{"id":258548,"date":"2011-03-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011"},"modified":"2018-07-03T01:02:26","modified_gmt":"2018-07-02T19:32:26","slug":"mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mrs. Anjana Vij vs Mr. Krishan Dev & Another on 7 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Mrs. Anjana Vij vs Mr. Krishan Dev & Another on 7 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: V. K. Jain<\/div>\n
         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                        Judgment Reserved on: 1.3.2011\n                         Judgment Pronounced on: 07.03.2011\n\n+ I.A. No.3125\/2010 in CS(OS) No. 1564\/2008\n\nMrs. Anjana Vij                                  .....Plaintiff\n                               - versus -\n\nMr. Krishan Dev & Another                        .....Defendant\n\nAdvocates who appeared in this case:\nFor the Plaintiff: Mr. Brajesh K. Srivastava with Mr. Dinesh\n                  Kumar.\nFor the Defendant: Mr. Pankaj Vivek for D-1.\n                      Mr. Rajiv Bansal with Ms. R. Veena for\n                      D-2.\n                      Mr. Ajay Paul for applicants.\nCORAM:-\nHON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN\n\n1. Whether Reporters of local papers may\n   be allowed to see the judgment?                          Yes\n\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                   Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported                  Yes\n   in Digest?\n\nV.K. JAIN, J\n\n1.          This is a suit for specific performance of the\n\nagreement to sell dated 20th April, 2006 and for grant of\n\ninjunction.           The case of the plaintiff is that vide an\n\nagreement to sell dated 20 th April, 2006, defendant No.1\n\nagreed to sell plot No.50 measuring 100 sq. meters at\n\n\n\nCS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                    Page 1 of 21\n Rangapuri,        Vasant   Kunj,   New    Delhi     to   her       for        a\n\nconsideration of       Rs.3   lakhs and     received a          sum       of\n\nRs.2,90,000\/- from him leaving a very small amount of\n\nRs.10,000\/- as the balance sale consideration.                 It is also\n\nalleged that the plot, subject matter of the agreement was\n\ninitially allotted by the DDA to the father of defendant No.1,\n\nwho died on 18th March, 2006 and defendant No.1, claiming\n\nto be the sole successor of his father, entered into the\n\nabovementioned        agreement    with   the     plaintiff.        Since\n\ndefendant No.1 failed to execute the sale document in\n\nfavour of the plaintiff, she is seeking specific performance of\n\nthe agreement and injunction restraining defendant No.1\n\nfrom selling, transferring or assigning the aforesaid plot to\n\nany person.\n\n2.          In his written statement, defendant No.1 has\n\nalleged that one Sukhbir Singh approached him in March,\n\n2006 and enquired as to whether he had been allotted any\n\nplot by the DDA in its rehabilitation programme. When he\n\ntold him that no plot had been allotted to him, Sukhbir\n\nSingh told him that his name figured in the serve list of\n\n1971-72 for allotment of plots and further told him that he\n\ncould help in getting a plot allotted to him from the DDA.\n\nCS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                            Page 2 of 21\n Sukhbir Singh took a sum of Rs.10,000\/- from him towards\n\nexpenses changes. He was then taken by Sukhbir Singh to\n\none Naresh Kumar, who offered loan to him and also offered\n\nto purchase his entitlement to the plot at the rate of\n\nRs.90,000\/- per sq. meter.        It is further alleged by\n\ndefendant No.1 that he agreed to sell his entitlement to\n\nNaresh Kumar whereafter he was taken to the office of Sub-\n\nRegistrar and his signatures were obtained on various\n\npapers. He also claims that the contents of the document\n\nwere got signed from him but were not explained to him. A\n\nsum of Rs.1,00,000\/- was deposited by Sukhbir Singh and\n\nNaresh Kumar in his account.        He was then taken to\n\nSyndicate Bank where his signatures were obtained on\n\nsome papers and some money was given to him, which was\n\ntaken by Naresh Kumar from him. He has also claimed that\n\nRishal Singh died on 18 th March, 2006 leaving behind his\n\nwidow Smt. Sarabati, five sons and two daughters and he\n\nwas not the exclusive owner of plot No.50, Block-A situated\n\nat rehabilitate site Nangal Dewat and his entitlement was\n\nonly 1\/8 share in the aforesaid plot. It is also alleged that\n\nthe allotment of plot No.50 in Block-A was cancelled by the\n\nDDA and they were allotted plot No.11 in Block-1, in Village\n\nCS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                Page 3 of 21\n Rangpuri, New Delhi in lieu of the plot acquird in Village\n\nNangal Dewat, which belonged to late Shri Rishal Singh.\n\n3.          I.A. No.3125\/2010 has been filed by Karambir\n\nSingh, Hanumat Singh, Bhim Singh, Rajesh Kumar and\n\nSharbati Devi.        Sharbati Devi is the mother of defendant\n\nNo.1 whereas the other applicants are his brothers.           