{"id":258285,"date":"2005-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005"},"modified":"2016-09-08T20:40:35","modified_gmt":"2016-09-08T15:10:35","slug":"hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005","title":{"rendered":"Hazara Bradri & Others vs Lokesh Dutta Multani on 16 November, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Hazara Bradri & Others vs Lokesh Dutta Multani on 16 November, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: Bhan<\/div>\n
Bench: Ashok Bhan, Altamas Kabir<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2117 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nHazara Bradri & Others\n\nRESPONDENT:\nLokesh Dutta Multani\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/11\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nASHOK BHAN & ALTAMAS KABIR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
BHAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tDefendant\/Appellant herein is aggrieved by the
\njudgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High
\nCourt in RFA (OS) 21 of 1980 dated 17.10.2000
\nwherein the Division Bench while setting aside the
\njudgment and decree passed by the Single Judge
\ntrying the suit on the original side has decreed
\nthe suit filed by the plaintiff\/respondent herein.\n<\/p>\n
\tSardar Sujan Singh, aged 77 years, a retired
\nIncome tax Officer executed a will on 7.12.1960
\ndeclaring (a) that after his death his wife Smt.
\nRam Kaur will be entitled to all his properties
\nmovable and immovable of every kind and description
\nand further she will have full control and right
\nover the income from the immovable property;  (b)
\nthat Smt. Ram Kaur  will not be entitled to sell,
\nmortgage, or dispose of by gift or will, any part
\nor whole of the immovable property of any kind left
\nby the testator; and (c) that after the death of
\nSmt. Ram Kaur  all the properties, movable and
\nimmovable, and sums due to Sardar Sujan Singh or
\nSmt. Ram Kaur  or deposits at any place or with any
\nbank or office shall be the sole property of Lokesh
\nDatta Multani son of late Pt. Thakur Datta Multani
\nwho treats the testator and his wife just like his
\nparents and whom they treat as their son and he has
\nbeen taking care of them for the last more than 10
\nyears.\n<\/p>\n
\tSardar Sujan Singh died at Indore in the
\nNursing Home of his nephew Prithipal Singh on
\n24.08.1963.   Bhog and other ceremonies were
\nperformed at Delhi by Smt. Ram Kaur, Prithipal
\nSingh and others.\n<\/p>\n
\tCase of the plaintiff\/respondent is that after
\nthe death of Sardar Sujan Singh, Smt. Ram Kaur  at
\nthe instigation of some interested persons refused
\nto admit the will, although the will was signed and
\nattested by her.  It led to his filing suit No. 92 <\/span>
\nof 1964 in the Court of Sub Judge, First Class, for
\na declaration that Smt. Ram Kaur  has only a life
\ninterest in the property and the respondent is the
\nultimate owner of the properties left by Sardar
\nSujan Singh  under his will dated 7.10.1960.  That
\nthere was compromise in the said suit and Smt. Ram
\nKaur  admitted the respondent’s claim and decree
\nfor declaration as prayed for in the suit was
\npassed.    His further case is that a public notice
\nwas got published in the Delhi Gazette of  the
\nGovernment of India dated 02.07.1964 wherein it was
\nstated that Sardar Sujan Singh had left a will
\ndated 7.12.1960 and under that will the
\nplaintiff\/respondent was the owner of the property
\nNo. 251 Block F, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and
\nfurther that he had been declared to be the sole
\nowner of the said property by a decree dated
\n25.04.1964 passed by a Court of competent
\njurisdiction.   That any one dealing with any
\nperson for the sale, mortgage or otherwise transfer
\nof the said property in any way shall do so at his
\nown risk and costs.  He further alleged that on
\n23.12.1996 Smt. Ram Kaur  by a registered gift deed
\ngifted premises No. 251 Block F, New Rajinder
\nNagar, New Delhi to the appellant No. 1 Hazara
\nBradri which is a registered society and that led
\nto filing of the suit on 10.07.1967.  It was prayed
\nthat a declaration be given to the effect that the
\ngift made by Smt. Ram Kaur  in respect of house No.
