{"id":228825,"date":"1971-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-02-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971"},"modified":"2018-07-12T04:57:40","modified_gmt":"2018-07-11T23:27:40","slug":"lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971","title":{"rendered":"Lachoo Mal vs Radhey Shyam on 10 February, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Lachoo Mal vs Radhey Shyam on 10 February, 1971<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 2213, \t\t  1971 SCR  (3) 693<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Grover<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Grover, A.N.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nLACHOO MAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRADHEY SHYAM\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT10\/02\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nHEGDE, K.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 2213\t\t  1971 SCR  (3) 693\n\n\nACT:\nU.P.  Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947,\t ss.\n1(A) and 3-Construction after 1951-Agreement that Act should\napply-If  binding  upon landlord-Indian Contract Act  (9  of\n1872), s. 23-Scope of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant was the tenant of the respondents  shop.\t  As\nthe  latter wanted to make some constructions  they  entered\ninto  ail  agreement  in  1962,\t according  to\twhich,\t the\nappellant was to vacate the shop but reoccupy it on the same\nrent as soon as the construction was completed.\t It was also\nagreed that all the sections of the U.P. (Temporary) Control\nof Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, shall be fully applicable to\nthe  new tenancy.  After the construction was completed\t the\nappellant   resumed  possession\t and  offered\trent.\t The\nrespondent refused the rent and filed a suit for  ejectment.\nIn  appeal, the High Court held that the appellant  was\t not\nentitled  to  the protection of the Act, because,  the\tres-\npondent\t was  entitled to rely on s. IA according  to  which\nnothing in the Act shall apply to a building constructed  on\nor  after  1st\tJanuary, 1951, and that\t the  agreement\t was\nunlawful within the meaning of s. 23 of the Indian  Contract\nAct, 1872.\nIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD  : The general principle is that every one has a  right\nto waive the advantage of a law, made for his benefit in his\nprivate\t capacity, when a public right or public  policy  is\nnot infringed thereby.\tSection 1A was meant for the benefit\nof  owners of buildings constructed after January  1,  1951.\nBut  there is no prohibition in the section against a  land-\nlord  and his tenant entering into an agreement,  that\tthey\nwould  not  be governed by that section.   If  a  particular\nowner  did not want to avail himself of the benefit  of\t the\nsection,  there was no bar created by it to his\t waiving  or\ngiving\tup  or abandoning the advantage and no\tquestion  of\npolicy,\t or  public  policy  is\t involved.   Therefore,\t the\nperformance  of the agreement in the present case would\t not\nentail\tthe transgression of any law and the  agreement\t was\nnot void under s. 23 of the Indian Contract Act. [696 C; 69-\n7 D-E; 698 A-C]\nNeminath Appayya Hanumannavar v.Jamboorao Sateppa  Kochteri,\nA.I.R. (1966) Mys. 154, approved.\nVita  Food  Products  Incorporated  v.\tUnus  Co.  Ltd.\t (in\nLiquidation), (1939) AC. 277 at 291, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1968.<br \/>\nAppeal\tby Special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated<br \/>\nApril 14,,1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Second  Appeal<br \/>\nNo. 307 of 1965.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">694<\/span><\/p>\n<p>V.M.  Tarkunde, Urmila Kapoor and R. K. Khanna,\t for  the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>S. V.  Gupte and M. V. Goswami, for the respondent.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nGrover, J This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment<br \/>\nof  the\t Allahabad  High Court\tand  involves  the  question<br \/>\nwhether\t the appellant, who was the tenant, was entitled  to<br \/>\nthe benefit of s. 3 of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent\t and<br \/>\nEviction Act, 1947, hereinafter called the &#8220;Act&#8221;.<br \/>\nThe  facts  are\t not in dispute.   The\tappellant  had\tbeen<br \/>\noccupying a shop in Mathura belonging to the respondent from<br \/>\na very long time, at a monthly rental of Rs. 18.37. In\t1962<br \/>\nthe respondent wanted to construct rooms on the upper Storey<br \/>\nof the shop for his own residence.  This construction  could<br \/>\npossibly be made only if the appellant vacated the shop\t for<br \/>\nsome  period.\tOn  June  4, 1962,  the\t appellant  and\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  entered into an agreement . After  reciting\t the<br \/>\nabove facts it was agreed that the shop would be. vacated by<br \/>\nthe appellant on the condition that as soon as the  required<br \/>\nconstruction  had been completed he would resume  possession<br \/>\nof  the\t shop.\tAt this stage the following clauses  of\t the<br \/>\nagreement may be set out.