{"id":41040,"date":"2008-05-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-03T15:08:46","modified_gmt":"2016-10-03T09:38:46","slug":"bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008","title":{"rendered":"Bhagwan Raj vs Badri Narayan & Ors on 30 May, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Bhagwan Raj vs Badri Narayan & Ors on 30 May, 2008<\/div>\n
                                         1\n\nS\/1               S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITON NO.2185\/2008.\n                   Bhagwan Raj     Vs.       Badri Narayan & Ors.\n\n\n      Date of Order :: 30th May 2008.\n\n              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI\n\n      Mr. Rakesh Arora, for the petitioner.\n      Mr. B. K Bhatnagar with\n      Mr. P.R. Prajapat, for the respondent No. 1.\n                                     .....\n\n      BY THE COURT:<\/pre>\n
              The defendant-petitioner has preferred this writ petition<\/p>\n
      against the order dated 17.03.2008 (Annex. 9) as passed by<\/p>\n
      the District Judge, Jalore in Civil Appeal (Order) No. 4\/2008<\/p>\n
      whereby the learned Appellate Court has reversed the order<\/p>\n
      dated 11.03.2008 (Annex.8) as passed by the Civil Judge<\/p>\n
      (Junior Division), Jalore in Civil Misc. Case No. 19\/2008.<\/p>\n
              The contesting parties are having their adjoining<\/p>\n
      residential plots at Khanpurawas, Jalore; the defendant-<\/p>\n
      petitioner’s plot being towards northern side of the plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
      plot.   The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is said to have raised<\/p>\n
      construction after purchasing his plot on 15.10.1981. The<\/p>\n
      dispute pertains to the wall situated on the northern side of the<\/p>\n
      plaintiff’s plot that is claimed by the plaintiff to be of his<\/p>\n
      exclusive ownership; and in the suit for perpetual injunction,<\/p>\n
      the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant is attempting to<\/p>\n
      raise unauthorized construction on the said wall. By way of<\/p>\n
      interim relief, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 sought temporary
\n                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
injunction against raising of construction by the defendant-<\/p>\n
petitioner at the disputed wall marked B to C in the plan<\/p>\n
attached to the application for temporary injunction (Annex. 3).<\/p>\n
      By its order dated 11.03.2008 (Annex.8) the learned<\/p>\n
Trial Court has proceeded to reject the prayer for temporary<\/p>\n
injunction particularly with the observation that prima facie the<\/p>\n
defendant appears to have purchased the land with the said<\/p>\n
wall; and that the plaintiff has not stated precisely in his<\/p>\n
application and affidavit if he has constructed the wall in<\/p>\n
question or that he purchased the plot with the said wall. The<\/p>\n
learned Trial Court has also pointed out that the nature of<\/p>\n
construction on the plaintiff’s side on the wall in question as<\/p>\n
shown in the photographs submitted with the Commissioner’s<\/p>\n
Report make out that the roofing slabs were not placed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff across such wall but were placed only parallel to the<\/p>\n
same and there were no other elements available like placing<\/p>\n
of Almirah in the wall whereby it could be concluded that the<\/p>\n
wall has been in the exclusive use of the plaintiff. The learned<\/p>\n
Trial Court has further observed that the defendant has raised<\/p>\n
construction of the ground floor in the year 1986-87 after<\/p>\n
taking permission from the Municipal Board, Jalore and has<\/p>\n
further obtained permission for raising construction on the first<\/p>\n
floor on 01.01.2008 and the Commissioner’s report indicates<\/p>\n
that the construction on the first floor is in progress. The
\n                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
learned Trial Court has rejected the prayer for temporary<\/p>\n
injunction of restraining the defendant from completing his<\/p>\n
construction on the wall in question and has conversely issued<\/p>\n
an injunction against the plaintiff not to create any obstruction<\/p>\n
in raising of such construction.\n<\/p>\n
      The learned Appellate Court by its order dated<\/p>\n
17.03.2008 (Annex.9) has, however, proceeded to reverse the<\/p>\n
order passed by the learned Trial Court with the observations<\/p>\n
that both the parties have purchased their plots from the same<\/p>\n
predecessor Champa Lal; that at the time of purchase of the<\/p>\n
plot by the plaintiff, it were an open piece of land and,<\/p>\n
according to the plaintiff, he has placed the walls surrounding<\/p>\n
the land and has raised the residential construction; that the<\/p>\n
defendant has purchased the plot later, on 05.08.1993, and<\/p>\n
towards southern side of the land sold to the defendant has<\/p>\n
been shown the plot of the plaintiff Badri Narayan and a 32 ft.<\/p>\n
wall has also been shown. The learned Appellate Court has<\/p>\n
concluded that the wall in question was constructed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff with the observations that the defendant was not even<\/p>\n
aware as to who has constructed the wall; that it does not<\/p>\n
appear from the sale deed if the wall was raised by the<\/p>\n
predecessor Champa Lal; and that affidavit of the said Shri<\/p>\n
Champa Lal has not been filed. The learned Appellate Court<\/p>\n
has not approved issuance of injunction against the plaintiff
\n                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
and has observed that the parties are to establish the<\/p>\n
ownership of the wall in question in the trial and in such a<\/p>\n
situation, by way of temporary injunction the defendant cannot<\/p>\n
