{"id":179488,"date":"2002-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002"},"modified":"2018-11-17T16:28:20","modified_gmt":"2018-11-17T10:58:20","slug":"ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"Ram Narayan Sharma vs Shakuntala Gaur on 29 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ram Narayan Sharma vs Shakuntala Gaur on 29 April, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: B Kumar<\/div>\n
Bench: D.P. Mohhapatra, Brijesh Kumar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 3159  of  2002\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nRAM NARAYAN SHARMA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHAKUNTALA GAUR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t29\/04\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nD.P. Mohhapatra & Brijesh Kumar\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
Brijesh Kumar, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
The order, dismissing a writ petition, preferred by the
\npresent\t appellant  in the High Court, has been impugned by
\nmeans of the  appeal in hand. The  VIth Additional District
\nJudge, Muzaffarnagar  passed an order dated 30.10.1999 in
\nrevision, setting aside the order of allotment in favour of the
\nappellant and releasing the accommodation in question, in
\nfavour of the respondent-landlady on the ground of her bona
\nfide requirement.  A learned Single Judge  of Allahabad High
\nCourt  by order dated 16.11.1999 upheld the order passed in
\nrevision..\n<\/p>\n
The dispute as evident, relates to the letting and release
\nof the accommodation in question governed by the provisions
\nof Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
\n;and Eviction) Act 1972, hereinafter to be referred to as `the
\nAct’. It appears that one Bankey Lal was the owner and
\nlandlord of House No.179\/18, Sanjay Marg, South Bhopa  Road
\nMuzaffar Nagar.\t The ground floor of the house was in the
\ntenancy of one Trilok Chand who vacated the premises and the
\nappellant moved an application for  its allotment under Section
\n16 (1) (a) of the Act.\tThis petition was registered as Suit
\nNo.63\/89.  Bankey Lal, the  landlord of the house  died during
\npendency of the proceeding for allotment. The appellant moved
\nfor substitution of the heirs of late Bankey Lal and brought on
\nrecord his two sons namely Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar and  Mohan
\nBhatnagar. They did not turn up to contest the application for
\nallotment though served.  By order dated 3.8.1990 the Rent
\nControl and Eviction Officer allotted the premises to the
\nappellant who also entered into possession of the same.\t Later,
\nhowever,  Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar, son of late Bankey Lal who
\nwas brought on record as  one of his heir, filed a revision No.19
\nof 1990, challenging the order of allotment on the ground that
\nlate Shri Bankey Lal had also left behind another son Shri Hari
\nMohan and a  daughter Smt. Swaraj as his heirs but they had no
\nnotice of the proceedings.  Needless to mention\t that the
\nrevisionist, namely, Ravi Bhatnagar, though served had not
\ntaken any such or other\t objection before  allotment of the
\naccommodation to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    Later on, however,\tHari Mohan and Mohan Bhatnagar
\nnamely, the other  two sons of late Shri Bankey Lal, as a
\nconsequence of settlement, in arbitration proceedings,
\nundisputedly  became owners of the house in question.  That is
\nto say Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar was now  left with no interest in
\nthe property  at all so as to be entitled to prosecute revision filed
\nby him against allotment order.\t His brothers also never at any
\nstage showed any interest against allotment in favour of the
\nappellant. A further development  which needs to be noted is
\nthat Hari Mohan Bhatnagar  and Mohan Bhatnagar transferred
\nthe property  on 15.9.1994  in favour of Smt. Shakuntala  Gaur,
\nthe respondent who was already a tenant of the first and second
\nfloors of the house.  She moved an application no.83A in
\nrevision  RCA No.19 of 1990   for being impleaded as
\nrevisionist No.2 along with Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar.  Ravi
\nMohan Bhatnagar on the other hand moved an application and
\nrightly, not pressing his RCA No.19 of 1990.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Addl. District Judge, however by order dated
\n15.1.1996 allowed the RCA No.19 of 1990 filed by Ravi
\nMohan Bhatnagar and set aside the order of allotment dated
\n3.8.1990 which was passed  in favour of the appellant, on the
\nground that Hari Mohan Bhatnagar and Smt. Swaraj, other two
\nheirs of Bankey Lal had no notice of the proceedings of
\nallotment.  The Addl. District Judge also  seems to have
\nallowed the application\t moved by the respondent  for being
\nimpleaded as revisionist No.2  but no order appear to have been
\npassed on the application of Hari Mohan Bhatnagar not
\npressing the revision. The case was remanded  to the Rent
\nControl and Eviction Officer to dispose of the same on merits.