It is\n\nalleged in the application that the plaintiff is seeking specific\n\nperformance of an agreement to sell with respect to a\n\nproperty, which is co-owned by the applicants, defendant\n\nNo.1 and two other persons namely Shakuntala and Suresh\n\nBala, who are the sisters of defendant No.1. Their case is\n\nthat since late Rishal Singh died intestate, all of them\n\ninherited the aforesaid plot being his Class-I legal heirs.\n\n4.          The application has been opposed by the plaintiff,\n\nwho has denied the co-ownership claimed by the applicants.\n\n5.          A perusal of the allotment letter dated 19th June,\n\n2007 issued by the DDA in respect of plot No.50, Block-A, in\n\nVillage Rangpuri shows that the allotment was made to the\n\nlegal representatives of Rishal S\/o Neki (Julahan) resident\n\nof Village and Post Office Nangal Dewat, New Delhi in lieu of\n\nthe plot acquired in the aforesaid village.       A perusal of\n\nallotment letter dated 28th July, 2008 issued by the DDA\n\nCS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                    Page 4 of 21\n again to the legal heirs of Rishal S\/o Neki Julahan shows\n\nthat plot No.11, Block-B-1 in Village Rangpuri was allotted\n\nto them in lieu of the plot No.50, Block A in Village\n\nRangpuri.\n\n6.          A perusal of the agreement to sell set up by the\n\nplaintiff would show that vide this document defendant No.1\n\nKrishan Dev claimed to be owner in possession of plot No.50\n\nin Block A situated at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and agreed to\n\nsell the aforesaid plot to the plaintiff for a consideration of\n\nRs.3 lakhs.\n\n7.          It would thus be seen that no allotment letter had\n\nbeen issued by DDA in respect of Plot No.50 in Block A in\n\nVillage Rangpuri in Vasant Kunj by 20th April, 2006 when\n\nthe agreement to sell is alleged to have been executed by\n\ndefendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. More importantly,\n\nboth the allotments were made by the DDA in favour of all\n\nthe legal representatives of late Rishal Singh, though they\n\nwere not named in the allotment letter. Though the case set\n\nup in the plaint is that defendant No.1 had claimed to be\n\nthe sole legal heir of late Rishal Singh, there is no such\n\nstatement in the agreement to sell, alleged to have been\n\nexecuted by him on 20th April, 2006.\n\nCS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                  Page 5 of 21\n 8.          It is plaintiff's own case that the allotment was\n\nmade by the DDA to Shri Rishal Singh though, in fact, it\n\nwas made to his legal heirs and not to him.       It is strange\n\nthat despite claiming knowledge of allotment in the name of\n\nlate Rishal Singh and also claiming that defendant No.1 had\n\nrepresented to the plaintiff that he was the sole successor of\n\nlate Rishal Singh, no statement to this effect was got\n\nincorporated by the plaintiff in the agreement to sell alleged\n\nto have executed on 20th April, 2006. This is also not the\n\ncase of the plaintiff that she had tried to verify the\n\nparticulars of the legal heirs of late Rishal Singh and had\n\ncome to know that defendant No.1 was his sole legal heir.\n\nSince the allotment was made to all the legal heirs of late\n\nRishal Singh and this is not the case of the plaintiff that\n\nother legal heirs had relinquished their share in favour of\n\ndefendant No.1, prima facie, it is difficult to dispute that\n\nbeing only one of the legal heirs, defendant No.1 was not\n\ncompetent to enter into an agreement to sell the aforesaid\n\nplot to the plaintiff.\n\n9.          As a general principle of law, the plaintiff being\n\ndominus litis, it is for him to chose the persons against\n\nwhom he wants to litigate and ordinarily he cannot be\n\nCS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                  Page 6 of 21\n compelled to implead a person against whom he did not\n\nseek any relief but, this general rule, as observed by the\n\nSupreme Court in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.\n\nv. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and\n\nothers<\/a>, AIR 2010 SC 3109, is subject to the provision of\n\nOrder 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC, which provides for\n\nimpleadment of proper and necessary parties.              This\n\nprovision confers a power on the Court to direct to direct\n\naddition of a person, who ought to have been joined as a\n\nparty to the suit but has not been joined, or a person,\n\nwhose presence before the Court may be necessary in order\n\nto enable it to effectively and completely adjudicate upon\n\nand settle the questions involved in the suit as a party to\n\nthe suit.      A person, who ought to have been joined as a\n\nparty to the suit and in whose absence, no effective decree\n\ncan be passed by the Court, is a necessary party whereas a\n\nperson is a proper party though not a necessary party if his\n\npresence would enable the Court to completely, effectively\n\nand adequately adjudicate upon all the matters in dispute\n\nin the suit even though no relief against him has been\n\nclaimed in the suit.\n\n10.         The impleadment of the applicants has been\n\nCS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                Page 7 of 21\n opposed on the ground that being strangers to the\n\nagreement to sell dated 20th April, 2006, they are neither\n\nnecessary nor proper parties to the present suit. Reliance\n\nin this regard has been placed on the decision of Supreme\n\nCourt in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, (2005) 6\n\nSCC 733. In that case, the appellant had filed a civil suit\n\nagainst respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for specific performance of<\/pre>\n
