{"id":248859,"date":"1998-10-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-10-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998"},"modified":"2017-06-18T06:52:57","modified_gmt":"2017-06-18T01:22:57","slug":"gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998","title":{"rendered":"Gun Malla Rajgarahia vs Canara Bank & Anr. on 23 October, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Gun Malla Rajgarahia vs Canara Bank & Anr. on 23 October, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1999 IAD Delhi 345, AIR 1999 Delhi 243, 79 (1999) DLT 546, 1999 RLR 359<\/div>\n
Author: D M Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: D M Sharma<\/div>\n

ORDER<\/p>\n

DR. M.K. Sharma, J.\n<\/p>\n

1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendants, Canara Bank (defendant No.1 and M\/s. Venus Paper Mills Limited (defendant
\nNo. 2) seeking for passing of a decree for redemption of mortgaged of property bearing No. B-42, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n

2. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that in consideration of grant of certain credit facilities in favour of M\/s. Venus Paper Mills Limited,the defendant No. 2 the plaintiff created the mortgage of her property bearing No. B-42, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi by way of deposit of original title deeds. It is further averred that the aforesaid mortgage is only to secure the liability of defendant No. 2 borrower only upto a limit of Rs. 24 lacs. The plaintiff in her plaint has sought for grant of the following reliefs:\n<\/p>\n

(a) Pass a decree directing the defendant No. 1 bank to disclose the amount due and to give accounts of the amount due against term loan No. 5\/82 in the name of defendant No. 2 along with interest amount and the rate of interest upto an upper limit of Rs. 24 lacs.\n<\/p>\n

(b) Grant the requisite\/prescribed time to the plaintiff to deposit the same in this Hon’ble Court.\n<\/p>\n

(c) Direct defendant No.1 to deliver to the plaintiff all documents in their possession relating to mortgaged property including the title deeds upon the plaintiff depositing the said amount in this Hon’ble Court.\n<\/p>\n

(d) Any order\/relief this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of case may also be passed.\n<\/p>\n

(e) Costs of the suit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n

3. the defendant No. 1 entered appearance in the suit and resisted the claim of the plaintiff by contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff is not entitled to redemption of mortgaged property unless she pays the entire liability of the borrower inclusive of the principal amount, interest, cost and other charges thereon and that the property in question cannot be redeemed merely upon payment of a sum of Rs. 24 lacs.\n<\/p>\n

4. On pleadings of the parties, this Court by order dated 18.9.1995 framed the following issues:-\n<\/p>\n

1. Whether the liability of the plaintiff under the document dated 14.12.1982 is restricted only to the tune of Rs. 24 lacs?\n<\/p>\n

2.Whether the defendant is liable to return the documents on deposit of the amount of Rs. 24 lacs?\n<\/p>\n

3.Whether the defendant is entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 24 lacs? If Yes, from which date and at what rate?\n<\/p>\n

4.To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to?\n<\/p>\n

5. As a matter of fact, the decision in the present suit revolves around interpretation of the document dated 14.12.1982 evidencing deposit of title deeds by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the aforesaid document is the only document executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of the Term Loan No. 5\/82 granted by it to defendant No. 2. According to the plaintiff, the said document clearly stipulated that the plaintiff would be responsible to the Bank only to the extent of upto Rs. 24 lacs for the said term loan and that the aforesaid limit of Rs. 24 lacs was to be the upper most limit of the responsibility of the plaintiff including interest on such term loan and\/or any other money payable by defendant No. 2 to defendant No.1. The case of the plaintiff is that she had guaranteed repayment towards the aforesaid loan to the total limit of Rs. 24 lacs only.\n<\/p>\n

