{"id":199155,"date":"2008-11-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008"},"modified":"2017-03-10T12:11:00","modified_gmt":"2017-03-10T06:41:00","slug":"ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ravinder Ahuja & Anr. vs Anu Grover & Anr. on 21 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Ravinder Ahuja & Anr. vs Anu Grover & Anr. on 21 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n
i.4\n*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                                     Date of Decision: 21.11.2008\n\n\n+                         RFA 433\/2008\n\n      RAVINDER AHUJA & ANR.             ..... Appellant\n           Through: Mr.H.Banerjee, Adv.\n\n                     versus\n\n      ANU GROVER & ANR.                    ..... Respondent\n              Through:\n\n\nCORAM:\n\nHon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog\nHon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha\n\n1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed\n   to see the judgment?\n\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?\n\n3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?\n\n\n: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)\n<\/pre>\n
1.              Vide order dated 7.11.2008 the trial court record<\/p>\n
had   been       summoned.      The    same   has   been   received.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, it reveals a pathetic state of affairs in the<\/p>\n
manner the same has been kept and in particular the plaint<\/p>\n
and vital documents proved at the trial being missing. We are<\/p>\n
of the opinion that an inquiry needs to be conducted by the<\/p>\n
Registrar (Vigilance) who may also take the help of the Officer<\/p>\n
on Special Duty.\n<\/p>\n
\n RFA 433\/2008                                              Page 1 of 11<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 2.              But, before we deal with the our reasons as to why<\/p>\n
an inquiry needs to be held, since the appeal is listed for<\/p>\n
hearing on admission and for said purpose we had called for<\/p>\n
the trial court record, we have requested learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant to hand over to us the copy of the plaint as also<\/p>\n
the documents which were exhibited at the trial and in<\/p>\n
particular Ex.PW-1\/I, being the certified copies of the order<\/p>\n
dated 10.7.1990 and statements recorded of the litigating<\/p>\n
parties in Suit No.140\/1985.\n<\/p>\n
3.              Learned counsel for the appellant has handed over<\/p>\n
to us a copy of the plaint and the certified copy of Ex.PW-1\/I<\/p>\n
i.e. the statements recorded on 10.7.1990 and the order<\/p>\n
passed thereon in Suit No.140\/1985.\n<\/p>\n
4.              Briefly noted, facts are that late Bodh Raj Ahuja<\/p>\n
died on 23.7.1984.         He left behind an immovable property<\/p>\n
bearing Municipal No.438, Gali Chandni Wali, Paharganj, New<\/p>\n
Delhi-110055. He was survived by two daughters, Anu Grover<\/p>\n
and Kamlesh Srivastava i.e. the respondents and three sons<\/p>\n
namely Surender Kumar Ahuja, Abhi Kumar Ahuja and Sunil<\/p>\n
Kumar Ahuja. Abhi Kumar Ahuja was unmarried and died thus<\/p>\n
succession of the estate of Bodh Raj Ahuja had to be on the<\/p>\n
two surviving daughters and the two surviving sons.<\/p>\n
5.              During the lifetime of Surender Kumar Ahuja, a suit<\/p>\n
for partition was filed by the two daughters, namely Anu<\/p>\n
 RFA 433\/2008                                             Page 2 of 11<\/span>
\n Grover and Kamlesh Srivastava.            For unexplainable reasons<\/p>\n
they claimed 1\/3rd share in the property left behind by their<\/p>\n
father, notwithstanding the assertions in the plaint that Bodh<\/p>\n
Raj Ahuja died leaving behind three sons and two daughters<\/p>\n
and that Abhi Kumar Ahuja had died issueless.<\/p>\n
6.              Be that as it may, the suit in question which was<\/p>\n
registered as Suit No.140\/1985, resulted in a compromise<\/p>\n
between Anu Grover and Kamlesh Srivastava on the one hand<\/p>\n
and their brother Surender Kumar Ahuja on the other hand.<\/p>\n
The learned           Judge dealing    with   the suit   recorded    the<\/p>\n
statement of the parties on 10.7.1990 to the effect that the<\/p>\n
parties had settled their dispute and had partitioned the<\/p>\n
property No.438, Gali Chandniwali, Paharganj, New Delhi-<\/p>\n
110055 as per shares allocated to the parties reflected in the<\/p>\n
site plan annexed with the application.\n<\/p>\n
7.              The suit was disposed of recording a settlement and<\/p>\n
hence no claim surviving to be litigated upon i.e. was<\/p>\n
dismissed as withdrawn as settled as per the compromise, vide<\/p>\n
order dated 10.7.1990.\n<\/p>\n
8.              Anu     Grover   and     Kamlesh    Srivastava,      the<\/p>\n
respondents in the instant appeal, filed the suit in the year<\/p>\n
2003 out of which the instant appeal arises, inter alia, after<\/p>\n
pleading the afore-noted facts set forth their case by pleading<\/p>\n
in para 9 of the plaint as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\n RFA 433\/2008                                                 Page 3 of 11<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
          “9.That plaintiffs, being the married sister of Late
