{"id":193572,"date":"2011-04-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011"},"modified":"2018-01-23T04:07:11","modified_gmt":"2018-01-22T22:37:11","slug":"sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Sh. Jagmohan Nath Kapoor vs Sh. Manmohan Nath Kapoor on 25 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Sh. Jagmohan Nath Kapoor vs Sh. Manmohan Nath Kapoor on 25 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: V. K. Jain<\/div>\n
         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                     Judgment Pronounced on: 25.04.2011\n\n+           CS(OS) 1254\/2009\n\nSH. JAGMOHAN NATH KAPOOR                        .....Plaintiff\n\n                            - versus -\n\nSH. MANMOHAN NATH KAPOOR                        .....Defendant\n\nAdvocates who appeared in this case:\nFor the Plaintiff:      Mr. Anupam Srivastava with Mr.\n                        Manish Srivastava, Advs.\n\nFor the Defendant:            Mr. Vijay Gupta, Ms. Geeta Goel\n                              and Mr. Jaladhar Das, Advs.\n\nCORAM:-\nHON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN\n\n1. Whether Reporters of local papers may\n   be allowed to see the judgment?                          No\n\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                   No\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported                  No\n   in Digest?\n\nV.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)\n<\/pre>\n
I.A. No. 902\/2011<\/p>\n
1.          This is an application filed by the plaintiff under<\/p>\n
Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act seeking to purchase<\/p>\n
the share of the defendant in the suit property for a<\/p>\n
consideration of Rs. 2 crores.\n<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1254\/2009                                   Page 1 of 11<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 2.          Vide order dated 21st January, 2011, this court<\/p>\n
passed a preliminary decree for partition of the suit property<\/p>\n
i.e.   property        no.   F-11,   Lajpat   Nagar-III,   New    Delhi<\/p>\n
admeasuring 200 square yards and comprising of ground<\/p>\n
floor, first floor and second floor. The plaintiff has one half<\/p>\n
share in the suit property whereas the remaining half share<\/p>\n
is owned by the defendant. Shri Jayant K. Mehta, Advocate<\/p>\n
was appointed as local commissioner to suggest ways and<\/p>\n
means by which the partition could be effected.             The local<\/p>\n
commissioner could also take the assistance of an architect<\/p>\n
if found necessary in the circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n
3.          The local commissioner has accordingly submitted<\/p>\n
his report dated 26th April, 2010. The local commissioner<\/p>\n
also availed the services of an architect Mr. Siddharth<\/p>\n
Chaturvedi.           The architect in his letter dated 12 th April,<\/p>\n
2010 to Mr. Jayant K. Mehta stated that keeping in view the<\/p>\n
existing built structure on the property, design and the<\/p>\n
current building norms, it may not be possible to exactly<\/p>\n
divide the property into two halves. He therefore suggested<\/p>\n
the following modes of partition:-\n<\/p>\n
        “1) Division of the two floors:
\n        The ground and first floor could be divided
\n        between the claimants. The terrace rights could<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1254\/2009                                         Page 2 of 11<\/span>
\n         be given to one while the other party could be
\n        suitably compensated. Both parties will have the
\n        right to passage and use of the stairway and
\n        circulation area.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        2) Physical Division:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        The terrace could be divided into two parts
\n        keeping in mind the right to passage and a buffer
\n        3 feet corridor for circulation as shown in
\n        diagram (A).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        As the floor area at ground level would be more
\n        than the first floor, the front part of the terrace
\n        with the Barsati, could be given to the claimant
\n        getting the first floor. The rear terrace could be
\n        given to the owner of the ground floor.
\n        Subsequent sale of terrace though could be
\n        difficult in future.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        3) Design Division:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Division of property will take place by changing
\n        the design of the existing structure and would
\n        require civil work.     Ground to be given to
\n        claimant-1 and terrace to be given to claimant-2.
