{"id":45550,"date":"2006-11-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006"},"modified":"2017-09-13T18:39:37","modified_gmt":"2017-09-13T13:09:37","slug":"dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"Dharamraj & Ors vs Chhitan & Ors on 6 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dharamraj & Ors vs Chhitan & Ors on 6 November, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: T Chatterjee<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Tarun Chatterjee<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7507 of 1997\n\nPETITIONER:\nDharamraj & Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nChhitan & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/11\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.\n<\/p>\n
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
\norder dated 12th March 1987 passed in W.P. No.
\n2736\/1976 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
\n(Lucknow Bench ) whereby the Writ Petition filed by
\nChhitan, Chandrika and Karia, a minor son of Jai Ram,
\nrepresented by his mother and guardian Smt. Sonara
\nbeing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in this appeal were allowed
\nand decision of the consolidation authorities were set
\naside. By allowing the said Writ petition, the appellants
\nwere deprived of their alleged shares in ancestral tenancy
\nand giving sole tenancy rights to respondent Nos. 1 to 3
\nover the land of Khata No.111 in Village Balrampur,
\nPargana and Tehsil Tanda, District Faizabad (hereinafter
\nreferred to as the “said land”).  We are not concerned with
\nthe other plots relating to Khata No.13 as the disputes
\nraised in this case appeal does not relate to the said land.
\nTherefore, we restrict ourselves in this appeal in respect of
\nthe dispute only relating to the said land.
\nObjections filed under section 9A(2) of the U.P.
\nConsolidation of Holdings Act 1953 ( in short “the Act”) by
\nthe parties in this appeal in respect of the entries in Khata
\nNo.111 and 13 relating to basic year 1378 Fasli were
\nreferred to the Consolidation Officer for adjudication.  We
\nmay reiterate, as noted herein earlier, that in this appeal
\nthe questions need to be decided only in respect of the
\nlands in Khata No.111 and not Khata No.13.   It is not in
\ndispute that the lands relating to Khata No.111 in the
\nbasic year were recorded in the name of Saltanati.
\nSubsequently, in the year 1338 F this land was recorded
\nin the name of Adhin by way of settlement.   On the death
\nof Adhin the said land was recorded in the name of
\nJabbar and then subsequently in the name of  Jai Ram.
\nSince Jai Ram was not traceable in his place Smt. Sonara
\nhis wife and minor son Karia had represented the estate
\nas the legal heirs and representatives of Jai Ram.  Smt.
\nSonara entered into a settlement with Chittan son of
\nDubri, Chandrika son of Sripat. Thereby the minor Karia
\nrepresented by his mother Smt. Sonara agreed to have co-
\ntenancy rights in respect of Khata No.111, with Chittan
\nand Chandrika. On the other hand, the appellants
\nrepresenting Daya Ram and others jointly claimed co-
\ntenancy rights in respect of the said land on the ground
\nthat the said lands were acquired by their ancestor
\nSaltanati and thereafter Jokhan son of Adhin was
\nrecorded in the representative capacity.
\nAccording to the appellants, the family remained joint
\ntill some time when the land was recorded in the name of
\nAdhin.  Binda and Sanehi on the death of Salatanati
\nseparated from their joint family and Adhin separated
\nwith his nephews Bhulai and Dukhi.  In this manner, the
\nsaid land of Jokhan and Salatanati were distributed  in
\nthe joint family and the shares were divided equally.
