{"id":177047,"date":"2009-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-12-28T07:12:56","modified_gmt":"2017-12-28T01:42:56","slug":"prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Prakash Chand Bajaj vs Bundabai on 28 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Prakash Chand Bajaj vs Bundabai on 28 July, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n\n\n\n                Second Appeal No 566 of 1995\n\n\n\n\n                           Prakash  Chand  Bajaj\n                                               ...Petitioners\n\n\n                           Versus\n\n\n\n                      1.  Bundabai\n\n                       2.  Ramji\n\n                       3.  Birendra Pratap\n\n                       4.  Narendra Pratap\n                                       ...Respondents\n\n\n\n  (Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,\n                            1908)\n!     Mr.  H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.K.  Gupta, Advocate for the appellant\n\n\n^      Mr. Y.C. Sharma, counsel for the respondents\n\n\n\nHonble Mr. Justice T.P. Sharma \n\n\n\n       Dated:28\/07\/2009\n\n\n:       Judgment\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>               (Delivered on 28th July, 2009)<\/p>\n<p>1.    This is second appeal challenging the judgment &amp; decree<br \/>\n  dated  22-4-95 &amp; 27-4-95, respectively, passed by  the  4th<br \/>\n  Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No.2247\/95,<br \/>\n  affirming the judgment &amp; decree dated 15-1-93 passed by the<br \/>\n  12th  Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No.73A\/92,<br \/>\n  whereby  learned  Civil  Judge Class-II  has  declared  the<br \/>\n  document  dated  8-2-74  cancelled  and  directed  for  re-<br \/>\n  conveyance of possession of the suit land to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    Judgment &amp; decree are challenged on the ground that the<br \/>\n  suit filed by the respondent was hopelessly time barred and<br \/>\n  both  the Courts below have not considered the question  of<br \/>\n  limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    Brief facts giving rise to filing of this second appeal<br \/>\n  are  that  one  deed in the form of sale deed was  executed<br \/>\n  relating to the disputed property by the defendant in favour<br \/>\n  of  the  plaintiff dated 8-2-74 (Ex.D-1)  and  out  of  the<br \/>\n  property mentioned in Ex.D-1 one sale deed was executed  by<br \/>\n  the defendant in favour of the plaintiff vide sale deed dated<br \/>\n  28-6-78 (Ex.P-1).  The present respondent has filed suit for<br \/>\n  declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated  8-2-74  on<br \/>\n  payment  of the amount of mortgage of Rs.1,000\/-,  and  for<br \/>\n  recovery of possession in which it has been pleaded that the<br \/>\n  present respondent\/plaintiff has mortgaged his property  to<br \/>\n  the  appellant\/defendant and a document in the form of sale<br \/>\n  deed was executed to secure the loan transaction, and in lieu<br \/>\n  of  interest, possession of the property was transferred to<br \/>\n  the appellant.  After part payment of the mortgage amount re-<br \/>\n  conveyance  deed Ex.P-1 relating to remaining property  was<br \/>\n  executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent,  but<br \/>\n  even  after receiving notice the present appellant has  not<br \/>\n  executed the re-conveyance deed and has declined to receive<br \/>\n  remaining part of mortgage amount and has also declined  to<br \/>\n  return  the  possession  of  remaining  part  of  the  land<br \/>\n  originally mortgaged.  The suit was filed on 9-7-80 when the<br \/>\n  plaintiff\/appellant has failed to reply the notice and  not<br \/>\n  acted upon in accordance with notice, inter alia much after<br \/>\n  three years of the execution of sale deed.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    In  the  written statement, the present  appellant  has<br \/>\n  specifically denied the alleged transaction as mortgage  in<br \/>\n  the form of nominal sale and transfer of possession in lieu<br \/>\n  of  interest.   The present appellant has also  denied  the<br \/>\n  allegation  that after receiving part payment  of  mortgage<br \/>\n  amount  he has executed re-conveyance deed and specifically<br \/>\n  alleged  that the suit for declaration and cancellation  of<br \/>\n  sale deed is barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   After appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the<br \/>\n  parties,  learned Civil Judge has decreed the suit  and  by<br \/>\n  affirming  the  judgment &amp; decree passed by  learned  Civil<br \/>\n  Judge,  learned  lower appellate Court  has  dismissed  the<br \/>\n  appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.     Following  substantial  question  of  law   has   been<br \/>\n  formulated for decision of this appeal: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;Has  the lower appellate Court erred in  law<br \/>\n          in   holding  that  the  suit  filed  by  the<br \/>\n          plaintiff was within limitation?&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>7.   I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused<br \/>\n  the impugned judgment &amp; decree as also the record of Courts<br \/>\n  below.