{"id":212423,"date":"2005-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005"},"modified":"2019-01-31T12:32:15","modified_gmt":"2019-01-31T07:02:15","slug":"rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005","title":{"rendered":"Rajeshwari vs Puran Indoria on 25 August, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rajeshwari vs Puran Indoria on 25 August, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: P Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
Bench: G.P. Mathur, P.K. Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5295 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nRajeshwari \t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPuran Indoria\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/08\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nG.P. MATHUR & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n( SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 16821 OF 2002)<\/p>\n
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
   1.\t\tThis appeal is by the defendant.  The plaintiff-respondent
\nsued for specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit property
\nhaving an extent of 2000 sq.feet.   The price fixed was Rs. 2,500\/-.  A
\nsum of Rs. 1,000\/- was paid as advance.  The agreement was  entered
\ninto on 23.2.1981.  The agreement did not fix any date for performance.
\nThe plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant on 31.7.1989, more than
\nseven years after the agreement, calling upon the defendant to execute
\nthe sale deed on receipt of the balance consideration.  The defendant
\nnot having responded, the plaintiff filed the suit on 01.11.1990 for
\nspecific performance.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe defendant having denied the claim for specific
\nperformance made by the plaintiff and having raised several defences
\nthe trial court raised the following issues for trial:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tWhether the plaintiff had been ready and willing to
\nperform his part of the contract in pursuance of the
\nagreement dated 23rd February, 1981 with respect to the
\npart of the land measuring to 50 x 40 ft. described in
\nparagraph no.2 of the plaint?\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tWhether the plaintiff cancelled the aforesaid agreement to
\nsell the land after receiving a sum of Rs. 3,500\/- from the
\ndefendant?\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tWhether the suit had been filed by the plaintiff within
\ntime?\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tRelief.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe trial court answered these issues in favour of the
\nplaintiff and decreed the suit.  The defendant filed an appeal under
\nSection 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.    The Additional
\nDistrict Judge concurred with the decision of the trial court and
\ndismissed the appeal, thus, confirming the decree of the trial court.
\nFeeling aggrieved, the defendant filed a second appeal before the High
\nCourt under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.  The
\ndefendant submitted in his memorandum of second appeal that the
\nfollowing substantial questions of law were involved in the case.
\n“A.\tWhether the courts below have committed a grave
\nlegal error in not taking into consideration the
\ngreat variance between the pleading and the proof
\nof the plaintiff which was sufficient for dismissing
\nthe suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of
\nthe agreement for sale?\n<\/p>\n
B.\tWhether the courts below were wrong in passing a
\ndecree for specific performance  of the agreement
\nfor sale in favour of the plaintiff as a matter of
\ncourse by ignoring the legal position that the grant
\nof relief of specific performance is always
\ndiscretionary and the courts are not bound to grant
\nthe same in all cases?\n<\/p>\n
C.\tWhether the courts below have committed a grave
\nlegal error in holding the suit of the plaintiff to be
\nwithin the period of limitation although the same
\nwas filed after 7 years of the agreement for sale
\nwhich was clearly time barred?\n<\/p>\n
D.\tWhether the courts below have committed a grave
\nlegal error in not dismissing the suit of the plaintiff
\non the ground of delay and latches even assuming
\nthat the same was filed within the period of
\nlimitation?\n<\/p>\n
E.\tWhether the courts below have committed a grave
\nlegal error in rejecting the document Ex-A-1 on
\nirrelevant considerations which was executed by
\nthe plaintiff after obtaining a consideration of
\nRs.3500\/-?”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tWhen the second appeal came up before the High Court,
\nthe High Court dismissed the same in the following words:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“Heard Learned Counsel.\n<\/p>\n
I do not find the appeal to be involving any
\nsubstantial question of law.  The appeal thus lacks
\nmerit and is hereby dismissed summarily.”\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by this dismissal, the defendant filed the petition for special
\nleave before this Court invoking Article 136 of the Constitution of
\nIndia.  This Court issued notice thereon in the following words.