\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;1. On this day the second party has withdrawn<br \/>\n\t      his possession from the shop bearing No. 1\/2C,<br \/>\n\t      situate  at Tilakdwar, and has given the\tsame<br \/>\n\t      to the first party.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      2.   The\tfirst  party  shall  get  the\tshop<br \/>\n\t      constructed within thirty days and would\tthen<br \/>\n\t      hand  over the possession of the same  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      second party.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      3.    At\tpresent\t a  sum of  Rs.\t 18-6-0\t per<br \/>\n\t      mensem,  which  includes house tax  and  water<br \/>\n\t      tax, is being paid by the second Party to\t the<br \/>\n\t      first  party as rent.  After the\tconstruction<br \/>\n\t      of the shop, the first party shall be entitled<br \/>\n\t      to  get  the  same, amount as  rent  from\t the<br \/>\n\t      second  party.  All the sections of  the\tU.P.<br \/>\n\t      Rent  Control and Eviction Act shall be  fully<br \/>\n\t      applicable  to  this house.  The\tfirst  party<br \/>\n\t      shall  in\t no  case  be  entitled\t to   derive<br \/>\n\t      benefits\tfrom it as the property built  after<br \/>\n\t      1-1-51.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>After  the construction had been made and the appellant\t had<br \/>\nresumed\t his  possession of the shop the  appellant  offered<br \/>\nrent  to  the respondent but the latter did not\t accept\t the<br \/>\nsame.  Ultimately lie deposited the rent from April 1,\t1962<br \/>\nto  July  31, 1963 in court under s. 7 C of  the  Act.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent  served a notice April 20, 1963 apparently  under<br \/>\nthe provisions of the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    695<\/span><br \/>\nTransfer of Property Act purporting to terminate the tenancy<br \/>\nof  the\t appellant.  This was followed by a suit  which\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  filed  for ejectment of the\t appellant  and\t for<br \/>\narrears of rent, damages etc.  The Munsif dismissed the suit<br \/>\nholding\t that the appellant was entitled to  the  protection<br \/>\nconferred  by  s. 3 of the Act which  was  applicable.\t The<br \/>\nDistrict  Judge,  on  appeal, took  the\t contrary  view\t and<br \/>\ndecreed the suit.  The&#8217; High Court affirmed the judgment  of<br \/>\nthe  District  Judge.  It was held,  inter-alia,  that\tthe,<br \/>\nrespondent  was, entitled to rely on s. 1 A of the  Act\t and<br \/>\nthe appellant could not be given the benefit of s. 3.<br \/>\nNow there can be no manner of doubt that the tenancy between<br \/>\nthe  appellant\tand  the  respondent  was  governed  by\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  of\tthe Act prior to the reconstruction  of\t the<br \/>\npremises.   It appears to have been accepted that  when\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  made  the re-construction  after  the  agreement<br \/>\nmentioned above in 1962 the buildings came to be constructed<br \/>\nwithin\tthe  terms of s. 1-A of the Act: That  section\tsays<br \/>\nthat nothing in the Act shall apply to any building or\tpart<br \/>\nof a building which was under erection or was constructed on<br \/>\nor after January 1, 1951. It will have to be decided whether<br \/>\nit was open to the respondent to give up the benefit of this<br \/>\nprovision or waive it by means of an agreement of the nature<br \/>\nwhich  was  entered  into  between  the\t appellant  and\t the<br \/>\nrespondent in June 1962.\n<\/p>\n<p>According   to\tthe  preamble  on  the\tcessation   of\t the<br \/>\napplicability  of  sub-rule 2 of rule 81 of the\t Defence  of<br \/>\nIndia  Rules  after  September 30, 1946\t it  was  considered<br \/>\nexpedient  owing  to the shortage of  accommodation  in\t the<br \/>\nState of Uttar Pradesh to provide for the continuance during<br \/>\nadmitted  period of powers to control the letting  and\t&#8220;the<br \/>\nrent of accommodation and to prevent the eviction of tenants<br \/>\ntherefrom.  Section 3 imposed restrictions on eviction.\t  No<br \/>\nsuit  could be filed in any civil court against\t the  tenant<br \/>\nfor  his  eviction from any accommodation except on  one  or<br \/>\nmore of the grounds mentioned in sub-s. (1) &#8216;of that section<br \/>\nwithout the permission of the District Magistrate or of\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner to whom a revision lay against the order of the<br \/>\nDistrict   Magistrate.\t Section  5   contained\t  provisions<br \/>\nrelating  to control of rent.  The ether provisions  of\t the<br \/>\nAct  need not be noticed.  It has never been  disputed\tthat<br \/>\nthe Act was enacted for affording protection to the  tenants<br \/>\nagainst\t eviction except in the manner provided by the\tAct.<br \/>\nIt was also meant to regulate the letting of  accommodation,<br \/>\nfixing\tof rent etc., the provisions relating to which\twere<br \/>\nall  intended  to  confer benefits on  the  tenants  against<br \/>\nunreasonable  and capricious demands of the  landlords.\t  At<br \/>\nthe same time&#8217; it appears that the legislature was conscious<br \/>\nof  the fact that the Act might retard and slacken the\tpace<br \/>\nof construction of new buildings because the landlords would<br \/>\nnaturally be reluctant to invest<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">696<\/span><br \/>\nmoney  in properties the letting of which would be  governed<br \/>\nby  the\t stringent provisions of the Act.  