\nA  writ petition preferred  against the order dated 15.1.1996, it
\nis informed  had been rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\tDuring the proceedings before the Rent Control and
\nEviction Officer, after the remand, the respondent moved an
\napplication dated 15.2.1996 for release of the accommodation
\nin her favour saying that  she bona fide required the same.  The
\ncase  was  decided by order dated 27.3.1997 passed by RCEO
\nin Suit No.63 of 1989, recording a finding that the respondent
\ndid not have bona fide need of the accommodation and
\ndismissed the Revision and  her application for release moved
\nin Suit No.63 of 1989.\tAs a consequence thereof an order of
\nallotment was again passed on 31.3.1997 by the Rent Control
\nand Eviction Officer.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent preferred two  revisions No.4 of 1997
\nand 5 of 1997 in the Court of the Addl. District Judge,
\nimpugning the orders dated 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997. The
\nlearned Addl. District Judge allowed the revisions, setting aside
\nthe order of allotment dated 31.3.1997 passed in favour of the
\nappellant and released the accommodation in favour of the
\nRespondent. The writ petition preferred against the order passed
\nin the two revisions mentioned above was dismissed by order
\ndated 16.11.1999 which is under challenge in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the appellant apart from raising other
\ngrounds\t has urged that scope of revision under Section 18 of
\nthe Act is limited and reappraisal of evidence\tfor recording
\nfindings  of fact is not permissible.  Hence, the order of
\nrevisional court  suffers from infirmity  of exceeding its
\njurisdiction  in exercise of its revisional power and the High
\nCourt erred in not taking note of the same and further submits
\nthat the application for release of the accommodation moved by
\nthe respondent could not be entertained.\n<\/p>\n
Before dealing with  questions raised, it may be better\t to
\nperuse the provisions as contained under Sections 16 and 18 of
\nthe Act which read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“16.\tAllotment and release of vacant building.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  Subject to the provisions of the Act, the
\nDistrict Magistrate may by order:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\trequire the landlord to let any building
\nwhich is or has fallen vacant or is about to
\nfall vacant, or a part of such building but not
\nappurtenant land alone, to any person
\nspecified in the order\t(to be called an
\nallotment order); or<\/p>\n
(b)\trelease\t the whole or any part of such
\nbuilding, or any land appurtenant thereto, in
\nfavour of the landlord (to be called a release
\norder):\n<\/p>\n
[Provided that in the case of a vacancy referred to
\nin sub-section (4) of Section 12, the District
\nMagistrate shall given an opportunity to the
\nlandlord or the tenant, as the case may be, of
\nshowing that the said section is not attracted to his
\ncase before making an order under clause (a)].\n<\/p>\n
2.\tNo release order under clause (b) of sub-
\nsection (1) shall be made unless the District
\nMagistrate is satisfied that the building or
\nany part thereof  or any land appurtenant
\nthereto is bona fide required,\teither in its
\nexisting form or after demolition and new
\nconstruction, by the landlord for occupation
\nby himself or any member of his family,\t or
\nany person for whose benefit it is held by
\nhim, either for residential purpose or for
\npurposes of any profession, trade, calling or
\nwhere the landlord is the trustee of a public
\ncharitable trust, for the objects of the trust,
\nor that the building or any part thereof is in a
\ndilapidated condition and is required for
\npurposes of demolition, and new
\nconstruction, or that any land appurtenant to
\nit is required\tby him for constructing one or
\nmore new buildings or for dividing it into
\nseveral plots with a view to the sale thereof
\nfor purposes of construction  of new
\nbuildings:\n<\/p>\n
—————\n<\/p>\n
—————\n<\/p>\n
(a)\t—————\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tin the case of business purposes,
\nthe names of proprietors or
\npartners of the business;\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tthe date, which shall not be earlier
\nthan seven days after the date of
\nthe order, by which the landlord
\nshall deliver possession  to the
\nallottee;\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tsuch other particulars as may be
\nprescribed.\n<\/p>\n
———-\n<\/p>\n
———-\n<\/p>\n
———-\n<\/p>\n
———-\n<\/p>\n
———-\n<\/p>\n
———–\n<\/p>\n
(7) Every order under this section
\nsection, shall subject to any order
\nmade under Section 18, be final.\n<\/p>\n
(8)\tThe allottee shall, subject to theh
\nprovisions  of sub-section (5)\tand (9) of
\nSection 18, be deemed to become