contract, entered into between him and respondent Nos. 2<\/p>\n
and 3.       Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11, who were not<\/p>\n
parties to the contract and were setting up a claim of<\/p>\n
independent title and possession over the contracted<\/p>\n
property filed an application to implead them as defendants.<\/p>\n
The trial Court allowed them to be added as parties and its<\/p>\n
decision was upheld by the High Court.       Reversing the<\/p>\n
decision of the High Court, Supreme Court held that<\/p>\n
stranger to the contract namely respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to<\/p>\n
11, who were making claims independent and adverse to the<\/p>\n
title of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were neither necessary nor<\/p>\n
proper parties and, therefore, were not entitled to join as<\/p>\n
party defendants to the suit for specific performance of<\/p>\n
contract for sale. The Supreme Court was of the view that<\/p>\n
the persons seeking addition in the suit for specific<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                Page 8 of 21<\/span>
\n performance of the contract for sale who were not claiming<\/p>\n
under the vendor but were claiming adverse to the title of<\/p>\n
the vendor do not fall in any of the categories enumerated in<\/p>\n
sub-sections (a) to (e) of Section 19<\/a> of the Specific Relief Act.<\/p>\n
During the course of the judgment, Supreme Court, inter<\/p>\n
alia, observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
              “11. As noted hereinearlier, two tests are
\n              required to be satisfied to determine the
\n              question who is a necessary party, let us
\n              now consider who is a proper party in a
\n              suit for specific performance of a contract
\n              for sale. For deciding the question who is
\n              a proper party in a suit for specific
\n              performance the guiding principle is that
\n              the presence of such a party is necessary
\n              to adjudicate the controversies involved
\n              in the suit for specific performance of the
\n              contract for sale. Thus, the question is to
\n              be decided keeping in mind the scope of
\n              the suit. The question that is to be
\n              decided in a suit for specific performance
\n              of the contract for sale is to the
\n              enforceability of the contract entered into
\n              between the parties to the contract. If the
\n              person seeking addition is added in such
\n              a suit, the scope of the suit for specific
\n              performance would be enlarged and it
\n              would be practically converted into a suit
\n              for    title.   Therefore,    for   effective
\n              adjudication of the controversies involved
\n              in the suit, presence of such parties
\n              cannot be said to be necessary at all….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              13……They were also not necessary
\n              parties as they would not be affected by
\n              the contract entered into between the
\n              appellant and Respondents 2 and 3. In
\n              the case of Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath
\n              Mishra<\/a>, (1995) 3 SCC 147, it has been
\n              held that since the applicant who sought
\n              for his addition is not a party to the
\n              agreement for sale, it cannot be said that<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                      Page 9 of 21<\/span>
\n               in his absence, the dispute as to specific
\n              performance cannot be decided. In this
\n              case at para 9, the Supreme Court while
\n              deciding whether a person is a necessary
\n              party or not in a suit for specific
\n              performance of a contract for sale made
\n              the following observation:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    “Since the respondent is not a
\n                 party to the agreement of sale, it
\n                 cannot be said that without his
\n                 presence the dispute as to specific
\n                 performance cannot be determined.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Therefore, he is not a necessary
\n                 party.”       (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 15….As noted hereinearlier, in a suit
\n              for specific performance of a contract for
\n              sale, the issue to be decided is the
\n              enforceability of the contract entered into
\n              between the appellant and Respondents 2
