{"id":21684,"date":"1961-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961"},"modified":"2016-09-18T12:07:07","modified_gmt":"2016-09-18T06:37:07","slug":"moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961","title":{"rendered":"Moti Lal And Ors. vs Pooranchand on 18 July, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court<\/div>\n
Moti Lal And Ors. vs Pooranchand on 18 July, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1962 Raj 100<\/div>\n
Author: I Modi<\/div>\n
Bench: I Modi<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 I.N. Modi, J. <\/p>\n
1. This is a landlords’ second appeal in a suit for eviction, which was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Ajmer in disagreement with the trial court which had decreed the suit.\n<\/p>\n
2. The only question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether the notice of ejectment given by the landlords to the respondent tenant was good in law.     It is  necessary  to  state just    a   few    facts    in    order    to   appreciate   this controversy.   It is admitted that the rent-note which was the basis of the suit, Ext 3,  (or Ex. A-6) was dated tile 8th August, 1962.    It is further admitted that the tenancy  commenced from the 1st August, 1952.    The   appellants  landlords   gave a  notice  of ejectment Ex. 4 on the 27th June,  1954,  whereby they asked the respondent to “vacate the premises by midnight of  31st July   1954\/1st August   1954,  when the next month’s  tenancy would terminate.”    The respondent gave a reply to the aforesaid notice, Ex. A-3, on the 10th July 1954, wherein, it may be incidentally stated,  no  question as to the invalidity of the notice was raised. Eventually, the landlords filed a     suit,    out     of     which     the     present    appeal arises, on the 3rd August, 1954, in the court of the Sub-Judge, First Class, Ajmer.    The trial court held that the notice of ejectment was good inasmuch as the landlords had mentioned both days namely the 81st July and the 1st August 1954, in their notice as being the point of time when the next following month’s tenancy was to terminate.    On appeal, the  learned  Senior   Civil   Judge    put   a   narrower meaning on the notice holding that what was really, meant  by   the  expression   “mid-night   of   31st   July 1954”\/1st August 1954, was that according to the landlords,  the    tenancy was to    terminate on   the mid-night between the 31st July  and   1st August, 1954.    In that view of the matter, the learned Judge concluded,  reading  the notice in  the light  of the provisions   contained  in   Section   110  of  the  Transfer of  Property  Act,   that the   landlords   had   virtually asked the tenant to vacate the premises twentyfour hours before the actual termination of the tenancy and dismissed the suit on the ground of invalidity of the  notice.    The present  appeal  has been  filed by the landlords, from that judgment and decree.\n<\/p>\n
3. The only question, as already stated, which in these circumstances arises is as to whether the notice of ejectment Ex. 4 was a good notice in law or, putting it in somewhat different language, the question is which of the two interpretations put on the notice by the two courts below is correct  <\/p>\n
4. Having heard learned counsel at length and having given my best consideration to the arguments pro and con, I am disposed to agree with the conclusion at which the trial court arrived. It seems to me well established that where a notice of ejectment can be read in more ways than one, then the proper way to interpret it is to preserve its validity rather than to destroy it. Thus it was held in Utility Articles Manufacturing Co. v. Motilal Bombay Mills Ltd. AIR 1943 Bom 306 that a notice to quit, though not strictly accurate or consistent in the statements embodied in it, may still be good and effective in law. The test of its sufficiency is not what it would mean to a stranger ignorant of all the facts and circumstances touching the holding to which it purports to refer, but what it would mean to tenants presumably conversant with all those facts and circumstances. It was further laid down that the notice should be construed not with a desire to find faults in it which would render it defective but should be construed of res magis valeat quam pereat. Reference was made in arriving at this conclusion on a judgment of their Lordship of the Privy Council in Harihar Banerji v. Bamshashi Roy, AIR 1918 PC 102. In this case, the same principle was laid down although it was held that the said principle would not apply to inaccuracies deliberately inserted for fraudulent purposes. It is nobody’s case, however, that the present is a case of that exceptional character.\n<\/p>\n
5. This being the correct method of interpreting the notice, let us apply it to the facts and circumstances of the present case. What may be laid at the worst against the notice as it was drafted is that it suffered from some kind of an ambiguity inasmuch as it did not make it definitely clear as to whether the tenant was required to vacate the prefaces by the mid-night of the 31st July 1954, or that of the 1st August, 1954. Accepting that as the infirmity of the notice, I have no doubt that the proper way to read it would be the one which would uphold it and not that which would invalidate it. It cannot be forgotten that a provision of the type with which we are concerned is of a highly technical character, and, to me, it seems quite clear that the dictates of substantial justice, for which purpose, after all, the courts exist, will hardly be served if notices of ejectment are to be read in a hypercritical spirit and to find faults in them on every conceivable ground. Reading the notice, therefore, in the way it should be read in accordance with the principles set out above, it seems to me that what it said was that the tenant respondent was free to vacate the premises on the mid-night of the 31st July, 1954, or that of the 1st August, 1954 when ever the tenant thought his tenancy terminated.\n<\/p>\n
6. Applying, then, the provision contained in Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act to the present case, as it must be applied inasmuch as the time limited by the lease was expressed therein as commencing from the 1st July, 1954, that day must be excluded from computation in determining the  duration of the lease; and that being so, the day on which the month of the tenancy should expire in law would be the mid-night of 1st August, 1954.\n<\/p>\n
