{"id":201588,"date":"1961-05-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-05-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961"},"modified":"2016-03-14T18:39:42","modified_gmt":"2016-03-14T13:09:42","slug":"seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961","title":{"rendered":"Seth Hiralal Patni vs Sri Kali Nath on 4 May, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Seth Hiralal Patni vs Sri Kali Nath on 4 May, 1961<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR  199, \t\t  1962 SCR  (2) 747<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B P Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSETH HIRALAL PATNI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSRI KALI NATH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n04\/05\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nSUBBARAO, K.\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR  199\t\t  1962 SCR  (2) 747\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1966 SC 634\t (3)\n RF\t    1969 SC1147\t (20)\n F\t    1977 SC1201\t (3)\n\n\nACT:\nExecution  Proceeding-Objection to territorial\tjurisdiction\nof  court  granting decree-When to  be\traised-Reference  to\narbitration-Decree-Waiver-Estoppel-Letters  Patent. cl.\t 12-\nCode of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908). ss. 47, 51.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent instituted a suit on the Original Side of the\nBombay High Court against the appellant for the recovery  of\nhis  commission in respect of certain share transactions  at\nAgra.\tThe  plaint was filed after obtaining leave  of\t the\nBombay\tHigh Court under cl. 12 of the Letters Patent.\t One\nof  the\t defences  of the appellant, taken  in\this  written\nstatement,   was  that\tthe  suit  filed  was  outside\t the\nterritorial  jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court  Original\nSide, in as much as the entire cause of action, if any,\t had\narisen\tat  Agra.   The\t suit  was  eventually\treferred  to\narbitration.  The arbitrator gave his award in favour of the\nrespondent which was upheld on appeal by the High Court.\nThe  respondent took out execution proceedings\twherein\t the\nappellant  took\t objection inter alia that the\tBombay\tHigh\nCourt had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and to\tmake\nthe award a decree of the court, as no part of the cause of'\naction\tever  arose within the territorial  jurisdiction  of\nthat court, and that therefore all the proceedings following\nthereupon were wholly without jurisdiction.\nHeld,  that where a party to a suit had agreed to refer\t the\nmatter\tto arbitration through court lie would be deemed  to\nhave waived his objection to the territorial jurisdiction of\nthe court raised by him in his written statement.\nHeld,  further, that the question of the correctness of\t the\nprocedure  or the order granting leave under cl. 12  of\t the\nLetters Patent or the waiver of any objection must be raised\nin  the proceedings before the High Court and could  not  be\nagitated  in  execution proceedings.  The  validity  of\t the\ndecree could be challenged in execution Proceedings only  on\nthe  ground that the court which had passed the\t decree\t was\nlacking\t in inherent jurisdiction in respect of the  subject\nmatter of the suit or over the parties to it.\n748\nin  the\t present  case\tthe  appellant\twas  estopped\tfrom\nchallenging  the  jurisdiction of the Bombay High  Court  to\nentertain  the\tsuit  and  to  make  the  reference  to\t the\narbitrator; and he was equally estopped from challenging the\nauthority of the arbitrator to render the award.\nLedgard v. Bull (1886) L. R. 13 I. A. 134, not applicable.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No 237 of 1958.<br \/>\nAppeal from the judgment and decree dated January 27,  1955,<br \/>\nof  the Allahabad High Court in Execution First\t Appeal\t No.<br \/>\n137 of 1954.\n<\/p>\n<p>A.   V. Viswanatha Sastri, E. Udayarathnam and S. S. Shukla,<br \/>\nfor the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>Vidya Sagar, for respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>1961.  May 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nSINHA C. J.-This appeal., on a certificate by the High Court<br \/>\nof judicature at Allahabad, arises in execution proceedings,<br \/>\ntaken  by  the\tdecree holder-respondent  in  the  following<br \/>\ncircumstances.\t The appellant wished to acquire  shares  in<br \/>\ncertain mills, popularly known as &#8216;John Mills&#8217;, at Agra.  He<br \/>\n&#8216;engaged  the  services of the respondent to  negotiate\t the<br \/>\ndeal  on certain terms.\t The bargain was concluded, and\t the<br \/>\nappellant,  together  with  another  person,  purchased\t the<br \/>\nentire\tinterest of one Major A. U. John by an indenture  of<br \/>\nsale dated July 10, 1946.  