\n              and 3 and whether contract was executed
\n              by the appellant and Respondents 2 and
\n              3 for sale of the contracted property,
\n              whether the plaintiffs were ready and
\n              willing to perform their part of the
\n              contract and whether the appellant is
\n              entitled to a decree for specific
\n              performance of a contract for sale against
\n              Respondents 2 and 3. It is an admitted
\n              position that Respondents 1 and 4 to 11
\n              did not seek their addition in the suit on
\n              the strength of the contract in respect of
\n              which the suit for specific performance of
\n              the contract for sale has been filed.
\n              Admittedly, they based their claim on
\n              independent title and possession of the
\n              contracted property. It is, therefore,
\n              obvious as noted hereinearlier that in the
\n              event, Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 are
\n              added or impleaded in the suit, the scope
\n              of the suit for specific performance of the
\n              contract for sale shall be enlarged from
\n              the suit for specific performance to a suit
\n              for title and possession which is not
\n              permissible in law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              15….. As discussed above, in the event
\n              any    decree     is    passed    against
\n              Respondents 2 and 3 and in favour of the
\n              appellant for specific performance of the<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                    Page 10 of 21<\/span>
\n               contract for sale in respect of the
\n              contracted property, the decree that
\n              would be passed in the said suit,
\n              obviously, cannot bind Respondents 1
\n              and 4 to 11. It may also be observed that
\n              in the event, the appellant obtains a
\n              decree for specific performance of the
\n              contracted property against Respondents
\n              2 and 3, then, the Court shall direct
\n              execution of deed of sale in favour of the
\n              appellant in the event Respondents 2 and
\n              3 refusing to execute the deed of sale and
\n              to obtain possession of the contracted
\n              property he has to put the decree in
\n              execution. As noted hereinearlier, since
\n              Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 were not
\n              parties   in    the   suit   for   specific
\n              performance of a contract for sale of the
\n              contracted property, a decree passed in
\n              such a suit shall not bind them and in
\n              that case, Respondents 1 and 4 to 11
\n              would be at liberty either to obstruct
\n              execution in order to protect their
\n              possession by taking recourse to the
\n              relevant provisions of CPC, if they are
\n              available to them, or to file an
\n              independent suit for declaration of title
\n              and possession against the appellant or
\n              Respondent 3. On the other hand, if the
\n              decree is passed in favour of the
\n              appellant and sale deed is executed, the
\n              stranger     to   the    contract    being
\n              Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 have to be
\n              sued for taking possession if they are in
\n              possession of the decretal property.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              18. That apart, there is another principle
\n              which cannot also be forgotten. The
\n              appellant, who has filed the instant suit
\n              for specific performance of the contract
\n              for sale is dominus litis and cannot be
\n              forced to add parties against whom he
\n              does not want to fight unless it is a
\n              compulsion of the rule of law, as already
\n              discussed above. For the reasons
\n              aforesaid, we are, therefore, of the view
\n              that Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 are
\n              neither necessary parties nor proper
\n              parties and therefore they are not entitled
\n              to be added as party-defendants in the
\n              pending suit for specific performance of<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                    Page 11 of 21<\/span>
\n               the contract for sale.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.         However, in a subsequent decision in Sumtibai<\/p>\n
and others v. Paras Finance Co<\/a>., (2007) 10 SCC 82,<\/p>\n
Supreme Court after considering its earlier decision in<\/p>\n
Kasturi (supra), inter alia, observed as under:-<\/p>\n
              “9.       Learned     counsel     for   the
\n              respondent relied on a three-Judge
\n              Bench decision of this Court in Kasturi v.
