{"id":202180,"date":"1998-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998"},"modified":"2018-09-01T13:19:54","modified_gmt":"2018-09-01T07:49:54","slug":"shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998","title":{"rendered":"Shreenath &amp; Another vs Rajesh &amp; Others on 13 April, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shreenath &amp; Another vs Rajesh &amp; Others on 13 April, 1998<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Misra<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K. Venkataswami, A.P. Misra<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSHREENATH &amp; ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAJESH &amp; OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t13\/04\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nK. VENKATASWAMI, A.P. MISRA\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nMisra, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The seekers  of justice  many a time has to take a loan<br \/>\ncircuitous routes,  both on  account of\t hierarchy of Courts<br \/>\nand the\t procedural law. Such persons are and can be dragged<br \/>\ntill the  last ladder  of the  said hierarchy  for receiving<br \/>\njustice but  even here\the only breaths earness of receiving<br \/>\nthe fruits of that justice for which he has been aspiring to<br \/>\nreceive. To reach this stage is in itself an achievement and<br \/>\nsatisfaction as\t the, by  then has  passed  through  a\tlong<br \/>\narduous journey\t of the\t procedural  law  with\tmay  hurdles<br \/>\nreplica of  mountain attain with ridges and furrows. When he<br \/>\nis ready  to take  the bite  of that  fruit, he\t has to pass<br \/>\nthrough the  same terrain  of  the  procedural\tlaw  in\t the<br \/>\nexecution proceedings  the morose is writ large on his face.<br \/>\nWhat looked  inevitable to  him to  receive it\tat his hands<br \/>\ndistance is  deluded back  into the horizon. The creation of<br \/>\nhierarchy of  Courts was  for  a  reasonable  objective\t for<br \/>\nconfering greater  satisfaction to  the parties that errors,<br \/>\nif any, by any of the lower Courts under the scruitiny\tof a<br \/>\nhigher Court be rectified and long procedural laws also with<br \/>\ngood intention\tto exclude  and filter\tout all unwanted who<br \/>\nmay be\tthe cause  of obstruction  to such  seekers  in\t his<br \/>\njourney to  justice. But this obviously is one of the causes<br \/>\nof delay in justice. Of course, under this pattern the party<br \/>\nwrongfully gaining  within permissible limits also stretches<br \/>\nand litigation\tan much as possible. Thus, this has been the<br \/>\ncause  of   anxiety  and  concern  of  various\tauthorities,<br \/>\nLegislators  and  Courts.  How\tto  eliminate  such  a\tlong<br \/>\nconsuming justice?  We must confess that we have still to go<br \/>\nlong  way   before  true  satisfaction\tin  this  regard  is<br \/>\nreceived. Even\tafter one reaches the stage of final decree,<br \/>\nhe has\tto undergo  a long  distance by\t passing through the<br \/>\nordained procedure  in the  execution proceedings  before he<br \/>\nreceives the bowl of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The   Courts   within   its   limitations\t have\tbeen<br \/>\ninterpreting the  procedural laws  so  as  to  conclude\t all<br \/>\npossible disputes pertaining to the decreetal property which<br \/>\nis within  fold in  an execution  proceeding i.e., including<br \/>\nwhat  may  be  raised  later  by  way  of  another  bout  of<br \/>\nlitigations through  a fresh  suit.  Similarly\tlegislatures<br \/>\nequally are  also endeavouring\tby amendments to achieve the<br \/>\nsame objective.\t the present  case is  one in  this  regard.<br \/>\nKeeping this  in view, we now proceed to examine the present<br \/>\ncase.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In interpreting any procedural law, where more than one<br \/>\ninterpretation is  possible,  the  one\twhich  curtails\t the<br \/>\nprocedure without  eluding the justice is to be adopted. The<br \/>\nprocedural law\tis always  subservient to  and is  in aid to<br \/>\njustice. Any  interpretation which  eludes or frustrates the<br \/>\nreceipient of justice is not to be followed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the<br \/>\nHigh Court  of Madhya  Pradesh, Bench  at Indore,  in  Civil<br \/>\nRevision No. 406 of 1983.