6. The case of defendant No. 1 on the other hand is that on 14.12.1982 the plaintiff created an equitable mortgage of her property bearing No. B-42, Eastern Avenue, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, by deposit of the original title deeds and that the amount assured under the said mortgage was to cover\/secure the entire liability of the borrower, defendant No. 2 inclusive of the principal loan amount of Rs. 24 lacs and all amounts towards interest including any outstanding by way of loans, over draft, discount of bills, cheques, etc. The defendant No. 1 pleaded that the sum assured under the mortgage was the entire liability outstanding against defendant No. 2 in respect of the term loan inclusive of the principal loan amount of Rs. 24 lacs and interest, commission, bank charges, etc., thereon. It has also been averred that at the time of creation of the equitable mortgage by deposit of original title deeds on 13.12.1982, the plaintiff after creating the equitable mortgage executed a letter dated 14.12.1982 confirming the creation of equitable mortgage of her property bearing No. B-42, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, by deposit of original title deeds as a security for repayment of the amount of term loan together with interest and other charges including by way of loans, over drafts, discounts of bills. The defendant No. 1 has further stated that the letter evidencing the deposit of title deeds dated 14.12.1982 may be read and considered for its true interpretation.\n<\/p>\n

7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, issues No.1 and 2 were framed which as stated above depends on the interpretation given to the contents of the letter dated 14.12.1982. On a reading and interpretation of the aforesaid document if it is held that the plaintiff had given the guarantee only upto a maximum limit of Rs. 24 lacs inclusive of interest in respect of the term loan given by defendant No.1 to defendant No. 2 and that the creation of the equitable mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds of the aforesaid property was only to the extent of Rs. 24 lacs for the said term
\nloan, then the issues No.1 and 2 are to be answered in favour of the plaintiff. If, however, the answer to the aforesaid issues is answered against the plaintiff, the issues framed in the suit are to be answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants and the suit is to be dismissed. The aforesaid document thus is very material and relevant for the purpose of decision in the present suit and thus, the contents thereof are extract-ed below:-\n<\/p>\n