\n              Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733. He has
\n              submitted that in this case it has been
\n              held that in a suit for specific
\n              performance of a contract for sale of
\n              property a stranger or a third party to the
\n              contract cannot be added as defendant in
\n              the suit. In our opinion, the aforesaid
\n              decision is clearly distinguishable. In our
\n              opinion, the aforesaid decision can only
\n              be understood to mean that a third party
\n              cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific
\n              performance if he has no semblance of
\n              title in the property in dispute. Obviously,
\n              a busybody or interloper with no
\n              semblance of title cannot be impleaded in
\n              such a suit. That would unnecessarily
\n              protract or obstruct the proceedings in
\n              the suit. However, the aforesaid decision
\n              will have no application where a third
\n              party shows some semblance of title or
\n              interest in the property in dispute. In the
\n              present case, the registered sale deed
\n              dated 12-8-1960 by which the property
\n              was purchased shows that the shop in
\n              dispute was sold in favour of not only
\n              Kapoor Chand, but also his sons. Thus
\n              prima facie it appears that the purchaser
\n              of the property in dispute was not only
\n              Kapoor Chand but also his sons. Hence,
\n              it cannot be said that the sons of Kapoor
\n              Chand have no semblance of title and are
\n              mere busybodies or interlopers.\n<\/p>\n
              14…..we are of the opinion that Kasturi<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                     Page 12 of 21<\/span>
\n               case, (2005) 6 SCC 733,          is clearly
\n              distinguishable. In our opinion it cannot
\n              be laid down as an absolute proposition
\n              that whenever a suit for specific
\n              performance is filed by A against B, a
\n              third party C can never be impleaded in
\n              that suit. In our opinion, if C can show a
\n              fair semblance of title or interest he can
\n              certainly    file  an    application    for
\n              impleadment. To take a contrary view
\n              would lead to multiplicity of proceedings
\n              because then C will have to wait until a
\n              decree is passed against B, and then file
\n              a suit for cancellation of the decree on
\n              the ground that A had no title in the
\n              property in dispute. Clearly, such a view
\n              cannot be countenanced.\n<\/p>\n
12.         In the case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt.<\/p>\n
Ltd. (supra), Supreme Court, on examination of its earlier<\/p>\n
decisions in the case of Kasturi (supra) and Sumtibai<\/p>\n
(supra), felt that there was no conflict between the two<\/p>\n
decisions since they were dealing with different situations,<\/p>\n
requiring application of different facets of sub-Rule 2 of<\/p>\n
Section 10<\/a> of Order 1 and this had been made clear by the<\/p>\n
Court in Sumtibai itself.\n<\/p>\n
13.         In Gyanender Prasad Tewari v. Om Prakash<\/p>\n
and Another (CM (M) No<\/a>.1873\/2006 decided by this Court<\/p>\n
on 26th November, 2007), respondent No.2 before this court<\/p>\n
filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell<\/p>\n
dated 18th June, 1990 with possession of the plot, subject<\/p>\n
matter of the agreement.       It was alleged in the plant that<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                    Page 13 of 21<\/span>
\n defendant had represented to the plaintiff that he was the<\/p>\n
sole and exclusive owner of the suit property on the basis of<\/p>\n
registered Will dated 13 th February, 1980 executed by his<\/p>\n
father bequeathing the suit property in favour of defendant<\/p>\n
and his elder brother and a relinquishment deed had<\/p>\n
thereafter been executed by the brother of the defendant in<\/p>\n
his favour. The original Will and relinquishment deed were<\/p>\n
delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff, who made part<\/p>\n
payment of the sale consideration to him. On failure of the<\/p>\n
defendant to perform his part of the obligation, a suit for<\/p>\n
specific performance of the agreement was filed.       In the<\/p>\n
written statement filed by him, the defendant claimed that<\/p>\n
the documents, which formed the basis of the suit, were<\/p>\n
forged and fabricated documents and he was not the sole<\/p>\n
