{"id":36506,"date":"1998-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998"},"modified":"2018-04-08T20:59:44","modified_gmt":"2018-04-08T15:29:44","slug":"rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998","title":{"rendered":"Rafat All V vs Sugni Bai And Others on 18 November, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rafat All V vs Sugni Bai And Others on 18 November, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: Thomas<\/div>\n
Bench: S. Saghir Ahmad, K.T. Thomas.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAFAT ALL V.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSUGNI BAI AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t18\/11\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nS. SAGHIR AHMAD, K.T. THOMAS.\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT
\nThomas J.\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
A  building  situate  at  Mahboob  Gunj,   Hyderabad
\nbelonged to one Babu Lal.  He leased it out to the appellant
\nin  1970  wherein  appellant  has been running a business by
\nname M\/s Royal Agro Industries.\t Lathe\tand  machinery\thave
\nbeen  installed\t therein  for  the  purpose of the business.
\nBabu Lal died leaving behind him the present respondents  as
\nhis legal heirs who are his widow and children.\t In the year
\n1988 respondents\/landlords launched a litigation against the
\nappellant for evicting him from the leased premises.  Though
\nthe  respondents failed in the Rent Control court as well as
\nin the Appellate Authority they succeeded in the High  Court
\nof  Andhra  Pradesh,  where  in\t a  revision  the concurrent
\nfindings were reversed and an order of eviction was  granted
\nin favour of the landlords.  Hence, appellant has filed this
\nappeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
Three  distinct\t grounds  have\tbeen  set  up by the
\nrespondents in their petition filed under the provisions  of
\nAndhra\tPradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) CONTROL
\nAct, 1960 (For short ‘the Act’).  They are:   (1)  that\t the
\ntenant\thad committed default In paying rent of the building
\nfrom 1.11.1986 to 30.4.986, (2)thatthe tenant committed acts
\nor waste by which damage has been caused  to  the  building.
\n(3)  that the tenant has been committing acts of nuisance to
\nother occupants of the buildings in the neighbour-hood.
\nAll  the  three\t grounds  were\tfound  against\t the
\nrespondent  by\tthe  Rent  Control Court which dismissed the
\npetition for eviction.\tWhen respondents filed appeal  under
\nSection 20  of the Act.\t the Appellate Authority also found,
\nin concurrence with the findings of the Rent Control  Court,
\nthat the landlord failed to make out any one of the grounds.
\nThe appeal   was   accordingly\t dismissed.    It  was\twhen
\nrepondents moved the High Court in revision under Section 22
\nof the Act that they succeeded as  a  learned  single  Judge
\nInterfered  with  the  concurrent findings regarding all the
\nthree grounds.\n<\/p>\n
Learned single judge has stated as  follows  in\t the
\nconcluding part of the impugned order.
\n\t“The findings  of  the\tCourts\tbelow  are
\n\tquite  arbitrary, perverse and capricious.
\n\tThe orders under challenge cannot be  said
\n\tas free\t from  legal  lacunae.\tThe Courts
\n\tfailed\tto  take  into\tconsideration  the
\n\tevents\tstarted\t subsequent to leasing out
\n\tthe  premises,\tnamely,\t causing  nuisance
\n\tprior  lo the filing of eviction petition.
\n\tThe  evidence  given  clearly  establishes
\n\tthat  the  tenant  was\ta  defaulter,  had
\n\tcaused damage to the premises and  causing
\n\tnuisance   to\tthe  landlords\tand  other
\n\toccupiers.  Having found that  the  orders
\n\tunder  challenge  suffer  from illegality,
\n\tthe  same  deserves  to\t be   set   aside.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccordingly,  the  CRP\tis allowed and the
\n\torders under challenge are set\taside  and
\n\tconsequently,  the  eviction sought by the
\n\tlandlords is granted.”\n<\/p>\n
It is contended before us that learned single  judge
\nmade those observations without considering the reasoning of
\nthe  fact  finding  courts  and\t without  adverting  to\t the
\nevidence and without keeping within the bounds of revisional
\njurisdiction conferred by Section 22 of the  Act.    Learned
\ncounsel\t for  the  respondents,\t on  the other hand, made an
\nendeavour to show that the revisional powers under  the\t Act
\nare  not  so limited as in other similar enactments and that
\nthe High Court has wide powers to interfere  even  with\t the
\nconcurring findings of fact, and looking from that angle the
\nHigh Court has not acted beyond its jurisdiction.