\n\t“Issue notice to the respondent to show cause why
\nthe appeal be not remanded to the High Court for
\nexamining, if any, the question of law suggested in the
\nmemorandum of second appeal deserves to be heard as
\nsubstantial question of law”\n<\/p>\n
On receipt of the notice, the plaintiff-respondent appeared and sought
\nan early hearing of the matter and with the consent of counsel, it was
\nheard in detail, and the matter is being disposed of finally by this
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tNormally, a suit for specific performance of an agreement
\nfor sale of immovable property, involves the question whether the
\nplaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in
\nterms of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, whether it was a case for
\nexercise of discretion by the court to decree specific performance in
\nterms of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and whether there were
\nlatches on the part of the plaintiff in approaching the court to enforce
\nspecific performance of the contract.  In some cases, a question of
\nlimitation may also arise in the context of Article 54 of the Limitation
\nAct on the terms of the agreement for sale.  Other questions like the
\ngenuineness of the agreement, abandoning of the right to specific
\nperformance, a novation and so on, may also arise in some cases.   No
\ndoubt, a finding on the three primary aspects indicated earlier would
\ndepend upon the appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence in the
\ncase in the light of the surrounding circumstances.  Could it be
\nappropriate to understand these questions purely as questions of fact in
\nthe context of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?   In
\nRaghunath Prasad Singh Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Pratabgarh,
\n( 54 Indian Appeals 126), the Privy Council, though, in the context of
\nSection 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, negatived the theory that to
\nbe a substantial question of law,  a question of law has to be of general
\nimportance and stated that “a substantial question of law’ is a
\nsubstantial question of law as between the parties in the case involved.
\nThis approach was adopted by this Court in Deputy Commissioner
\nVs. Rama Krishna,  (AIR 1953 SC 521).  This Court held, again in the
\ncontext of Section 110 of Code of Civil Procedure, that since the
\nground on which the appeal was dismissed by the High Court raised a
\nquestion of law of importance to the parties, on that ground alone the
\nappellant was entitled to a certificate under Section 110 of the Code.  In
\nChunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. Vs. Century Spinning and
\nManufacturing Co. Ltd.<\/a>  ( AIR 1962 SC 1314) this Court, again in the
\ncontext of Section 110 of the Code and Article 133 (1) (a) of the
\nConstitution of India, had occasion to consider the question.  A
\nConstitution Bench of this Court held that the proper test for
\ndetermining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial
\nwould be whether it is of general public importance or whether it
\ndirectly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so
\nwhether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally
\nsettled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or
\nis not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views.  If
\nthe question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to
\nbe applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a
\nmere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is
\npalpably absurd, the question would not be a substantial question of
\nlaw.  Thus, it was accepted that a question of law would be a
\nsubstantial question of law if it directly and substantially affects the
\nrights of the parties and if it was not covered by a decision of the
\nSupreme Court or of the Privy Council or of the Federal
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tThe right to specific performance of an agreement for sale
\nof immovable property, when filed, raises questions of substantial
\nimportance between the parties as to whether the plaintiff has satisfied
\nthe requirements of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act,  whether it is
\na case in which specific performance of the contract is enforceable in
\nterms of Section 10,  whether in terms of Section 20 of the Act, the
\ndiscretion to decree specific performance  should be exercised by the
\ncourt and in some cases, whether the suit was barred by limitation and
\neven if not, whether the plaintiff has been guilty of negligence or
\nlatches disentitling him to a decree for specific performance.  These
\nquestions, by and large, may not be questions of law of general
\nimportance.  But they cannot also be considered to be pure questions of
\nfact based on an appreciation of the evidence in the case.  They are
\nquestions which have to be adjudicated upon, in the context of the
\nrelevant provisions of the Specific Relief Act and the Limitation Act (if
\nthe question of limitation is involved).  Though, an order in exercise of
\ndiscretion may not involve a substantial question of law,  the question
\nwhether a court could, in law, exercise a discretion at all for decreeing