and exclusive owner of the suit property.       Independent<\/p>\n
applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC were filed by the<\/p>\n
defendant and his brother G.P. Tiwari for impleadment of<\/p>\n
G.P. Tiwari as a defendant on the ground that both of them<\/p>\n
were joint owners of the suit property.    This Court, after<\/p>\n
taking into consideration the decisions of Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Kasturi (supra) and Sumtibai (supra), took a view that<\/p>\n
the ownership of suit property was an issue in the suit and,<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                Page 14 of 21<\/span>
\n therefore, the petitioner, who claimed to be co-owner of the<\/p>\n
suit property, would be affected by the decision in the suit<\/p>\n
and hence was a necessary party.         His impleadment as<\/p>\n
party to the suit was, accordingly, allowed.<\/p>\n
14.         In S.S. Bakshi v. P.M. Mathrani (I.A. Nos<\/a>.11116,<\/p>\n
11119, 11121 and 11132\/99 in Suit Nos. 225, 226, 227<\/p>\n
and 228 of 1998 decided on 19th December, 2000),<\/p>\n
applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC were filed for<\/p>\n
impleading the applicant Mrs. Sarla Mishra as party to the<\/p>\n
suit. In that case, M.P. Mathrani, owner of Bungalow No.9,<\/p>\n
Kautilya Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi had entered<\/p>\n
into five agreements to sell his share in the aforesaid<\/p>\n
property to the five plaintiffs. On his failure to complete the<\/p>\n
transaction, five suits for specific performance of those<\/p>\n
agreements were filed in this Court.     The applicant before<\/p>\n
the Court was one of the sisters of the defendant.           Her<\/p>\n
impleadment was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground<\/p>\n
that she was a total stranger to the agreement to sell<\/p>\n
executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff and,<\/p>\n
therefore, was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the<\/p>\n
suit.    Rejecting the contention, it was held by this Court<\/p>\n
that the applicant, being co-owner having undivided share<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                  Page 15 of 21<\/span>
\n in the house, was entitled to be impleaded as a party to the<\/p>\n
suit.\n<\/p>\n
15.         The learned counsel for the plaintiff has also relied<\/p>\n
upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat<\/p>\n
Karsondas Thakkar v. Kiran Construction Company<\/a>,<\/p>\n
(2008) 13 SCC 658.           In that case the issue before the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court was as to whether the appellant, who had<\/p>\n
acquired an independent right in the suit property by way of<\/p>\n
separate decree but was not a party to the agreement<\/p>\n
between respondent No.1 and M\/s Modern Development<\/p>\n
Corporation could be added as a party in the suit for<\/p>\n
specific performance, which respondent No.1 had filed and<\/p>\n
whether the decree passed in his favour could be assailed<\/p>\n
by respondent No.1 in his suit for specific performance. The<\/p>\n
Division Bench        of   the   High   Court   had   allowed     the<\/p>\n
amendment so as to implead the appellant as a party to the<\/p>\n
suit for specific performance, which respondent No.1 had<\/p>\n
filed. It had also allowed amendment of the prayer in the<\/p>\n
plaint so as to include declarations with respect to the<\/p>\n
decree, which had been passed in another suit and for<\/p>\n
damages.        During the course of the judgment, Supreme<\/p>\n
Court, relying upon its earlier decision in Anil Kumar<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                      Page 16 of 21<\/span>
\n Singh v. Shivnath Mishra<\/a>, (1995) 3 SCC 147, held that<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 was not entitled to be joined as a party to<\/p>\n
the suit and he could file a separate suit to challenge the<\/p>\n
consent decree.        During the course of the judgment,<\/p>\n
Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:-<\/p>\n
                       “28. Along with that is the other
\n              question, which very often raises its head
\n              in suits for specific performance, that is,
\n              whether a stranger to an agreement for
\n              sale can be added as a party in a suit for
\n              specific performance of an agreement for
\n              sale in view of Section 15<\/a> of the Specific
\n              Relief Act, 1963. The relevant provision of
\n              Section 15<\/a> with which we are concerned
\n              is contained in clause (a) thereof and
\n              entitles any party to the contract to seek
\n              specific performance of such contract.
