{"id":260208,"date":"2009-11-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009"},"modified":"2018-08-12T08:01:20","modified_gmt":"2018-08-12T02:31:20","slug":"ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ram Niwas Agarwal vs Reshmi Devi &amp; Ors on 27 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ram Niwas Agarwal vs Reshmi Devi &amp; Ors on 27 November, 2009<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n                         Civil Revision No. 33 of 2008\n            Ram Niwas Agarwal                     ...    Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n            Reshmi Devi and others                ...    Opposite Parties\n                                     ----\n            For the Petitioner            : M\/s. Manjul Prasad &amp;\n                                           Ananda Sen, Advocates\n            For the Opposite Parties      : M\/s. V. Shivnath &amp; P.A.S. Pati\n                                            Advocates\nCORAM       : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. MERATHIA\n\n                                      ----\n            C.A.V. on 3.11.2009              Pronounced on      27.11.2009\n                                      ----\n\n13. 27.11.2009<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">:   This civil revision application has been filed under Section<br \/>\n            14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent &amp; Eviction) Control Act,<br \/>\n            1982 (the Act for short) against the judgment and decree dated<br \/>\n            8.9.2008 passed in Eviction Suit No. 151 of 1993 by learned Sub<br \/>\n            Judge- V, Jamshedpur.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">            2.    I.A. No. 1226 of 2009 has been for condoning the delay of 3<br \/>\n            days in filing this revision application.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">                   On being satisfied with the ground, the delay was<br \/>\n            condoned and the matter was heard at length for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">            3.    The plaintiffs-opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as<br \/>\n            the landlord) filed this suit for eviction on the ground of personal<br \/>\n            necessity of the entire suit premises. The landlord pleaded that<br \/>\n            plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 were unemployed and sons of plaintiff No. 1<br \/>\n            were also unemployed due to lack of accommodation.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">            4.     The main defence of the defendant-petitioner (hereinafter<br \/>\n            to be referred as the tenant) was that the alleged requirement was<br \/>\n            not reasonable and bona fide as the landlords were heavily<br \/>\n            engaged in their respective businesses; that the suit was filed<br \/>\n            claiming need of all plaintiffs, but the evidence led on behalf of<br \/>\n            the landlord is confined to the personal necessity of plaintiff No. 3<br \/>\n            only; that plaintiff No. 3 and his wife are income tax assessees, but<br \/>\n            returns were not produced before the court to show that their<br \/>\n            income was very low; that in the &#8220;Form of Heading of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                             2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Deposition&#8221;, it is mentioned &#8220;where I am &#8211; Business (Temp<br \/>\nTransport)&#8221;; and that the question of partial eviction has not been<br \/>\nproperty considered by the trial court as the suit premises are in<br \/>\ntwo schedule i.e. Schedule A and Schedule B.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">5.    The parties led oral and documentary evidence. The trial<br \/>\ncourt framed IX issues. There is no dispute with regard to Issue<br \/>\nNo. V, regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between<br \/>\nthe parties. Regarding Issue No. VI- whether the landlord requires<br \/>\nthe suit premises reasonably and in good faith, the trial court held<br \/>\nthat the landlord proved the bona fide and reasonable<br \/>\nrequirement of the suit premises. Regarding Issue No. VII-<br \/>\nwhether partial eviction will satisfy the need of landlord, the trial<br \/>\ncourt held that the decree of partial eviction will not fulfill the<br \/>\nneed of the landlord as the entire suit premises is required for<br \/>\ntheir own use. Accordingly, the suit was decreed against which<br \/>\nthis civil revision application has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">6.    The landlord pleaded in Paragraph-10 of the plaint that<br \/>\nplaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and the sons of plaintiff No. 1 were<br \/>\nunemployed due to lack of accommodation, but in Paragraph-12<br \/>\nit was specifically pleaded that plaintiff No. 3 could not start any<br \/>\nbusiness due to lack of accommodation; and the suit premises is<br \/>\nsuitable for starting business. The evidence adduced on behalf of<br \/>\nthe landlord support their case. The landlord also proved that suit<br \/>\npremises was suitable for the requirement. D.W. 2 (the tenant) has<br \/>\nadmitted that he was present when Pleader Commissioner<br \/>\ninspected the suit premises. He further said that he does not have<br \/>\nany proof to show that the landlords have let out other portion of<br \/>\nthe premises to the tenants. He admitted that he has several<br \/>\npremises in his possession. He further admitted that he cannot<br \/>\nprove that plaintiff No. 2 and 3 are engaged in iron scrap<br \/>\nbusiness.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">7.    It is settled position that for proving the personal necessity,<br \/>\nthe landlord is not required to sit idle during the period of<br \/>\nlitigation (See (2005) 8 SCC 252 and 2009 (3) JCR 465 (Jhr.) In the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                            3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>case reported in AIR 2003 SC 532 <a href=\"\/doc\/91122120\/\" id=\"a_1\">Akhileshwar Kr. &amp; Ors. v.<br \/>\nMustaqim &amp; Ors<\/a>., it is, inter alia, observed that even if the<br \/>\nperson, who requires the premises, is engaged in some business, it<br \/>\ndoes not mean that he should not start his own independent<br \/>\nbusiness. Moreover, the tenant could not prove that plaintiff No. 3<br \/>\nis settled in any business activity. Further, the case of the<br \/>\nlandlords of personal necessity cannot be rejected on the ground<br \/>\nthat plaintiff No. 3 and his wife are income tax assessees. In the<br \/>\nabsence of order of court, directing Plaintiff No. 3 to produce his<br \/>\nincome tax return, the tenant cannot complain that he did not<br \/>\nproduce the Income Tax Returns.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">8.    