\nspecific performance, could be a question of law that substantially
\naffects the rights of parties in that suit.  Therefore, in the case on hand,
\nthe High Court was not justified in dismissing the second appeal in the
\nmanner in which it has done.  Be it noted, that the High Court has also
\nnot spoken while dismissing the second appeal.   We are therefore of
\nthe view that it is necessary for the High Court to consider whether a
\nsubstantial question of law is involved or not and to give its reasons for
\ncoming to its conclusion either way, and if it finds that a substantial
\nquestion of law or substantial questions of law is or are involved, to
\nframe that question or those questions and to answer it or them in
\naccordance with law.   In the context of the notice issued by this Court
\nwhile entertaining the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, the proper
\ncourse to adopt is to set aside the judgment and decree of the High
\nCourt in the second appeal and remand the second appeal to the High
\nCourt for a consideration of the question whether any substantial
\nquestion of law is involved in the case in the light of the pleadings and
\nthe facts established and if it arises, to decide whether any interference
\nin second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
\n1908 is warranted or justified.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tIn view of the fact that we are remanding the second
\nappeal for a proper decision by the High Court, we are not adverting to
\nthe contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that there is
\nno question of limitation in this case and that no substantial question of
\nlaw arose for decision.  It is open to the plaintiff-respondent to raise all
\navailable contentions before the High Court, while that court considers
\nthe second appeal afresh pursuant to the remand.  We once again clarify
\nthat this remand is based only on the argument that the High Court has
\nnot properly applied its mind to the aspects that may have to be
\nconsidered in the second appeal and has dismissed the second appeal in
\na cursory and unsatisfactory manner.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tBefore parting, we feel that we would be justified in
\npointing out that the amendment brought to Section 100 of the Code
\nwith effect from 1.2.1977 by Act 104 of 1976, has really not advanced
\nthe cause of justice.  Earlier, interference could be had under Section
\n100 of the code if the decision was contrary to law or some usage
\nhaving the force of law; or the decision had failed to determine some
\nmaterial issue of law or usage having the force of law; or suffered from
\na substantial error or defect in procedure provided by the Code or any
\nother law for the time being in force, which may possibly have
\nproduced the error or defect in the decision of the case upon the merits.
\nThe provision enabled the court to correct errors of law or of procedure
\nin an appropriate case and even unreasonable appreciation of evidence
\ncould have been brought within the contours of error of law in the
\ncircumstances of a given case.  But by introducing the concept of
\n“substantial question of law” in Section 100 of the Code, the right of
\nthe litigant to have a decision after a re-appraisal of the relevant
\nmaterials by the High Court has been curtailed.  Though, courts   of
\nfirst appeal are made the final courts of facts, there are instances when
\nfirst appellate courts merely, mechanically, confirm the findings of fact
\nrendered by the trial court without an independent reappraisal of the
\npleadings and the evidence in the case.  Since a judgment of affirmance
\nneed not be as elaborate as a judgment reversing the decision of the
\ncourt below, it is often contended that the judgment of the appellate
\ncourt satisfies the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code.
\nThere are occasions when the High Court feels the constraint of Section
\n100 and reluctantly declines to interfere though interference would
\nhave been proper to render justice between the parties.  High Courts are
\noften confronted with an argument that even if what was  involved was
\na mixed question of fact and law or even a question of law, that did not
\nconstitute a substantial question of law justifying interference under
\nSection 100 of the Code.  Why not an error of law committed by the
\nappellate court be corrected in Second Appeal?  Why should not a
\nlitigant have an opportunity of having the decision in his case corrected
\nfor an error of law by the High Court at the second appellate stage?
\nWhen a substantial question of law as expounded by this Court is only
\nan open question of law substantial as between the parties, a restoration
\nof the position as it existed prior to 1.2.1977 does not appear to be re-
\nopening of the door too wide.  It must be remembered, that now, after
\nthe amendment of the Code by Act 22 of 2002, interference in revision
\nunder Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has also been
\nsubstantially curtailed.  Even if the High Court is satisfied that there
\nwould be failure of justice if the order is allowed to stand, the High
\nCourt cannot interfere under Section 115 of the Code, in view of the
\ndeletion of the particular proviso which existed prior to the amendment.