\nHowever, the said lands continued to be recorded in the
\nname of Adhin.   After some time, Bhulai and Dukhi, who
\nwere joint with Adhin also separated from him and by
\npartition the lands were divided.  In the same manner,
\nBinda and Sanehi lived jointly for some time and
\nthereafter separated by partition.  The entire lands of
\nKhata No.111 continued to remain recorded in the name
\nof Adhin, even though Dukhi, Bhulai, Binda and Sanehi
\ncultivated their lands separately.  After the death of
\nAdhin, the said lands came to be recorded in the name of
\nhis son Jabbar and thereafter on the death of Jabbar the
\nsame was recorded in the name of his son Jai Ram. At
\nthis stage, to understand the Pedigree of the parties, it
\nwould be appropriate to give a Pedigree chart herein now
\nwhich is not now in dispute as was given by the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
The Pedigree chart which was set up by the
\nappellants is given below:-\n<\/p>\n
The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 6th June
\n1972 declared the appellants or their predecessor in
\ninterest as co-tenure holders in respect of the said land
\nalong with Jai Ram and determined the share on the basis
\nof the Pedigree, as noted above.\n<\/p>\n
 \tAggrieved by the order dated 6th June 1972  of the
\nConsolidation Officer respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed an
\nappeal whereas Daya Ram and others preferred an appeal
\nalso.   However, the appeals filed by the parties before the
\nappellate authority i.e. Assistant Settlement Officer were
\ndismissed.  Revisions were filed by the parties before the
\nDeputy Director, Consolidation which were disposed of by
\nallowing the same partly and the following order was
\npassed :\n<\/p>\n
“It is ordered that over the basic year in
\nKhata No. 13 the names of Chhitan
\n(respondent No.1), Jai Ram (Respondent
\nNo.2) and Chandrika (Respondent No.3) alone
\nshall be entered. In Khata No.111 over plot
\nNos. 152, 154, 161, 425, 435, 442, 475, 481,
\n465 and 511 also the names of the
\nrespondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall only be entered.
\nOver the remaining plots of Khata No.111 in
\naccordance with the orders of Consolidation
\nOfficer and Assistant Settlement Officer,
\nConsolidation, the names of both the parties
\nshall be entered as co-tenants.”\n<\/p>\n
At this stage, let us take up the question of accepting
\nthe Pedigree chart set up by the contesting parties. It was
\nthe case of Daya Ram and others (appellants herein) that
\nBekaru was the son of Jokhan whereas the case of
\nrespondent Nos. 1 to 3 was that Bekaru was the son of
\nSaltanati.  However, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had failed
\nto prove that Bekaru was the son of Saltanati.
\nOn a finding of fact arrived by the consolidation
\nauthorities particularly the revisional authorities, it is not
\nin dispute now that Bekaru was the son of Jokhan and
\ntherefore the Pedigree set up by the appellants must be
\naccepted.\n<\/p>\n
As quoted herein above, the Deputy Director,
\nConsolidation held that in Khata No.111 plot Nos.  152,
\n154,  161, 425, 435,  442,    475,    481, 465 and 511 the
\nnames of Chittan, Jai Ram and Chandrika be entered and
\nover the remaining plots of Khata No.111 the findings of
\nthe Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement
\nOfficer were accepted by him.  That is to say in respect of
\nthe remaining plots in Khata No.111, the respondent shall
\nbe entered as co-tenure holders in respect of the
\nremaining plots of Khata No.111.\n<\/p>\n
     It is this order of the revisional authority passed in
\nthe aforesaid revision cases Daya Ram and others filed a
\nwrit application in the High Court of Allahabad, which
\ncame to be registerd as W.P. No.2838\/1976.   It was,
\ninter-alia, the case made out by Daya Ram and others in
\nthe aforesaid writ application that the Deputy Director of
\nConsolidation acting as revisional authority had erred in
\nnot holding the appellants who ought to have been held as
\nco-tenure holders of the said land along with respondent
\nNos. 1 to 3  and also remaining plots of Khata No.111.  On
\nthe other hand, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also filed a writ
\napplication being W.P. No. 2736\/1976 against the order
\npassed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in revision
\ncases challenging the order of the Deputy Director,
\nConsolidation on the ground that in the admitted facts of
\nthe present case respondent Nos. 1 to 3 ought to have
\nbeen held to be sole tenure holders in respect of the said
\nlands.\n<\/p>\n
\tBy the impugned judgment, the High Court after
\nhearing the parties disposed of the aforesaid two writ
\npetitions by passing the following order:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“In the result, the writ petition
\nNo.2838\/76 filed by Daya Ram and others
\nis dismissed being devoid of merits and
\nwrit petition No. 2736\/76 filed by Chitan
\nand others is hereby allowed and the order