As I have shown above, the notice is capable of being read in that manner as it stands worded, and I do not see any valid reason why the court must necessarily read it so that it means only the mid-night intervening between the 31st July, and the 1st August, 1954. The learned Senior Civil Judge seems to have been greatly impressed by the consideration that the notice did not contain any conjunction such as “or” between the 31st July and the 1st August, 1954. This approach, to my mind, however, is not correct. For, if that was what the drafter of the notice intended to say, he need not have mentioned after the date 3.1st July, 1954, the ment following date viz., the 1st August, 1954, at all in either words, it should have been enough to mention merely one point of time namely the mid-night of 31st July, 1954. The addition of the next following date, namely, the 1st August, 1954. would be rendered more or less meaningless on this way of looking at the matter. It may also be pointed out in this connection that the notice did not clearly say that the tenancy terminated, according to its author, on the mid-night intervening between the 31st July and the 1st August, 1954. In saying all this, I desire to make two points. The first is that the language of the notice is not as precise as one might have wished it to be. The second is that it will be scarcely proper to read the notice as if it was worded with a mastery of language behind it, which there was not At this place, it would be only fair to learned counsel for the respondent to point out that the plaint did not clearly bring this point Out and in paragraph No. 5 all that was mentioned was that the plaintiffs had sent a notice calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises by the 31st July, 1954. It may be as well to point out that in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent, no specific ground as to the validity of the notice was mentioned, and all that was roundly stated was that the notice was bad in law. It hardly needs to be pointed out that the business of a party, according to well-established principles of pleading, is to plead all material facts and not the law. The question in these circumstances is whether the plaintiffs’ suit should be thrown out on the basis of the ground which was subsequently developed but which ground can, in my opinion, be satisfactorily met by a fair interpretation which can be put on the notice Ex. 4. I am therefore not prepared to answer this question against the appellants. I, therefore, hold that the notice was good enough and that it will be unnecessarily straining a technicality to hold it to be bad.\n<\/p>\n
7. There is another answer to the defendant’s plea of notice, and that is that the tenancy in this case was a fixed-term tenancy,  its term being one year, as stated  in   the  lease  itself.     It,   therefore, expired by mere efflux of  time.    That being  so, the plaintiffs  landlords  would be  perfectly  within their right to ask for ejectment of the tenant by a mere demand for possession  without  being  under the necessity of complying with the stringent provisions contained in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.     But then  the tenant  stands  protected from ejectment by virtue of the various rent restrictions statutes which are in force in various parts of our country and there was the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 in force in the city of Ajmer where the property in suit is situate.    The position, therefore,  was   that even after  contractual  tenancy came to an end the tenant could not be evicted by force   of  law   as  he was turned thereafter  into a statutory tenant, and such a tenant could be evicted under the Rent Control Act only when certain conditions were fulfilled but not otherwise.   It has been found by both  courts below that the tenant in the instant case had lost the statutory protection which would have otherwise benefited him under the Rent Control Act because he had sub-let the premises in question.    The correct position  in law then is that once the tenant forfeits the statutory protection, the land-lord’s right to evict him under the ordinary law at  once  springs  up  into action.    In  other words where a tenancy is for a fixed term as soon as the tenant  has   forfeited  the   statutory  protection,  the landlord’s right to evict the former would arise on the efflux of that term and in such a case no notice under   S.   106   of  the    Transfer  of  Property     Act would be necessary at all. Reference may be made in  support of this    view to Ganga Dutt v. Kartik Chandra Das, AIR<\/a>    1961 SC 1067 which in its turn relied on Kai Khushroo v. Bai Jerbai, AIR 1949 FC 124.     Learned   counsel,   however,   contended  that even in the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is recognised that there can be no prohibition against a landlord entering into a fresh contract of tenancy with a tenant whose right of occupation is determined and who remains in occupation by virtue of the statutory immunity and that apart from an express contract, conduct of the parties may also justify an inference that after determination of the contractual tenancy, the landlord can enter into such a fresh contract. This, with all respect, is undoubtedly so. But there is nothing in the present case to indicate that there was any fresh contract of tenancy between the landlords and the tenant after the latter had lost his statutory immunity from eviction. Learned counsel for the respondent refers me in this connection to two things. The first is that the landlords in their notice Ex. 4 referred to the respondent as their tenant in paragraph four thereof where it was stated that:\n<\/p>\n
 “That my client does not wish to keep you his tenant   any  longer”.\n<\/p>\n
The second is that the landlords had failed to take action against the tenant for some length of time, i.e., between the time when the landlords had found out that the respondent had sub-let the premises in question and the actual filing of the suit. In my opinion, there is no force in either of these two contentions. The mere fact that the landlords had referred to the respondent in their notice as a tenant cannot possibly be understood as indicative of any conduct on their part justifying an inference that a fresh contractual tenancy had been brought about. The respondent, in any view of the matter, was a statutory tenant and, therefore nothing really turns upon this description of him to enable the Court to come to any positive conclusion that a fresh contractual tenancy had come into existence between the parties after the original tenancy had come to an end by efflux of time.\n<\/p>\n