\n        The first floor would be divided equally into two
\n        halves with the front and the circulation area
\n        going to claimant-2 while the rear half to
\n        claimant-1. An additional staircase could be
\n        constructed in the rear courtyard combining
\n        ground and first floor for claimant-1 as shown in
\n        diagram (BI) and (CI).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.          The local commissioner after considering the report of<\/p>\n
the architect noted that the second mode of partition<\/p>\n
suggested by him required division of terrace between the two<\/p>\n
parties but the access to the terrace was only from one<\/p>\n
staircase which leads to the first floor and then to the terrace.<\/p>\n
This mode, according to him, would require a three feet buffer<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1254\/2009                                   Page 3 of 11<\/span>
\n area which would be a common area along with the staircase<\/p>\n
and will create difficulties for future sale etc.<\/p>\n
       Regarding the third mode of partition, he was of the view<\/p>\n
that since it would require alteration of existing construction.<\/p>\n
The same was, therefore, not suggested by him, unless<\/p>\n
acceptable to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
            He has therefore recommended that only the first<\/p>\n
mode of partition be considered by the Court, though in his<\/p>\n
understanding, the suit property cannot be divided into two<\/p>\n
equal proportions.\n<\/p>\n
5.          The second mode of partition has been left out by the<\/p>\n
local commissioner.             The third mode of partition which<\/p>\n
requires      alteration   of    the   existing   construction    is      not<\/p>\n
acceptable to the plaintiff though it is acceptable to the<\/p>\n
defendant. That leaves the court only with the first mode of<\/p>\n
partition whereby the ground floor can be given to one party,<\/p>\n
the first floor can be given to other party and the terrace rights<\/p>\n
can be given to either of them and the other party suitably<\/p>\n
compensated. In this mode, both the parties will have a right<\/p>\n
to passage and use of the stair way and circulation area. The<\/p>\n
first mode of partition is acceptable to the defendant but not<\/p>\n
acceptable to the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiff<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1254\/2009                                        Page 4 of 11<\/span>
\n states that his client is not in a position to accept either the<\/p>\n
ground floor or the first floor for the three reasons that:-<\/p>\n
     (i)        The construction is very old.\n\n     (ii)       The property is in a rather dilapidated condition.\n\n     (iii)      The land has not been covered to the extent it is\n\n                 presently permissible.\n\n<\/pre>\n
             The second difficulty in this mode of partition is that the<\/p>\n
ground floor and first floor do not and cannot have equal<\/p>\n
valuation. The local commissioner has not given any floor wise<\/p>\n
valuation of the suit property. In the absence of valuation of<\/p>\n
each floor, it is not possible to allocate the ground floor to one<\/p>\n
party and first floor to the other party and compensate the<\/p>\n
party getting floor of higher valuation.             This could have<\/p>\n
possibly been done, had the local commissioner given the floor<\/p>\n
wise valuation of the suit property. The third difficulty arises<\/p>\n
in this mode of partition is the valuation of the terrace floor.<\/p>\n
The local commissioner has not given any valuation of the<\/p>\n
terrace floor and there is no agreement between the parties<\/p>\n
with respect to valuation of the terrace floor.<\/p>\n
6.             In my view, in these circumstances, the most<\/p>\n
appropriate course of action would be to direct sale of the suit<\/p>\n
property since it is not capable of partition by metes and<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1254\/2009                                        Page 5 of 11<\/span>
\n bounds in the exact ratio of 50% to each of the two parties.<\/p>\n
7.          Section 2 of the Partition Act, to the extent relevant,<\/p>\n
provides that if it appears to the Court by reason of the nature<\/p>\n
of the suit property or the number of share holders therein or<\/p>\n
any other special circumstances, a division of the property<\/p>\n
cannot reasonably or conveniently be made, and that a sale of<\/p>\n
the property and distribution of the proceeds would be more<\/p>\n
beneficial for all the shareholders, the Court may, on the<\/p>\n
request of any of such shareholders, direct a sale of the<\/p>\n
property and distribution of the proceeds.<\/p>\n
            Section 3 of the Act, to the extent relevant, provides<\/p>\n
that if a sale under Section 2 of the Act is requested, and any<\/p>\n
other shareholder applies for leave to buy at a valuation the<\/p>\n
share or shares of the party asking for a sale, the Court shall<\/p>\n
order a valuation of the share or shares and offer to sell the<\/p>\n
same to the shareholder seeking to buy the share of the<\/p>\n
opposite party at the price so ascertained.<\/p>\n
8.          In R.Ramamurthi Iyer vs. Raja V. Rajeswara Rao<\/a><\/p>\n
(1972) 2 SCC 721, Supreme Court approved the following rule<\/p>\n
enunciated by Crump, J. in this regard:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “1. In a suit for partition if, it appears to
