\nset aside on such ground alone.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tAppearing for the respondents, Ms. Rachana Srivastava,<br \/>\nlearned advocate, firstly submitted that the question now<br \/>\nbeing raised on behalf of the appellants had not been raised<br \/>\non their behalf either before the First Appellate Court or before<br \/>\nthe High Court, which, therefore, had no opportunity to<br \/>\nconsider the same.  Not having raised the said question before<br \/>\nthe First Appellate Court and the High Court, the appellants<br \/>\nwere not entitled to raise the same in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tMs. Srivastava also submitted that even before the Trial<br \/>\nCourt no specific issue had been framed regarding limitation<br \/>\nand the purported finding of the Trial Court in respect thereof<br \/>\nwas in the nature of an observation made in passing.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tIn support of her submissions, learned counsel referred<br \/>\nand relied upon the decision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/811934\/\">State of Punjab<br \/>\nvs. Darshan Singh<\/a> [2004 (1) SCC 328] wherein while<br \/>\nconsidering the limits of the Court&#8217;s powers under Section 152<br \/>\nof the Civil Procedure Code, this Court had occasion to<br \/>\nconsider whether a new plea in respect of which no specific<br \/>\nissue had been framed could be raised in second appeal or in<br \/>\na special leave petition before this Court.  Ms. Srivastava<br \/>\nsubmitted that this Court had categorically held that despite a<br \/>\nplea with regard to limitation having been taken in the written<br \/>\nstatement, no specific issue had been framed in respect<br \/>\nthereof, and no such plea having been taken before the High<br \/>\nCourt, this Court could not go into the said question in<br \/>\nproceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution.   Ms.<br \/>\nSrivastava urged that apart from the above, the issue of<br \/>\nlimitation being a mixed question of law and fact, such a plea<br \/>\ncould not be raised before this Court under Article 136 of the<br \/>\nConstitution if not taken earlier.  In support of her second<br \/>\nsubmission, Ms. Srivastava relied upon a decision of this<br \/>\nCourt in Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Hanuman Seva<br \/>\nTrust and Ors. [2006 (5) SCC 658] wherein it had been held<br \/>\nthat a suit could not be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of<br \/>\nthe Code of Civil Procedure in the absence of proper pleadings<br \/>\nrelating to limitation, particularly when the question of<br \/>\nlimitation is a mixed question of law and fact and on a mere<br \/>\nreading of the plaint the suit could not be held to be barred by<br \/>\nlimitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tA similar view was taken by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1296354\/\">Narne Rama<br \/>\nMurthy vs. Ravula Somasundram and Ors.<\/a> [2005 (6) SCC 614]<br \/>\nwhere also the question of limitation was an inextricably<br \/>\nmixed question of law and fact and the bar of limitation could<br \/>\nnot be decided without considering the related facts giving rise<br \/>\nto such question.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tMs. Srivastava urged that in this appeal, the situation<br \/>\nwas no different and the plea of limitation now sought to be<br \/>\ntaken, being a mixed question of law and fact, the same<br \/>\ncannot be allowed to be raised in view of the aforesaid<br \/>\ndecisions of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tHaving considered the submissions made on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespective parties, the decisions cited by them and the relevant<br \/>\nlaw on the subject, we are unable to accept Ms. Srivastava&#8217;s<br \/>\nsubmissions mainly on two counts.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\tFirstly, the facts disclosed clearly indicate that neither<br \/>\nthe First Appellate Court nor the High Court took notice of<br \/>\nSection 3(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;3. Bar of limitation.  (1) Subject to the provisions<br \/>\ncontained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit<br \/>\ninstituted, appeal preferred, and application made<br \/>\nafter the prescribed period shall be dismissed<br \/>\nalthough limitation had not been set up as a<br \/>\ndefence.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>16.\tEven in the decision of this Court in Darshan Singh&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase (supra) the said provision does not appear to have been<br \/>\nbrought to the notice of the Hon&#8217;ble Judges who decided the<br \/>\nmatter.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.\tIt is well settled that Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act<br \/>\ncasts a duty upon the court to dismiss a suit or an appeal or<br \/>\nan application, if made after the prescribed period, although,<br \/>\nlimitation is not set up as a defence.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.\tIn the instant case, such a defence has been set up in<br \/>\nthe written statement though no issue was framed in that<br \/>\nregard.   However, when the Trial Court had in terms of the<br \/>\nmandate of Section 3(1) come to a finding that the suit was<br \/>\nbarred by limitation, it was the duty of the First Appellate<br \/>\nCourt and also of the High Court to go into the said question<br \/>\nand to decide the same before reversing the judgment of the<br \/>\nTrial Court on the various issues framed in the suit.  Even<br \/>\nthough the various issues were decided in favour of the<br \/>\nplaintiff both by the First Appellate Court and the High Court,<br \/>\nthe same were of no avail since the suit continued to remain<br \/>\nbarred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.\n<\/p>\n<p>19.