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The question  raised is,  whether the  third  party  in<br \/>\npossession of  a property  claiming independent\t right as  a<br \/>\ntenant not  party to  a decree\tunder execution could resist<br \/>\nsuch decree  by seeking adjudication of his objections under<br \/>\norder 21, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure code?\n<\/p>\n<p>     The respondent  No. 1,  Rajesh, filed  a suit  for\t the<br \/>\nredemption of  his mortgage  against respondent\t No.2,\tPrem<br \/>\nShanker, which was decreed. The decree directed the delivery<br \/>\nof vacant  possession  of  the\tmortgaged  property  to\t the<br \/>\napplicant (Respondent  No.1). In  the said suit, admittedly,<br \/>\nthe present  appellants were  not parties. The decree-holder<br \/>\nput his\t decree in execution in which the present appellants<br \/>\nobstructed on  the ground  that vacant\tpossession cannot be<br \/>\ndelivered in  execution because they were the tenants in the<br \/>\nshop from  the year  1952 much\tbefore the  execution of the<br \/>\nmortgage which\twas in the year 1962, hence, only symbolical<br \/>\npossession can\tbe given.  There  has  been  two  rounds  of<br \/>\nproceedings in\texecution. Initially,  the  Executing  Court<br \/>\nheld that  the decree-holder was not entitled to take actual<br \/>\npossession in  execution of  the  decree  against  the\tnon-<br \/>\napplicants. The\t case of  the decree-holder  is that  in the<br \/>\nsuit it\t was held  that the  mortgagor had to deliver vacant<br \/>\npossession to  the mortgagee.  hence he\t is entitled  to get<br \/>\nback vacant  possession. Thus\the  made strong\t plea for  a<br \/>\nvacant possession  in terms  of the  decree. For  him, it is<br \/>\nsubmitted that a similar objection was taken by the judgment<br \/>\ndebtor Prem  Shanker that  only symbolic possession could be<br \/>\ngiven to  the decree-holder.  The objection was negatived by<br \/>\nthe trial court, appellate court, and even by the High Court<br \/>\nin the\tsecond appeal.\tHence, the executing court cannot go<br \/>\nbehind the  decree. The\t appellants case  is they  were\t not<br \/>\nparties to those proceedings. However, this objection of the<br \/>\ndecree-holder  was  rejected  in  the  first  round  by\t the<br \/>\nExecuting Court\t and the  Revisional Court  holding that the<br \/>\nperson\tresisting  viz.\t the  present  appellants  were\t not<br \/>\nparties to the suit nor there is any decree against them. It<br \/>\nseems subsequently,  the decree-holder\tagain moved  another<br \/>\napplication in the aforesaid execution case No. 1A of 19970-<br \/>\n81 for delivery of vacant possession. The present appellants<br \/>\nalso moved an application\/objections under order 21, Rule 97<br \/>\nC.P.C. resisting  that they  cannot be dispossessed in terms<br \/>\nof the\tsaid decree,  as they  were not\t parties to the said<br \/>\nsuit nor  they are  deriving any right and title through the<br \/>\nJudgement debtor.  They claim separate and independent legal<br \/>\nright, not  affected either by the mortgage or redemption of<br \/>\nthe mortgage.  it is  not clear\t as under what circumstances<br \/>\nthe second application for actual possession was made by the<br \/>\ndecree-holder after  the matter\t was  earlier  disposed\t of.<br \/>\nSince this point seem not raised either before the Executing<br \/>\nCourt or the High Court, we are not adverting to this point.<br \/>\nWe  find   the\tExecuting  Court  in  the  second  round  on<br \/>\nconsideration of  a subsequent decision of the Full Bench of<br \/>\nthe M.P.  High Court  in  Smt.\tUsha  Jain  and\t others\t Vs.<br \/>\nmanmohan Bajaj and others (AIR 1980 (Vol 67) M.P. 146), held<br \/>\nthat the  appellants had  no right  to object  to the decree<br \/>\nunder order 21, Rule 97. The said full Bench held :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;The executing  Court\t has  no<br \/>\n     jurisdiction to  start  an\t enquiry<br \/>\n     suo motu  or at  the instance  of a<br \/>\n     third party  other than the decree-<br \/>\n     holder\/aution-purchaser under 0.21,<br \/>\n     Rule  97.\t This  rule   is  merely<br \/>\n     permissive\t and  not  mandatory  so<br \/>\n     that   the\t   decree-holder\/aution-<br \/>\n     purchaser not  resort to it against<br \/>\n     his will  and may\teven  apply  for<br \/>\n     fresh warrant  under 0.21,\t R.  35,<br \/>\n     C.P.C. Executing Court is not bound<br \/>\n     to stay  its  hands  the  moment  a<br \/>\n     third party  files an  objection to<br \/>\n     the execution  nor the  stay  would<br \/>\n     continue till  an unwilling decree-<br \/>\n     holder\/auction-purchaser is  forced<br \/>\n     to apply for investigation into the<br \/>\n     right or title claimed by the third<br \/>\n     party  and\t  negative   the   claim<br \/>\n     therein.  