\n\tSection 22 of the Act reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t“22.  Revision:-(1) The High Court may, at
\n\tany  time,  on\tthe  application  of   any
\n\taggrieved  party, call for and examine the
\n\trecords relating to any\t order\tpassed\tor
\n\tproceeding  taken  under  this\tAct by the
\n\tController in execution under  Section\t15
\n\tor  by\tthe  appellate authority on appeal
\n\tunder  Section\t20,  for  the  purpose\tof
\n\tsatisfying  itself  as\tto  the\t legality,
\n\tregularity or of propriety of  such  order
\n\tor  proceeding, and may pass such order in
\n\treference thereto as it thinks fit.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) The\t costs\tof  and\t incident  to  all
\n\tproceedings,  before  the High Court under
\n\tsub-section   (1),   shall   be\t  in   its
\n\tdiscretion.”\n<\/p>\n
The  appellation  given\t to  the  Section  makes  it
\nunmistakably clear that the power  conferred  thereunder  is
\nrevisional which means, it is a power of supervision.  It is
\nwell  neigh settled that a revisional Jurisdiction cannot be
\nequated with appeal powers in all its parameters.  The power
\nto call for and examine the records is for  the\t purpose  of
\nthe  High  Court  to  satisfy  itself  as  to the “legality,
\nregularity  or\tpropriety”  of\tthe  order  of\t the   lower
\nauthority.   Even  such a widely worded frame of the Section
\nmay at best indicate that the revisional powers are  not  so
\nrestricted as in the enactments wherein the words are not so
\nwidely framed.\t  Nonetheless,\tthey  remain in the realm of
\nSupervisory jurisdiction.   in\ta  recent  decision  we\t had
\noccasion  to  consider\tthe scope of revisional jurisdiction
\nunder certain Rent Control enactments vide Sarla  Ahuja\t vs.
\nUnited\tIndia  Insurance  Company Limited JT<\/a> 1998(7) SC 297.
\nReference was then made to a  decision\twherein\t words\tused
\nunder Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent
\nControl)  Act  1960  were  considered  [vide Sri Raj Lakshmi
\nDyeing Works vs Rangaswamy<\/a> 1980 (4) SCC 259].  A  two  judge
\nbench  has  observed  therein  that  “despite  wide language
\nemployed in the Section,  the  High  Court  quite  obviously
\nshould\tnot  interfere\twith  the  findings  of\t fact merely
\nbecause it does\t not  agree  with  to  the  finding  of\t the
\nsubordinate authority.” After adverting to it we have stated
\nin Sarla Ahuja:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The High Court in the\tpresent\t case  has
\n\tre-assessed  and re-appraised the evidence
\n\tafresh to reach\t a  different  finding\tas
\n\tthough\t it   was   exercising\t appellate
\n\tjurisdiction.\t No   doubt   even   while
\n\texercising   revisional\t  jurisdiction,\t a
\n\tre-appraisal of evidence can be made,  but
\n\tthat  should be for the limited purpose to
\n\tascertain whether the  conclusion  arrived
\n\tat  by\tthe  fact  finding court is wholly
\n\tunreasonable.”\n<\/p>\n
Coming back to the impugned order it is pertinent to
\nnotice\tthat  the Rent Control Court, while dealing with the
\nfirst ground i.e.  default in payment of rent from 1.11.1986
\nto 30.4.1986 has pointed out the averments of the  landlords
\nin their petition that rent of the building was Rs.250\/- per
\nmonth  till  30.10.19^5 and thereafter the rent was enhanced
\nto Rs.650\/- per month from 1.11.1985 onwards  and  that\t the
\ntenant committed default in paying rent at the enhanced rate
\nfrom 1.11.1986.\t   Petition  for  eviction  was filed by the
\nlandlords on 4.5.1988.\tAppellant repudiated the case of the
\nlandlord regarding such enhancement.  According to  him\t the
\nrent  remained\tRs.250\/-  per  month  and he paid it without
\ndefault till March 19.\t1988, and when he tendered rent\t for
\nthe  next  month  (April)  the landlord refused to accept as
\nthey wanted the tenant to vacate the building.\tHe was\tthen
\ncompelled  to  issue  a notice to the landlords on 30.4.1988