\n251 Block F, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi  in
\nfavour of  appellant Nos. 1 and 3 is void and
\nineffective as against the plaintiff on the death
\nof Smt. Ram Kaur.\n<\/p>\n
Appellants contested the suit.  It was denied
\nthat Sardar Sujan Singh  had made any will, they
\npleaded that the will set up by the plaintiff was
\nfalse and fabricated. They further denied that
\nSardar Sujan Singh  and Smt. Ram Kaur  ever treated
\nthe plaintiff  as their son or that they had any
\naffection for him.    It was further pleaded that
\neven if the will is proved to have been duly
\nexecuted the restriction placed on the right of
\nSmt. Ram Kaur  in the matter of disposal of the
\nproperty was not legal and binding.  It was
\ncontended that Smt. Ram Kaur had inherited the
\nproperty as the  sole and absolute owner and there
\nwas no restriction on her right to dispose of the
\nsame.  It was maintained by them that the gift was
\nvalid, legal and binding.\n<\/p>\n
Smt. Ram Kaur, who was arrayed as defendant No.
\n4, in her separate written statement stated that
\nPandit Thakur Datta Multani  was a friend of Sardar
\nSujan Singh and as such they were on visiting terms
\nwith each other.   Pandit Thakur Datta Multani  had
\nappointed Sardar Sujan Singh  as an executor of his
\nwill.   She controverted the allegation that she
\nand Sardar Sujan Singh  treated the plaintiff as
\ntheir son and he treated them like his parents.  It
\nwas pleaded  that if the will is proved to have
\nbeen attested by her, her signatures must have been
\nobtained by the plaintiff by fraudulent and
\ndeceitful means.  It was further pleaded that the
\nplaintiff had by fraudulent means got the bank
\naccounts transferred in his name and that when she
\ncame to know of that fact, she got the name of the
\nplaintiff removed from the account and she opened a
\nfresh account in her own name.  It was further
\nstated that she was not aware of the earlier suit
\nfiled by the plaintiff and the declaration obtained
\nby him.  According to her the plaintiff may have
\nobtained the said declaration in the suit by
\nfraudulent means.  \tShe denied to have signed any
\ncompromise deed in the said suit.\n<\/p>\n
On these pleadings the trial Court inter alia
\nframed issues regarding the due execution and
\nattestation of the will;  whether the restriction
\nin the will that Smt. Ram Kaur  did not have the
\nright to sell, mortgage or dispose of by gift any
\npart of the estate was void; as to whether in the
\nearlier suit instituted by the plaintiff against
\nSmt. Ram Kaur, she had admitted by way of
\ncompromise that the plaintiff was the   owner of
\nthe property left by Sardar Sujan Singh and what is
\nits effect on the present suit; and whether the
\ngift made by Smt. Ram Kaur, defendant No. 4, in
\nfavour of appellant was void and illegal.   During
\nthe pendency of the suit Smt. Ram Kaur died on
\n5.2.1978 and thereafter the plaintiff\/respondent
\namended the plaint and besides declaration claimed
\npossession of the house in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
In order to prove the will respondent produced
\nthe two attesting witnesses, namely, Shri Baldev
\nRaj Ajmani, PW 3 and Shri N.C. Sarkar, PW 7.  The
\nwill purports to bear the thumb impression and
\nsignatures of Smt. Ram Kaur  in Gurumukhi as an
\nattesting witness. He examined Shri Mohan Lal
\nPatney, who was the advocate of Smt. Ram Kaur in
\nthe earlier suit as PW 2.  He also examined Shri
\nH.L. Seth, a Sub-Officer in the National  Grindlays
\nBank Ltd. as PW 1 where Sardar Sujan Singh had an
\naccount besides appearing himself as PW 9.  He also
\nexamined Shri A.S. Kapur, PW 8, a handwriting
\nexpert who proved the signature of Sardar Sujan
\nSingh on the will with his admitted signature from
\nthe Bank.  He examined other witnesses also of
\nwhich we may not take note of at this stage.   Smt.
\nRam Kaur appeared as DW 1 as well as  Shri M.K.
\nMehta, DW  3, handwriting expert.\n<\/p>\n
Learned Single Judge after hearing the counsel
\nfor the parties by an elaborate judgment held that
\ndue execution of the will was doubtful.  Believing
\nthe testimony of Shri Mehta, hand-writing expert
\nproduced by the appellants and after examining the
\ndisputed signatures of Sardar Sujan Singh and Smt.
\nRam Kaur himself came to the conclusion that it was
\ndoubtful as to whether  the signatures appended on
\nthe will were that of Sardar Sujan Singh and Smt.