       Smt. Gunmala Rajgarhia             To,     \n     B-42, Maharani Bagh,               The Manager,\n     Eastern Avenue,                    Canara Bank \n     New Delhi-110065                   Nehru Place \n                                        New Delhi-110019,\n \n\n   Dear Sir, \n \n\n  Sub:  Total  limits of Rs. 24,00,000\/- sanctioned to  M\/s.  Venus \n     Paper Mills Ltd. by way of Term Loan. \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
  This  is to place on record that to secure the facility  referred to  above  granted to M\/s. Venus Paper Mills Ltd. at  your  Nehru Place,  New  Delhi branch, I have already deposited with  you  at Nehru  Place New Delhi on 13.12.1982 the title deeds relating  to   my properties (situated at B-42, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi) and as described in schedule ‘A’ herewith attached with intent to create   an  equitable  mortgage by deposit of title deeds for  which  you have  agreed  in  respect of properties fully  described  in  the  schedule  ‘B’ here with attached on the said properties  together with all structures and machinery standing thereon and to be  put  up  in future to secure the said facility due and owing  by  M\/s. Venus  Paper Mills Ltd. to your Nehru Place branch at  New  Delhi inclusive  of  renewals thereof from time to time  together  with interest  thereon  and any other moneys that may become  due  and  payable from time to time by M\/s. Venus Paper Mills Ltd., to your Nehru Place branch at New Delhi and any liability arising out  of the aforesaid facility granted and undertaken by your Nehru Place branch  at  New Delhi in that behalf and payable  by  M\/s.  Venus paper Mills Ltd., to you as also such other and further liability upto  a sum of Rs. 24 lacs. (Rupees Twenty Four lacs only)  which may be advanced to M\/s. Venus Paper Mills Ltd. in future by  your Nehru  Place branch at New Delhi including by way of loans,  over  drafts, discount of bills, cheques, letters of credit, guarantees or otherwise and renewals thereof from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
      Place: New Delhi.                                                          <\/p>\n
\n     Yours faithfully,\n     Date:14.12.1982                                                                    Sd\/-\n     Enclosures:    Schedules 'A' & 'B' \n                    referred to above.\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
 8.   Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, counsel appearing for the plaintiff placed  before me  the Rules governing the interpretation of a Deed. In that  context,  he referred  to  certain  portion of ‘Practical Guide to  Deeds  &  Documents’ written  by  Shri G.M. Divekar. At page 13 of the said book and  under  the Head  Note  5, Rules of interpretation of a deed have  been  summarised  as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  Words capable of more than one construction are to  be  construed so as to calling in to effect the expressed general intention of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
  (2) If owing to some rule laid down, a deed fails to take  effect in the manner expressed, it will, if possible, be construed so as  to  carry  in to effect the expressed general  intention  of  the  parties.\n<\/p>\n
  (3) When words used in a deed are in their literal meaning  unambiguous and when such meaning is not excluded by the context  and is  sensible with respect to the circumstances of the parties  or the  terms of executing the deed such a literal meaning  must  be  taken to be that in which the parties used the words.\n<\/p>\n
     (4)  If  technical legal terms are used, the  technical  meanings must be given to them unless excluded by the context.\n<\/p>\n
     (5) When a transaction is represented by more than one deed,  all the  deeds  must  be construed together and one may  be  read  to  explain the other.\n<\/p>\n
     (6)  If two clauses or provisions in a deed are repugnant to  one another,  the  first  shall be received and the  latter  will  be  rejected, unless there is any special reason to the contrary.\n<\/p>\n
     (7) Repugnant words should be rejected; if any relevant words are omitted,  they  should  be supplied; words  may  be  transferred,  parentheses may be inserted and false or incorrect grammar may be discarded, if the intention of the parties appears, otherwise, to  be very clear.\n<\/p>\n
     (8)  If, however, inspite of best endeavours and  application  of extensive evidence, the language of a deed is ambiguous as to the   person  or thing intended and as to what is to be done, the  deed as  a whole or any clause suffering from such defect may  be  declared as void for uncertainty.\n<\/p>\n
 9.   My  attention  was also drawn to a decision of the  Supreme  Court  in Delhi  Development Authority Vs. Durga Chand Kaushik; . In the said decision, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider as to how a Deed is to be construed. While dealing on the subject, the  Supreme Court held that in construing document, one must  have  regard not  to  the presumed intention of the parties, but to the meaning  of  the words  they have used. It was further held that if two  interpretations  of the  document are possible, the one which would give effect and meaning  to all  its  parts should be adopted and for the purpose, the  words  creating uncertainty in the documents can be ignored.\n<\/p>\n
 In  paragraph  19 and 20 of the said judgment, the Supreme  Court  has said  that  “the  document” means “the document” read as a  whole  and  not piecemeal  and the Literal Rule of construction which, unless its  application produces absurd results, must be resorted to first. The Supreme  Court also  held  that another rule which may be applicable is as stated  in  the decision  in  Radha Sunder Dutta Vs. Mohd. Jahadur Rahim;  laying down that if there be admissibility of two  constructions of  a document, one of which will given effect to all the  clauses  therein while  the  other will render one or more them nugatory, it is  the  former that should be adopted.\n<\/p>\n