\tMs. Srivastava&#8217;s submission that the plea of limitation<br \/>\nnot having been taken before the appellate forums, the same<br \/>\ncould not be taken before this Court in proceedings under<br \/>\nArticle 136 of the Constitution on the ground that the question<br \/>\nof limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, stands<br \/>\nnullified by the fact that the suit continued to remain barred<br \/>\nby limitation after the decisions of the appellate Courts since<br \/>\nsuch finding of the Trial Court had not been set aside either in<br \/>\nthe first appeal or by the High Court in second appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>20.\tIt is quite obvious that this aspect of the matter had not<br \/>\nbeen looked into either by the First Appellate Court or by the<br \/>\nHigh Court, nor was it  raised on behalf of the appellants<br \/>\nherein.  The question, therefore, which remains to be decided<br \/>\nis whether such a plea can now be taken in the special leave<br \/>\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>21.\tIt is no doubt true, as was pointed out by this Court in<br \/>\nthe case of Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. (supra) and also in<br \/>\nNarne Rama Murthy&#8217;s case (supra), that if the plea of<br \/>\nlimitation is a mixed question of law and fact, the same cannot<br \/>\nbe raised at the appellate stage.  We have no problem with the<br \/>\nsaid proposition of law.  What we are concerned with is<br \/>\nwhether the said  proposition  is  applicable   to   the facts of<br \/>\nthis case.     In this case the plea of limitation had been raised<br \/>\nin the written statement and though no specific issue was<br \/>\nframed in respect thereof, a decision was given thereupon by<br \/>\nthe learned Trial Court.  Apart from Section 3(1) of the<br \/>\nLimitation Act, even Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure casts a mandate upon the court to reject a plaint<br \/>\nwhere the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be<br \/>\nbarred by any law, in this case by the law of limitation.<br \/>\nFurther, as far back as in 1943, the Privy Council in the case<br \/>\nof Lachhmi Sewak  Sahu vs. Ram Rup Sahu &amp; Ors. [AIR 1944<br \/>\nPrivy Council 24] held that a point of limitation is prima facie<br \/>\nadmissible even in the court of last resort, although it had not<br \/>\nbeen taken in the lower courts.\n<\/p>\n<p>22.\tThe reasoning behind the said proposition is that certain<br \/>\nquestions relating to the jurisdiction of a Court, including<br \/>\nlimitation, goes to the very root of the Court&#8217;s jurisdiction to<br \/>\nentertain and decide a matter, as otherwise, the decision<br \/>\nrendered without jurisdiction will be a nullity.   However, we<br \/>\nare not required to elaborate on the said proposition,<br \/>\ninasmuch as, in the instant case such a plea had been raised<br \/>\nand decided by the Trial Court but was not reversed by the<br \/>\nFirst Appellate Court or the High Court while reversing the<br \/>\ndecision of the Trial Court on the issues framed in the suit.<br \/>\nWe, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the judgment<br \/>\nand decree of the High Court and to remand the suit to the<br \/>\nFirst Appellate Court to decide the limited question as to<br \/>\nwhether the suit was barred by limitation as found by the Trial<br \/>\nCourt.   Needless to say, if the suit is found to be so barred,<br \/>\nthe appeal is to be dismissed.  If the suit is not found to be<br \/>\ntime-barred, the decision of the First Appellate Court on the<br \/>\nother issues shall not be disturbed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appeal is accordingly allowed, but there will be no<br \/>\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Kamlesh Babu &amp; Ors vs Lajpat Rai Sharma &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2008 Author: A Kabir Bench: A. K. Mathur, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2815 of 2008 PETITIONER: KAMLESH BABU &amp; ORS RESPONDENT: LAJPAT RAI SHARMA &amp; ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/04\/2008 BENCH: A. K. MATHUR &amp; ALTAMAS [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kamlesh Babu &amp; Ors vs Lajpat Rai Sharma &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2008 - 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\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kamlesh Babu &amp; Ors vs Lajpat Rai Sharma &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-15T21:09:19+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\\\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kamlesh Babu &amp; Ors vs Lajpat Rai Sharma &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-15T21:09:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2076,\"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\\\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008\",\"name\":\"Kamlesh Babu &amp; Ors vs Lajpat Rai Sharma &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-15T21:09:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kamlesh Babu &amp; Ors vs Lajpat Rai Sharma &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Kamlesh Babu &amp; Ors vs Lajpat Rai Sharma &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2008 - 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\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kamlesh Babu &amp; Ors vs Lajpat Rai Sharma &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-15T21:09:19+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\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kamlesh Babu &amp; Ors vs Lajpat Rai Sharma &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-15T21:09:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008"},"wordCount":2076,"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\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008","name":"Kamlesh Babu &amp; Ors vs Lajpat Rai Sharma &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-15T21:09:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamlesh-babu-ors-vs-lajpat-rai-sharma-ors-on-16-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kamlesh Babu &amp; Ors vs Lajpat Rai Sharma &amp; Ors on 16 April, 2008"}]},{"@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\/174339","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=174339"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174339\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}