{"id":198530,"date":"2010-12-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010"},"modified":"2018-02-10T16:27:33","modified_gmt":"2018-02-10T10:57:33","slug":"raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Raj Kumar & Anr vs State & Ors on 13 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Raj Kumar & Anr vs State & Ors on 13 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Mool Chand Garg<\/div>\n
*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n+                            FAO.No.448\/2010\n\n%\n                                                 Decided On: 13.12.2010\n\nRAJ KUMAR & ANR.                                           .... Appellants\n                      Through: Mr.Rajeshwar Tyagi, Adv.\n\n                                 Versus\n\nState & ORS.                                             .... Respondents<\/pre>\n
                      Through: None.\n<\/p>\n
CORAM:\n<\/p>\n
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M OOL CHAND GARG<\/p>\n
1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be
\n      allowed to see the judgment?\n<\/p>\n
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?\n<\/p>\n
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in
\n      the Digest?\n<\/p>\n
: M OOL CHAND GARG,J.(ORAL)
\nCM No.22013\/2010
\n       Allowed subject to just exceptions.\n<\/p>\n
       Application stands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
FAO No.448\/2010\n<\/p>\n
1.     This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Addl. District
\nJudge dated 05.08.2010whereby the Addl. District judge has allowed an
\napplication filed by the respondents under Section 11 of CPC and
\ndismissed the Probate petition No 319\/06 filed by the appellant under
\nSection 276 of Indian Succession Act seeking probate of the will dated
\n02.04.1998 holding that the issue had already been decided by the said
\nCourt in petition No 318\/06 in which the parties were same and
\ntherefore the Court cannot try the same issue again being hit by Section
\n11 of CPC.\n<\/p>\n
2.     Briefly stated the facts of the case are that two Probate Petitions
\nwere filed in relation to two wills alleged to have been executed by late
\nSmt. Neerta Devi on two different dates, Probate Petition No 318\/06
\nwas filed by the respondents seeking probate of the will dated<\/p>\n
FAO 448\/2010                                                  Page 1 of 6<\/span>
\n 22.08.1994 and Probate Petition 319\/06 was filed by appellant seeking
\nprobate of the Will dated 02.04.1998. In the Probate Petition 319\/06
\nevidence of appellant was closed, he took no further steps to recall the
\norder for leading evidence. Meanwhile the other connected matter i.e
\npetition No 318\/06 filed by the respondents was decided in favour of
\nthe respondents.\n<\/p>\n
3.     The appellants who were arrayed as respondents in the aforesaid
\nprobate petition raised objections to the grant of probate to the will
\ndated 22.08.1994 by alleging that the said will was a forged and
\nfabricated one and the testatrix has executed another will dated
\n2.4.1998 propounded by them. However, to prove that Will no evidence
\nwas led by them. In the said probate petition, the Additional District
\nJudge after going through the statement of the witnesses particularly
\nthe attesting witness i.e PW 3 came to the conclusion that the will
\ndated 22.08.1994 was validly executed by the testatrix and as there was
\nno evidence led by the appellant. It was held that no other will was
\nexecuted by the same testatrix. The issue was thus decided in favour of
\nrespondent. The appellant aggrieved by that order of the Ld. ADJ
\nchallenged it before this Court in FAO 276\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
4.     Before this Court also appellant reiterated the same objections
\ntaken before the Ld. ADJ but had brought nothing on record to show as
\nto what happened to the second probate petition filed by the appellants
\nin relation to the second will which had been propounded by the
\nappellants as the last and final will of the testatrix. This court made
\nfollowing observations in an order dated 20.10.2010:-\n<\/p>\n
               “Learned counsel for the appellant states that the
\n               probate petition filed by them with respect to the
\n               will dated 02.04.1998 bearing No.233\/1999 has
\n               been dismissed by the ADJ vide the impugned
\n               order which is the subject matter of the present
\n               appeal. As such now no such petition is pending. In
\n               fact, on account of dismissal of the suit and the
\n               appeal having not been filed, the Court
\n               can presume that the appellants are not interested
\n               in revival of their probate petition which is the only
\n               defence taken by them in this appeal. It
\n               may, however, be observed that they intend to file
\n               an appeal against the order dismissing their
\n               probate petition .”