\ntenant of the building from the date of
\nallotment or where he is unable to
\nobtain possession  by reasons of a  stay
\norder or of any other person having
\noccupied or continued to occupy the
\nbuilding, from the date on which he
\nobtain possession.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t“Appeal against order of allotment or
\nrelease.  (1) No appeal shall lie  from any
\norder under Section 16\tor Section 19,
\nwhether\t made before or after the
\ncommencement of this section, but any
\nperson\taggrieved by a final order under any
\nof the said sections  may within fifteen days
\nfrom the date of such order prefer a revision
\nto the District Judge on any one or more of
\nthe following grounds, namely, :-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tthat the District Magistrate has exercised
\na jurisdiction not vested in him by law;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tthat the District Magistrate has acted in
\nexercise  of  his jurisdiction illegally or
\nwith material irregularity.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The revising authority may confirm or
\nrescind the final order made under sub-\n<\/p>\n
section (1) or may remand  the case to the
\nDistrict Magistrate  for rehearing and
\npending the revision may stay  the operation
\nof such order on such terms, if any, as it
\nthinks fit.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation.- The power\t to rescind the final
\norder under this sub-section  shall not
\ninclude the power to pass an allotment
\norder  or to direct the passing of an
\nallotment order in favour of a person
\ndifferent from the allottee mentioned in the
\norder under revision.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Where an order under Section 16  or
\nSection 19 is rescinded, the District
\nMagistrate shall on an application being
\nmade to him on that behalf, place the parties
\nback in\t the possession\t which they would
\nhave occupied but for such order or such
\npart thereof  as has been rescinded, and may
\nbe that purpose use or cause to be used such
\nforce as may be necessary.”\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom a perusal of the provisions quoted above namely,
\nSections 16 and 18 of the Act, it is clear that a person is entitled
\nto make an application under sub-section (1) (a) of Section 16
\nfor allotment in respect of a building which has or is about to
\nfall vacant.  Under clause (1) (b)  the landlord is entitled to
\nmove an application  for release of the accommodation Sub-
\ns.(7) of Section 16 provides that every order passed under
\nSection16 shall be final subject to  any order passed under
\nSection 18 of the Act.\tThe order passed under Section 16 can
\nbe interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under
\nSection 18  of the Act in cases where the District Magistrate
\nhad exercised jurisdiction not vested or has failed to exercise
\nthe jurisdiction  or has exercised it illegally or  with irregularity.
\nUnder sub-s.(2) of Section 18, the revisional authority is
\nentitled to confirm or\trescind or remand  the case to the District
\nMagistrate for re-hearing.\n<\/p>\n
The revisional court while dealing with Revisions No. 4
\n& 5 of 1999 held that the position of the appellant was that of a
\n`prospective allottee’ vis-a-vis  application for release moved
\nby the respondent-landlady. The revisional court placing
\nreliance  upon certain decisions of the High Court on the point,
\nheld that a prospective allottee has no right to file  objection or
\nto be heard against an application moved by  the landlord for
\nrelease and that the release application has to be heard  and
\ndisposed of first.  Therefore, the revisional court further  held
\nthat the RC & EO   erred in considering the application of the
\nappellant for allotment and in not taking into account the
\naffidavit filed by the landlady making averments regarding her
\nbona fide need for the accommodation.  So far the question of
\nscope of the power of the revisional court under Section 18 of
\nthe Act is concerned, the revisional court relying upon\t the
\ndecisions reported in 1981 ARC\t34- Lokesh Kumar
\nDwivedi versus IInd Addl. Distirct Judge ,Lucknow  1994
\nALR (2) 107- Mahkar Singh versus Vith Addl. District
\nJudge, Meerut and 1996 (1) ARC 505  Taukhid Khan
\nversus Special Judge, Nainital held that in appropriate cases
\nthe revisional court has power to pass an order of release of the
\naccommodation in favour of the landlord instead of remanding
\nthe matter.  Thus holding that the petitioner being in a position
\nof prospective allottee\t  had no right to be heard in the matter of
\nrelease of the accommodation in favour of the landlord.\t On
\nconsideration of the affidavit\tof the landlady the revisional
\ncourt found that her requirement was bona fide thus passed an
\norder of release of accommodation in her favour.