The respondent instituted a suit,<br \/>\nbeing  suit  No. 3718 of 1947, on the original side  of\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  of\t judicature at Bombay for  recovery  of\t his<br \/>\ncommission,  amounting to one lakh of rupees, in respect  of<br \/>\nthe transaction aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  suit was eventually referred to the arbitration of\t one<br \/>\nMr.  W.\t E.  Pereira, administrator of\tthe  estate  of\t the<br \/>\naforesaid  Major A.U. John, deceased.  One of  the  defences<br \/>\ntaken by the appellant, as<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    749<\/span><br \/>\ndefendant  in  the action, was that the suit  filed  in\t the<br \/>\nBombay\tHigh Court, as aforesaid, after obtaining  leave  of<br \/>\nthat  Court, under cl. 12 of the Letters Patent was  outside<br \/>\nthe territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court on the<br \/>\noriginal side, in as much as the entire cause of action,  if<br \/>\nany,  bad arisen at Agra.  The arbitrator gave an  award  in<br \/>\nfavour\tof  the respondent to the extent  of  decreeing\t his<br \/>\nclaim  for only seventy five thousand rupees as\t commission,<br \/>\nwith  interest at 6% per annum pendente\t lite.\t Proceedings<br \/>\nwere taken in the High Court of Bombay for setting aside the<br \/>\naward  on certain grounds, not necessary to be stated  here.<br \/>\nThe Bombay High Court found that there was no defect in\t the<br \/>\naward and that there was no legal misconduct on the part  of<br \/>\nthe  arbitrator.   The\tHigh Court  further  held  that\t the<br \/>\npetition  was frivolous, and dismissed it with\tcosts.\t The<br \/>\nappellant  preferred  an  appeal which was  dismissed  by  a<br \/>\nDivision  Bench of the High Court of Bombay on\tJanuary\t 21,<br \/>\n1952.  The award was, thus, incorporated in a decree of\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court.  That decree was transferred to the court of the<br \/>\nDistrict Judge Agra, for execution.  On February 5, 1952 the<br \/>\nexecution  proceedings were instituted by the decree  holder<br \/>\nin the Court of the Civil Judge, Agra, to realise the sum of<br \/>\none lakh ten thousand rupees, approximately, on the basis of<br \/>\nthe decree passed as aforesaid by the Bombay High Court.<br \/>\nThe appellant, as judgment-debtor, put in an objection under<br \/>\nss. 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, objecting  to<br \/>\nthe execution of the decree on a number of grounds, of which<br \/>\nit  is\tonly  necessary to notice the  one  challenging\t the<br \/>\njurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the suit and  to<br \/>\nmake  the  award a decree of court.  It\t was  contended\t the<br \/>\nBombay High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the\tsuit<br \/>\nas  no\tpart of the cause of action ever  arose\t within\t the<br \/>\nterritorial jurisdiction of that Court, and that  therefore,<br \/>\nall the proceedings<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">751<\/span><br \/>\nthe  effect  of\t rendering the\tCourt  entirely\t lacking  in<br \/>\njurisdiction  in of the subject matter of the suit  or\tover<br \/>\nthe  parties  to it.  But in the instant case there  was  no<br \/>\nsuch  inherent\tlack of jurisdiction. The  decision  of\t the<br \/>\nPrivy  Council\tin the case of Ledgard vs.  Bull (1)  is  an<br \/>\nauthority  for\tthe proposition that consent or\t waiver\t can<br \/>\ncure defect of jurisdiction but cannot cure inherent lack of<br \/>\njurisdiction.  In that case, the suit had been instituted in<br \/>\nthe  Court of the Subordinate Judge, who was incompetent  to<br \/>\ntry   it.   By\tconsent\t of&#8217;  the  parties,  the  case\t was<br \/>\ntransferred  to\t the  Court  of\t the,  district\t Judge\t for<br \/>\nconvenience of trial.  It was laid down by the Privy Council<br \/>\nthat as the Court in the suit had been originally instituted<br \/>\nwas  entirely lacking in jurisdiction, in the sense that  it<br \/>\nwas  incompetent to try it, whatever  happened\tsubsequently<br \/>\nwas  null  and\tvoid because consent of\t parties  could\t not<br \/>\noperate\t to  confer  jurisdiction  on  a  Court\t which\t was<br \/>\nincompetent to try the suit.  That decision has no relevance<br \/>\nto a case like the present where there could be no  question<br \/>\nof  inherent  lack  of jurisdiction in the  sense  that\t the<br \/>\nBombay\tHigh  Court was incompetent to try a, suit  of\tthat<br \/>\nkind.  The objection to its territorial jurisdiction is\t one<br \/>\nwhich  does not go to the competence of the Court  and\tcan,<br \/>\ntherefore,  be\twaived.\t  In  the  instant  case,  when\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff  obtained the leave of the, Bombay High  Court  on<br \/>\nthe  original side, under el. 12 of the Letters Patent,\t the<br \/>\ncorrectness  of the procedure or of the order  granting\t the<br \/>\nleave could be. questioned by the defendant or the objection<br \/>\ncould be waived by him.