\n              the Court that for the reasons stated in<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1254\/2009                                      Page 6 of 11<\/span>
\n               Section 2 a division of the property
\n              cannot reasonably and conveniently be
\n              made and that a sale of property would
\n              be more beneficial it can direct sale. This
\n              can be done, however, only on the
\n              request of the shareholders interested
\n              individually or collectively to the extent of
\n              one moiety or upwards.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              2. When a request is made under Section
\n              2 to the court to direct a sale any other
\n              shareholder can apply under Section 3
\n              for leave to buy at a valuation the share
\n              of the other party asking for a sale.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              3. The court has to Order valuation of the
\n              share of the party asking for sale.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              4. After the valuation has been made the
\n              court has to offer to sell the share of the
\n              party asking for sale to the shareholder
\n              applying for leave to buy under Section 3.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              5. If two or more shareholders severally
\n              apply for leave to buy the court is bound
\n              to Order a sale of the share or shares so
\n              the shareholder who offers to pay the
\n              highest price above the valuation made
\n              by the court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              6. If no shareholder is willing to buy such
\n              share or shares at the price so
\n              ascertained the application under Section
\n              3 shall be dismissed, the applicant being
\n              liable to pay all the costs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.          In Faquira vs. Raj Rani and Anr. AIR<\/a> 1984 Delhi<\/p>\n
168, this Court noted that the Court can order a sale, if one is<\/p>\n
demanded by the shareholders interested individually or<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1254\/2009                                      Page 7 of 11<\/span>
\n collectively to the extent of half the property or more and<\/p>\n
cannot sale of its own. In taking this view, the Court referred<\/p>\n
to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for indicating<\/p>\n
Partition Act, 1893, wherein it was stated that having regard to<\/p>\n
the strong attachment of the people in this country to their<\/p>\n
landed possession, it is proposed to make the consent of the<\/p>\n
parties interested at least to the extent of moiety in the<\/p>\n
property a condition precedent to the exercise by the Court of<\/p>\n
this new power. The Division of this Court set aside the order<\/p>\n
whereby the Court had directed auction amongst co-owners<\/p>\n
without request of any of them. Therefore, it is not open to the<\/p>\n
Court to direct sale of the suit property of its own unless such<\/p>\n
a request is made either by the plaintiff or by the defendant<\/p>\n
both of whom hold 50% share each in the property.<\/p>\n
10.         The plaintiff cannot apply to purchase the share of<\/p>\n
the defendant in the suit property unless defendant makes a<\/p>\n
request to the Court for the sale of the property. However, if<\/p>\n
the plaintiff makes such a request, it is open to the defendant<\/p>\n
to apply under Section 3 of the Act for purchase of share of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff in the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.         Though the prayer made in this application is for<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1254\/2009                                 Page 8 of 11<\/span>
\n purchase of share of the defendant by the plaintiff, this<\/p>\n
application, to my mind, can conveniently be considered as an<\/p>\n
application under Section 2 of the Partition Act for sale of the<\/p>\n
suit property.         In the case of R. Ramamurthi Iyer (supra),<\/p>\n
Supreme         Court     observed   that   Section   3(1)     does         not<\/p>\n
contemplate a formal application being filed in every case and<\/p>\n
the other shareholder has only to inform the Court or notify to<\/p>\n
it that he is prepared to buy at a valuation the share of the<\/p>\n
party asking for sale. This proposition would equally apply to<\/p>\n
an application envisaged under Section 2 of the Act.              In para<\/p>\n
6 of the application, it has been specifically stated that as the<\/p>\n
physical partition of the suit property would be impracticable,<\/p>\n
unreasonable and inconvenient, its sale is the only possible<\/p>\n
option for effecting the partition. The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
plaintiff, on instructions from the plaintiff who is present in<\/p>\n
Court in-person today, also makes a specific request for the<\/p>\n
sale of the suit property in terms of Section 2 of the Partition<\/p>\n
Act.     Therefore, the application filed by the plaintiff can<\/p>\n
conveniently be treated as an application under Section 2 of<\/p>\n
the Act.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr.       Vijay Gupta,   Advocate who represents the<\/p>\n
defendant in this matter, on instructions from the son of the<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1254\/2009                                          Page 9 of 11<\/span>