\ndated 13.8.1976 passed by Deputy
\nDirector, Consolidation in so far as it
\nrelates to ten plots of Khata No.111
\nmentioned in the said order by which Daya
\nRam and others have been given co-\n<\/p>\n
tenancy rights is hereby quashed and the
\npetitioners Chitan, Chandrika and Karia
\nunder guardianship of Smt. Somura are
\ndirected to be recorded as sole tenure
\nholders to entire land of Khata No.111 and
\nalso Khata No. 13 of village Balrampur,
\nTehsil and Pargana Tanda, District
\nFaizabad.  No order as to costs.”\n<\/p>\n
While disposing of the writ petitions, the High Court
\nheld in substance as under:-\n<\/p>\n
A.\tThe land in dispute did not devolve upon Adhin from
\nSaltanati.\n<\/p>\n
B.\tThe land in Khata No.111 was resettled by then
\nlandlord giving certain parts to Adhin and certain
\nother plots to others.  Therefore, it was a fresh
\nsettlement and there was no continuity in the identity
\nof the holding.\n<\/p>\n
C.\tAccepting the findings arrived at by the consolidation
\nauthorities or on the admitted facts, the High Court
\nheld that the disputed holding did not come in tact in
\nthe identical form and only some of the plots of the
\nholdings belonging to common ancestral were found
\nincluded in the disputed holding and therefore that
\nwould not make an ancestral holding so as to give a
\nshare in it to the appellants on that ground nor it
\nwould be permissible to pick up those plots from the
\nholding and declare them to be the ancestral property
\nand give a share in those plots to the appellants.
\n\t\tIt is this order of the High Court, which is under
\nchallenge before us in respect of which leave was
\ngranted.   We have heard the learned counsel on either
\nside and examined carefully all the orders of the
\nConsolidation authorities and finally the impugned
\njudgment of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIt must be brought on record that before us, no
\nsubmission has been made in respect of the appeal filed
\nby Daya Ram and others challenging the portion of the
\norder which had gone against them.  We restrict
\nourselves only on the question whether the claims of
\nrespondent Nos. 1 to 3 in respect of Khata No.111 were
\njustified or not as granted by the High Court.
\nOn behalf of the appellants, the main contention of
\nDr. R.G. Padia, learned senior counsel appearing for
\nthem was to the effect that it was not open to the High
\nCourt to set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the
\nconsolidation authorities in the exercise of its extra
\nordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
\nIt was, however, not the submission of Dr. Padia that it
\nwas not open to the High Court to exercise its
\njurisdiction when the consolidation authorities had
\nerred in deciding a question of law on the facts admitted
\nor proved by the parties before them.  Dr. Padia thus
\ncontended that the High Court erred in setting aside the
\nfinding of fact of the consolidation authorities by
\nsubstituting its own views on the question of fact under
\nArt. 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
 \t\tSecondly, it was contended by Dr. Padia that
\nsince two of the co-tenure holders were not made
\nparties in the writ application who are appellant Nos. 13
\nand 14 in the appeal, the writ petitions heard and
\ndisposed of in their absence could not be said to be
\nmaintainable in law.\n<\/p>\n
  \t\tThe aforesaid two-fold submissions of Dr. Padia
\nwere, however, contested by Mr. O.P. Sharma, the
\nlearned senior counsel who appeared for the respondent
\nNos. 1 to 3.  Let us therefore examine the main
\nquestion, as raised by the learned counsel for the
\nparties and noted herein earlier in detail.  We have
\nalready discussed the impugned judgment of the High
\nCourt and the order of all the three consolidation
\nauthorities.  It is now well settled law that in the
\nexercise of its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction High
\nCourt is not supposed to interfere with the findings of
\nfact arrived at by the consolidation authorities unless
\nand until High Court concludes that such findings of
\nfact are either perverse or based on no evidence.   It
\nmay also be kept in mind that Mr. Sharma appearing
\nfor the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also had not advanced
\nany submission to the extent that the findings of fact of
\nthe authorities in the facts and circumstances of the
\ncase could at all be said to be perverse or based on no
\nevidence.  It was the submission of Mr. Sharma that on
\nthe admitted fact and the findings arrived at by the
\nconsolidation authorities the High Court has only
\ndeclared the law on such admitted and proved facts.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIt is well settled position of law by catena of decisions
\nof this Court that in the writ jurisdiction of the High
\nCourt, it is always permissible for it to correct the
\ndecision of the consolidation authorities or to declare
\nthe law on the basis of facts and proof of such facts.