\nFAO 448\/2010                                                    Page 2 of 6<\/span><\/p>\n
 5      This court also observed that:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               15. In any event the appellants having not brought on
\n               record the second will which they state was the last and
\n               final will of deceased Nerta Devi and failed to prove the
\n               said Will they cannot now question the probate of
\n               registered will left by late Smt. Nerta Devi. It many a
\n               times happens for various reasons that Will are
\n               executed in favour of persons who are not the legal heirs
\n               of the deceased. As such it cannot be a good reason to
\n               discard the Will of the deceased executed in favour of
\n               the respondent only because the appellants who are the
\n               sons of the deceased have not been made the
\n               beneficiary.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               17. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the
\n               judgment of the Addl. District Judge. The appeal is
\n               dismissed at this stage itself with no orders as to cost.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.     Before the passing of the aforesaid order in FAO No.276\/2010 by
\nthis Court, and after having won in the court of the ADJ, the
\nrespondents also moved an application under Section 11 of CPC in the
\nProbate Petition No 319\/06 which was heard by                the Addl. District
\njudge and was allowed vide an order dated 05.08.2010 holding that the
\nprobate petition No 319\/06 is barred by the principles of Res Judicata.
\nAppellant aggrieved by this order of the ADJ has again filed an appeal
\nbefore this Court. The relevant extract of the order of the ADJ is
\nobserved here as under:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Applicant Bhudev Prasad had filed a petition U\/s 276 of
\n        the Act seeking probate of a Will allegedly executed by
\n        the same Testatrix, in his favour on 22.08.1994, which
\n        has been decided by this Court vide its order \/Judgment
\n        dated 25.03.2010.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for applicant\/ respondent
\n        that both of these cases re pending between the same
\n        parties and issue as to whether deceased Neerta Devi
\n        had validly executed a Will dated 22.08.1994 while in
\n        sound disposing mind or that it was the last Will and the
\n        testament of the deceased was framed and has been duly
\n        decided by this Court. Due to said reason, present
\n        petition is hit by principles of res-judicata. Ld. Counsel
\n        took me through judgment of said case, where following
\n        was observed by the Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               “From the statements of PW1……………. And
\n               other witnesses particularly attesting witness
\nFAO 448\/2010                                                        Page 3 of 6<\/span>
\n                i.e. PW3 it is proved that Will in question was
\n               validly executed by the testatrix in her sound
\n               and disposing mind. On the other hand, it is
\n               not proved that any other Will was also
\n               executed by the same testatrix.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        It is not denied that the present petitioner was also a
\n        party in said case being an objector. Section 11 of CPC
\n        bars the court from trying any suit of issue in which the
\n        matter directly and substantially in issue has been
\n        directly and substantially in issue in a former suit
\n        between the same parties or between parties under
\n        whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the
\n        same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent
\n        suit or the suit which such issue has been substantially
\n        raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such
\n        Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         As mentioned above, it is not disputed by the petitioner
\n        that parties in both case are same and aforementioned
\n        petition was decided by the said Court and same was
\n        competent to try petition in hands i.e subsequent suit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         On the basis of above discussion, in my opinion, this
\n        court cannot try same issue again being hit by Section
\n        11 of CPC. Application is thus allowed<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
7.      I have heard the submissions of the appellant, who contends
\nthat at the time of filing of the present probate petition, the matter of
\nthe earlier probate case No. 318\/06 had not attained finality and was
\nstill sub-judice before this Court in FAO 276\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
8.     At this juncture, it would be appropriate to take note of Section
\n11 of CPC, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       11. Res judicata -No Court shall try any suit or issue
\n       in which the matter directly and substantially in issue
\n       has been directly and substantially in issue in a
\n       former suit between the same parties, or between
\n       parties under whom they or any of them claim,
\n       litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to
\n       try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such
\n       issue has been subsequently raised, and has been
\n       heard and finally decided by such Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Explanation I.-The expression “former suit” shall
\n       denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit
\n       in question whether or not it was instituted prior
\n       thereto.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
FAO 448\/2010                                                     Page 4 of 6<\/span><\/p>\n
        Explanation II.-For the purposes of this section, the
\n       competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective
\n       of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the