  Reference  may  also  be made to a decision of the  Supreme  Court  in Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker Vs. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker and  others; . In paragraph 3 of  the  said judgment  it  is stated that a document has to be read  harmoniously  as  a whole  giving  effect to all the clauses contained in  the  document  which manifest the intention of the persons who execute the document.\n<\/p>\n
 In  Jangbir  Vs.  Mahabir Prasad Gupta, 1976 All  India  Rent  Control Journal 770 (SC) the Supreme Court has laid down the well known  principles of interpretation of a “Deed” as follows: (a) Firstly, a documents must  be construed as a whole, (b) Secondly, it has to be construed as not to reduce what  was meant or being done by it to a patent absurdity. (c) Thirdly,  if any  entry of a column appears to have been carelessly made, so as  not  to give  a correct indication of what was otherwise clearly capable  of  being inferred  from the objects and rest of the contents of  such  notification, the  slight  error, due obviously to inadvertence, would not matter  on  an application of the principle.\n<\/p>\n
 9.   In  the  back ground of the aforesaid principles of law laid  down  in respect of rule of interpretation of a document or deed, let me now proceed to examine the contents of the documents.\n<\/p>\n
 10.  The document dated 14.12.1982 is in the nature of a letter  confirming the  creation  of equitable mortgage of the property of  the  plaintiff  by deposit  of  original title deeds as a security for the  repayment  of  the amount of term loan. The amount of term loan granted to the defendant No. 2 as is disclosed from the said letter itself is Rs. 24 lacs. When the earlier portion of the letter is read, it is clear that the plaintiff sought  to create an equitable mortgage of the property in question by depositing  the title deeds of her property in order to secure the entire facility due  and
\nowing by defendant No. 2 total limit of which as granted by defendant  No.1 to defendant No. 2 was Rs. 24 lacs. While so securing for the entire  total limit  of Rs. 24 lacs of the facility due and owing by defendant No.  2  it was stated that the aforesaid facility is secured by the mortgage inclusive of  renewals thereof from time to time together with interest  thereon  and any  other money that may become due and payable from time to time  by  defendant  No.  2 to defendant No. 1. The latter part of  the  said  document stated that any liability arising out of the aforesaid facility granted and under taken by defendant No.1 in that behalf and payable by defendant No. 2 to  defendant No.1 as also such other and further liability up to a sum  of Rs.  24  lacs which might be advanced to the defendant No. 2 in  future  by defendant No.1 including by way of loans, over drafts, discounts of  bills, cheques,  letter  of credit, guarantees or otherwise and  renewals  thereof from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
 11.  Mr.  A.S. Chandhiok, counsel appearing for the plaintiff  gave  stress and emphasis on the latter part of the aforesaid document wherein according to him, it is made clear that the aforesaid liability is reflected up to  a sum  of Rs. 24 lacs only which includes principal as also the interest  and other charges, if any. However, if the interpretation sought to be given by Mr. A.S. Chandhiok is accepted, then necessarily I would be reading only  a part of the Deed and not the entire Deed, which would be contrary to and in violation  of  the very first Rule of the interpretation of a  Deed  laying
\ndown that the entire contents of the documents are to be read together  and the document is to be read as a whole.\n<\/p>\n
 \tthe aforesaid documents confirms the creation of an equitable mortgage of  the property of the plaintiff by deposit of original title deeds  as  a security  for  the repayment of the amount of term loan which  was  Rs.  24 lacs.  The document also states that the security is created for  repayment of the amount of term loan together with interest and any other money  that may become due and payable from time to time by defendant No.1 to defendant No.  2.  Thus,  on a true, proper and correct interpretation  of  the  said document,  I am of the opinion, that the said document sought to create  an
\nequitable  mortgage  of the property located at B-42,  Maharani  Bagh,  New Delhi by deposit of original title deeds as a security for repayment of the amount  of term loan together with interest and all other charges. As  laid down  in Divekar’s Practical Guide to Deeds and Documents words capable  of more than one construction are to be construed so as to calling into effect the  expressed general intention of the parties. The context in  which  the document  was  created and their intention for creating the  document  thus becomes relevant to property and effectively understand the meaning of  the document.  The document intended to safeguard the term loan granted by  the defendant No.1 to defendant No. 2. The loan was for a maximum amount of Rs. 24 lacs and the said amount was to be repaid along with interest and  other charges.  Thus read, it would be apparent that the liability of the  plaintiff  was  not only restricted to an amount of Rs. 24 lacs,  but  the  same security sought to cover any amount that may be in respect of the said term loan  inclusive  of  the principal loan amount of Rs. 24  lacs  along  with interest  thereon as per agreed terms and all other cost, charges and  commission that were sought to be fully secured by the mortgage of the property belonging to the plaintiff herein.\n<\/p>\n