It was  for\tthat<br \/>\npurpose\t that the saving provision in s. 1-A seems  to\thave<br \/>\nbeen  inserted.\t  The  essential question  that\t has  to  be<br \/>\nresolved  is whether S. 1-A was merely in the nature  of  an<br \/>\nexemption  in  favour of the landlords, with regard  to\t the<br \/>\nbuildings constructed after January 1, 1951 and conferred  a<br \/>\nbenefit\t on  them  which  they could give  up  or  waive  by<br \/>\nagreement   or\tcontractual  arrangement  and  whether\t the<br \/>\nconsideration  or object of such an agreement would  not  be<br \/>\nlawful\twithin the meaning of s. 23 of the  Indian  Contract<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>The general principle is that every one has a right to waive<br \/>\nand  to agree to waive the advantage of a law or  rule\tmade<br \/>\nsolely\tfor the benefit and protection of the individual  in<br \/>\nhis  private  capacity which may be dispensed  with  without<br \/>\ninfringing  any\t public right or public\t policy.   Thus\t the<br \/>\nmaxim  which  sanction the nonobservance  of  the  statutory<br \/>\nprovision   is\tcuilibet  licat\t renuntiare  juri   pro\t  se<br \/>\nintroducto.  (See  Maxwell on  Interpretation  of  Statutes,<br \/>\nEleventh Edition, pages 375 &amp; 376.) If there is any  express<br \/>\nprohibition against contracting out of a statute in it\tthen<br \/>\nno  question can arise of any one entering into\t a  contract<br \/>\nwhich\tis  so\tprohibited  but\t where\tthere  is  no\tsuch<br \/>\nprohibition  it\t win  have  to be seen\twhether\t an  Act  is<br \/>\nintended to have a more extensive operation &#8216;as a matter  of<br \/>\npublic\tpolicy.\t  In Halsbury&#8217;s Laws of England,  Volume  8,<br \/>\nThird Edition, it is stated in paragraph, 248 at page 143 :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;As a general rule, any person can enter\tinto<br \/>\n\t      a\t binding  contract  to\twaive  the  benefits<br \/>\n\t      conferred\t upon him by an Act  of\t Parliament,<br \/>\n\t      or, as it is said, can contract himself out of<br \/>\n\t      the  Act, unless it can be shown that such  an<br \/>\n\t      agreement\t is  in\t the  circumstances  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      particular  case\tcontrary to  public  policy.<br \/>\n\t      Statutory conditions may, however, be  imposed<br \/>\n\t      in  such terms that they cannot be  waived  by<br \/>\n\t      agreement, and, in certain circumstances,\t the<br \/>\n\t      legislature  has expressly provided  that\t any<br \/>\n\t      such agreement shall be void.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In  the\t footnote  it is pointed out  that  there  are\tmany<br \/>\nstatutory provisions expressed to apply &#8220;notwithstanding any<br \/>\nagreement to the contrary&#8221;, and also a stipulation by  which<br \/>\na  lessee  is  deprived of his right  to  apply\t for  relief<br \/>\nagainst\t forfeiture for breach of covenant (Law of  Property<br \/>\nAct, 1925).  Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act provides<br \/>\n&#8220;The  consideration  or object of an  agreement\t is  lawful,<br \/>\nunless-\n<\/p>\n<p>it is forbidden by law; or<br \/>\n69 7<br \/>\nis of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of any law or is fraudulent; or<br \/>\ninvolves  or  implies injury to the person  or\tproperty  of<br \/>\nanother; or<br \/>\nthe  Court  regards  it as immoral,  or\t opposed  to  public<br \/>\npolicy.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  each of these cases, the consideration or object  of  an<br \/>\nagreement is said to be unlawful.  Every agreement of  which<br \/>\nthe object or consideration is unlawful is void.&#8221;<br \/>\nIt  has\t never\tbeen the case of  the  respondent  that\t the<br \/>\nconsideration or object of the agreement which was  entered,<br \/>\ninto  in June 1963 was forbidden by law.  Reliance has\tbeen<br \/>\nplaced mainly on the next part of the section, namely,\tthat<br \/>\nit is of such a nature that it would defeat the provision of<br \/>\nany  law and in the present case it would be s. 1-A  of\t the<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>Now s. 1-A does not employ language containing a prohibition<br \/>\nagainst or impose any restriction on a landlord and a tenant<br \/>\nentering  into an agreement that they would not be  governed<br \/>\nby  that  section.   We concur with the\t view  expressed  in<br \/>\nNeminath   Appayya   Hanumannavar   v.\t Jamboorao   Satappa<br \/>\nKocheri(1) that the words &#8220;if permitted it would defeat\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of any law&#8221; in s. 23 of the Contract Act defer to<br \/>\nperformance  of an agreement which necessarily\tentails\t the<br \/>\ntransgression  of the Provisions of any law.  What makes  an<br \/>\nagreement,  which  is  other-wise legal, void  is  that\t its<br \/>\nperformance  is\t impossible except by disobedience  of\tlaw.<br \/>\nClearly\t no  question  of illegality can  arise\t unless\t the<br \/>\nperformance  of the unlawful act was necessarily the  effect<br \/>\nof an agreement.  