\nTherefore, the High Courts cannot  correct errors that could lead to a
\nmis-trial or a finding of fact to be arrived at based on an erroneous
\napproach that is proposed then and there by exercising a revisional
\njurisdiction, even at the initial stage so that at a later stage, a remand by
\nthe first appellate court is avoided.  The curtailment of the right to
\ninterfere under Section 115 of the Code has only resulted in the High
\nCourts being flooded with proceedings under Article 227 of the
\nConstitution of India challenging all sorts of interlocutory orders.  It is
\nfor the law makers to consider whether it would not be more
\nappropriate to restore Section 115 of the Code as it existed prior to its
\namendment by Act 22 of 2002 and confer a broader right of second
\nappeal as it existed prior to the introduction of the concept of
\nsubstantial question of law into Section 100 of the Code, by Act 104 of
\n1976.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tIt is true that it is in consonance with public policy, to
\ncurtail a right of appeal (that too, a second appeal) so as to ensure that a
\nlitigation attains finality as early as possible.  At the same time, it has
\nalso to be ensured that justice, according to law, is made available to
\nthe litigant who approaches the court.  Our experience, as lawyers and
\nJudges of High Courts shows that more often than not, first appellate
\ncourts, simply, mechanically, reiterate what is stated by the trial court
\nand confirm findings of fact rendered by the trial court without making
\nan independent reappraisal of the pleadings and the evidence in the case
\nas they are bound to do as courts of appeal.  But even in such cases, the
\nHigh Courts find it difficult to interfere, though, they do interfere, when
\nthe injustice caused to the litigant is so apparent that the same could not
\nbe overlooked and the judgment under appeal allowed to pass muster.
\nThere have also been occasions when the High Courts had felt
\ncompelled to interfere, notwithstanding the limitation imposed by the
\nwording of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and on
\noccasions such decisions have been interfered with by this Court, on
\nthe ground that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under
\nSection 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  After all, the purpose of
\nthe establishment of courts of justice is to render justice between the
\nparties.  Is it necessary to unduly curtail the jurisdiction of the High
\nCourts, either under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure or
\nunder Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in that context?  Of
\ncourse, the High Courts have to act with circumspection while
\nexercising these jurisdictions.  Certainly, it is for the Parliament to take
\ninto account all the relevant aspects.  We are making these observations
\nonly with a view to highlight the position that has emerged in the light
\nof the amendments to Sections 100 and 115 of the Code of Civil
\nProcedure as they are now obtaining.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tIn view of our conclusion in the present case that the High
\nCourt was not justified in dismissing the second appeal by a non-
\nspeaking order, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree
\nof the High Court and remand the second appeal to the High Court for a
\nfresh hearing and disposal and we make it clear that we have not
\ndecided whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of
\nlaw or expressed any view on any of the aspects on the merits of the
\ncase.  The parties are directed to appear in the High Court on
\n26.9.2005.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rajeshwari vs Puran Indoria on 25 August, 2005 Author: P Balasubramanyan Bench: G.P. Mathur, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5295 of 2005 PETITIONER: Rajeshwari RESPONDENT: Puran Indoria DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/08\/2005 BENCH: G.P. MATHUR & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T ( SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION […]<\/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-212423","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRajeshwari vs Puran Indoria on 25 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajeshwari vs Puran Indoria on 25 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-31T07:02:15+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajeshwari vs Puran Indoria on 25 August, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-31T07:02:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2974,\"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\\\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005\",\"name\":\"Rajeshwari vs Puran Indoria on 25 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-31T07:02:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajeshwari vs Puran Indoria on 25 August, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajeshwari vs Puran Indoria on 25 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajeshwari vs Puran Indoria on 25 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-31T07:02:15+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajeshwari vs Puran Indoria on 25 August, 2005","datePublished":"2005-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-31T07:02:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005"},"wordCount":2974,"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\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005","name":"Rajeshwari vs Puran Indoria on 25 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-31T07:02:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeshwari-vs-puran-indoria-on-25-august-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajeshwari vs Puran Indoria on 25 August, 2005"}]},{"@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\/212423","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=212423"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212423\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212423"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212423"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212423"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}