{"id":62154,"date":"2011-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011"},"modified":"2018-08-25T19:17:38","modified_gmt":"2018-08-25T13:47:38","slug":"shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shri Nanak Chand & Ors. vs Shri Jai Lal (Since Deceased) … on 9 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Nanak Chand & Ors. vs Shri Jai Lal (Since Deceased) … on 9 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Indermeet Kaur<\/div>\n
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                              Date of Judgment: 09.5.2011\n\n\n+                  R.S.A.No. 149\/2008\n\nSHRI NANAK CHAND & ORS.                         ...........Appellant\n                 Through:            Mr.Sunil Chauhan, Advocate.\n\n                   Versus\n\nSHRI JAI LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.\n                                         ..........Respondent\n                     Through: Mr.N.S.Dalal             and\n                              Mr.D.P.Singh, Advocates.\n\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to\n        see the judgment?\n\n     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?               Yes\n\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n                                                          Yes\n\nINDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)\n<\/pre>\n
CM No.9586\/2008 (Exemption)<\/p>\n
       Allowed subject to just exceptions.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No. 149\/2008<\/p>\n
1.     This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
08.4.2008 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated<\/p>\n
15.5.2003 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Nanak Chand<\/p>\n
RSA No.149\/2008                                           Page 1 of 7<\/span>
\n seeking possession of the suit property measuring 9 bighas 12<\/p>\n
biswas bearing Killa No.46\/3 (4-16),8(4-16) in village Jatkhore,<\/p>\n
Delhi had been dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
2.    The case of the plaintiff is that his predecessor had agreed<\/p>\n
to sell the aforenoted land to the defendant vide agreement to sell<\/p>\n
executed in 1966. He had requested the defendant to get the sale<\/p>\n
deed executed and registered by making the payment of the<\/p>\n
balance agreement amount but the defendant failed to do so.<\/p>\n
Licence granted by the plaintiff to the defendant for cultivating<\/p>\n
has since been expired. Legal notice dated 19.1.1990 was sent to<\/p>\n
the defendant calling upon him to vacate the suit land but he<\/p>\n
failed to do so. Present suit was accordingly filed.<\/p>\n
3.    In defence it is stated the defendants had become the owner<\/p>\n
by virtue of the agreement to sell which was executed by the<\/p>\n
predecessor of the plaintiff in their favour; their possession cannot<\/p>\n
be disturbed; they are entitled to be protected under Section 53 A<\/p>\n
of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the<\/p>\n
TPA); further this court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
entertain the suit.\n<\/p>\n
4.    From the pleadings of the parties the following 10 issues<\/p>\n
were been framed:\n<\/p>\n
      “1. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes
\nRSA No.149\/2008                                                    Page 2 of 7<\/span>
\n       of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2. Whether this Court has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this
\n      case? OPD\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3. Whether the suit is barred by provisions of Section 41(h) of the
\n      Specific Relief Act? OPD\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      4. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      5. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus-standi to file the
\n      present suit? OPD\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      6.Whether the plaintiffs are the owner of suit land measuring 9
\n      bighas 12 biswas of Killa No.46\/3 (4-16), 8(4-16) situated in the
\n      revenue estate of Village Jathkhore, Delhi? OPP\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      7.Whether the defendant is merely a licencee under the plaintiff?
\n      OPP\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8.Whether the plaintiffs have got any cause of action in their
\n      favour against the defendants?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      9.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed? OPP\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      10.Relief.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5.    Oral and documentary evidence was led. The trial judge was<\/p>\n
of the view that the court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction<\/p>\n
to entertain the suit.      This was disposed of while dealing with<\/p>\n
issue no.2.       Trial judge, however,      proceeded to deal with the<\/p>\n
merits of the case; on merits the court was of the view that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has failed to establish his case; suit of the plaintiff was<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
6.    In first appeal it was contended that the trial judge had<\/p>\n
noted that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the case;<\/p>\n
yet Trial Judge had proceeded to decide it on merits; this was an<\/p>\n
RSA No.149\/2008                                                      Page 3 of 7<\/span>
\n illegality. This point was noted by the first appellate court. The<\/p>\n
first appellate court was of the view that this was an illegality. It<\/p>\n
had held that Court had re-appreciated the evidence, oral and<\/p>\n
documentary and the trial judge had the pecuniary jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
deal with the matter. On merits also it had endorsed the finding<\/p>\n
of the trial judge. Suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.<\/p>\n
7.    This is a second appeal. It is yet at the stage of admission.<\/p>\n
On behalf of the appellant, it is pointed out that the trial Judge<\/p>\n
had returned a positive finding that it has no pecuniary<\/p>\n
jurisdiction.     In this view of the matter it should not have dealt<\/p>\n
with the case on merits. No cross appeal had been filed by the<\/p>\n
defendant before the first Appellate Court.       The first appellate<\/p>\n
court could not have upset the finding on pecuniary jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
8.    Even on merits, the finding returned is perverse.<\/p>\n
9.    Reliance has been placed upon AIR 2008 SC 493 A Lewis &<\/p>\n
Anr. Vs. M.T.Ramamurthy & Anr. to substantiate his submission<\/p>\n
that the protection of Section 53A of the TPA which had been<\/p>\n
granted to the defendant is an illegality as the defendant was<\/p>\n
himself not willing to perform his part of the contract and in these<\/p>\n
circumstances this protection could not hae been afforded to him.<\/p>\n
10.   Arguments have been countered.\n<\/p>\n
11.   It is pointed out that the powers of the first appellate court
\nRSA No.149\/2008                                             Page 4 of 7<\/span>
\n under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure are wide<\/p>\n
and nothing prevents the first appellate court from dealing any<\/p>\n
objection of the respondent; even though he has not filed a cross<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
12.   Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code reads as follows:<\/p>\n
             “33. Power of Court of Appeal – the Appellate Court shall
\n      have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to
\n      have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other
\n      decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be
\n      exercised by the court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part
\n      only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the
\n      respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may
\n      not have filed any appeal or objection and may, where there have
\n      been decrees in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are
\n      passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the
\n      decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such
\n      decrees:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order
\n      under section 35A, in pursuance of any objection on which the Court
\n      from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to
\n      make such order.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.   In this context the Supreme Court in AIR 1988 SC 54<\/p>\n
Mahant Dhangir & Anr. Vs. Madan Mohan & Ors. while dealing<\/p>\n
with this aspect has noted as follows:\n<\/p>\n
             “The appellate court could exercise that power in favour of
\n      all or any of the respondents although such respondent may not
\n      have filed any appeal or objection. The sweep of the power under
\n      Rule 33 is wide enough to determine any question not only between<\/p>\n
RSA No.149\/2008                                                      Page 5 of 7<\/span>
\n       the appellant and respondent, but also between respondent and co-
\n      respondents. The appellate court could pass any decree or order
\n      which ought to have been passed in the circumstances of the case.