\n       decision of such Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Explanation III.-The matter above referred to must in
\n       the former suit have been alleged by one party and
\n       either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by
\n       the other.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Explanation IV.-Any matter which might and ought to
\n       have been made ground of defence or attack in such
\n       former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter
\n       directly and substantially in issue in such suit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Explanation V.-Any relief claimed in the plaint, which
\n       is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the
\n       purposes of this section, be deemed to have been
\n       refused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Explanation VI.-Where persons litigate bona fide in
\n       respect of public right or of a private right claimed in
\n       common for themselves and others, all persons
\n       interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this
\n       section, be deemed to claim under the persons so
\n       litigating.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Explanation VII.-The provisions of this section shall
\n       apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and
\n       reference in this section to any suit, issue or former
\n       suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to
\n       proceedings for the execution of the decree, question
\n       arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for
\n       the execution of that decree.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Explanation VIII.-An issue heard and finally decided
\n       by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide
\n       such issue, shall operate as res judicata in as
\n       subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of
\n       limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such
\n       subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has
\n       been subsequently raised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.     The issue as to whether will dated 22.08.1994 left by deceased
\nNeerta Devi was the last and final will of the said deceased was directly
\nand substantially in issue in Probate Case No.318\/2006 between the
\nsame parties inasmuch as, the appellants are also claiming to be one of
\nthe legal heirs of the deceased. The objection taken by them that the
\ndeceased Neerta Devi had, in fact, left another will dated 02.04.1998
\nwas not substantiated by the appellant in that case. He also failed to
\nprove that will even in the petition filed by him being Probate Case No.
\nFAO 448\/2010                                                  Page 5 of 6<\/span>
\n 319\/2006. Thus, the judgment delivered by the ADJ in Probate Case
\nNO. 318\/2006 attained finality and the findings returned in that case,
\nconstitutes res judicata with respect to the claim of the appellant that
\nthe will dated 22.08.1994 was not the last and final will left by Neerta
\nDevi. The very fact that the claim lodged by the appellant on the basis
\nof the alleged will dated 02.04.1998 being not substantiated by the
\nappellant in those proceedings or in any independent proceedings
\nbrings an end to the litigation between the parties. After upholding the
\norder of the ADJ by this Court in FAO No. 276\/2010, the appellant is
\nnot entitled to rake up the issue again. Thus, the appeal filed by the
\nappellant is dismissed being barred by res judicata at this stage itself.
\nThe order dated 05.08.2010 is therefore upheld. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                MOOL CHAND GARG,J
\nDECEMBER 13, 2010
\n‘sg\/dc’<\/p>\n
FAO 448\/2010                                                 Page 6 of 6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Raj Kumar & Anr vs State & Ors on 13 December, 2010 Author: Mool Chand Garg * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO.No.448\/2010 % Decided On: 13.12.2010 RAJ KUMAR & ANR. …. Appellants Through: Mr.Rajeshwar Tyagi, Adv. Versus State & ORS. …. Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE […]<\/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-198530","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRaj Kumar & Anr vs State & Ors on 13 December, 2010 - 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\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raj Kumar & Anr vs State & Ors on 13 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-10T10:57:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raj Kumar & Anr vs State & Ors on 13 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-10T10:57:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1901,\"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\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Raj Kumar & Anr vs State & Ors on 13 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-10T10:57:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raj Kumar & Anr vs State & Ors on 13 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Raj Kumar & Anr vs State & Ors on 13 December, 2010 - 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\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raj Kumar & Anr vs State & Ors on 13 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-10T10:57:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raj Kumar & Anr vs State & Ors on 13 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-10T10:57:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010"},"wordCount":1901,"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\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010","name":"Raj Kumar & Anr vs State & Ors on 13 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-10T10:57:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-kumar-anr-vs-state-ors-on-13-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raj Kumar & Anr vs State & Ors on 13 December, 2010"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/198530","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=198530"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198530\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}