\nIn the writ petition the High Court found the appellant
\nwas rightly treated as a prospective allottee and the need of the
\nlandlady having been found to be bona fide by  the revisional
\ncourt , it committed no error in releasing the accommodation in
\nher favour.  So far the legal position is concerned, we feel that
\nthere is hardly any doubt that a prospective allottee  shall have
\nno right to oppose an application for release moved by the
\nlandlord.  The need of the landlord is bona fide or not is a
\nmatter for satisfaction of the District Magistrate and on being so
\nsatisfied, an order of release can be passed. The Release
\napplication is to be disposed of first before passing an order on
\nthe application for allotment.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the present case we find that the position is very
\npeculiar which has not been properly appreciated in correct
\nperspective.  Undisputedly the accommodation in question had
\nfallen vacant and the appellant had applied for its  allotment but
\nin the meantime landlord Bankey Lal died.  The appellant
\nbrought on record two sons of late Bankey Lal as his heirs and
\nlegal representatives viz.  Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar and Mohan
\nBhatnagar  but they filed no objection and order of allotment
\nwas passed on 3.8.1990 in Suit No.63\/89. The appellant also
\ngot possession of the accommodation.  Later however same
\nRavi Mohan Bhatnagar who was substituted  and had chosen
\nnot to file any objection though served, preferred a revisionon
\nthe ground that\t Hari Mohan Bhatnagar and Smt. Swaraj, the
\nother two heirs\t of Bankey Lal had no notice although they had
\nnot raised any such objection. Later Hari Mohan Bhatnagar and
\nMohan Bhatnagar became owners and landlord of the house on
\nMarch 20, 1994. Even after becoming the landlord of the
\naccommodation, Hari Mohan Bhatnagar and Mohan Bhatnagar
\nraised no objection regarding allotment and tenancy of the
\nappellant.  Later they sold the property in favour of the
\nrespondent on 15.9.1994. Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar moved
\napplication for not pressing Revision No.19 of 1990 filed by
\nhim against allotment in favour of the appellant. The position
\nthat emerges  is that  respondent was not the landlady when the
\naccommodation was allotted to the appellant in 1990 nor on
\nMarch 20, 1994 when  Hari Mohan Bhatnagar and Mohan
\nBhatnagar became landlords thus on  Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar’s
\ninterest in property  as an heir of Bankey Lal coming to an end,
\nthe revision No.19 of 1990 filed by Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar
\neven if it was pending,\t it was\t an inconsequential and
\ninfructuous petition having no life so as  to be prosecuted by
\nhim.  The respondent had purchased the house from Hari
\nMohan and Mohan Bhatnagar and not from Ravi Mohan
\nBhatnagar who obviously was left with no right or interest in
\nthe property.  She   moved an application for release thereafter
\non 15.2.96. It may be particularly noted that the order of
\nallotment passed on 3.8.1990 was in operation on March 20,
\n1994 when Hari Mohan Bhatnagar and Mohan Bhatnagar
\nbecame owner of the accommodation. Between Bankey Lal and
\nhis heirs including Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar and  the landlady-
\nRespondent there stood her vendors having ownership rights of
\ntheir own  which they transferred to her.  She had no connection
\nwith Bankey Lal or  his heirs  so as to be entitled  for moving
\nan application under Section 16 (1)(b) for release of
\naccommodation already allotted to the appellant before her
\npredecessor  in interest had acquired rights in property
\nexclusively.  The appellant therefore  could not be treated as a
\nprospective allottee nor the respondent as  owner subsequent to
\nallotment could take up Revision filed by Ravi Mohan
\nBhatnagar whose interest as an heir of Bankey Lal  had ceased
\non the property vesting in Hari Mohan and Mohan Bhatnagar
\nby virtue of arbitration.\n<\/p>\n
    In such a situation\t as indicated above the landlady
\nnamely the respondent in case had any bona fide requirement of
\nthe accommodation could only move for eviction of the
\nappellant  under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act.
\nSection 21 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“21. Proceedings for release of building under
\noccupation of tenant.  (1) The prescribed
\nauthority may, on an application of the landlord in
\nthat behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the
\nbuilding under tenancy\tor any specified part
\nthereof if it is satisfied that any of the following
\ngrounds exists namely<\/p>\n
(a)\tthat the building is bona fide required either
\nin its existing form or after demolition and
\nnew construction by the landlord for
\noccupation by himself or any member of his
\nfamily, or any person for whose\t benefit it is
\nheld by him, either for residential purposes
\nor for purposes of any profession, trade or
\ncalling, or where the landlord is  the trustee
\nof a public charitable\ttrust, for the objects
\nof the trust;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tthat the building is in a dilapidated condition
\nand is required for purposes of demolition
\nand new construction:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that where the building was in the
\noccupation of a tenant since before its purchase by
\nthe landlord, such purchase being made after the
\ncommencement of this Act, no application shall be
\nentertained on the grounds, mentioned in clause (a)
\nunless a period of three years has elapsed since the
\ndate  of such purchase and the landlord has given a
\nnotice in that behalf to the tenant  not less than six
\nmonths before such application, and such notice
\nmay be given even before the expiration of the
\naforesaid period of three years:\n<\/p>\n
.”\n<\/p>\n
\tPerhaps due to the hurdle  in the way of the landlady for
\nmoving an application for eviction  under Section 21 (1)(a)  for
\nperiod of three years by virtue of proviso, she tried to find a
\nshort cut to be impleaded as one of the revisionists in RCA
\nNo.19 of 1990 in which the Respondent Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar
\nwas not left with any kind of  interest nor even semblance  of
\nany  right to challenge the allotment.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the facts and circumstances indicated abovce the
\nRevisional Court and the High Court both erred in considering
\nthe appellant as a “prospective allottee”.  His position was more
\nakin to an allottee in possession.  The only course open  to the
\nRespondent was to  move under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act for
\nhis eviction.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe release application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the
\nAct moved by the Respondent  was misconceived.\tThe order
\npassed on the infructuous proceedings namely Revision
\nNo.19\/90 would be inconsequential and shall not enure  any
\nbenefit either to Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar who had filed the
\nrevision  nor to the respondent who moved application for
\nimpleadment as a revisionist.  Initially also Ravi Mohan
\nBhatnagar had no justifiable reason to file the revision  once
\nhaving failed to file objections to the allotment application in
\nthe year 1990 more particularly on the ground that notice was
\nnot served  upon some other heirs of late Bankey Lal.