If  the\texecuting  Court<br \/>\n     were  to\tstay  its   hands   till<br \/>\n     investigation into\t a third party&#8217;s<br \/>\n     claim is  not finally  decided then<br \/>\n     it would  result in  depriving  the<br \/>\n     decree-holder of  his possession by<br \/>\n     filing repeated spurious claims.<br \/>\n\t  No enquiry  into the\ttitle or<br \/>\n     possession\t of  a\tthird  party  is<br \/>\n     contemplated at  any  rate\t at  his<br \/>\n     instance either  under Rules 35 and<br \/>\n     36 or rules 95 and 96 of Order, 21,<br \/>\n     C.P.C. when  the  decree-holder  or<br \/>\n     the  auction-purchase  applies  for<br \/>\n     obtaining possession.  Subsequently<br \/>\n     when the decree-holder or auction &#8211;<br \/>\n     purchaser is  met with  obstruction<br \/>\n     or\t  resistancee\t in    obtaining<br \/>\n     possession, one of the options open<br \/>\n     to him  is to  apply under\t Rule 97<br \/>\n     but  that\t provision   is\t  merely<br \/>\n     permissive and not mandatory and it<br \/>\n     is\t   open\t    to\t  the\t decree-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     holdr\/auction-purchaser\t   apply<br \/>\n     instead  for  a  fresh  warrant  of<br \/>\n     possession.  an   enquiry\tat   the<br \/>\n     instance  of   a  third   party  in<br \/>\n     possession\t is   contemplated  only<br \/>\n     under  0.21.R   100  after\t he  was<br \/>\n     dispossessed and not before it.<br \/>\n\t  The omission\tby the executing<br \/>\n     Court  to\t investigate  into   the<br \/>\n     objection filed  by a  third  party<br \/>\n     does not result in injustice to the<br \/>\n     third party. It cannot be said that<br \/>\n     he would  have no remedy to protect<br \/>\n     his possession  and have  his title<br \/>\n     judicially\t investigated  brief  to<br \/>\n     his dispossession\this only  remedy<br \/>\n     then being under order 21, Rule 100<br \/>\n     after dispossession. Another remedy<br \/>\n     available to  such a third party is<br \/>\n     to institute  an independent  civil<br \/>\n     suit for a declaration of his title<br \/>\n     claiming  therein\t the  relief  of<br \/>\n     temporary injuction  to protect his<br \/>\n     possession.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The High  Court  upheld  the  Executing  Court&#8217;s  order<br \/>\nfollowing the  said Full  Bench decision  of the  M.P.\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt. hence  this appeal.  The\t only  question\t raised\t is,<br \/>\nwhether the  Full Bench\t decision is  correctly decided.  In<br \/>\nview of this Full Bench decision, objection of the appellant<br \/>\nwas rejected  without considering the points raised on merit<br \/>\nor other objections.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In order  to appreciate the controversy, order 21, Rule<br \/>\n35, order  21, Rule  36 and  order 21,\tRule 97\t are  quoted<br \/>\nhereunder :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;O.  21.  R.\t35:  Decree  for<br \/>\n     immovable property :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (1) Where  a decree is for the<br \/>\n     delivery of any immovable property,<br \/>\n     possession\t  thereof    shall    be<br \/>\n     delivered to  the party  to whom it<br \/>\n     has  been\t adjudged,  or\tto  such<br \/>\n     person as he may appoint to receive<br \/>\n     delivery on  his  behalf,\tand,  if<br \/>\n     necessary, be  removing any  person<br \/>\n     bound by  the decree who refuses to<br \/>\n     vacate the property.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (2) Where  a decree is for the<br \/>\n     joint   possession\t  of   immovable<br \/>\n     property, such  possession shall be<br \/>\n     delivered by affixing a copy of the<br \/>\n     warrant in\t some conspicuous  place<br \/>\n     on the  property and proclaiming by<br \/>\n     beat of  drum, or\tother  customary<br \/>\n     mode, at some convenient place, the<br \/>\n     substance of the decree.