8.    So far as the second contention is concerned, namely, that the plaintiffs had not filed a suit against  the    respondent  as soon     as  the   original tenancy had come to  an end  and they had come to   know   that the  respondent was   guilty   of   subletting, and even granting that they accepted rent  during  that period,  I  am equally  strongly of  the  opinion     that that  factor   is     hardly  sufficient  to achieve the  purpose which  learned counsel has  in view.    By mere failure  on the  part of the plaintiffs for some  time to bring an action against the  respondent it  cannot  under  the  circumstances,  be inferred that the former assented to a new tenancy or  that  the latter  acquired  the  right  of a  tenant  holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property  Act.\n<\/p>\n
9. It must be taken as well settled at this date that where a contractual tenancy to which rent control legislation has become applicable, expires by a notice to quit or by efflux of time, and the tenant  continues in possession, the acceptance of rent by the landlord from the tenant cannot afford any  legitimate justification for holding that the landlord has thereby assented to a new contract of tenancy, and further, where there is neither assent nor dissent On the part of the landlord to the continuance of occupation of such tenant, the latter becomes in law nothing more than a tenant on sufferance who happens to hold the premises merely through the laches of the landlord, and in such a case by the mere landlord’s failure to take action against him, the tenant cannot acquire the right of holding over within the meaning of Section 116 of tile Transfer of Property Act, and such tenancy or occupation does not confer any rights on the tenant so that it would fall to be determined by a notice prescribed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In this view of the matter, it must follow that the respondent tenant was not entitled to any notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, his fixed term tenancy having already expired by efflux of time once it is held that he had forfeited the special protection vouchsafed to him under the Rent Control legislation.\n<\/p>\n
10. Thus, from whichever angle we may look at this cases the conclusion is that there is no force in the plea of the respondent tenant that the plaintiffs’ suit must be dismissed on the ground of the invalidity of the notice.\n<\/p>\n
11. In the result, I allow this appeal, set aside
\nthe judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil
\nJudge and restore that of the trial court. Having
\nregard to all the circumstances of the case, the
\norder as to costs should be that the plaintiffs will
\nhave three-fourths of their costs in all the courts.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent prays that two months’ time may
\nbe allowed to him to vacate the premises which
\nare in his actual possession, and these are said to
\nbe two rooms and one kitchen on the third storey.\n<\/p>\n
He is allowed the time prayed for. The respondent
\nalso agrees that he will immediately hand over
\npossession of certain apartments which are lying
\nunoccupied at present. I Order accordingly,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court Moti Lal And Ors. vs Pooranchand on 18 July, 1961 Equivalent citations: AIR 1962 Raj 100 Author: I Modi Bench: I Modi JUDGMENT I.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a landlords’ second appeal in a suit for eviction, which was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Ajmer in disagreement with the […]<\/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":[8,29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21684","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMoti Lal And Ors. vs Pooranchand on 18 July, 1961 - 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\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Moti Lal And Ors. vs Pooranchand on 18 July, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961\" \/>\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=\"1961-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-18T06:37:07+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Moti Lal And Ors. vs Pooranchand on 18 July, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-18T06:37:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961\"},\"wordCount\":2740,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961\",\"name\":\"Moti Lal And Ors. vs Pooranchand on 18 July, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-18T06:37:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Moti Lal And Ors. vs Pooranchand on 18 July, 1961\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Moti Lal And Ors. vs Pooranchand on 18 July, 1961 - 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\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Moti Lal And Ors. vs Pooranchand on 18 July, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-18T06:37:07+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Moti Lal And Ors. vs Pooranchand on 18 July, 1961","datePublished":"1961-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-18T06:37:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961"},"wordCount":2740,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961","name":"Moti Lal And Ors. vs Pooranchand on 18 July, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-18T06:37:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moti-lal-and-ors-vs-pooranchand-on-18-july-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Moti Lal And Ors. vs Pooranchand on 18 July, 1961"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21684","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=21684"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21684\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21684"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21684"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21684"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}