\n defendant who is present in Court in-person today, states that<\/p>\n
since the application of the plaintiff is being considered as an<\/p>\n
application under Section 2 of the Partition Act, his reply may<\/p>\n
be treated as an application by the defendant under Section 3<\/p>\n
of the Partition Act for purchase of the share of the plaintiff in<\/p>\n
the suit property. He points out that the reply does contain<\/p>\n
such a readiness on the part of the defendant in paras 6-8 of<\/p>\n
the reply.        I see no valid reason for not acceding to this<\/p>\n
request.\n<\/p>\n
12.         In these circumstances, the local commissioner who<\/p>\n
was appointed earlier by this Court to suggest mode of<\/p>\n
partition, is hereby directed to report what is the current<\/p>\n
valuation of 50% share which the plaintiff has in the suit<\/p>\n
property.        While giving valuation, the local commissioner<\/p>\n
would assume that the suit property is vacant. He will also<\/p>\n
take into consideration the age and condition of the super<\/p>\n
structure existing on the suit property. While giving valuation,<\/p>\n
he shall also keep in mind the offer made by the defendant to<\/p>\n
buy out the share of the plaintiff for Rs. 2 crores. The local<\/p>\n
commissioner will be entitled to obtain the assistance of any<\/p>\n
architect\/valuer for the purpose of giving the report in terms of<\/p>\n
this direction.       Since during the course of arguments, the<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1254\/2009                                  Page 10 of 11<\/span>
\n learned counsel for the defendant suggested that the Local<\/p>\n
Commissioner may also be directed to give floor wise valuation<\/p>\n
of the suit property, it is directed that the Local Commissioner<\/p>\n
will also give separate valuation of ground floor, first floor and<\/p>\n
terrace while giving value of half share of the plaintiff in the<\/p>\n
suit property.        This would also enable the Court to have a<\/p>\n
relook at the option for floor wise distribution, coupled with<\/p>\n
suitable compensation. The local commissioner shall submit<\/p>\n
his report within six weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n
       The IA stands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
       One copy of this order be sent to the Local Commissioner,<\/p>\n
within three days.\n<\/p>\n
CS(OS) 1254\/2009<\/p>\n
       List on 28th July, 2011, awaiting the report of the Local<\/p>\n
Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                            (V.K. JAIN)
\n                                              JUDGE
\nAPRIL 25, 2011
\nSD\/BG<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1254\/2009                                  Page 11 of 11<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Sh. Jagmohan Nath Kapoor vs Sh. Manmohan Nath Kapoor on 25 April, 2011 Author: V. K. Jain THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: 25.04.2011 + CS(OS) 1254\/2009 SH. JAGMOHAN NATH KAPOOR …..Plaintiff – versus – SH. MANMOHAN NATH KAPOOR …..Defendant Advocates who appeared in this case: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-193572","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSh. Jagmohan Nath Kapoor vs Sh. Manmohan Nath Kapoor on 25 April, 2011 - 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\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sh. Jagmohan Nath Kapoor vs Sh. Manmohan Nath Kapoor on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-22T22:37:11+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sh. Jagmohan Nath Kapoor vs Sh. Manmohan Nath Kapoor on 25 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-22T22:37:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2218,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Sh. Jagmohan Nath Kapoor vs Sh. Manmohan Nath Kapoor on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-22T22:37:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sh. Jagmohan Nath Kapoor vs Sh. Manmohan Nath Kapoor on 25 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Sh. Jagmohan Nath Kapoor vs Sh. Manmohan Nath Kapoor on 25 April, 2011 - 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\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sh. Jagmohan Nath Kapoor vs Sh. Manmohan Nath Kapoor on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-22T22:37:11+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sh. Jagmohan Nath Kapoor vs Sh. Manmohan Nath Kapoor on 25 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-22T22:37:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011"},"wordCount":2218,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011","name":"Sh. Jagmohan Nath Kapoor vs Sh. Manmohan Nath Kapoor on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-22T22:37:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-jagmohan-nath-kapoor-vs-sh-manmohan-nath-kapoor-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sh. Jagmohan Nath Kapoor vs Sh. Manmohan Nath Kapoor on 25 April, 2011"}]},{"@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\/193572","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=193572"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193572\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193572"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193572"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193572"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}