<br \/>\n\t  (3) Where  a possession of any<br \/>\n     building  is  enclosure  is  to  be<br \/>\n     delivered\t and   the   person   in<br \/>\n     possession,  being\t  bound\t by  the<br \/>\n     decree,  does   not   afford   free<br \/>\n     access,  the   court,  through  its<br \/>\n     officers,\t may,\t after\t  giving<br \/>\n     reasonable warning\t and facility to<br \/>\n     any woman\tnot appearing  in public<br \/>\n     according to  the\tcustoms\t of  the<br \/>\n     country to withdraw, remove or open<br \/>\n     any lock  or bolt or break open any<br \/>\n     door or  do any other act necessary<br \/>\n     for putting  the  decree-holder  in<br \/>\n     possession.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  O.21, R.36 Decree for delivery<br \/>\n     for  immovable   property\twhen  in<br \/>\n     occupancy of tenant:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  Where\t a  decree  is\tfor  the<br \/>\n     delivery of  any immovable property<br \/>\n     in the  occupancy of  a  tenant  or<br \/>\n     other person entitled to occupy the<br \/>\n     same and not bound by the decree to<br \/>\n     relinquish\t such\toccupancy,   the<br \/>\n     court shall  order delivery  to  be<br \/>\n     made by  affixing\ta  copy\t of  the<br \/>\n     warrant in\t some conspicuous  place<br \/>\n     on the property, and proclaiming to<br \/>\n     the occupant  by beat  of\tdrum  or<br \/>\n     other  customary\tmode,  at   some<br \/>\n     convenient place,\tthe substance of<br \/>\n     the  decree   in  regard\tto   the<br \/>\n     property.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  O.21, R.  97 :  Resistance  or<br \/>\n     obstruction   to\t possession   of<br \/>\n     immovable property :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (1)  Where  the  holder  of  a<br \/>\n     decree  for   the\t possession   of<br \/>\n     immovable property the purchaser of<br \/>\n     any such property sold in execution<br \/>\n     of\t a   decree   is   resisted   or<br \/>\n     obstructed\t  by   any   person   in<br \/>\n     obtaining\t possession    of    the<br \/>\n     property,\t he    may    make    an<br \/>\n     application    to\t   the\t   Court<br \/>\n     complaining of  such resistance  or<br \/>\n     obstruction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (2) Where  any application  is<br \/>\n     made under\t sub rule  (1) the court<br \/>\n     shall proceed  to\tadjudicate  upon<br \/>\n     the application  in accordance with<br \/>\n     the provisions herein contained.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     This sub-clause (2) was substituted by the Amending Act<br \/>\n1976. Earlier sub-clause (2) was :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;The Court  shall fix a day of<br \/>\n     investigating the\tmatter and shall<br \/>\n     summon the\t party against\twhom the<br \/>\n     application is  made to  appear and<br \/>\n     answer the same.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Under sub-clause  1 order\t21, Rule  35, the  Executing<br \/>\nCourt delivers\tactual physical\t possession of\tthe disputed<br \/>\nproperty to the decree-holder and, if necessary, by removing<br \/>\nany person  bound by  the decree  who refuses  to vacate the<br \/>\nsaid property.\tThe significant\t words are  by removing\t any<br \/>\nperson bound  by he  decree. Order  21, Rule 36 conceives of<br \/>\nimmovable property  when in  occupancy of  a tenant or other<br \/>\nperson\tnot   bound  by\t  the  decree,\tthe  Court  delivers<br \/>\npossession  by\t fixing\t a  copy  of  the  warrant  in\tsome<br \/>\nconspicuous place  of the  said property and proclaiming  to<br \/>\nthe occupant by beat of drum or other customary mode at some<br \/>\nconvenient place,  the substance  of the decree in regard to<br \/>\nthe property.  In other\t words, the  decree-holder gets\t the<br \/>\nsymbolic  possession.\tOrder  21,   rule  99  conceives  of<br \/>\nresistance or  obstruction to  the possession  of  immovable<br \/>\nproperty when  made in\texecution  of  a  decree  by  &#8221;\t any<br \/>\nperson&#8221;. this  may be  either by  the person  bound  by\t the<br \/>\ndecree, claiming  title through\t judgment debtor or claiming<br \/>\nindependent right  of his  own including tenant not party to<br \/>\nthe suit  or even a stranger. A decree holder, in such case,<br \/>\nmay make  an application  to the Executing Court complaining<br \/>\nsuch resistance, for delivery of possession of the property.