\t When he agreed to refer the  matter<br \/>\nto  arbitration\t through Court, he would be deemed  to\thave<br \/>\nwaived his objection to the territorial jurisdiction of\t the<br \/>\nCourt,\traised by him in his written statement.\t It  is\t wel<br \/>\nsettled\t that  the objection as to local jurisdiction  of  a<br \/>\nCourt does not stand on the same footing as an objection  to<br \/>\nthe  competence of a Court to try a case.  Competence  of  a<br \/>\nCourt to try a case goes to the very<br \/>\n(1)  (1886) L.R. 13A. 134.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">752<\/span><\/p>\n<p>root  of the jurisdiction, and Where it is lacking, it is  a<br \/>\ncase  of inherent lack of jurisdiction.\t On the other  hand,<br \/>\nan objection as to the local jurisdiction of a Court can  be<br \/>\nwaived\tand  this  principle  has  been\t given\ta  statutory<br \/>\nrecognition  by &#8216;enactments like s. 21 of the Code of  Civil<br \/>\nProcedure.  Having consented to have the controversy between<br \/>\nthe  parties  resolved by reference to\tarbitration  through<br \/>\nCourt,\tthe.  defendant\t deprived himself of  the  right  to<br \/>\nquestion  the authority of the Court to refer the matter  to<br \/>\narbitration or of the arbitrator to render the award.  It is<br \/>\nclear,\ttherefore,  that  the  defendant  is  estopped\tfrom<br \/>\nchallenging  the  jurisdiction of the Bombay High  Court  to<br \/>\nentertain  the\tsuit  and  to  make  the  reference  to\t the<br \/>\narbitrator.   He  is equally estopped from  challenging\t the<br \/>\nauthority  of  the arbitrator to render the award.   In\t our<br \/>\nopinion\t this  conclusion is sufficient to  dispose  of\t the<br \/>\nappeal.\t  It, is not, therefore, necessary to determine\t the<br \/>\nother points in controversy, including the question  whether<br \/>\nThe Decrees and Orders Validating Act, 1936 (Act V of  1936)<br \/>\nhad  the effect of validating what otherwise may  have\tbeen<br \/>\ninvalid.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.<br \/>\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">753<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Seth Hiralal Patni vs Sri Kali Nath on 4 May, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 199, 1962 SCR (2) 747 Author: B P Sinha Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj) PETITIONER: SETH HIRALAL PATNI Vs. RESPONDENT: SRI KALI NATH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/05\/1961 BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) SUBBARAO, K. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-201588","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Seth Hiralal Patni vs Sri Kali Nath on 4 May, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Seth Hiralal Patni vs Sri Kali Nath on 4 May, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1961-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-14T13:09:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Seth Hiralal Patni vs Sri Kali Nath on 4 May, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-14T13:09:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961\"},\"wordCount\":1156,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961\",\"name\":\"Seth Hiralal Patni vs Sri Kali Nath on 4 May, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-14T13:09:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Seth Hiralal Patni vs Sri Kali Nath on 4 May, 1961\"}]},{\"@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":"Seth Hiralal Patni vs Sri Kali Nath on 4 May, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Seth Hiralal Patni vs Sri Kali Nath on 4 May, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-14T13:09:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Seth Hiralal Patni vs Sri Kali Nath on 4 May, 1961","datePublished":"1961-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-14T13:09:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961"},"wordCount":1156,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961","name":"Seth Hiralal Patni vs Sri Kali Nath on 4 May, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-14T13:09:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-hiralal-patni-vs-sri-kali-nath-on-4-may-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Seth Hiralal Patni vs Sri Kali Nath on 4 May, 1961"}]},{"@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\/201588","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=201588"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201588\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201588"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201588"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201588"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}