\n         Sh.Surender Kumar Ahuja had put their locks to their
\n         respective portions in property bearing No.438, Gali
\n         Chandniwali, Paharganj, New Delhi after taking the
\n         physical possession from his late brother Sh.Surender
\n         Kumar Ahuja, prior to filing the compromise
\n         application dt. 10.7.90. The said respective portions
\n         of the plaintiff remained unused because the plaintiffs
\n         had been residing at their matrimonial house and
\n         reason by Late Sh.Surender Kumar Ahuja approached
\n         the plaintiffs in the early of January, 1991 and made
\n         requests to allow him to use the portions belonging to
\n         the plaintiffs for the time being with the assurance
\n         that the said portions will be vacated as and when
\n         required by the plaintiffs, after considering the blood
\n         relationship and conduct of Late Sh.Surender Kumar
\n         Ahuja, the plaintiffs duly allowed him to use the same
\n         as per his own convenience.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.              The appellants, who are the legal heirs of late Shri<\/p>\n
Surender Kumar Ahuja, the brother of the respondents, filed a<\/p>\n
written statement not controverting the filing of the suit by<\/p>\n
Anu Grover and Kamlesh Srivastava in the year 1985 or the<\/p>\n
order passed thereon on 10.7.1990 and in respect of para 9 of<\/p>\n
the plaint responded as under:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “That the contents of para 9 as stated are wrong and
\n       denied.”\n<\/p>\n
10.             Relevant would it be to note that there are no<\/p>\n
pleadings in the written statement filed by the appellants that<\/p>\n
the settlement recorded between the two sisters and their<\/p>\n
brother in the year 1990 was not given effect to, or that by a<\/p>\n
subsequent agreement the two sisters transferred their rights<\/p>\n
in favour of their brother.\n<\/p>\n
11.             On the pleadings of the parties, issues settled<\/p>\n
 RFA 433\/2008                                              Page 4 of 11<\/span>
\n were:-\n<\/p>\n
      “1.    Whether the plaintiffs are exclusive owners of the
\n      suit property as claimed by them? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      2.   Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the
\n      possession of the suit premises from the defendants?
\n      OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      3.    If issue No.2 is decided in favour of plaintiff
\n      whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery any amount
\n      on account of damages and mesne profits for
\n      use\/occupation by the defendant? If so, at what rate and
\n      for what period? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      4.        Relief.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.             The respondents examined Ashok Grover, the<\/p>\n
attorney of the plaintiffs as PW-1.           The witness proved<\/p>\n
various    documents       and   in   particular   the    compromise<\/p>\n
application and the order dated 10.7.1990 as also the<\/p>\n
statement of the parties in Suit No.140\/85 by tendering<\/p>\n
certified copies thereof which were exhibited as PW-1\/I.<\/p>\n
13.             The witness also proved a legal notice dated<\/p>\n
28.4.2003,         Ex.PW-1\/D,    served    upon     the    appellants<\/p>\n
terminating the licence to occupy the subject property,<\/p>\n
which needless to state is the share of the sisters assigned<\/p>\n
to them in the compromise recorded in the year 1990.<\/p>\n
14.             The appellants examined one Gulshan Kapoor as<\/p>\n
DW-1. Appellant No.1 examined herself as DW-2. Appellant<\/p>\n
No.2 examined himself as DW-3.\n<\/p>\n
15.             In her deposition, appellant No.1 stated that there<\/p>\n
was a settlement in the year 1990, but went on to state that<\/p>\n
 RFA 433\/2008                                                 Page 5 of 11<\/span>
\n thereafter respondent No.1 i.e. plaintiff No.1, voluntarily<\/p>\n
proposed that the consideration amount of shops belonging to<\/p>\n
plaintiff No.1 in property bearing No.438, Gali Chandniwali,<\/p>\n
Paharganj, New Delhi should be that of her husband.<\/p>\n
16.             The deposition of appellant No.1 is most unhappily<\/p>\n
worded and hence we reproduce the same in verbatim as per<\/p>\n
the language spoken by appellant No.1. The same reads as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
          “That the deponent affirms that in the year 1990 that
\n          a family dispute was arose among the parties in
\n          related to the joint property, for the same the plaintiff
\n          No.1 herein filed a suit for partition and separation
\n          and in response of the said dispute, amicable
\n          settlement was made between the plaintiff herein and
\n          the defendant and as per the settlement, the husband
\n          of the defendant No.1\/deponent along with the
\n          plaintiff No.1 herein moved an application for
\n          compromise the dispute, settled the dispute amicably
\n          but thereafter the plaintiff No.1 herein voluntarily
\n          proposed that the consideration amount of shops