<br \/>\nSub-clause  (2)\t  after\t 1976\tsubstitution  empowers\t the<br \/>\nexecuting Courts  when such  claim is  made  to\t proceed  to<br \/>\nadjudicate upon\t the applicants\t claim\tin  accordance\twith<br \/>\nprovisions contained  hereinafter. This\t refers to Order 21,<br \/>\nRule 101 (As ammended by 1976 Act) under which all questions<br \/>\nrelating to right, title or interest in the property arising<br \/>\nbetween the parties under Order 21, Rule 97 or Rule 99 shall<br \/>\nbe determined  by the  Court and  not by a separate suit, By<br \/>\nthe amendment,\tone has\t not to\t go for a fresh suit but all<br \/>\nmatter pertaining  to that  property even if obstructed by a<br \/>\nstranger is  adjudicated and  finality\tgiven  even  in\t the<br \/>\nexecuting proceedings.\tWe find\t the expression &#8220;any person&#8221;<br \/>\nunder sub-clause  (1) is  used deliberately for widening the<br \/>\nscope of  power so that the Executing court could adjudicate<br \/>\nthe claim  made in any such application under order 21, Rule\n<\/p>\n<p>97. Thus  by the  use of  the words &#8216;any person&#8217; it includes<br \/>\nall persons resisisting the delivery of possession, claiming<br \/>\nright in  the property\teven those  not bound by the decree,<br \/>\nincludes tenants  or other  persons claiming  right on their<br \/>\nown including a stranger.\n<\/p>\n<p>     So, under\torder 21,  Rule 101 all disputes between the<br \/>\ndecree-holder and  any such  person is\tto be adjudicated by<br \/>\nthe Executing  Court. A\t party is not thrown out to religate<br \/>\nitself to  the long  drawn out arduous proceedure of a fresh<br \/>\nsuit. This  is to  salvage the possible hardship both to the<br \/>\ndecree-holder and  other person\t claiming title on their own<br \/>\nright  to   get\t it   adjudicated  in\tthe  very  execution<br \/>\nproceedings. We find that order 21, Rule 35 deals with cases<br \/>\nof delivery  of possession  of an  immovable property to the<br \/>\ndecree-holder by  delivery of actual physical possession and<br \/>\nby removing  any person\t in possession\twho is\tbound  by  a<br \/>\ndecree,\t while\t under\tOrder  21,  Rule  36  only  symbolic<br \/>\npossession is  given where  tenant is  in actual possession.<br \/>\nOrder 21,  rule 97  as aforesaid,  conceives of\t cases where<br \/>\ndelivery of  possession to  decree-holder  or  purchaser  is<br \/>\nresisted by any person. &#8216;Any person&#8217; , as aforesaid, is wide<br \/>\nenough to  include even\t a person  not bound  by a decree or<br \/>\nclaiming right\tin the property on his own including that of<br \/>\na tenant including stranger.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Prior to the 1976 Ammending Act, provisions under Order<br \/>\n21, Rules  97 to 101 and 103 were different which are quoted<br \/>\nhereunder :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;97.(1) Where\t the holder of a<br \/>\n     decree  for   the\t possession   of<br \/>\n     immovable property or the purchaser<br \/>\n     of\t any   such  property\tsold  in<br \/>\n     execution of  a decree  is resisted<br \/>\n     or\t obstructed  by\t any  person  in<br \/>\n     obtaining\t possession    of    the<br \/>\n     property he may make an application<br \/>\n     to the  Court complaining\tof  such<br \/>\n     resistance or obstruction.<br \/>\n     (2) The  Court shall  fix a day for<br \/>\n     investigating the\tmatter and shall<br \/>\n     summon the\t party against\twhom the<br \/>\n     application is  made to  appear and<br \/>\n     answer the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     98. Where\tthe Court  is  satisfied<br \/>\n     that the  resistance or obstruction<br \/>\n     was  occasioned  without  any  just<br \/>\n     cause by  the judgment debtor or by<br \/>\n     some   other    person    at    his<br \/>\n     instigation, it  shall direct  that<br \/>\n     the   applicant\tbe   put    into<br \/>\n     possession\t of  the  property,  and<br \/>\n     where  the\t  applicant   is   still<br \/>\n     resisted or obstructed in obtaining<br \/>\n     possession, the  court may also, at<br \/>\n     the  instance   of\t the  applicant,<br \/>\n     order the\tjudgment-debtor, or  any<br \/>\n     person acting at his instigation to<br \/>\n     be detained in the civil prison for<br \/>\n     a term  which may\textend to thirty<br \/>\n     days.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     99. Where\tthe court  is  satisfied<br \/>\n     that the  resistance or obstruction<br \/>\n     was occasioned by any person (other<br \/>\n     than the  judgment-debtor) claiming<br \/>\n     in good  faith to\tbe in possession<br \/>\n     of the  property on his own account<br \/>\n     or on  account of some person other<br \/>\n     than the judgment-debtor, the Court<br \/>\n     shall make\t an order dismissing the<br \/>\n     application.