The following observations of Lord  Wright<br \/>\nin  Vita Food Products Incorporated v. Unus Company  Ltd.(1)<br \/>\n(in Liquidation) are noteworthy in this connection<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;Nor  must  it be forgotten that the  rule  by<br \/>\n\t      which  contracts\tnot expressly  forbidden  by<br \/>\n\t      statute  or declared to be void are in  proper<br \/>\n\t      cases nullified for disobedience to a  statute<br \/>\n\t      is  a rule of public policy only,\t and  public<br \/>\n\t      policy  understood  in a wider  sense  may  at<br \/>\n\t      times be better served by refusing to  nullify<br \/>\n\t      a\t bargain  save\ton  serious  and  sufficient<br \/>\n\t      grounds.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>We are unable to hold that the performance of the  agreement<br \/>\nwhich  was entered into between the parties in\tthe  present<br \/>\ncase  would  involve  an illegal or unlawful  act.   In\t our<br \/>\njudgment s. 1-A.\n<\/p>\n<p>(1) A. I.R. [1966] Mysore 154.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) [1939] A.C. 277, 293.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">698<\/span><\/p>\n<p>was meant for the benefit of owners of buildings which\twere<br \/>\nunder  erection or were constructed after January  1,  1951.<br \/>\nIf  a particular owner did not wish to avail of the  benefit<br \/>\nof that section there was no bar created by it in the way of<br \/>\nhis waiving, or giving up or abandoning the advantage or the<br \/>\nbenefit contemplated by the section.  No question of policy,<br \/>\nmuch less public, policy, was involved and such a benefit or<br \/>\nadvantage could always be waived.  That is what was done  in<br \/>\nthe  present case and we are unable to agree with  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  that  the consideration or object  of  the  agreement<br \/>\nentered\t into between the parties in June 1962 was  unlawful<br \/>\nin view of s. 23 of the Contract Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  the\t result the appeal is allowed, the judgment  of\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  is\t set  aside and\t that  of  the\ttrial  court<br \/>\nrestored.   The appellant will be entitled to his  costs  in<br \/>\nthis, court.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.P.S.\t\t\t\t Appeal allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">699<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Lachoo Mal vs Radhey Shyam on 10 February, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 2213, 1971 SCR (3) 693 Author: A Grover Bench: Grover, A.N. PETITIONER: LACHOO MAL Vs. RESPONDENT: RADHEY SHYAM DATE OF JUDGMENT10\/02\/1971 BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. HEGDE, K.S. CITATION: 1971 AIR 2213 1971 SCR (3) 693 ACT: [&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-228825","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>Lachoo Mal vs Radhey Shyam on 10 February, 1971 - 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\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lachoo Mal vs Radhey Shyam on 10 February, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971\" \/>\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=\"1971-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-11T23:27:40+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lachoo Mal vs Radhey Shyam on 10 February, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-11T23:27:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971\"},\"wordCount\":1932,\"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\\\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971\",\"name\":\"Lachoo Mal vs Radhey Shyam on 10 February, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-11T23:27:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lachoo Mal vs Radhey Shyam on 10 February, 1971\"}]},{\"@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":"Lachoo Mal vs Radhey Shyam on 10 February, 1971 - 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\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lachoo Mal vs Radhey Shyam on 10 February, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-11T23:27:40+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lachoo Mal vs Radhey Shyam on 10 February, 1971","datePublished":"1971-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-11T23:27:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971"},"wordCount":1932,"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\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971","name":"Lachoo Mal vs Radhey Shyam on 10 February, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-11T23:27:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachoo-mal-vs-radhey-shyam-on-10-february-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lachoo Mal vs Radhey Shyam on 10 February, 1971"}]},{"@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\/228825","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=228825"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228825\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228825"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228825"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228825"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}