  \t12.  On  a  reading of the entire contents of the document, it  is  crystal clear  that  the mortgage was made available as a security for  the  amount which might be due under there term loan granted in the sum of Rs. 24  lacs together with interest, cost and other charges. The plaintiff has failed to examine  any witness. The defendant No.1 however, examined  two  witnesses. Both the witnesses have proved the aforesaid document dated 14.12.1982.\n<\/p>\n
      One  of the officers of defendant No.1 was examined as DW. 2.  He  has stated  that the defendant No.1 granted credit facilities and term loan  in favour  of  defendant No. 2 and the said term loan was secured  as  against mortgage  of the property in respect of House No. B-42, Maharani Bagh,  New Delhi. He stated that the term loan was sanctioned for Rs. 24 lacs and  the mortgage  was  to secure term loan of Rs. 24 lacs and  other  interest  and charges. He has proved the statement of accounts of the bank and has stated that  the  debit  balance  in  terms  loan  account  on  1.1.1993  was  Rs.\n<\/p>\n
10,92,902\/-.  The Manager of defendant No.1 was also examined as  DW.1.  In his  Cross-examination-In-Chief,  he  has stated that  when  the  plaintiff deposited  the  original title deeds, he was told and  explained  that  the security  will hold for the liability of the borrower, defendant  No.1.  In his  cross-examination, he has stated that although an  equitable  mortgage was  granted on 13.12.1982, but, the security was taken on  14.12.1982  and that the document in question was also taken on 14.12.1982 as the term loan was in fact granted on 14.12.1982.\n<\/p>\n
     It thus appears that it is all along the stand of defendant No.1  that the  aforesaid security by way of equitable mortgage was taken and  granted in respect of the entire liability of defendant No. 2 to defendant No.1  in respect of the term loan. The contents of the document as has been held  by me  herein  above clearly corroborate the stand of  defendant  No.1.  Thus, issue  No.1 as framed in the suit is answered against the plaintiff and  in favour  of the defendant No.1 holding that the liability of  the  plaintiff under the document dated 14.12.1982 was not restricted only to the tune  of
\nRs.  24 lacs but also included all demands inclusive of interest and  other charges.\n<\/p>\n
13.  In  view of the aforesaid findings arrived at by me, I hold  that  the defendant No.1 is not liable to return the document on deposit of an amount of  Rs.  24  lacs by the plaintiff and thus, issue  No.2  is  also  decided against  the  plaintiff and in favour of the defendant No.1. On  a  careful reading and interpretation of the document in question, I hold that defendant No.1 is entitled to also recover the entire liability in respect of the term  loan  also out of the security provided by the plaintiff  which  also includes interest and, therefore, the defendant No.1 is definitely entitled to  payment  of interest on the account of Rs. 24 lacs, the  said  interest being payable on the amount in terms of statement of accounts filed by  the defendant No.1 in the present suit.\n<\/p>\n
     Having  answered the aforesaid three issued against the plaintiff  and in  favour of defendant No.1, the suit filed by the plaintiff  stands  dismissed with costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Gun Malla Rajgarahia vs Canara Bank & Anr. on 23 October, 1998 Equivalent citations: 1999 IAD Delhi 345, AIR 1999 Delhi 243, 79 (1999) DLT 546, 1999 RLR 359 Author: D M Sharma Bench: D M Sharma ORDER DR. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against 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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-248859","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGun Malla Rajgarahia vs Canara Bank & Anr. on 23 October, 1998 - 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\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gun Malla Rajgarahia vs Canara Bank & Anr. on 23 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-18T01:22:57+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gun Malla Rajgarahia vs Canara Bank & Anr. on 23 October, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T01:22:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998\"},\"wordCount\":3372,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998\",\"name\":\"Gun Malla Rajgarahia vs Canara Bank & Anr. on 23 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T01:22:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gun Malla Rajgarahia vs Canara Bank & Anr. on 23 October, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gun Malla Rajgarahia vs Canara Bank & Anr. on 23 October, 1998 - 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\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gun Malla Rajgarahia vs Canara Bank & Anr. on 23 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-18T01:22:57+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gun Malla Rajgarahia vs Canara Bank & Anr. on 23 October, 1998","datePublished":"1998-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T01:22:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998"},"wordCount":3372,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998","name":"Gun Malla Rajgarahia vs Canara Bank & Anr. on 23 October, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T01:22:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gun-malla-rajgarahia-vs-canara-bank-anr-on-23-october-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gun Malla Rajgarahia vs Canara Bank & Anr. on 23 October, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248859","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=248859"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248859\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248859"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248859"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248859"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}