\ncomplaining of such refusal.  It was while replying  to\t the
\nsaid notice that the landlords have mentioned, for the first
\ntime, that rent of the building was Rs.650\/- and that it was
\nnot paid from 1.11.1986 onwards.\n<\/p>\n
Rent Control Court has considered  the\tevidence  on
\nrecord regarding  that\tdispute in detail.  The reasoning of
\nthe Rent Controller that if there was enhancement of monthly
\nrent to\t Rs.650\/from  1-11-1985\t the  landlords\t would\thave
\nmentioned that\tfact in the Ext.  R-73 reply which they sent
\nto the appellant on 6-5-1988.  The absence of such a fact in
\nthe said reply notice when taken along with  the  fact\tthat
\nlandlord  amended the original petition claiming rent at the
\nenhanced rate only after a lapse of one year from  the\tdate
\nof  institution\t thereof persuaded the Rent Control Court to
\nconclude that it was an afterthought.  The court also relied
\non Ext.\t R-74 to R-82 (assessment orders and the tax returns
\nunder the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the period starting\tfrom
\n1985-86)  supported by the certified copies of statements of
\nincome and expenditure account\tin  which  monthly  rent  of
\nRs.250\/was mentioned for the relevant period.  The appellate
\nauthority has  also  adverted  to  the above materials.\t The
\ncounterfoils (P-1 to P-5) produced by the landlords did\t not
\ngive  a\t good  impression  as to its genuineness on both the
\nauthorities.  The appellate authority felt  that  they\twere
\nconcocted for the purpose of evicting the tenants.
\nFor  interfering with the findings made on the above
\nreasoning learned Single Judge\thas.\tunfortunately,\tused
\nonly one sentence which is the following:
\n\t“If we compare\tthe  evidence  adduced\tin
\n\tthis  case  and wading of the same by both
\n\tthe courts below, it can be  said  without
\n\thesitation  that  the courts below are not
\n\tjustified   in\t ignoring   the\t  evidence
\n\tavailable  which  warrants  this  court to
\n\thold that the tenant was a  defaulter  and
\n\the had caused nuisance.”\n<\/p>\n
Learned\t Single Judge has committed a jurisdictional
\nerror in upsetting the concurrent finding in such  a  manner
\nas it has been done.  Of course in that sweep learned Single
\nJudge covered the nuisance aspect also.
\nIt  is\tclause (iv) of section 10(2) of the Act that
\nmakes nuisance as a ground for eviction.  It is worded\tlike
\nthis:\n<\/p>\n
“That  the  tenant  has been guilty of such acts and
\nconduct which are a  nuisance  to  the\toccupiers  of  other
\nportions   in\tthe   same   binding  or  buildings  in\t The
\nneighbourhood.”\n<\/p>\n
Though the word “nuisance” is not defined it can  be
\ninferred  from the context that what is meant therein is the
\nactionable  nuisance  which  is\t  recognized   Common\tLaw.
\nNuisance  as  understood  in law is broadly divided into two
\nclasses\t public nuisance and private nuisance.\tThe  former
\nconsists of some acts or omissions which result in violation
\nof  rights  which one enjoys in common with other members of
\nthe public.  But the fatter i.e.  private nuisance,  is\t one
\nwhich  interfere  with\ta  person’s  use  and  enjoyment  of
\nimmovable property or some right in respect of it.
\nIn Halsbury’s Laws of England (vol.34 of the  fourth
\nedition at page 102)essentials of common law of nuisance arc
\nmentioned as under
\n\t“309:\tBoth  unlawful\tact   and   damage
\n\tnecessary.    In   order   to\tconstitute
\n\tnuisance  there\t must  be  both\t  (1)\tan
\n\tunlawful  act,\tand  (2) damage, actual or
\n\tpresumed.  Damage  alone  gives\t no  right
\n\taction,\t the  mere fact that an act causes
\n\tloss to another does not make that  act\t a
\n\tnuisance.<\/p>\n
\tFor  the  purposes  of the law of
\n\tnuisance   an\tunlawful   act\t is    the
\n\tinterference  by  act  or  omission with a
\n\tperson’s use or enjoyment of land or  some
\n\tright over or in connection with land.”