be permitted to raise     construction. The learned Appellate<\/p>\n
Court has, therefore, proceeded to issue injunction against the<\/p>\n
defendant and has directed status quo in relation to the wall in<\/p>\n
question to be maintained by both the parties till the decision<\/p>\n
of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
       It is contended on behalf of the petitioner-defendant in<\/p>\n
this writ petition that he is the exclusive owner of the wall in<\/p>\n
question and such fact stands established from the sale deeds<\/p>\n
of the parties as produced on record and the learned Appellate<\/p>\n
Court has acted illegally in issuing injunction against the<\/p>\n
petitioner. It is further contended that the Appellate Court did<\/p>\n
not consider the fact that the petitioner had already raised his<\/p>\n
first floor construction up to the roof level and RCC plates were<\/p>\n
also placed; and stopping of construction at this stage would<\/p>\n
cause serious injury and loss to the petitioner without<\/p>\n
corresponding protection of any of the rights of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, on the<\/p>\n
other hand, has duly supported the order impugned with the<\/p>\n
submissions that the claim of the defendant of ownership of<\/p>\n
the disputed wall is fundamentally baseless as it is apparent<\/p>\n
that the wall was constructed by the plaintiff only and the
\n                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
attempt on the part of the defendant-petitioner to raise<\/p>\n
construction on the wall in dispute and thereby to take over<\/p>\n
such wall could not have been countenanced and the learned<\/p>\n
Appellate Court has, therefore, rightly issued the injunction<\/p>\n
against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      During the course of submissions, apart from the<\/p>\n
photographs produced on record as Annexure-10, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the parties have shown various other photographs<\/p>\n
of the construction at site and the position obtainable is that<\/p>\n
barring completion of the roof on the wall in dispute, the<\/p>\n
petitioner has already raised substantial construction on the<\/p>\n
ground and the first floor.\n<\/p>\n
      Looking to the nature of dispute and the material<\/p>\n
available on record, the view as taken by the learned Trial<\/p>\n
Court cannot be said to be unjust or against sound judicial<\/p>\n
principles and there was little scope for interference in appeal.<\/p>\n
However, the learned Appellate Court has commented that<\/p>\n
affidavit of the predecessor Champa Lal has not been filed and<\/p>\n
has proceeded to deduce from the recitals in the sale deeds<\/p>\n
that the wall was constructed by the plaintiff. The finding that<\/p>\n
the plaintiff alone had constructed the wall in dispute is difficult<\/p>\n
to be arrived at this stage only from the sale deed in question;<\/p>\n
and merely because the defendant has purchased the land<\/p>\n
later and in his sale deed, a wall in 32 ft. length is stated
\n                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
existing on the southern side, it cannot directly be concluded<\/p>\n
that the wall is of exclusive ownership of the plaintiff. The<\/p>\n
learned Appellate Court has observed that the wall in 32 ft.<\/p>\n
length has been stated in the defendant’s sale deed to be<\/p>\n
existing towards the plaintiff’s side and it has not been stated<\/p>\n
that the wall has been of exclusive ownership of the vendor<\/p>\n
Champa Lal. It is difficult to countenance the approach of the<\/p>\n
learned Appellate Court that merely for sale deed of the<\/p>\n
defendant not stating the wall in question to be of exclusive<\/p>\n
ownership of the predecessor Champa Lal, injunction was<\/p>\n
required to be issued against him.        Further, the learned<\/p>\n
Appellate Court has not considered the other aspects of the<\/p>\n
matter where the learned Trial Court has observed the<\/p>\n
ingredients of balance of convenience and irreparable injury<\/p>\n
are not in favour of the plaintiff, particularly when the<\/p>\n
defendant is raising construction at the first floor after taking<\/p>\n
permission from the Municipal Board.\n<\/p>\n
      The impugned order dated 17.03.2008 (Annex.9) cannot<\/p>\n
be sustained for the reasons: (i) that the finding as recorded by<\/p>\n
the learned Appellate Court on prima facie case appears to be<\/p>\n
more on surmises rather than on legal inferences; (ii) then, the<\/p>\n
aspects of balance of convenience and irreparable injury have<\/p>\n
not been precisely considered by the learned Appellate Court<\/p>\n
and the construction has not been countenanced on the
\n                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
observations that permitting of such construction would<\/p>\n
frustrate     the   purpose     of   the   suit   and   unnecessary<\/p>\n
complications and disputes would arise whereas in the overall<\/p>\n
fact situation of this case, the finding of the learned Trial Court<\/p>\n
that the balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
cannot be said to be wholly unjustified particularly when it is<\/p>\n
found that the defendant-petitioner has otherwise raised<\/p>\n
substantial construction on the first floor; (iii) and then, for the<\/p>\n
order passed by the learned Trial Court refusing the prayer for<\/p>\n
temporary injunction after taking note of the material available<\/p>\n
on record and the principles of law applicable to the case<\/p>\n
having not been shown suffering from any perversity,<\/p>\n
arbitrariness, or disregard of any relevant judicial principle, the<\/p>\n
Appellate Court has obviously exceeded its jurisdiction in<\/p>\n
interfering with the discretionary order refusing temporary<\/p>\n
injunction merely on the basis of its different view of the<\/p>\n
matter. The impugned order dated 17.03.2008 is, therefore,<\/p>\n