\nFor this proposition, we may usefully refer to a decision
\nof this Court in the case of Mukunda Bore  vs.
\nBangshidhar Buragohain & Ors.<\/a>  reported in AIR 1980
\nSC 1524 in which this Court indicated as to when High
\nCourt can interfere with the orders of  quasi judicial
\nauthority.  This observation may be quoted which is as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“While on facts the order of the Board
\nunder appeal is not impeccable, we must
\nremember that under Art. 226 of the
\nConstitution a finding of fact of a domestic
\ntribunal cannot be interfered with.  The
\nHigh Court in the exercise of its special
\njurisdiction does not act as a Court of
\nAppeal.  It interferes only when there is a
\njurisdictional error apparent on the face of
\nthe record committed by the domestic
\ntribunal.  Such is not the case here.  It is
\ntrue that a finding based on no evidence or
\npurely on surmises and conjectures or
\nwhich is manifestly against the basic
\nprinciples of natural justice, may be said to
\nsuffer from an error of law.  In the instant
\ncase, the finding of the Board that the
\nappellant does not possess the necessary
\nfinancial capacity, is largely a finding of
\nfact under Rule 206(2) of the Assam Excise
\nRules, an applicant for settlement of a shop
\nis required to give full information
\nregarding his financial capacity in the
\ntender.   Such information must include
\nthe details of sources of finance, cash in
\nhand, bank balance, security assets, etc.
\nThen, such information is verified by the
\nInquiry Officer.”\n<\/p>\n
\t(Underlining is ours )<\/p>\n
In Syed Yakoob  vs. K.S.Radhakrishnan & Ors.<\/a>
\nreported in 1964 (5) SCR 64 this Court observed as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
“finding of fact cannot be challenged in a
\nproceeding on the ground that the relevant
\nand material evidence was insufficient to
\nsustain the finding and that adequacy or
\nsufficiency of evidence or an inference of fact
\nto be drawn from the evidence or finding of
\nfact are entirely within the jurisdiction of the
\nTribunal.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tAgain in the case of State of West Bengal vs. A.K.
\nShaw<\/a> reported in AIR 1990 SC 2205 this Court held that
\nif the quasi judicial tribunal had appreciated the evidence
\non record and recorded the findings of fact, those findings
\nof fact would be binding to the High Court.  By the
\nprocess of judicial review, the High Court cannot
\nappreciate the evidence and record its own findings of
\nfact.  If the findings are based on no evidence or based on
\nconjectures or surmises and no reasonable man would on
\ngiven facts and circumstances come to the conclusion
\nreached by the quasi-judicial authority on the basis of the
\nevidence on record, certainly the High Court would
\noversee whether the findings recorded by the authority is
\nbased on no evidence or beset with surmises or
\nconjectures.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the law settled by this Court on the
\nquestion under consideration, let us consider whether the
\nHigh Court was justified in reversing the order of the
\nconsolidation authorities by declaring  that the names of
\nRespondent Nos. 1 to 3 should be entered as co-tenure
\nholders in respect of the plots recorded in Khata No.111.