Now the question of partial eviction. It was said in<br \/>\nParagraph-12 of the plaint that the entire shop and godown were<br \/>\nrequired, but it was not denied and nothing was said in the<br \/>\nwritten statement on this aspect. The landlord proved that the<br \/>\nentire premises was required. The trial court appointed Pleader<br \/>\nCommissioner to examine this aspect. The court considered the<br \/>\nPleader Commissioner&#8217;s report (Ext. 4). It appears that the<br \/>\nfrontage of the shop (Schedule A) is about 11.5 ft. and the depth is<br \/>\nabout 28.5 ft. through which only the godown (Schedule B) can be<br \/>\naccessed which is 12ft. X 18 ft. The Pleader Commissioner has<br \/>\nclearly stated that except the shop, there is no other way to enter<br \/>\ninside the building.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">9.    Furthermore, it has been held in Paragraph-12 of the<br \/>\nDivision Bench Judgment reported in 1985 PLJR 390 <a href=\"\/doc\/706483\/\" id=\"a_1\">Mrs. Veena<br \/>\nRani v. Mrs. Ishrati Amanullah<\/a> that the power of partial eviction<br \/>\ncannot be exercised in a manner as if the court is to partition the<br \/>\nbuilding in question between two co-sharers. It may also be noted<br \/>\nthat nothing has been said by the tenant in the written statement<br \/>\non the aspect of partial eviction nor any evidence has been led by<br \/>\nhim on this aspect. In this connection Paragraph-11 of 2001 (1)<br \/>\nPLJR 580-Tarun Kumar Gupta v. Parwati Devi may be seen.<br \/>\nFurther, it was held in the case reported in 1993(1) PLJR Page 87 &#8211;<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/67732519\/\" id=\"a_2\">M\/s. Bata India Ltd. v. Dr. Md. Qamruzzama<\/a> that the landlord<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>         cannot be saddled with the onus of proof regarding partial<br \/>\n         eviction. In Para-6 it has been held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>               &#8220;Para-6.      &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. In our opinion, the<br \/>\n               landlord cannot be saddled with the onus of proved in<br \/>\n               this regard. He having proved that he requires &#8216;the<br \/>\n               building&#8217; which means the whole suit premises, he<br \/>\n               cannot be expected or asked to prove by evidence that<br \/>\n               his need can be satisfied by part eviction. That will<br \/>\n               amount to asking him to prove the negative. In our<br \/>\n               opinion, once the landlord has proved the need of the<br \/>\n               premises, onus shifts on the tenant. The expression &#8221;<br \/>\n               and the tenant agrees to such occupation&#8221; strengthens<br \/>\n               the view that while holding enquiry on the question of<br \/>\n               partial eviction it is the tenant who has to express his<br \/>\n               readiness and willingness for part occupation of the<br \/>\n               premises and to show that the plaintiff&#8217;s need can be<br \/>\n               substantially satisfied by evicting him from only part<br \/>\n               of the premises and allowing him to continue in<br \/>\n               occupation of the rest of it. No part of the defendant&#8217;s<br \/>\n               evidence on the point of partial eviction was brought<br \/>\n               to our notice we thus fail to understand as to how the<br \/>\n               petitioner can assail the finding on the question of<br \/>\n               partial eviction on the ground that there is no specific<br \/>\n               evidence on the point.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_10\">               The Judgment of Bata India Limited (supra) was followed<br \/>\n         in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Vishun Properties<br \/>\n         and Enterprises &amp; Ors. reported in 1995 BBCJ 711 and the S.L.P.<br \/>\n         against the said decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">         10.   After hearing the parties and going through the records, I<br \/>\n         am satisfied that the trial court has considered the respective<br \/>\n         cases and evidence brought on record by the parties in right<br \/>\n         perspective with regard to the issues of necessity and partial<br \/>\n         eviction.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">               In the result, I do not find any merit in this civil revision<br \/>\n         application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned<br \/>\n         judgment and decree is affirmed. The tenant is directed to<br \/>\n         handover the vacant possession of the suit premises to the<br \/>\n         landlord within sixty days failing which they will be at liberty to<br \/>\n         get it vacated through the process of the Court at the cost of<br \/>\n         petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">MK\/AFR                                                (R. K. Merathia, J)\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Ram Niwas Agarwal vs Reshmi Devi &amp; Ors on 27 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No. 33 of 2008 Ram Niwas Agarwal &#8230; Petitioner Versus Reshmi Devi and others &#8230; Opposite Parties &#8212;- For the Petitioner : M\/s. Manjul Prasad &amp; Ananda Sen, Advocates For [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-260208","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ram Niwas Agarwal vs Reshmi Devi &amp; Ors on 27 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Niwas Agarwal vs Reshmi Devi &amp; Ors on 27 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-12T02:31:20+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Niwas Agarwal vs Reshmi Devi &amp; Ors on 27 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-12T02:31:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1313,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Ram Niwas Agarwal vs Reshmi Devi &amp; Ors on 27 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-12T02:31:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Niwas Agarwal vs Reshmi Devi &amp; Ors on 27 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Ram Niwas Agarwal vs Reshmi Devi &amp; Ors on 27 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Niwas Agarwal vs Reshmi Devi &amp; Ors on 27 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-12T02:31:20+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Niwas Agarwal vs Reshmi Devi &amp; Ors on 27 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-12T02:31:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009"},"wordCount":1313,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009","name":"Ram Niwas Agarwal vs Reshmi Devi &amp; Ors on 27 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-12T02:31:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-niwas-agarwal-vs-reshmi-devi-ors-on-27-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Niwas Agarwal vs Reshmi Devi &amp; Ors on 27 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/260208","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=260208"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260208\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}