\nSuffering of damage must be  proved  in\t a  case  of
\nnuisance unless it can be presumed by law to exist.  But the
\ndamage\tto amount to actionable nuisance must be substantial
\nor at-least of some significance.  In other words.   If\t the
\ndamage\tis  insignificant  or evanescent or trivial it would
\nnot be actionable nuisance.  The following passage  in\tpara
\n312  of\t the  same  volume  in Halsbury’s Laws of England is
\nworth extracting in this context:\n<\/p>\n
\t“312.  Damage essential.  Damage,  actual,
\n\tprospective  or\t presumed,  is\tone of the
\n\tessentials of  nuisance.    Its\t existence
\n\tmust  be  proved, except in those cases in
\n\twhich it is presumed by law to exist.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe  damage  need not consist of pecuniary
\n\tloss,  but  it\t must\tbe   material\tor
\n\tsubstantial,  that  is,\t it  must  not\tbe
\n\tmerely\t sentimental,\t speculative\tor
\n\ttrifling,   or\t damage\t  that\tis  merely
\n\ttemporary, fleeting or evanescent.”\n<\/p>\n
It is clear from clause (iv) of Section 10(2) of the
\nAct that what is envisaged therein is only private  nuisance
\nand not\t public\t nuisance.    This can be discerned from the
\nwords “nuisance to the occupiers of other  portions  in\t the
\nsame building or buildings in the neighborhood” Perhaps in a
\nwide  sense  any  industrial  activity may create some sound
\nwhile such activities are in operation.\t Such sound  may  be
\nuncomfortable to those who are over sensitive to such noise.
\nBut  then  care\t must  be  taken because every inconvenience
\ncannot become actionable nuisance.  To\tmake  it  actionable
\nthe  nuisance  must be of a reasonably perceptible degree as
\npointed out earlier.\n<\/p>\n
Rent  Control  Court  considered   landlords’\tcase
\nregarding  nuisance  Landlords\tsaid  that  the\t tenant\t was
\nquarreling with them “whenever they  go\t for  collection  of
\nrents.”\t They  have  also alleged that appellant was running
\nmachines late in the night and thereby causing\tnuisance  to
\nthe other  occupiers  of the building.\tAs the appellant was
\nrunning high business with the same machines right from\t the
\nbeginning, Rent Control Court was not inclined to treat such
\nnoise as amounting to nuisance.\t Appellate authority pointed
\nout  that  there was no complaint prior to the filing of the
\neviction petition at any time against  the  tenant  that  he
\ncaused\tdamage to the building.” On the other hand, the Rent
\nControl Court noticed that machinery was installed  in\tthis
\nbuilding  way  back  in 1970 and the same is under operation
\neven now.  On  the  above  reasoning  both  the\t authorities
\nuniformly concluded that tenant has not committed any act of
\nnuisance to  attract  the  ground of eviction.\tBut the High
\nCourt upset such a finding in a very casual manner unmindful
\nof the inherent limitations of the revislonal jurisdiction.
\nThe  third ground for eviction is related to causing
\ndamage to the building.\t  For  damage  to  the\tbuilding  to
\namount\tto  a ground for eviction, its proportion must be as
\ndelineated in clause (iii) of Section 10(2) of the Act:
\n\t“That the tenant has committed\tsuch  acts
\n\tof   waste   as\t  are\tlikely\tto  impair
\n\tmaterially the value  or  utility  of  the
\n\tbuilding.”\n<\/p>\n
All acts of waste do not  amount  to  a\t ground\t for
\neviction.   It\tis only those acts of waste which would very
\nprobably impair the value of the building  or  its  utility.