\n      The appellate court could also pass such other decree or order as
\n      the case may require. The words “as the case may require” used in
\n      Rule 33 of Order 41 have been put in wide terms to enable the
\n      appellate court to pass any order or decree to meet the ends of
\n      justice. What then should be the constraint? We do not find many.
\n      We are not giving any liberal interpretation. The rule itself is liberal
\n      enough. The only constraint that we could see, may be these: That
\n      the parties before the lower court should be there before the
\n      appellate court. The question raised must properly arise out of the
\n      judgment of the lower court. If these two requirements are there,
\n      the appellate Court could consider any objection against any part of
\n      the judgment or decree of the lower court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.   The first appellate court had ample power to deal with the<\/p>\n
objections about the issue of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
court; after adverting to the evidence it had rightly concluded that<\/p>\n
the Civil Court has the necessary jurisdiction to deal with the<\/p>\n
matter. This answers the first objection of the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant.     On merits also the two fact finding courts have<\/p>\n
returned a positive finding holding that the plaintiff has not been<\/p>\n
able to substantiate his case. In fact, it is the case of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
himself that his predecessor had executed documents of transfer<\/p>\n
i.e. an agreement to sell in favour of the defendant under which<\/p>\n
he had a possession. Doctrine of part performance as contained<\/p>\n
RSA No.149\/2008                                                        Page 6 of 7<\/span>
\n in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was rightly<\/p>\n
adverted to.      The judgment of Lewis (supra) relied upon by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant has no application. In this case<\/p>\n
the court had held that the protective umbrella of Section 53A of<\/p>\n
the TPA will not be available if the transferee has been passive<\/p>\n
and not taken any effective steps; i.e. where there is no evidence<\/p>\n
to show that he was willing to perform his part of the contract.<\/p>\n
Present suit was not a suit for specific performance.           This<\/p>\n
contention had not arisen.\n<\/p>\n
15.   Substantial questions of law have been embodied on pages<\/p>\n
13 and 14 of the appeal. No such substantial question of law has<\/p>\n
arisen. Appeal is dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          INDERMEET KAUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
MAY 09, 2011
\nss\/nandan<\/p>\n
RSA No.149\/2008                                          Page 7 of 7<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Shri Nanak Chand & Ors. vs Shri Jai Lal (Since Deceased) … on 9 May, 2011 Author: Indermeet Kaur * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 09.5.2011 + R.S.A.No. 149\/2008 SHRI NANAK CHAND & ORS. ………..Appellant Through: Mr.Sunil Chauhan, Advocate. Versus SHRI JAI LAL (SINCE […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Nanak Chand & Ors. vs Shri Jai Lal (Since Deceased) ... on 9 May, 2011 - 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\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Nanak Chand & Ors. vs Shri Jai Lal (Since Deceased) ... on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-25T13:47:38+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Nanak Chand & Ors. vs Shri Jai Lal (Since Deceased) … on 9 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-25T13:47:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1478,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Shri Nanak Chand & Ors. vs Shri Jai Lal (Since Deceased) ... on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-25T13:47:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Nanak Chand & Ors. vs Shri Jai Lal (Since Deceased) … on 9 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Nanak Chand & Ors. vs Shri Jai Lal (Since Deceased) ... on 9 May, 2011 - 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\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Nanak Chand & Ors. vs Shri Jai Lal (Since Deceased) ... on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-25T13:47:38+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Nanak Chand & Ors. vs Shri Jai Lal (Since Deceased) … on 9 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-25T13:47:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011"},"wordCount":1478,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011","name":"Shri Nanak Chand & Ors. vs Shri Jai Lal (Since Deceased) ... on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-25T13:47:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-nanak-chand-ors-vs-shri-jai-lal-since-deceased-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Nanak Chand & Ors. vs Shri Jai Lal (Since Deceased) … on 9 May, 2011"}]},{"@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\/62154","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=62154"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62154\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}