{"id":203632,"date":"2006-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006"},"modified":"2019-04-11T02:42:39","modified_gmt":"2019-04-10T21:12:39","slug":"mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.K. Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1263 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nMohinder Prasad Jain\n\nRESPONDENT:\nManohar Lal Jain\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/02\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha &amp; P.K. Balasubramanyan\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n(Arising out of SLP(C)No.722\/2005)<\/p>\n<p>S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>The father of the respondent herein was the<br \/>\nowner of a shop in which the appellant was inducted as<br \/>\na tenant on 1st April, 1972.  The monthly rent payable<br \/>\nin relation to the said tenanted premises was Rs.700\/-.<br \/>\nThe original landlord, the father of the respondent<br \/>\nhaving died on 5th March, 1979, the respondent along<br \/>\nwith his four sisters, became the owner of the said<br \/>\ntenanted premises.  He was an employee of Hero<br \/>\nHonda Motors Limited.  He retired from service having<br \/>\nattained the age of superannuation.  One year after his<br \/>\nretirement, he filed an application under Section 13 of<br \/>\nthe Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act,<br \/>\n1973 (`the Act&#8217;) for eviction of the appellant from the<br \/>\nshop in question on the ground of his bona fide<br \/>\npersonal requirement, i.e., for the purpose of running<br \/>\nwholesale business in Ayurvedic medicines.   The said<br \/>\napplication was dismissed by the Rent Controller<br \/>\nholding that the bona fide requirement of the<br \/>\nrespondent in respect of the non-residential premises<br \/>\nhas not been proved and moreover he had not been<br \/>\nable to show consent of his sisters in his favour in that<br \/>\nbehalf.  An appeal preferred thereagainst was allowed<br \/>\nby the Appellate Authority on a finding that he proved<br \/>\nhis bona fide requirement.  In the revision petition filed<br \/>\nbefore the High Court the appellant raised a contention<br \/>\nthat an application for eviction on bona fide<br \/>\nrequirement of a non-residential premises was not<br \/>\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is not in dispute that this Court as also the<br \/>\nPunjab &amp; Haryana High Court declared such a provision<br \/>\nto be unconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court opined :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Still further the learned<br \/>\ncounsel further argued that eviction<br \/>\non the basis of personal requirement<br \/>\nis not available in respect of non-<br \/>\nresidential building.  He has placed<br \/>\nreliance upon the Full Bench judgment<br \/>\nof Delhi High Court reported as<br \/>\nSatyawati Sharma Versus Union of<br \/>\nIndia and another  2003 (1) R.L.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>91.<br \/>\nHowever, I am bound by the<br \/>\njudgment of the D.B. of this Court in<br \/>\nState of Haryana Versus Ved Parkash<br \/>\nGupta and others.  1999 (1) R.L.R.<br \/>\n689, wherein the provision of Haryana<br \/>\nUrban (Control of Rent and Eviction)<br \/>\nAct, 1973 have been struck down and<br \/>\nconsequently, the landlord is entitled<br \/>\nto seek eviction of the tenant from the<br \/>\nnon-residential building.  In view of<br \/>\nthe above judgment the reliance of<br \/>\nF.B.&#8217;s Judgment of Delhi High Court is<br \/>\nnot tenable.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>We may notice that this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/385268\/\">Harbilas<br \/>\nRai Bansal vs. State of Punjab &amp; Anr.<\/a> [(1996) 1<br \/>\nSCC 1] held such a provision to be unconstitutional,<br \/>\nwhereas in Gian Devi Anand vs. Jeevan Kumar &amp;<br \/>\nOrs. [(1985) 2 SCC 683] somewhat different note was<br \/>\nstruck.  The question recently fell for consideration<br \/>\nbefore a Three Judge Bench of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/740675\/\">Rakesh<br \/>\nVij vs. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi &amp; Ors.<\/a><br \/>\nreported in (2005) 8 SCC 504 wherein this Court<br \/>\nupheld the ratio laid down in Harbilas Rai Bansal<br \/>\n(supra) stating :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;We allow the appeal, set<br \/>\naside the impugned judgment of the<br \/>\nHigh Court, declare the abovesaid<br \/>\nprovisions of the amendment as<br \/>\nconstitutionally invalid and as a<br \/>\nconsequence restore the original<br \/>\nprovisions of the Act which were<br \/>\noperating before coming into force of<br \/>\nthe amendment.  