\nIt would be fruitful for us to look into the findings arrived
\nat not only of the High Court but also of the consolidation
\nauthorities.  The Consolidation Officer as the original
\nauthority under the Act on consideration of the material
\non record held the appellants to be co-tenure holders in
\nrespect of the said land with respondent Nos. 1 to 3.  In
\nappeal, the Assistant Settlement Officer held that the
\nConsolidation Officer was justified in holding that the
\nnames of the appellants with respondent Nos. 1 to 3
\nshould be entered in respect of the lands recorded in
\nKhata No.111, i.e. the case made out by the respondent
\nNos. 1 to 3 that they may be declared as sole tenure
\nholders in respect of Khata No.111 was not accepted.\n<\/p>\n
         As noted herein earlier, the Deputy Director held the
\nrespondent Nos. 1 to 3 in this appeal to be exclusive
\ntenure holders of ten plots and in respect of the remaining
\nplots of this Khata, the Deputy Director, Consolidation
\ndirected the names of the appellants as well as the
\nrespondent Nos. 1 to 3 should be recorded as co-tenure
\nholders.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have already put on record that the High Court,
\nhowever, reversed the findings and order of the Deputy
\nDirector, Consolidation by holding that the lands recorded
\nin the entire Khata No.111 must be recorded in the names
\nof respondent Nos. 1 to 3.  It was the case of the
\nappellants in this appeal before the High Court that since
\nthe lands recorded in Khata No.111 initially belonged to
\nSaltanati and they represented his branch and that of
\nBekaru, son of Jokhan, they were entitled  to get shares
\nas per pedigree set up by the appellants.  It was also
\ncontended before the High Court that the Deputy Director,
\nConsolidation fell in error in holding the respondent Nos.
\n1 to 3 to be the exclusive tenure holders of ten plots of
\nKhata No.111 which according to them belonged to
\nSaltanati.  On the other hand, it was the stand of the
\nrespondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the entire holding of the said
\nKhata was acquired by Adhin and was recorded in his
\nname in 1338 F.   Therefore, lands recorded in Khata
\nNo.111 which initially belonged to Saltanati was resettled
\nby the then landlord with Adhin and others.   It was the
\nstand of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the lands
\nrecorded in the said Khata in the name of  Adhin in the
\nyear 1338 F, certain other plots were also recorded
\ntherein.  Accordingly, it was urged that the land in dispute
\nwas acquired by Adhin by way of settlement which
\ncontinued to be in his possession and on his death it had
\ndevolved upon respondent Nos. 1 to 3 exclusively.   The
\nappellants cannot claim any right, title and interest in
\nrespect of entire Khata No.111 nor can they acquire co-
\ntenure holders rights on the ground that the land was
\nancestral holding.\n<\/p>\n
From the above discussion, it is therefore clear that
\nalthough originally the said land had belonged to
\nSaltanati but subsequent event had clearly indicated that
\nit was recorded in the name of Adhin and therefore the
\nrespondent Nos. 1 to 3, admittedly the successors in
\ninterest of the estate of Adhin, were entitled to succeed.
\nAccordingly, there cannot be any doubt that the identity of
\nthe said land was changed from Saltanati to Adhin and
\nthereafter to respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Even all the findings
\narrived at by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in
\nrespect of 10 plots in Khata No.111, as noted herein
\nearlier, the names of respondent Nos.1 to 3 would
\nexclusively be entered. At the same time, the Deputy
\nDirector, Consolidation had also held that the names of
\nthe appellants should be included in remaining plots of
\nKhata No.111. From the above admitted fact, it is clear
\nthat the lands recorded in the said Khata were directed to
\nbe recorded in different names. From this it is apparent
\nthat the identity of the lands in Khata No.111 were
\ndirected to be changed which is not permissible in law.
\n Such being the position, it must be held that the
\nrespondent Nos. 1 to 3 being the successors in interest
\nfrom the side of Adhin whose name was duly recorded in
\nrespect of the said land were entitled to succeed to the
\nsaid land on the basis of identity and resettlement of the
\nsame.  If the identity of the land has been changed, the
\nappellants could not get the property on the basis that
\noriginally this land had been recorded in the name of
\nSaltanati and that the said land was their ancestral
\nproperty. Therefore, the pedigree set up at the instance of
\nthe respondent Nos. 1 to 3, even if it cannot be relied on,
\nthe respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to succeed on the
\nbasis of the aforesaid fact.\n<\/p>\n
We must also keep it on record that it was not
\ndisputed before the consolidation authorities nor it was
\ndisputed by the learned counsel for the appellants before
\nus that the identity of the said land had changed in view
\nof the resettlement in favour of Adhin.  That being the
\nposition, we must hold that the appellants could not
\nacquire any co-tenancy rights even if the appellants
\nsucceeded in proving the pedigree set up by them and
\nalso acquisition of the land by common ancestor.