\n              Admittedly, the appellant herein is a third
\n              party to the agreement and does not,
\n              therefore, fall within the category of
\n              “parties to the agreement”. The appellant
\n              also does not come within the ambit of
\n              Section 19<\/a> of the said Act, which provides
\n              for relief against parties and persons
\n              claiming under them by subsequent
\n              title.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.         The facts and circumstances of this case are<\/p>\n
altogether different from the facts in the case of Kasturi<\/p>\n
(supra) and Bharat Karsondas Thakkar (supra).                     In<\/p>\n
neither of these cases, the applicant seeking impleadment<\/p>\n
as a party to the suit, claimed to be co-owner of the suit<\/p>\n
property, along with the vendor. As noted earlier, the plot in<\/p>\n
question was allotted by DDA to all the legal representatives<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                    Page 17 of 21<\/span>
\n of late Rishal Singh and not to defendant No.1 alone. No<\/p>\n
relinquishment deed in favour of defendant No.1 has even<\/p>\n
been claimed by the plaintiff. There is no averment in the<\/p>\n
agreement to sell set up by the plaintiff that defendant No.1<\/p>\n
was the sole legal heir of late Rishal Singh. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
fact situation in this case is altogether different and prima<\/p>\n
facie, it appears that defendant No.1 alone had no legal<\/p>\n
right to enter into an agreement with respect to the plot,<\/p>\n
which had been allotted to all the legal heirs of late Rishal<\/p>\n
Singh. In Sumtibai (supra), which is a decision later than<\/p>\n
the decision in the case of Kasturi (supra) and has taken<\/p>\n
Kasturi (supra) into consideration, Supreme Court was of<\/p>\n
the view that if a third party shows some semblance of title<\/p>\n
and interest in the property in dispute, he ought to be<\/p>\n
impleaded as a party to the suit. In that case, it was found<\/p>\n
that sale deed vide which the property was purchased was<\/p>\n
executed in favour of not only Kapoor Chand but also his<\/p>\n
sons, which indicated that Kapoor Chand had no semblance<\/p>\n
of title in the property.           In the present case also, the<\/p>\n
allotment       by    DDA   being    in   favour   of   all   the    legal<\/p>\n
representatives of late Rishal Singh, it is difficult to dispute<\/p>\n
that all his legal heirs have a share in the plot, subject<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                           Page 18 of 21<\/span>
\n matter of the agreement to sale dated 20th April, 2006.<\/p>\n
17.         In State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra<\/a>,<\/p>\n
AIR 1968 SC 647, Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
              “there are two observations of a general
\n              character which I wish to make, and one
\n              is to repeat what I have very often said
\n              before, that every judgment must be read
\n              as applicable to the particular facts
\n              proved, or assumed to be proved, since
\n              the generality of the expressions which
\n              may be found there are not intended to
\n              be expositions of the whole law, but
\n              governed and qualified by the particular
\n              facts of the case in which such
\n              expressions are to be found. The other is
\n              that a case is only an authority for what
\n              it actually decides. I entirely deny that it
\n              can be quoted for a proposition that may
\n              seem to follow logically from it. Such a
\n              mode of reasoning assumes that the law
\n              is necessarily a logical code, whereas
\n              every lawyer must acknowledge that the
\n              law is not always logical at all. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
            In Bhavnagar University v. palitana Sugar Mill<\/p>\n
(P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111, Supreme Court, inter alia,<\/p>\n
observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
              “It is also well settled that a little
\n              difference in facts or additional facts may
\n              make a lot of difference in the
\n              precedential value of a decision.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. N.R<\/a>.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
CS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                     Page 19 of 21<\/span><\/p>\n
 Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579, Supreme Court, inter alia,<\/p>\n
observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                       “9. Courts should not place
\n               reliance on decisions without discussing
\n               as to how the factual situation fits in with
\n               the fact situation of the decision on which
\n               reliance is placed. Observations of courts
\n               are neither to be read as Euclid’s
\n               theorems nor as provisions of a statute
\n               and that too taken out of their context.