The net result is that<br \/>\na landlord  under the Act  can seek<br \/>\neviction of a tenant from a non-\n<\/p>\n<p>residential building on the ground that<br \/>\nhe requires it for his own use.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the afore-mentioned decision of<br \/>\nthis Court, we are not called upon to answer the said<br \/>\nquestion.\n<\/p>\n<p>The learned counsel appearing on behalf of<br \/>\nthe appellant faced with the said decision, however,<br \/>\nsubmitted that whereas a clear finding of fact was<br \/>\narrived at by the Rent Controller that the respondent<br \/>\nhad failed to prove his bona fide requirement in<br \/>\nrelation to the said premises in view of the fact that his<br \/>\nsisters did not give any consent for starting a business<br \/>\nin the said shop, the Appellate Authority did not delve<br \/>\ndeep into the matter.  Our attention in this behalf has<br \/>\nbeen drawn to the following findings of the Rent<br \/>\nController:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The third ground which has<br \/>\nbeen raised by the counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent for nailing the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase by itself has a force to upset the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s case because firstly in the<br \/>\ncase in hand the petitioner has no<br \/>\nwhere pleaded that he is the sole<br \/>\nowner of the shop in dispute and<br \/>\nsecondly from the perusal of Ex.D6-the<br \/>\npetition under Section 4 of the Act for<br \/>\nthe Determination of the Fair Rent<br \/>\nwhich was filed by the petitioner<br \/>\nalongwith his four sisters, this Court is<br \/>\nsatisfied that the shop in dispute is<br \/>\njointly owned by the petitioner<br \/>\nalongwith his four sisters.  In para No.1<br \/>\nof the aforesaid petition Ex.D6 this has<br \/>\nbeen categorically pleaded that the<br \/>\npetitioners (i.e. the Manohar Lal Jain-<br \/>\nthe petitioner and his four sisters) are<br \/>\nowner of the shop.  Consequently the<br \/>\ntestimony of the petitioner that he is<br \/>\nowner of the shop in dispute is not only<br \/>\nbeyond pleading but is also devoid of<br \/>\ntruth.  Since the petitioner is not the<br \/>\nsole owner of the shop in dispute,<br \/>\ntherefore, the petitioner&#8217;s version that<br \/>\nthe shop in dispute is required solely by<br \/>\nhim for his personal use and occupation<br \/>\nfor running a wholesale business of<br \/>\nAyurvedic Business appears to be a<br \/>\nconcocted version because the<br \/>\npetitioner has no where stated that his<br \/>\nother four sisters who are also the<br \/>\nowner of the shop in dispute have<br \/>\nconsented him to use the shop in<br \/>\ndispute for his own use and<br \/>\noccupation.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellate Authority although should have<br \/>\ndealt with the said question, had otherwise considered<br \/>\nthe matter from all aspects.\n<\/p>\n<p>He had taken note of the fact that the<br \/>\nlandlord was one of the co-owners and non-joinder of<br \/>\nother co-owners in eviction petition is not fatal.\n<\/p>\n<p>This question now stands concluded by a<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/628977\/\">India Umbrella<br \/>\nManufacturing Co. &amp; Ors. vs. Bhagabandei<br \/>\nAgarwalla (Dead)<\/a> by Lrs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.)<br \/>\n&amp; Ors. [(2004) 3 SCC 178] wherein this Court opined:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Having heard the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the parties we are satisfied<br \/>\nthat the appeals are liable to be<br \/>\ndismissed.  It is well settled that one of<br \/>\nthe co-owners can file a suit for<br \/>\neviction of a tenant in the property<br \/>\ngenerally owned by the co-owners.<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/942903\/\">(See Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath<\/a><br \/>\n[(1976) 4 SCC 184] and <a href=\"\/doc\/95529\/\">Dhannalal v.<br \/>\nKalawatibai<\/a> [(2002) 6 SCC 16], SCC<br \/>\npara 25.)  This principle is based on the<br \/>\ndoctrine of agency.  One co-owner<br \/>\nfiling a suit for eviction against the<br \/>\ntenant does so on his own behalf in his<br \/>\nown right and as an agent of the other<br \/>\nco-owners.  The consent of other co-<br \/>\nowners is assumed as taken unless it is<br \/>\nshown that the other co-owners were<br \/>\nnot agreeable to eject the tenant and<br \/>\nthe suit was filed in spite of their<br \/>\ndisagreement.  