{"id":263011,"date":"2007-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007"},"modified":"2015-10-07T16:46:15","modified_gmt":"2015-10-07T11:16:15","slug":"sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Sumtibai &amp; Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W\/O &#8230; on 4 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sumtibai &amp; Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W\/O &#8230; on 4 October, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Katju<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A. K. Mathur, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  117 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nSumtibai &amp; others\n\nRESPONDENT:\nParas Finance Co. Mankanwar W\/o Parasmal Chordia (D)&amp; Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/10\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nA. K. Mathur &amp; Markandey Katju\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>MARKANDEY KATJU, J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">1.\tThis appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order<br \/>\ndated 7.1.2000 in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 835of 1997.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">2.\tHeard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">3.\tThe Revision Petition was filed in the High Court against an order<br \/>\ndated 6.8.1997 passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by the<br \/>\nrevisionists under Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC<br \/>\nwas rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">4.\tThe appellants are the legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand.  A<br \/>\nsuit was filed by the respondent herein against Kapoor Chand for specific<br \/>\nperformance of a contract for sale. It was alleged that Kapoor Chand had<br \/>\nentered into an agreement to sell the property in dispute to the plaintiff-<br \/>\nrespondent, M\/s. Paras Finance Co.  In that agreement Kapoor Chand stated<br \/>\nthat the property in dispute was his self acquired property.  During the<br \/>\npendency of the suit Kapoor Chand died and his wife, sons etc. applied to be<br \/>\nbrought on record as legal representatives.  After they were impleaded they<br \/>\nfiled an application under Order 22 Rule 4(2) read with Order 1 Rule 10<br \/>\nCPC praying inter alia, that they should be permitted to file additional<br \/>\nwritten statement and also be allowed to take such pleas which are available<br \/>\nto them.  The trial court rejected this application against which a revision<br \/>\nwas filed by the appellant which was also dismissed by the High Court.<br \/>\nHence this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">5.\tWe are of the opinion that a party has a right to take whatever plea<br \/>\nhe\/she wants to take, and hence the view taken by the High Court does not<br \/>\nappear to be correct.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">6.\tLearned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of Order 22<br \/>\nRule 4(2) a person who has been made a party can only take such pleas<br \/>\nwhich are appropriate to his character of legal representative of the<br \/>\ndeceased.   Learned counsel also submitted that two of the applicants\/legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives of deceased Kapoor Chand, i.e. Narainlal and Devilal, had<br \/>\napplied to the court under Order 1 Rule 10 to be impleaded, but their<br \/>\napplications were rejected.  An application was also filed by late Kapoor<br \/>\nChand praying that his sons be impleaded in the suit but that application was<br \/>\nalso rejected.  Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the appellants<br \/>\ncannot be permitted to file an additional written statement in this suit.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">7.\tBefore adverting to the question involved in this case, it may be noted<br \/>\nthat in the registered sale deed dated 12.8.1960 the shop in dispute has been<br \/>\nmentioned and the sale was shown in favour of Kapoor Chand and his sons,<br \/>\nNarainlal, Devilal and Pukhraj.  Hence, the registered sale deed itself shows<br \/>\nthat the purchaser was not Kapoor Chand alone, but also his sons as co-<br \/>\nowners.   Hence, prima facie, it seems that the sons of Kapoor Chand  are<br \/>\nalso co-owners of the property in dispute.  However, we are not expressing<br \/>\nany final opinion on the question whether they are co-owners as that would<br \/>\nbe decided in the suit.  But we are certainly of the opinion that the legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives of late Kapoor Chand have a right to take this defence by<br \/>\nway of filing an additional written statement and adduce evidence in the suit.<br \/>\nWhether this defence is accepted or not, of course, is for the trial court to<br \/>\ndecide.  Hence, in our opinion, the courts below erred in law in rejecting the<br \/>\napplications of the heirs of Kapoor Chand to file an additional written<br \/>\nstatement.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">8.\tEvery party in a case has a right to file a written statement.  This is in<br \/>\naccordance with natural justice.  The Civil Procedure Code is really the rules<br \/>\nof natural justice which are set out in great and elaborate detail.  Its purpose<br \/>\nis to enable both parties to get a hearing.  The appellants in the present case<br \/>\nhave already been made parties in the suit, but it would be strange if they are<br \/>\nnot allowed to take a defence.  In our opinion, Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC<br \/>\ncannot be construed in the manner suggested by learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">9.\tLearned counsel for the respondent relied on a three-Judge Bench<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in Kasturi  vs. Iyyamperumal and others  &#8211; (2005) 6<br \/>\nSCC 733.  He has submitted that in this case it has been held that in a suit for<br \/>\nspecific performance of a contract for sale of property a stranger or a third<br \/>\nparty to the contract cannot be added as defendant in the suit.  In our<br \/>\nopinion, the aforesaid decision is clearly distinguishable.  