\nRam Kaur.  It was held that it was doubtful that
\nSmt. Ram Kaur  was aware of the suit instituted by
\nthe plaintiff against her and of the decree passed
\nin the suit.  That it seems that respondent had
\nobtained the decree by some dubious means.
\nEvidence of Shri Kapur hand-writing expert produced
\nby the respondent was disbelieved.  Testimony of
\nthe two attesting witnesses was also disbelieved.
\nLearned Single Judge did not elaborately discuss
\nthe testimony of these witnesses.  Their testimony
\nwas discarded by observing that they did not know
\nthe respondent intimately and they knew him
\ncasually only.  It was held that Smt. Ram Kaur  had
\nnot put her signature on the will or the compromise
\nentered into between her and the respondent in the
\nprevious suit.  For the aforesaid reasons, the
\nlearned Single Judge dismissed the suit leaving the
\nparties to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
The Division Bench in appeal reversed the
\nfindings of the learned Single Judge and held that
\nno fault could be found with the testimony of the
\ntwo attesting witnesses who were trustworthy.  That
\ntheir testimony had been discarded by the learned
\nSingle Judge without recording any reasons
\nwhatsoever.  The finding recorded by the learned
\nSingle Judge regarding due execution of the will or
\nthat Sardar Sujan Singh had not put his signature
\nwas also set aside.  The testimony of Smt. Ram Kaur
\nwas  also disbelieved.  It was held that the will
\nwas duly executed by Sardar Sujan Singh who had
\ntreated the respondent like his son and that the
\nrespondent had been taking care of Sardar Sujan
\nSingh  and Smt. Ram Kaur during their old age.  It
\nwas held that Sardar Sujan Singh and Pt. Thakur
\nDatta Multani were very close friends and the
\nlatter had appointed Sardar Sujan Singh as the
\nexecutor of his will.  The suit filed by the
\nplaintiff\/respondent was accordingly decreed.\n<\/p>\n
After hearing learned counsel appearing for the
\nparties, going through the judgments of the
\nDivision Bench as well as that of the learned
\nSingle Judge and the evidence all over again we are
\nin agreement with the view taken by the Division
\nBench.  The Division Bench has rightly set aside
\nthe judgment of the learned Single Judge and in
\ndecreeing the suit filed by the
\nplaintiff\/respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The testimony of Ajmani- PW 3, and Sarkar-PW 7,
\nthe two attesting witnesses is consistent, natural
\nand truthful.  Intensive cross-examination has
\nfailed to bring out any material contradiction in
\ntheir testimony.  Learned Single Judge did not deal
\nwith the testimony about the actual attestation of
\nthe Will on 7.12.1960  but has disbelieved the
\nattestation on collateral grounds such as (a) as to
\nwhy Ajmani  PW 3 and Sarkar  PW 7 were chosen as
\nattesting witness; (b) it was doubtful whether the
\nSardar Sujan Singh who had sustained a fracture in
\nhis leg was in a position to go to the houses of
\nAjmani and Sarkar to call  them; (c) since the
\nplaintiff had been called by Sardar Sujan Singh on
\nphone to come to the house in the evening of
\n7.12.1960 he would have as well asked the plaintiff
\nto call Ajmani and Sarkar rather than going to
\ntheir houses to call them himself; (d) signatures
\nof Ram Kumar and Sardar Sujan Singh on one hand and
\nthose of attesting witnesses on the other are in
\ndifferent inks.  These are hardly any grounds to
\ndiscard the testimony of PW 3 and PW 7.  Ajmani
\nPW 3 came into contact with Sardar Sujan Singh as
\nthey often used to meet at Ramkrishna Mission.