In the present case, the<br \/>\nsuit was filed by both the co-owners.<br \/>\nOne of the co-owners cannot withdraw<br \/>\nhis consent midway the suit so as to<br \/>\nprejudice the other co-owner.  The suit<br \/>\nonce filed, the rights of the parties<br \/>\nstand crystallised on the date of the<br \/>\nsuit and the entitlement of the co-<br \/>\nowners to seek ejectment must be<br \/>\nadjudged by reference to the date of<br \/>\ninstitution of the suit; the only<br \/>\nexception being when by virtue of a<br \/>\nsubsequent event the entitlement of<br \/>\nthe body of co-owners to eject the<br \/>\ntenant comes to an end by act of<br \/>\nparties or by operation of law.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>A suit filed by a co-owner, thus, is<br \/>\nmaintainable in law.  It is not necessary for the co-<br \/>\nowner to show before initiating the eviction proceeding<br \/>\nbefore the Rent Controller that he had taken option or<br \/>\nconsent of the other co-owners.  However, in the<br \/>\nevent, a co-owner objects thereto, the same may be a<br \/>\nrelevant fact.  In the instant case, nothing has been<br \/>\nbrought on record to show that the co-owners of the<br \/>\nrespondent had objected to eviction proceedings<br \/>\ninitiated by the respondent herein.  The submission of<br \/>\nthe learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that<br \/>\nbefore initiating the proceedings, the appellant was<br \/>\nrequired to show that he had experience in running the<br \/>\nbusiness in Ayurvedic medicine, has to be stated to be<br \/>\nrejected.  There is no law which provides for such a<br \/>\npre-condition.  It may be so where a licence is required<br \/>\nfor running a business, a statute may prescribe certain<br \/>\nqualifications or pre-conditions without fulfilment<br \/>\nwhereof the landlord may not be able to start a<br \/>\nbusiness, but for running a wholesale business in<br \/>\nAyurvedic medicine, no qualification is prescribed.<br \/>\nExperience in the business is not a pre-condition under<br \/>\nany statute.  Even no experience therefor may be<br \/>\nnecessary.  If the respondent has proved his bona fide<br \/>\nrequirement to evict the appellant herein for his own<br \/>\npurpose, this Court may not, unless an appropriate<br \/>\ncase is made out, disturb the finding of fact arrived at<br \/>\nby the Appellate Authority and affirmed by the High<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in<br \/>\nthis appeal.  It is dismissed.  In the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of this case, there shall be no order as<br \/>\nto costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1263 of 2006 PETITIONER: Mohinder Prasad Jain RESPONDENT: Manohar Lal Jain DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/02\/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha &amp; P.K. Balasubramanyan JUDGMENT: J U D G M E [&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-203632","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>Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006 - 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\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-10T21:12:39+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\\\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-10T21:12:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1557,\"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\\\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006\",\"name\":\"Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-10T21:12:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006 - 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\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-10T21:12:39+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\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-10T21:12:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006"},"wordCount":1557,"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\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006","name":"Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-10T21:12:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-prasad-jain-vs-manohar-lal-jain-on-24-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain on 24 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/203632","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=203632"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203632\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}