\nThe  word “likely” in the above clause must be understood as
\na condition which is  reasonably  probable  that  such\tacts
\nwould  cause  impairment  to  the  value  or  utility of the
\nbuilding.  However, it is not enough  that  some  impairment
\nhas been  caused to the building.  The value of the building
\nor utility thereof should have been lessened in a reasonably
\nsubstantial degree.  Then only it can be said that the\tacts
\nof  waste  are\tlikely to impair the value or utility of the
\nbuilding “materially”.\tIn Om Pal vs.  Anand Swarup<\/a> 1988 (4)
\nSCC 545 the Court,  while  considering\ta  similarly  worded
\nclause in another Rent control enactment, has observed thus:
\n\t“In  order  to\tattract Section 13(2)(iii)
\n\tthe construction  must\tnot  only  be  one
\n\taffecting  or  diminishing  the\t value\tor
\n\tutility\t  of   the   building\tbut   such
\n\timpairment  must  be  of a material nature
\n\ti.e.  of  a  substantial  and  significant
\n\tnature.\t When a construction is alleged to
\n\tmaterially  impair the value or utility of
\n\ta building, the construction should be\tof
\n\tsuch a nature as to substantially diminish
\n\tthe  value of the building either from the
\n\tcommercial and monetary point of  view\tor
\n\tfrom   the   utilitarian   aspect  of  the
\n\tbuilding.  The burden  of  proof  of  such
\n\tmaterial impairment is on the landlord.”
\nAn  Advocate-Commissioner  visited  the building and
\npointed out the following features in his  report  regarding
\nthe damage noticed by him:  “There is only concrete flooring
\nwith uneven surface.  Due to the use of machinery there is a
\nhole  in  the  flooring on the eastern side and it was meant
\nfor inserting pipe.  There was no damage  to  the  roof\t and
\nwalls.\tSome  nail-holes  were also noticed.  When the lathe
\nmachines were operated\tthe  advocate  commissioner  noticed
\nthat there was no vibration either on the ground floor or on
\nthe walls of the main building, though very slight vibration
\nwas noticed on the parapet walls of the first floor.”
\nBoth the fact finding courts found  that  the  above
\nitems  of  damage  are\tonly trivial and will not affect the
\nbuilding.  But the High\t Court\tfound  that  “the  landlords
\nproved that the tenant caused damage to the demised premises
\nby  causing holes and leaving spaces between the shutter and
\nthe wall as seen from the Commissioner’s report.” It was not
\nopen to the High Court to substitute  the  findings  of\t the
\nlower  courts  with its own findings so easily as that while
\nexercising the limited supervisory jurisdiction.
\nFor the aforementioned\treasons\t we  are  unable  to
\nsustain\t the  impugned\tjudgment of the High Court which has
\nmanifestly crossed.\n<\/p>\n
its jurisdiction.   We, therefore, allow this appeal
\nand set aside the impugned judgment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rafat All V vs Sugni Bai And Others on 18 November, 1998 Author: Thomas Bench: S. Saghir Ahmad, K.T. Thomas. PETITIONER: RAFAT ALL V. Vs. RESPONDENT: SUGNI BAI AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/11\/1998 BENCH: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, K.T. THOMAS. ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT Thomas J. Leave granted. A building situate […]<\/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-36506","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRafat All V vs Sugni Bai And Others on 18 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rafat All V vs Sugni Bai And Others on 18 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-08T15:29:44+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rafat All V vs Sugni Bai And Others on 18 November, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-08T15:29:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2711,\"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\\\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998\",\"name\":\"Rafat All V vs Sugni Bai And Others on 18 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-08T15:29:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rafat All V vs Sugni Bai And Others on 18 November, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rafat All V vs Sugni Bai And Others on 18 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rafat All V vs Sugni Bai And Others on 18 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-08T15:29:44+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rafat All V vs Sugni Bai And Others on 18 November, 1998","datePublished":"1998-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-08T15:29:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998"},"wordCount":2711,"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\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998","name":"Rafat All V vs Sugni Bai And Others on 18 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-08T15:29:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafat-all-v-vs-sugni-bai-and-others-on-18-november-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rafat All V vs Sugni Bai And Others on 18 November, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36506","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=36506"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36506\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36506"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36506"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36506"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}