In our opinion, the<br \/>\naforesaid decision can only be understood to mean that a third party cannot<br \/>\nbe impleaded in a suit for specific performance if he has no semblance of<br \/>\ntitle in the property in dispute.    Obviously, a busybody or interloper with no<br \/>\nsemblance of title cannot be impleaded in such a suit.  That would<br \/>\nunnecessarily protract or obstruct the proceedings in the suit.  However, the<br \/>\naforesaid decision will have no application where a third party shows some<br \/>\nsemblance of title or interest in the property in dispute.   In the present case,<br \/>\nthe registered sale deed dated 12.8.1960 by which the property was<br \/>\npurchased shows that the shop in dispute was sold in favour of not only<br \/>\nKapoor Chand, but also his sons.  Thus prima facie it appears that the<br \/>\npurchaser of the property in dispute was not only Kapoor Chand  but also his<br \/>\nsons.  Hence, it cannot be said that the sons of Kapoor Chand have no<br \/>\nsemblance of title and are mere busybodies or interlopers.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">10.\tAs observed by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1656601\/\" id=\"a_1\">State of Orissa vs. Sudhansu  Sekhar<br \/>\nMisra<\/a> (AIR 1968 SC 647 vide para 13):-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">A decision is only an authority for what  it actually decides.<br \/>\nWhat is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every<br \/>\nobservation found therein nor what logically  follows from the<br \/>\nvarious observations made  in it.   On this topic this is what Earl<br \/>\nof  Halsbury, LC said in Quinn v. Leathem, 1901 AC 495:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">Now before discussing the case of  Allen v. Flood<br \/>\n(1898) AC 1 and what was decided therein, there are two<br \/>\nobservations of a general character which I wish to make,<br \/>\nand one is to repeat what I have very often said before,<br \/>\nthat every judgment must be read as applicable to the<br \/>\nparticular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since<br \/>\nthe generality of the expressions which may be found<br \/>\nthere are not intended to be expositions of the whole law,<br \/>\nbut governed and qualified by the particular  facts of the<br \/>\ncase in which such expressions are to be found. The other<br \/>\nis that a case is only an authority for  what it actually<br \/>\ndecides.  I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a<br \/>\nproposition that may seem to follow logically from it.<br \/>\nSuch a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is<br \/>\nnecessarily a  logical Code,  whereas every lawyer must<br \/>\nacknowledge that the law is not always  logical at  all.<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">11.\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1186098\/\" id=\"a_1\">In Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat  &amp;  others<\/a>  (1987) 1<br \/>\nSCC 213  (vide para 18) this Court observed:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">The ratio of any decision must be understood in the<br \/>\nbackground of the  facts of that case.  It has been said long<br \/>\ntime ago that a case is only an authority for what it<br \/>\nactually decides, and not what  logically follows from it.<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">12.\t<a href=\"\/doc\/623061\/\" id=\"a_2\">In Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd<\/a> (2003)<br \/>\n2 SC 111 (vide para 59), this Court observed:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">     It is well settled that a little difference in facts or<br \/>\nadditional facts may make a lot of difference in the<br \/>\nprecedential value of a decision.<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">13.\tAs held in <a href=\"\/doc\/264557\/\" id=\"a_3\">Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. &amp; another vs.<br \/>\nN.R.Vairamani &amp; another<\/a> (AIR 2004 SC 4778), a decision cannot be<br \/>\nrelied on without disclosing the factual situation.  In the same Judgment this<br \/>\nCourt also observed:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">Court should not place reliance on decisions without<br \/>\ndiscussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the<br \/>\nfact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.<br \/>\nObservations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid`s<br \/>\ntheorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too<br \/>\ntaken out of the context.  These observations must be<br \/>\nread in the context in which they appear to have been<br \/>\nstated.  Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as<br \/>\nstatutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a<br \/>\nstatute, it may become necessary for judges to embark<br \/>\ninto lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to<br \/>\nexplain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they<br \/>\ndo not interpret judgments.  They interpret words of<br \/>\nstatutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">In London Graving dock co. Ltd.  vs. Horton (1951 AC<br \/>\n737 at p. 761), Lord Mac Dermot observed:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by<br \/>\ntreating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J. as though<br \/>\nthey were part of an Act of Parliament and<br \/>\napplying the rules of interpretation appropriate<br \/>\nthereto.  This is not to detract from the great<br \/>\nweight to be given to the language actually used by<br \/>\nthat most distinguished judge.<\/p>\n<p>     In Home Office vs. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970<br \/>\n(2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said, Lord Atkin`s<br \/>\nspeech .  is not to be treated as if it was a statute<br \/>\ndefinition it will require qualification in new<br \/>\ncircumstances.  Megarry, J. in (1971)1 WLR<br \/>\n1062 observed: One must not, of course, construe<br \/>\neven a reserved judgment of Russell L. J. as if it<br \/>\nwere an Act of Parliament. And, in Herrington v.<br \/>\nBritish Railways Board (1972 (2) WLR 537)  Lord<br \/>\nMorris said:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">There is always peril in treating the words<br \/>\nof a speech or judgment as though they are<br \/>\nwords in a legislative enactment, and it is to<br \/>\nbe remembered that judicial utterances are<br \/>\nmade in the setting of the facts of a<br \/>\nparticular case.