\nWhatever right, if at all he had to file the revision as one of the
\nheirs of Bankey Lal, he had lost the same after the property
\ncame to be owned  by Hari Mohan Bhatnagar and Mohan
\nBhatnagar on March 20, 1994 by virtue of arbitration award in
\ntheir favour.  So far respondent is concerned, her impleadment
\nas one of the revisionists rightly or wrongly  would also be
\ninconsequential since she had purchased\t the property from
\nHari ohan and Mohan Bhatnagar as the owners and predecessor
\nin interest in the property and not from heirs of late Bankey Lal.
\nIt is thus clear that there is no reason  to treat the appellant as
\nprospective allottee.  The bona fide requirement of the
\nrespondent could not be considered in the infructuous
\nproceedings of the Revision 19\/1990.  The  order passed in
\ninfructuous proceedings is inconsequential and ineffective. She
\ncould not be permitted to do something indirectly which was
\nimpermissible directly, in view of proviso to sub-section (1) of
\nSection 21 of the Act namely, she could not get the premises
\nvacated on the ground of her bona fide requirement within three
\nyears of purchasing the\t property.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the result the appeal is allowed and the order of the
\nHigh Court as well as of the revisional court are set aside and
\nthat of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer is restored. In case
\nthe appellant has been dispossessed from the premises in
\npursuance of the orders passed by the revisional court or the
\nHigh Court, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer will take
\nsteps to restore  possession of the premises to him.  The
\nappellant on getting possession\t of the premises will pay to the
\nrespondent-landlady  arrears of rent for the period  he was in
\noccupation of the premises, within three months. It will
\nhowever be open to the respondent if so advised to move any
\nappropriate application as may be permissible under the law for
\neviction of appellant.\tThere shall, however, be no order as to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t———————J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(D.P. Mohapatra)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t——————–J
\n\t\t\t\t\t(Brijesh Kumar)<\/p>\n
April 29, 2002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ram Narayan Sharma vs Shakuntala Gaur on 29 April, 2002 Author: B Kumar Bench: D.P. Mohhapatra, Brijesh Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3159 of 2002 PETITIONER: RAM NARAYAN SHARMA Vs. RESPONDENT: SHAKUNTALA GAUR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/04\/2002 BENCH: D.P. Mohhapatra & Brijesh Kumar JUDGMENT: Brijesh Kumar, J. Leave granted. The order, […]<\/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-179488","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Narayan Sharma vs Shakuntala Gaur on 29 April, 2002 - 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\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Narayan Sharma vs Shakuntala Gaur on 29 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-17T10:58:20+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Narayan Sharma vs Shakuntala Gaur on 29 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-17T10:58:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3542,\"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\\\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002\",\"name\":\"Ram Narayan Sharma vs Shakuntala Gaur on 29 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-17T10:58:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Narayan Sharma vs Shakuntala Gaur on 29 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ram Narayan Sharma vs Shakuntala Gaur on 29 April, 2002 - 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\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Narayan Sharma vs Shakuntala Gaur on 29 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-17T10:58:20+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Narayan Sharma vs Shakuntala Gaur on 29 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-17T10:58:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002"},"wordCount":3542,"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\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002","name":"Ram Narayan Sharma vs Shakuntala Gaur on 29 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-17T10:58:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-narayan-sharma-vs-shakuntala-gaur-on-29-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Narayan Sharma vs Shakuntala Gaur on 29 April, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179488","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=179488"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179488\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179488"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179488"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179488"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}