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.    Learned  Senior  Advocate appearing on  behalf  of  the<br \/>\n  appellant  vehemently argued that the suit was  simply  for<br \/>\n  cancellation  of sale deed and for recovery of  possession,<br \/>\n  therefore,  the suit in present form shall be  governed  by<br \/>\n  Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short `the Act,<br \/>\n  1963&#8242;)  and  not by Article 65 of the Act,  1963.   Learned<br \/>\n  Senior  Advocate further argued that even the suit of  this<br \/>\n  nature shall be filed within three years in accordance with<br \/>\n  the general provisions of limitation provided under Article<br \/>\n  113 of the Act, 1963 and any suit filed after the period of<br \/>\n  three years shall be barred and shall be dismissed in terms<br \/>\n  of Section 3 of the Act, 1963.  Learned Senior Advocate also<br \/>\n  argued  that  learned Civil Judge was under  obligation  to<br \/>\n  dismiss the suit on the ground of limitation and the  lower<br \/>\n  appellate  Court  ought  to have  allowed  the  appeal  and<br \/>\n  dismissed the suit only on the ground of limitation, but the<br \/>\n  Court below has not considered the substantive question  of<br \/>\n  law  relating to limitation and decreed the suit, and  also<br \/>\n  dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.    On  the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents<br \/>\n  submits that the question of limitation shall be determined<br \/>\n  on the basis of allegations made in the plaint and not on the<br \/>\n  basis of allegations made in the written statement, if  the<br \/>\n  plaintiff fails to prove his case that the document was not<br \/>\n  of  mortgage but was sale of the suit land, the  Court  was<br \/>\n  empowered  to  dismiss the suit.  Learned  counsel  further<br \/>\n  argued  that the respondent\/ plaintiff has pleaded  in  the<br \/>\n  plaint that the document was in the form of sale deed, but it<br \/>\n  was  not sale and was mortgage, and in lieu of interest the<br \/>\n  possession was delivered which is punishable under the law.<br \/>\n  Learned counsel also argued that virtually, the mortgage was<br \/>\n  usufructuary  mortgage in accordance  with  clause  (d)  of<br \/>\n  Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short<br \/>\n  `the Act, 1882&#8242;) and to recover possession based on mortgage<br \/>\n  limitation  shall  begin from the date of  denial\/when  the<br \/>\n  possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff and  such  suit<br \/>\n  shall govern by Article 65 of the Act, 1963.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   On perusal of the plaint it is clear that the suit  was<br \/>\n  for declaration &amp; cancellation of sale deed, virtually, the<br \/>\n  mortgage  deed is in the form of sale deed for recovery  of<br \/>\n  possession after paying the mortgage amount in which it has<br \/>\n  been  specifically pleaded that possession  parted  to  the<br \/>\n  appellant is in lieu of future interest.  Section 58 of the<br \/>\n  Act, 1882 defines mortgage.  Clause (d) of Section 58 of the<br \/>\n  Act,  1882  defines usufructuary mortgage  which  reads  as<br \/>\n  follows: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>          &#8220;(d)    Usufructuary   mortgage.-Where    the<br \/>\n          mortgagor delivers possession or expressly or<br \/>\n          by   implication  binds  himself  to  deliver<br \/>\n          possession of the mortgaged property  to  the<br \/>\n          mortgagee, and authorizes him to retain  such<br \/>\n          possession    until    payment     of     the<br \/>\n          mortgagemoney, and to receive the  rents  and<br \/>\n          profits  accruing from the  property  or  any<br \/>\n          part  of  such  rents  and  profits  and   to<br \/>\n          appropriate the same in lieu of interest,  or<br \/>\n          in  payment of the mortgage-money, or  partly<br \/>\n          in  lieu of interest or partly in payment  of<br \/>\n          the mortgage-money, the transaction is called<br \/>\n          an usufructuary mortgage and the mortgagee an<br \/>\n          usufructuary mortgagee.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>11.   Under  clause  (d)  of Section 58  of  the  Act,  1882,<br \/>\n  mortgage by transferring possession in lieu of interest  is<br \/>\n  permissible.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.  Limitation of the suit shall be reckoned on the basis of<br \/>\n  plaint allegation.  Plaint allegation clearly shows that it<br \/>\n  was  suit for redemption of mortgage property, recovery  of<br \/>\n  possession and for declaration of the instrument,  not  for<br \/>\n  only cancellation of instrument.  In case of cancellation or<br \/>\n  setting  aside an instrument, limitation is three years  in<br \/>\n  accordance  with  Article 59 of the Act,  but  in  case  of<br \/>\n  recovery of possession which is main relief in this case, on<br \/>\n  the  basis  of  mortgaged property and  for  redemption  or<br \/>\n  recovery of possession of immovable property the limitation<br \/>\n  provided in Article 61 of the Act, 1963 is 30 years, but if<br \/>\n  the  suit  is  for redemption of mortgage and  recovery  of<br \/>\n  possession  on the basis of adverse possession,  such  suit<br \/>\n  shall be governed by Article 65 of the Act, 1963, which reads<br \/>\n  as follows: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;Article   65.