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     100. (1)  Where  any  person  other<br \/>\n     than   the\t   judgment-debtor    is<br \/>\n     dispossessed of  immovable property<br \/>\n     by the  holder of\ta decree  for he<br \/>\n     possession\t of  such  property  or,<br \/>\n     where such\t property or  where such<br \/>\n     property has been sold in execution<br \/>\n     of\t a decree, by purchaser thereof,<br \/>\n     he may  make an  application to the<br \/>\n     Court    complaining     of    such<br \/>\n     dispossession.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (2) The  Court shall  fix a day for<br \/>\n     investigating the\tmatter and shall<br \/>\n     summon the\t party against\twhom the<br \/>\n     application is  made an  answer the<br \/>\n     same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     101. Where\t the Court  is satisfied<br \/>\n     that   the\t   applicant   was    in<br \/>\n     possession of  the property  on his<br \/>\n     own account  or on\t account of some<br \/>\n     person  other  than  the  judgment-<br \/>\n     debtor, it\t shall direct  that  the<br \/>\n     applicant be put into possession of<br \/>\n     the property.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     103.  Any\t party\t not   being   a<br \/>\n     judgment-debtor  against\twhom  an<br \/>\n     order is  made under  rule 98, rule<br \/>\n     99 and  rule 101  may  institute  a<br \/>\n     suit to  establish the  right which<br \/>\n     he claims to the present possession<br \/>\n     of the  property, but,  subject  to<br \/>\n     the result\t of such  suit (if any),<br \/>\n     the order shall be conclusive.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     So far  sub-clause (1) of Rule 97 the provision is same<br \/>\nbut after  1976\t amendment  all\t disputes  relating  to\t the<br \/>\nproperty made  under Rules  97 and  99 is  to be adjudicated<br \/>\nunder Rule  101, while\tunder unamended provision under sub-<br \/>\nclause (2) of Rule 97, the Executing Court issues summons to<br \/>\nany such  person obstructing  possession over  the  decretal<br \/>\nproperty. After\t investigation under  Rule 98  he Court puts<br \/>\nback a\tdecree-holder in  possession where  the Court  finds<br \/>\nobstruction was\t occassioned without  any just\tcause, while<br \/>\nunder rule  99 where obstruction was by a person claiming in<br \/>\ngood faith  to be  in possession  of the property on his own<br \/>\nright,\tthe   Court  has   to  dismiss\t the   decree-holder<br \/>\napplication. Thus  even prior  to 1976\tright of  any person<br \/>\nclaiming right\ton his\town or as a tenant, not party to the<br \/>\nsuit such person&#8217;s right has to be adjudicated under rule 99<br \/>\nand he\tneed not fall back to file a separate suit, By this,<br \/>\nhe is  saved from  a long  litigation. So  a tenant  or\t any<br \/>\nperson claiming\t a right  in the  property, on\this own,  if<br \/>\nresists delivery  of possession\t to  the  decree-holder\t the<br \/>\ndispute and his claim has to be decided after 1976 amendment<br \/>\nunder Rule  97 read with Rule 101 and prior to the amendment<br \/>\nunder Rule 97 read with Rule 99. However, under the old law,<br \/>\nin cases  order\t is  passed  against  the  person  resisting<br \/>\npossession under Rule 97 read with Rule 99 then by virtue of<br \/>\nRule 103, as it then was, he has to file a suit to establish<br \/>\nhis right.  But now  after the\t amendment one need not file<br \/>\nsuit even  in such  cases as  all disputes are to be settled<br \/>\nby the Executing court itself finally under rule 101.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We find  both either  under the  old law or the present<br \/>\nlaw the\t right of  a tenant  or any person claiming right on<br \/>\nhis own\t of the\t property in  case he resists, his objection<br \/>\nunder order  21, Rule 97, has to be decided by the Executing<br \/>\ncourt itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Rule 100  of the  old law, as referred in the aforesaid<br \/>\nFull Bench  decision of\t the madhya  Pradesh High Court is a<br \/>\nsituation different  from what\tis covered by Rule 97. Under<br \/>\nrule 100  (old law)  and Order\t99 the\tnew law covers cases<br \/>\nwhere persons  other than judgment-debtor is dispossessed of<br \/>\nimmovable property  by the  decree-holder, of  course,\tsuch<br \/>\ncases are also covered to be decided by the Executing Court.