<\/p>\n<p>\tCircumstantial flexibility, one additional or<br \/>\ndifferent fact may make a world of difference<br \/>\nbetween conclusions in two cases.  Disposal of<br \/>\ncases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is<br \/>\nnot proper.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">   \tThe following words of Lord Denning in the<br \/>\nmatter of applying precedents have become locus<br \/>\nclassicus:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">     Each case depends on its own facts and a<br \/>\nclose similarity between one case and another is<br \/>\nnot enough because even a single significant detail<br \/>\nmay alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases,<br \/>\none should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as<br \/>\nsaid by Cardozo, J. ) by matching the colour of one<br \/>\ncase against the colour of another. To decide<br \/>\ntherefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the<br \/>\nbroad resemblance to another case is not at all<br \/>\ndecisive.<\/p>\n<p>       ***         ***         ***  <\/p>\n<p>     Precedent should be followed only so far as<br \/>\nit marks the path of justice, but you must cut the<br \/>\ndead wood and trim off the side branches else you<br \/>\nwill find yourself lost in thickets and branches.<br \/>\nMy plea is to keep the path of justice clear of<br \/>\nobstructions which could impede it.  <\/p>\n<p id=\"p_24\">14.\tIn view of the aforesaid decisions we are of the opinion that Kasturis<br \/>\ncase (supra) is clearly distinguishable.   In our opinion it cannot be laid down<br \/>\nas an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is<br \/>\nfiled by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit.  In<br \/>\nour opinion, if C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can<br \/>\ncertainly file an application for impleadment.  To take a contrary view would<br \/>\nlead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a<br \/>\ndecree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree<br \/>\non the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute.  Clearly, such a<br \/>\nview cannot be countenanced.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_25\">15.\tAlso, merely because some applications have been rejected earlier it<br \/>\ndoes not mean that the legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand should not<br \/>\nbe allowed to file an additional written statement.  In fact, no useful purpose<br \/>\nwould be served by merely allowing these legal representatives to be<br \/>\nimpleaded but not allowing them to file an additional written statement.  In<br \/>\nour opinion, this will clearly violate natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_26\">16.\tFor the reasons aforementioned, the impugned orders of the High<br \/>\nCourt dated 7.1.2000 as well as the trial court dated 6.8.1997, are set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_27\">The appellants shall be allowed to file additional written statement and<br \/>\nthereafter the suit should proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_28\">17.\tThe appeal is allowed.  There shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Sumtibai &amp; Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W\/O &#8230; on 4 October, 2007 Author: M Katju Bench: A. K. Mathur, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 117 of 2001 PETITIONER: Sumtibai &amp; others RESPONDENT: Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W\/o Parasmal Chordia (D)&amp; Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/10\/2007 BENCH: A. K. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-263011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sumtibai &amp; Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W\/O ... on 4 October, 2007 - 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\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sumtibai &amp; Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W\/O ... on 4 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-07T11:16:15+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sumtibai &amp; Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W\\\/O &#8230; on 4 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-07T11:16:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2083,\"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\\\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Sumtibai &amp; Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W\\\/O ... on 4 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-07T11:16:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sumtibai &amp; Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W\\\/O &#8230; on 4 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Sumtibai &amp; Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W\/O ... on 4 October, 2007 - 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\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sumtibai &amp; Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W\/O ... on 4 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-07T11:16:15+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sumtibai &amp; Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W\/O &#8230; on 4 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-07T11:16:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007"},"wordCount":2083,"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\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007","name":"Sumtibai &amp; Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W\/O ... on 4 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-07T11:16:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumtibai-others-vs-paras-finance-co-mankanwar-wo-on-4-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sumtibai &amp; Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W\/O &#8230; on 4 October, 2007"}]},{"@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\/263011","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=263011"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263011\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=263011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=263011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=263011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}