-For  possession  of  immovable<br \/>\n          property  or  any interest therein  based  on<br \/>\n          title.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          Explanation-For the purpose of this Article-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          (a)  where the suit is by a remainderman, a reversioner<br \/>\n            (other than a landlord) or a devisee, the possession of the<br \/>\n            defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when estate<br \/>\n            of the remainderman, reversioner or devisee, as the case may<br \/>\n            be, falls into possession;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          (b)  where the suit is by a Hindu or Muslim entitled to the<br \/>\n            possession of immovable property on the death of a Hindu or<br \/>\n            Muslim female, the possession of the defendant shall be<br \/>\n            deemed to become adverse only when the female dies;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          (c)  where the suit is by a purchaser at a sale in execution<br \/>\n            of a decree when the judgment-debtor was out of possession at<br \/>\n            the date of the sale, the purchaser shall be deemed to be a<br \/>\n            representative of the judgment-debtor who was out of<br \/>\n            possession.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>13.  In the present case, suit was for redemption of mortgage<br \/>\n  and  recovery of possession of the property mortgaged under<br \/>\n  clause  (d)  of  Section 58 of the  Act,  1882.   When  the<br \/>\n  defendant  failed  to  return possession  and  execute  re-<br \/>\n  conveyance deed, the suit was for redemption of mortgage deed<br \/>\n  and recovery of possession, and limitation for such suit was<br \/>\n  12 years in accordance with Article 65 of the Act, 1963.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.   The  lower  appellate  Court has  rightly  decided  the<br \/>\n  question of limitation in favour of the respondent and  the<br \/>\n  Court  below  has  not committed any illegality.   For  the<br \/>\n  aforesaid reasons, the substantial question of law is decided<br \/>\n  as  negative  and  on the basis of aforesaid  finding,  the<br \/>\n  present appellant is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby<br \/>\n  dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.   The  appellant  shall bear his own  cost  of  suit  and<br \/>\n  appeal, and also bear the cost of opposite party.  Advocate<br \/>\n  fees as per schedule.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.  Decree be drawn up accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                        JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Prakash Chand Bajaj vs Bundabai on 28 July, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No 566 of 1995 Prakash Chand Bajaj &#8230;Petitioners Versus 1. Bundabai 2. Ramji 3. Birendra Pratap 4. Narendra Pratap &#8230;Respondents (Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) ! Mr. H.B. Agrawal, [&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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177047","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-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>Prakash Chand Bajaj vs Bundabai on 28 July, 2009 - 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\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prakash Chand Bajaj vs Bundabai on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-28T01:42:56+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prakash Chand Bajaj vs Bundabai on 28 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-28T01:42:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1530,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Prakash Chand Bajaj vs Bundabai on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-28T01:42:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prakash Chand Bajaj vs Bundabai on 28 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Prakash Chand Bajaj vs Bundabai on 28 July, 2009 - 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\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prakash Chand Bajaj vs Bundabai on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-28T01:42:56+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prakash Chand Bajaj vs Bundabai on 28 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-28T01:42:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009"},"wordCount":1530,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009","name":"Prakash Chand Bajaj vs Bundabai on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-28T01:42:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chand-bajaj-vs-bundabai-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prakash Chand Bajaj vs Bundabai on 28 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/177047","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=177047"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177047\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177047"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177047"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}