<br \/>\nbut this will not defeat the right of such person to get his<br \/>\nobjection decided  under Rule  97 which\t is a stage prior to<br \/>\nhis dispossession  or a\t case where  he is in possession. In<br \/>\nother  words,\twhen  such   person  is\t in  possession\t the<br \/>\nadjudication to\t be under  rule 97  and in case dispossessed<br \/>\nadjudication to\t be under  rule 100  (old law)\tand Rule  99<br \/>\nunder the  new law.  Thus a  person holding possession of an<br \/>\nimmovable property  on his  own\t right\tcan  object  in\t the<br \/>\nexecution proceeding under Order 21, rule 97. One has not to<br \/>\nwait for  his dispossession  to enable him to participate in<br \/>\nthe execution  proceedings. This  shows that such person can<br \/>\nobject\tand  get  adjudication\twhen  he  is  sought  to  be<br \/>\ndispossessed by\t the decree-holder.   For  all the aforesaid<br \/>\nreasons, we  do not  find the  Full Bench  in Smt. Usha jain<br \/>\n(supra) correctly decided the law.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In Noorduddin  Vs. Dr. K.L. Anand (1995 (1) SCC 242) it<br \/>\nis held :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;Para B:  Thus the  scheme  of<br \/>\n     the Code  clearly\tadumbrates  that<br \/>\n     when an  application has  been made<br \/>\n     under Order  21, Rule 97, the court<br \/>\n     is enjoinded to adjudicate upon the<br \/>\n     right, title  and interest\t claimed<br \/>\n     in the property arising between the<br \/>\n     parties to\t a proceeding or between<br \/>\n     the decree-holder\tand  the  person<br \/>\n     claiming independent  right,  title<br \/>\n     or\t interest   in\t the   immovable<br \/>\n     property  and   an\t order\tin  that<br \/>\n     behalf be\tmade. the  determination<br \/>\n     shall  be\tconclusive  between  the<br \/>\n     parties  as  if  it  was  a  decree<br \/>\n     subject or\t right of appeal and not<br \/>\n     a\tmatter\t to  be\t agitated  by  a<br \/>\n     separate suit.  In other  words, no<br \/>\n     other proceedings\twere allowed  to<br \/>\n     be taken.\tIt has\tto be remembered<br \/>\n     that preceding Civil Procedure Code<br \/>\n     Amendement Act, 1976, right of suit<br \/>\n     under Order  21, rule  103 of  1908<br \/>\n     code was  available which\thas been<br \/>\n     now  taken\t  away.\t  By   necessary<br \/>\n     implication,    the     legislature<br \/>\n     relegated\t the   parties\t to   an<br \/>\n     adjudication  of  right,  title  or<br \/>\n     interest in  the immovable property<br \/>\n     under execution  and  finality  has<br \/>\n     been  accorded  to\t it.  Thus,  the<br \/>\n     scheme of the Code appears to be to<br \/>\n     put an  and to  the protraction  of<br \/>\n     the execution  and to  shorten  the<br \/>\n     litigation between\t the parties  or<br \/>\n     persons claiming  right, title  and<br \/>\n     interest in  the immovable property<br \/>\n     in exeuction.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     In Brahmdeo  Chaudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and<br \/>\nAnother (1997) (3) SCC 694), the question raised was whether<br \/>\na stranger  occuping the  premises on  his  own\t right\twhen<br \/>\noffered resistance  to the  execution of the decree obtained<br \/>\nby the\tdecree holder  can or  cannot request  the Executing<br \/>\nCourt to  adjudicate his  claim without\t being insisted upon<br \/>\nthat first  he must handover the possession and then move an<br \/>\napplication under Order 21, Rule 97. It is held in para 9 :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;Para\t 9   :\tIn   short   the<br \/>\n     aforesaid statutory  provisions  of<br \/>\n     Order 21  lay down\t a complete code<br \/>\n     for    resolving\t all\tdisputes<br \/>\n     pertaining\t to   execution\t of  the<br \/>\n     decree for possession obtained by a<br \/>\n     decree-holder and whose attempts at<br \/>\n     executing the said decree meet with<br \/>\n     rough weather.  Once resistance  is<br \/>\n     offered by\t a purported stranger to<br \/>\n     the decree\t and which  comes to  be<br \/>\n     noted by  the  executing  court  as<br \/>\n     well as  by the  decree-holder  the<br \/>\n     remedy  available\tto  the\t decree-<br \/>\n     holder the\t remedy available to the<br \/>\n     decree-holder   against   such   an<br \/>\n     obstructionist is\tonly under Order<br \/>\n     21, Rule  97, sub-rule  (1) and  he<br \/>\n     cannot bypass  such obstruction and<br \/>\n     insist on reissuance of warrant for<br \/>\n     possession under  Order 21, Rule 35<br \/>\n     with the  help of\tpolice force, as<br \/>\n     that   course   would   amount   to<br \/>\n     bypassing\tand   circumventing  the<br \/>\n     procedure laid down under Order 21,<br \/>\n     Rule 97.. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     In view of the aforesaid finding and the law being well<br \/>\nsettled the interpretation given by the aforesaid full Bench<br \/>\nof the\tM.P. High Court in the case of Usha Jain Vs.Manmohan<br \/>\nBajaj (supra)  cannot be  held to  be a good law. As we have<br \/>\nrecorded above,\t both the Executing Court and the High court<br \/>\nhave rejected  the application\tof the applicant under Order<br \/>\n21, Rule  97 only  on the  basis  of  the  said\t Full  Bench<br \/>\ndecision,  hence   the\tsaid   order  cannot  be  sustained.<br \/>\nAccordingly, both  the\torders\tdated  20th  February,\t1985<br \/>\npassed by  the High  Court in civil Revision No. 406 of 1983<br \/>\nand the\t order dated  20th April,  1983 passed\tby Executing<br \/>\nCourt in execution  case No. 1-A\/70\/81 is herewith quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We direct\tthe Executing  Court to consider and dispose<br \/>\nof the\tobjections and\tthe application\t of  the  appellants<br \/>\nunder Order  21, Rule  97 after\t giving opportunity  to\t the<br \/>\nparties in  accordance with  law. The  appeal is accordingly<br \/>\nallowed. On the facts and circumstances of the case, cost on<br \/>\nthe parties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Shreenath &amp; Another vs Rajesh &amp; Others on 13 April, 1998 Author: Misra Bench: K. Venkataswami, A.P. Misra PETITIONER: SHREENATH &amp; ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: RAJESH &amp; OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/04\/1998 BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI, A.P. MISRA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T Misra, J. The seekers [&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-202180","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shreenath &amp; Another vs Rajesh &amp; Others on 13 April, 1998 - 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\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shreenath &amp; Another vs Rajesh &amp; Others on 13 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-01T07:49:54+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shreenath &amp; Another vs Rajesh &amp; Others on 13 April, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-01T07:49:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998\"},\"wordCount\":4011,\"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\\\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998\",\"name\":\"Shreenath &amp; Another vs Rajesh &amp; Others on 13 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-01T07:49:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shreenath &amp; Another vs Rajesh &amp; Others on 13 April, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Shreenath &amp; Another vs Rajesh &amp; Others on 13 April, 1998 - 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\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shreenath &amp; Another vs Rajesh &amp; Others on 13 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-01T07:49:54+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shreenath &amp; Another vs Rajesh &amp; Others on 13 April, 1998","datePublished":"1998-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-01T07:49:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998"},"wordCount":4011,"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\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998","name":"Shreenath &amp; Another vs Rajesh &amp; Others on 13 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-01T07:49:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shreenath-another-vs-rajesh-others-on-13-april-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shreenath &amp; Another vs Rajesh &amp; Others on 13 April, 1998"}]},{"@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\/202180","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=202180"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202180\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202180"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202180"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202180"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}