\n          belongs to the plaintiff No.1 herein and property
\n          bearing No.438, Chandni Wali, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi
\n          goes to the husband of the deponent, accordingly the
\n          family settlement was made and property in question
\n          goes to the share of the husband of the defendant.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
17.             It appears to be the intention of appellant No.1 to<\/p>\n
convey that after the settlement was recorded in the year<\/p>\n
1990 for money value received by respondent No.1 from the<\/p>\n
husband of appellant No.1 i.e. late Shri Surender Kumar Ahuja<\/p>\n
the right in the subject property was abandoned by her.<\/p>\n
18.             We say so, because we find no other meaning which<\/p>\n
can be assigned to the sentence \u201ebut thereafter the plaintiff<\/p>\n
No.1   herein      voluntarily proposed     that   the   consideration<\/p>\n
 RFA 433\/2008                                                 Page 6 of 11<\/span>
\n amount of shops belongs to the plaintiff No.1 herein and<\/p>\n
property bearing No.438, Chandni Wali, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi<\/p>\n
goes to the husband of the defendant.’<\/p>\n
19.             Vide   impugned   judgment   and   decree   dated<\/p>\n
1.8.2008, the learned Trial Judge has decreed the suit for<\/p>\n
possession.       Needless to state, the possession relates to the<\/p>\n
part of the property which was assigned to the respondents in<\/p>\n
the settlement which had taken place in the year 1990. Mesne<\/p>\n
profits @Rs.1,500\/- per month have also been awarded, but<\/p>\n
from the date of the suit till possession is handed over.<\/p>\n
20.             Learned counsel for the appellant concedes that he<\/p>\n
is handicapped in making any submissions predicated on the<\/p>\n
evidence of the appellants save and except to urge that in her<\/p>\n
testimony, appellant No.1 clearly deposed to the fact that after<\/p>\n
the settlement took place in the year 1990 it was followed by a<\/p>\n
subsequent agreement where under the respondent No.1<\/p>\n
received money from late Shri Surender Kumar Ahuja and<\/p>\n
abandoned her interest in the portion of the property assigned<\/p>\n
to her under the settlement.\n<\/p>\n
21.             We are afraid, the appellants cannot urge the said<\/p>\n
plea to challenge the impugned judgment and decree.            The<\/p>\n
reason is obvious.       No such defence was predicated in the<\/p>\n
written statement.       Thus, no issue was settled to the effect<\/p>\n
whether the respondent No.1 abandoned her share in the suit<\/p>\n
 RFA 433\/2008                                            Page 7 of 11<\/span>
\n property by receiving consideration from her brother.<\/p>\n
22.             Needless to state, if case of the appellants was that<\/p>\n
after the settlement took place in the month of July 1990, the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs received money value for their share from their<\/p>\n
brother and hence had no right to claim any title in the<\/p>\n
property, the same had to be first pleaded, issue got settled<\/p>\n
and only then the Court could be called upon to decide on the<\/p>\n
issue.\n<\/p>\n
23.             We note that the appellants have not disputed that<\/p>\n
a settlement took place in the year 1990.             They have not<\/p>\n
disputed the terms of the settlement. They have not disputed<\/p>\n
the compromise application and the statements recorded when<\/p>\n
Suit No.140\/1985 was disposed of in the year 1990.<\/p>\n
24.             We accordingly hold that the learned Trial Judge has<\/p>\n
arrived at a correct decision. The sole plea sought to be urged<\/p>\n
in    the   appeal,     namely   that,   after   taking   money    the<\/p>\n
respondents had abandoned their interest in the subject<\/p>\n
property, as noted herein above cannot be urged by the<\/p>\n
appellants.\n<\/p>\n
25.             The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.<\/p>\n
26.             We need to write a few further lines to complete the<\/p>\n
present decision.\n<\/p>\n
27.             As noted herein above, the trial court record which<\/p>\n
has been received reflects a very sorry state of affairs.<\/p>\n
 RFA 433\/2008                                               Page 8 of 11<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 28.             Trial Court Record sent to this Court, as per index, is<\/p>\n
from page No.1 to 172.\n<\/p>\n
29.             The   original   suit    plaint   and    the     injunction<\/p>\n
application filed along with the plaint is missing from the Trial<\/p>\n
Court Record.\n<\/p>\n
30.             Exhibits   PW-1\/A   to    Ex.PW-1\/I     proved    by     the<\/p>\n
respondents are missing from the Trial Court Record.<\/p>\n
31.             Not only that.\n<\/p>\n
32.             The casual manner in which the learned Trial Judge<\/p>\n
has been receiving documents is also evidenced from the Trial<\/p>\n
Court Record.\n<\/p>\n
33.             The defendants i.e. the appellants had proved a<\/p>\n
document, Ex.DW-1\/1, being a power of attorney executed by<\/p>\n
appellant No.1 in favour of Gulshan to represent her.<\/p>\n
34.             The said power of attorney was tendered in<\/p>\n