\n               These observations must be read in the
\n               context in which they appear to have
\n               been stated. Judgments of courts are not
\n               to be construed as statutes. To interpret
\n               words, phrases and provisions of a
\n               statute, it may become necessary for
\n               judges     to    embark      into   lengthy
\n               discussions but the discussion is meant
\n               to explain and not to define. Judges
\n               interpret statutes, they do not interpret
\n               judgments. They interpret words of
\n               statutes; their words are not to be
\n               interpreted as statutes.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
18.         Since the fact in the case of Sumtibai (supra) as<\/p>\n
also in the case of Gyanender Prasad Tewari (supra) and<\/p>\n
S.S. Bakshi (supra) were identical whereas the facts in the<\/p>\n
case of Kasturi (supra) and Bharat Karsondas Thakkar<\/p>\n
(supra) were altogether different, I am of the view that in the<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances of this case, it would not be<\/p>\n
appropriate to drive the applicants to another litigation by<\/p>\n
compelling them to file a fresh suit instead of impleading<\/p>\n
them      as    parties   to   the   suit,   when   the   facts    and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case clearly indicate that defendant<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                        Page 20 of 21<\/span>
\n No.1 was not the sole owner of the plot, subject matter of<\/p>\n
the agreement to sell dated 20th April, 2006 and was only<\/p>\n
one of its several co-owners.\n<\/p>\n
19.         For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs,<\/p>\n
I.A. No. 3125\/2010 is allowed and the plaintiff is directed to<\/p>\n
file amended memo of parties impleading the applicants as<\/p>\n
well as Smt. Shakuntala and Smt. Suresh Bala, sisters of<\/p>\n
defendant No.1 as parties to the suit. The applicants before<\/p>\n
this Court will be entitled to file written statement within 30<\/p>\n
days from the date of filing of the amended memo of parties.<\/p>\n
Suit summons along with notice of pending applications, if<\/p>\n
any, be also issued to Smt. Shakuntala and Smt. Suresh<\/p>\n
Bala, sisters of defendant No.1, for 27th April, 2011.<\/p>\n
20.         The application stands disposed of.<\/p>\n
                                            (V.K. JAIN)
\n                                              JUDGE
\nMARCH 07, 2011
\nvkm<\/p>\n
CS(OS)No. 1564\/2008                                  Page 21 of 21<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Mrs. Anjana Vij vs Mr. Krishan Dev & Another on 7 March, 2011 Author: V. K. Jain THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 1.3.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 07.03.2011 + I.A. No.3125\/2010 in CS(OS) No. 1564\/2008 Mrs. Anjana Vij …..Plaintiff – versus – Mr. Krishan Dev & […]<\/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-258548","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMrs. Anjana Vij vs Mr. Krishan Dev & Another on 7 March, 2011 - 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\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs. Anjana Vij vs Mr. Krishan Dev & Another on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-02T19:32:26+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs. Anjana Vij vs Mr. Krishan Dev & Another on 7 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-02T19:32:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3399,\"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\\\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Mrs. Anjana Vij vs Mr. Krishan Dev & Another on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-02T19:32:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs. Anjana Vij vs Mr. Krishan Dev & Another on 7 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Mrs. Anjana Vij vs Mr. Krishan Dev & Another on 7 March, 2011 - 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\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs. Anjana Vij vs Mr. Krishan Dev & Another on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-02T19:32:26+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs. Anjana Vij vs Mr. Krishan Dev & Another on 7 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-02T19:32:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011"},"wordCount":3399,"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\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011","name":"Mrs. Anjana Vij vs Mr. Krishan Dev & Another on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-02T19:32:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-anjana-vij-vs-mr-krishan-dev-another-on-7-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs. Anjana Vij vs Mr. Krishan Dev & Another on 7 March, 2011"}]},{"@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\/258548","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=258548"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258548\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258548"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258548"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258548"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}