required to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
      After looking at the photographs as placed on record<\/p>\n
and as shown during the course of arguments, this Court is<\/p>\n
clearly of the opinion that no purpose would be served by<\/p>\n
simply      prohibiting   the   defendant-petitioner    from   raising<\/p>\n
construction on the wall in dispute and continuing with such<\/p>\n
injunction would be rather leading to comparatively more
\n                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner. In the overall<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, during the course of submissions<\/p>\n
yesterday, after noticing some space for Almirah having been<\/p>\n
left by the petitioner on the wall in dispute, this Court<\/p>\n
expressed prima facie view that even if the petitioner is<\/p>\n
permitted to complete his construction, apart that he would be<\/p>\n
required to submit specific undertaking not to claim equity only<\/p>\n
on the basis of raising such construction, it shall also be<\/p>\n
required of him to close down such Almirahs etc. and to keep<\/p>\n
the wall plain. In response to the observations made by the<\/p>\n
Court, the petitioner has placed on record today a photograph<\/p>\n
showing that such space of Almirah etc. on the wall in question<\/p>\n
have been filled up making it plain.\n<\/p>\n
      Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this<\/p>\n
case, this Court is of opinion that interest of justice shall be<\/p>\n
served if the defendant-petitioner is permitted to complete his<\/p>\n
construction including that on the wall in question in<\/p>\n
accordance with the permission obtained from the Municipal<\/p>\n
Board but only upon his submitting a undertaking to the Trial<\/p>\n
Court that he shall not claim any equity merely for having<\/p>\n
completed such construction and to abide by the final decision<\/p>\n
in the suit and to remove his construction, if so required at the<\/p>\n
final decision of the suit and not to place any Almirah or any<\/p>\n
opening on the wall in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
               Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent<\/p>\n
         indicated above; the impugned order dated 17.03.2008 as<\/p>\n
         passed by the learned Appellate Court is set aside; the order<\/p>\n
         dated 11.03.2008 as passed by the learned Trial Court is<\/p>\n
         restored but with the modification that the defendant-petitioner<\/p>\n
         shall be entitled to complete his construction including that on<\/p>\n
         the wall in question upon his submitting a specific undertaking<\/p>\n
         to the Trial Court that he shall not claim any equity merely for<\/p>\n
         having completed such construction and shall not place any<\/p>\n
         Almirah or any opening on the wall in dispute and shall keep<\/p>\n
         the same plain; and shall abide by the final decision of the suit<\/p>\n
         and shall remove his construction, if at all required at the final<\/p>\n
         decision of the suit, at his own costs.\n<\/p>\n
               There shall be no order as to costs of this writ petition.<\/p>\n
                                             (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.\n<\/p>\n
\nMohan\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Bhagwan Raj vs Badri Narayan & Ors on 30 May, 2008 1 S\/1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITON NO.2185\/2008. Bhagwan Raj Vs. Badri Narayan & Ors. Date of Order :: 30th May 2008. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Rakesh Arora, for the petitioner. Mr. B. K Bhatnagar with Mr. P.R. […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41040","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nBhagwan Raj vs Badri Narayan & Ors on 30 May, 2008 - 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\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhagwan Raj vs Badri Narayan & Ors on 30 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-03T09:38:46+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhagwan Raj vs Badri Narayan & Ors on 30 May, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-03T09:38:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1959,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008\",\"name\":\"Bhagwan Raj vs Badri Narayan & Ors on 30 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-03T09:38:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhagwan Raj vs Badri Narayan & Ors on 30 May, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Bhagwan Raj vs Badri Narayan & Ors on 30 May, 2008 - 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\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhagwan Raj vs Badri Narayan & Ors on 30 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-03T09:38:46+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhagwan Raj vs Badri Narayan & Ors on 30 May, 2008","datePublished":"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-03T09:38:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008"},"wordCount":1959,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008","name":"Bhagwan Raj vs Badri Narayan & Ors on 30 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-05-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-03T09:38:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagwan-raj-vs-badri-narayan-ors-on-30-may-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhagwan Raj vs Badri Narayan & Ors on 30 May, 2008"}]},{"@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\/41040","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=41040"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41040\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41040"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41040"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}