evidence by DW-1 when he appeared in Court as the witness of<\/p>\n
the appellants on 10.10.2007.\n<\/p>\n
35.             As per the rules applicable for subordinate Courts in<\/p>\n
Delhi, when ever a document is received by a learned Judge,<\/p>\n
an endorsement is made at the rear of the document with the<\/p>\n
stamp of the Court affixed and signatures of the Presiding<\/p>\n
Officer, evidencing the receipt of the document. The reason is<\/p>\n
to maintain the purity of the document received, for the<\/p>\n
reason, if this is not done the document can be replaced at any<\/p>\n
 RFA 433\/2008                                                     Page 9 of 11<\/span>
\n time.\n<\/p>\n
36.            We do not find any endorsement as afore-required<\/p>\n
at the rear of any page on Ex.DW-1\/1.\n<\/p>\n
37.            We note that the document has been filed under<\/p>\n
cover of an index dated 10.10.2007. Even on the index or on<\/p>\n
its rear, we find no endorsement of the document being<\/p>\n
received by the learned Trial Judge.\n<\/p>\n
38.            We further note that even on the written statement<\/p>\n
and the vakalatnama filed along therewith, the learned Judge<\/p>\n
who received the same has not cared to affix his signatures, to<\/p>\n
maintain the purity of the document. We find that the stamp<\/p>\n
of the Court stands affixed at the rear of each page of the<\/p>\n
written statement but without the signatures of the learned<\/p>\n
Judge who received the same in Court.\n<\/p>\n
39.            We also note that at the rear of the page on which<\/p>\n
the evidence has been recorded, no signatures of the learned<\/p>\n
Judge who recorded the evidence stand appended. Only a tick<\/p>\n
mark has been put.\n<\/p>\n
40.            We accordingly direct that the Trial Court Record<\/p>\n
which has been received would be transmitted to the Registrar<\/p>\n
(Vigilance) who is directed to conduct an inquiry and submit a<\/p>\n
report on the judicial side.\n<\/p>\n
41.            The Registrar (Vigilance) would conduct the inquiry<\/p>\n
with respect to the improper manner in which the Trial Court<\/p>\n
RFA 433\/2008                                            Page 10 of 11<\/span>
\n Record has been maintained and in particular would fix the<\/p>\n
responsibility on the officer concerned who is responsible for<\/p>\n
not placing the plaint and the proved documents on the judicial<\/p>\n
file.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
NOVEMBER 21, 2008 \/ dk          J.R. MIDHA, J.\n\n\n\n\nRFA 433\/2008                                         Page 11 of 11<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Ravinder Ahuja & Anr. vs Anu Grover & Anr. on 21 November, 2008 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog i.4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 21.11.2008 + RFA 433\/2008 RAVINDER AHUJA & ANR. ….. Appellant Through: Mr.H.Banerjee, Adv. versus ANU GROVER & ANR. ….. Respondent Through: […]<\/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-199155","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRavinder Ahuja & Anr. vs Anu Grover & Anr. on 21 November, 2008 - 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\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ravinder Ahuja & Anr. vs Anu Grover & Anr. on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-10T06:41:00+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ravinder Ahuja & Anr. vs Anu Grover & Anr. on 21 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-10T06:41:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2217,\"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\\\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Ravinder Ahuja & Anr. vs Anu Grover & Anr. on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-10T06:41:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ravinder Ahuja & Anr. vs Anu Grover & Anr. on 21 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ravinder Ahuja & Anr. vs Anu Grover & Anr. on 21 November, 2008 - 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\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ravinder Ahuja & Anr. vs Anu Grover & Anr. on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-10T06:41:00+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ravinder Ahuja & Anr. vs Anu Grover & Anr. on 21 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-10T06:41:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008"},"wordCount":2217,"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\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008","name":"Ravinder Ahuja & Anr. vs Anu Grover & Anr. on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-10T06:41:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-ahuja-anr-vs-anu-grover-anr-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ravinder Ahuja & Anr. vs Anu Grover & Anr. on 21 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199155","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=199155"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199155\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199155"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199155"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199155"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}