\nAccordingly, the Deputy Director of Consolidation
\nwas in error in giving co tenure holder rights to the
\nappellants herein in some of the plots of Khata No.111
\non the ground that those plots initially belonged to
\nSaltanati and it was ancestral holding of appellants.
\n\tIn view of our discussions made herein above, we
\ntherefore come to the conclusion that the High Court
\nwhile reversing the order of the Deputy Director,
\nConsolidation had not set aside the findings of fact
\narrived at by them but on the other hand has declared
\nthe question of law on the admitted facts and the
\nfindings of fact arrived at by the consolidation
\nauthorities.\n<\/p>\n
As noted herein earlier, Dr. Padia contended that
\nsince two of the co-tenure holders were not made parties
\nin the writ application, who are Ram Bachan and
\nSubhash Chandra appellant Nos.13 and 14 in this
\nappeal, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed by
\nthe High Court solely on the ground that in their absence
\nthe writ petition could not be said to be maintainable in
\nlaw.  This submission of Dr. Padia cannot be accepted
\nfor the simple reason that Ram Bachan and Subhash
\nChandra appellant Nos. 13 and 14 claimed their share in
\nthe said land being descendants of Saltanati.   In view of
\nour findings made herein above that Saltanati had lost
\nhis right, title and interest in respect of the said land
\nbecause of the fact that the said land was resettled and
\nrecorded in the name of Adhin, it cannot be said that
\nRam Bachan and Subhash Chandra, appellant Nos. 13
\nand 14, herein ought to have been made parties to the
\nwrit application as they were not found to be co-tenure
\nholders in respect of the said land. Accordingly, for non-
\ninclusion of Ram Bachan and Subhash Chandra
\nappellant Nos. 13 and 14 in the Writ Petition filed before
\nthe High Court, it cannot be said that the writ petition
\nwas not maintainable in law.  In view of the aforesaid
\nfinding, the question of abatement on the death of Siya
\nRam (father of Subhash Chandra) could not arise at all.
\nAccordingly, in our view, Ram Bachan and
\nSubhash Chandra appellant Nos.13 and 14 were not at
\nall necessary parties to the Writ Petition No.2736\/1976
\nand the question of non-maintainability of the writ
\npetitions before the High Court in their absence could
\nnot arise.  It is, therefore, not necessary to deal with the
\ndecisions cited by Dr.Padia in connection with the
\nquestion of abatement on the death of Siya Ram and
\nmaintainability of the writ petition for their non-
\ninclusion. Accordingly, this question is answered in the
\nnegative.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the reasons aforesaid, this appeal fails and the
\nsame is dismissed without any order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dharamraj & Ors vs Chhitan & Ors on 6 November, 2006 Author: T Chatterjee Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Tarun Chatterjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7507 of 1997 PETITIONER: Dharamraj & Ors. RESPONDENT: Chhitan & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/11\/2006 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/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-45550","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDharamraj & Ors vs Chhitan & Ors on 6 November, 2006 - 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\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dharamraj & Ors vs Chhitan & Ors on 6 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-13T13:09:37+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dharamraj & Ors vs Chhitan & Ors on 6 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-13T13:09:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3940,\"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\\\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006\",\"name\":\"Dharamraj & Ors vs Chhitan & Ors on 6 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-13T13:09:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dharamraj & Ors vs Chhitan & Ors on 6 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Dharamraj & Ors vs Chhitan & Ors on 6 November, 2006 - 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\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dharamraj & Ors vs Chhitan & Ors on 6 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-13T13:09:37+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dharamraj & Ors vs Chhitan & Ors on 6 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-13T13:09:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006"},"wordCount":3940,"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\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006","name":"Dharamraj & Ors vs Chhitan & Ors on 6 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-13T13:09:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamraj-ors-vs-chhitan-ors-on-6-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dharamraj & Ors vs Chhitan & Ors on 6 November, 2006"}]},{"@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\/45550","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=45550"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45550\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45550"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45550"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45550"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}