\nSimilarly, Sarkar – PW 7 being a Government servant
\nwas in touch with Sardar Sujan Singh.  The
\ntestimony of these two witnesses cannot be
\ndisbelieved only on the ground that it was doubtful
\nthat Sardar Sujan Singh because of the fracture in
\nhis leg could have gone to their houses to call
\nthem.   The aforesaid finding, in our view, is
\nunsustainable particularly when it has not been
\nestablished as to during what period of the year
\n1960 Sardar Sujan Singh had suffered the fracture
\nin his leg.  Learned Single Judge merely estimated
\nthe fracture to be in the year 1960.  The will was
\nexecuted in December, 1960.   In the absence of any
\nevidence that in which month did Sardar Sujan Singh
\nhad suffered the fracture it is not possible for us
\nto conclude that Sardar Sujan Singh was not in a
\nposition to go to the houses of these two witnesses
\nto call them.  Learned Single Judge took the view
\nthat signatures of Smt. Ram Kaur and those of
\nSardar Sujan Singh are in the same ink whereas the
\nsignatures of the other two attesting witnesses are
\nin different ink.   Will  cannot be disbelieved
\nonly because the testator  had used a different pen
\nthan the pen used by the attesting witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
Learned Single Judge has discarded the will on
\nthe ground that the same was surrounded by
\nsuspicious circumstances.   The Division Bench
\nafter an elaborate discussion has discarded all the
\nsuspicious circumstances.  The Division Bench came
\nto the conclusion that the will was natural and was
\nexecuted by Sardar Sujan Singh  out of love and
\naffection for respondent whom he treated like his
\nson.  It was further held that he did not deprive
\nhis wife of the property.  He left the property to
\nhis wife for her life time without any power to
\nalienate the same in any manner and after her death
\nthe property was to go to the respondent as
\nabsolute owner.  Smt. Ram Kaur  had attested the
\nwill.  It was found that Pt. Thakur Datta Multani
\nfather of the respondent was a very close friend of
\nSardar Sujan Singh which was evident from the fact
\nthat he had appointed him as the executant of his
\nwill.  That Sardar Sujan Singh had executed the
\nwill out of his own volition in a healthy state of
\nmind and had appended his signature on each page of
\nthe will.  Simply because he had signed some of the
\npages twice was not a good ground to hold that the
\nwill was suspicious.\n<\/p>\n
We agree with the view taken by the Division
\nBench and need not elaborate it again.   Learned
\ncounsel for the appellants could not persuade us to
\ntake a view other than the view taken by the
\nDivision Bench.  The finding recorded by the
\nDivision Bench that the will was not surrounded by
\nsuspicious circumstances is sustainable.  Moreover,
\nthis is a finding of fact which does not call for
\nany interference.\n<\/p>\n
We are also inclined to agree with the view
\ntaken by the Division Bench that Sardar Sujan Singh
\nhad executed the will in favour of the respondent
\nas he was the son of Pt. Thakur Datta Multani  a
\nclose friend of his and that he had been treating
\nthe respondent as his son and the respondent had
\nalso looked after Sardar Sujan Singh  and Smt. Ram
\nKaur  in their old age and illness.  Smt. Ram Kaur
\nhad also attested the  will.  She had also entered
\ninto a compromise with the respondent in the
\nearlier suit and admitted the due execution of the
\nwill in favour of the respondent.    It seems that
\nbecause of the change of heart she denied the
\nexecution of the will and the compromise arrived at
\nby her in the earlier suit and took the stand that
\nher signature\/thumb impression on the will may have
\ntaken by fraudulent means.  For the same reason she
\ndenied her entering into a compromise in the
\nearlier suit.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons stated above, we do not find
\nany merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with
\nno orders as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Hazara Bradri & Others vs Lokesh Dutta Multani on 16 November, 2005 Author: Bhan Bench: Ashok Bhan, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2117 of 2001 PETITIONER: Hazara Bradri & Others RESPONDENT: Lokesh Dutta Multani DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/11\/2005 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & ALTAMAS KABIR JUDGMENT: J U D G M […]<\/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-258285","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHazara Bradri & Others vs Lokesh Dutta Multani on 16 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hazara Bradri & Others vs Lokesh Dutta Multani on 16 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-08T15:10:35+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hazara Bradri & Others vs Lokesh Dutta Multani on 16 November, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-08T15:10:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2604,\"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\\\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005\",\"name\":\"Hazara Bradri & Others vs Lokesh Dutta Multani on 16 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-08T15:10:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hazara Bradri & Others vs Lokesh Dutta Multani on 16 November, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hazara Bradri & Others vs Lokesh Dutta Multani on 16 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hazara Bradri & Others vs Lokesh Dutta Multani on 16 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-08T15:10:35+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hazara Bradri & Others vs Lokesh Dutta Multani on 16 November, 2005","datePublished":"2005-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-08T15:10:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005"},"wordCount":2604,"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\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005","name":"Hazara Bradri & Others vs Lokesh Dutta Multani on 16 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-08T15:10:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hazara-bradri-others-vs-lokesh-dutta-multani-on-16-november-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hazara Bradri & Others vs Lokesh Dutta Multani on 16 November, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258285","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=258285"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258285\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258285"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}