{"id":68966,"date":"1971-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971"},"modified":"2019-03-08T10:49:38","modified_gmt":"2019-03-08T05:19:38","slug":"madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971","title":{"rendered":"Madan Lal Puri vs Sain Das Berry on 27 July, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Madan Lal Puri vs Sain Das Berry on 27 July, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 585, \t\t 1971 SCR 935<\/div>\n
Author: C Vaidyialingam<\/div>\n
Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMADAN LAL PURI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSAIN DAS BERRY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/07\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nRAY, A.N.\nPALEKAR, D.G.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR  585\t\t  1971 SCR  935\n 1971 SCC  (2) 535\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1976 SC2229\t (14)\n RF\t    1980 SC1253\t (4)\n\n\nACT:\nDelhi  Rent  Control  Act, 1958,  ss.  14(1)(e)\t and  39(2)-\nJurisdiction of High Court.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent, who was the landlord of  certain  premises,\nfiled  an  application under s. 14(1)(e) of the\t Delhi\tRent\nControl\t Act, 1958, for the eviction of the  appellant,\t who\nwas  the  lessee,  on  the  ground  inter  alia,  that\t the\nrespondent required the premises bonafide for his occupation\nas a residence for himself and his family members.  The Rent\nController  found that the requirement of the  landlord\t was\nnot  bonafide and dismissed the application.  The order\t was\nconfirmed  in  appeal  by the Rent  Control  Tribunal.\t The\nrespondent filed an appeal to the High Court under s.  39(2)\nof the Act.  Before the High Court both parties agreed\tthat\nthe case should be remanded to the Tribunal for a finding on\nthe  question  whether\tthe  premises  available  with\t the\nrespondent  could be considered to be  'reasonably  suitable\nresidential  accommodation' as contemplated by s.  14(1)(e).\nOn  remand, the Tribunal reported that the premises  in\t the\noccupation of the respondent were not reasonably  sufficient\nfor  the respondent and his family.  The  appellant  however\ncontended  before the High Court, ignoring this\t finding  of\nthe Tribunal that on the concurrent findings of the two sub-\nordinate authorities that the landlord's requirement was not\nbonafide,  there was no question of law involved and so\t the\nHigh  Court had no jurisdiction under s. 39(2)\tto  consider\nthe correctness of those findings.  The High Court  rejected\nthe  contention\t and held, that, in view of the\t finding  on\nremand\t the   decision\t of  the   subordinate\t authorities\ndismissing the respondent's application was erroneous.\nIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD:This  Court in Kamla Soni v. Rup Lal  Mehra,  C.A.\nNo. 2150 of 1966 dated 26-9-1969 held that a finding on\t the\nissue whether the requirement of a landlord is bonafide is a\nfinding on mixed questions of law and fact and not on  facts\nonly.\tTherefore,  it\twas open to  the  High\tCourt,\twhen\nexercising  jurisdiction  under\t s. 39(2),  to\tconsider  in\nproper cases the correctness of such a finding. [939E-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 848 of 1971.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nDecember 7, 1970 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No. 110-D
\nof 1966,
\nHardev\tSingh, K. P. Kapur and H. L. Kapur, for\t the  appel-
\nlant.\n<\/p>\n
S.K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and K. R. Nagaraja, for the  res-
\npondent.\n<\/p>\n
936<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nVaidialingam,  J.-In this appeal, Mr. Hardev Singh,  learned
\ncounsel\t on behalf of the tenant-appellant,  challenges\t the
\njudgment and order dated December 7, 1970 of the Delhi\tHigh
\nCourt  in S.A.O. No. 110-D of 1966.  Special leave has\tbeen
\ngranted\t by this Court limited to the question\twhether\t the
\nHigh  Court was justified, in view of S. 39(2) of the  Delhi
\nRent  Control  Act,  1958 (hereinafter called  the  Act)  in
\nsetting\t  aside\t the  decisions\t of  the   two\t subordinate
\nauthorities,   dismissing  the\tapplication  filed  by\t the
\nrespondent-landlord for evicting the appellant.
\nThe  facts leading up to this appeal may be briefly  stated.
\nThe appellant took on lease, the first floor of the premises
\nin  question  from the respondent on January 22, 1964  on  a
\nmonthly\t rent of Rs. 250.  The respondent who was the  owner
\nof the entire premises was then occupying the ground  floor.
\nThe   landlord\tfiled  an  application,\t before\t  the\tRent
\nController on November 26.1964 for eviction of the appellant
\nfrom  the  portion  in\this occupation\tas  lessee,  on\t two
\ngrounds;  (a)  that  the tenant has sub-let a  part  of\t the
\npremises,  and (b) that he required the premises  bona\tfide
\nfor  his  occupation as a residence himself and\t his  family
\nmembers.   The latter claim was based under cl. (e)  of\t the
\nproviso to sub-section (1) of S. 14 of the Act, which is  as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “that   the  premises  let   for\t residential
\n\t      purposes\t are  required\tbona  fide  by\t the
\n\t      landlord\tfor  occupation as a  residence\t for
\n\t      himself  or  for\tany  member  of\t his  family
\n\t      dependent on him, if he is the owner  thereof,
\n\t      or  for  any  person  for\t whose\tbenefit\t the
\n\t      premises\tare  held and that the\tlandlord  or
\n\t      such  person has no other reasonably  suitable
\n\t      residential accommodation;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  tenant  opposed the claim of the landlord on  both\t the
\ngrounds.  He denied the allegation of sub-letting.  He\talso
\ncontended that the landlord’s requirement for his occupation
\nwas not bonafide.  The tenant’s plea was that the portion of
\nthe  premises  in  his occupation  was\tsufficient  for\t his
\npurpose.   The\tRent  Controller accepted the  plea  of\t the
\ntenant\tthat there was no subletting.  He also accepted\t his
\nplea that the requirement of the landlord for his occupation
\nwas  not  bona\tfide.  On  these  findings,  the  landlord’s
\napplication  was  dismissed.  These two findings  were\talso
\nconfirmed  in  the appeal filed by the landlord\t before\t the
\nRent Control Tribunal.\tThe question. regarding sub-letting,
\nhaving\tbeen  decided  against\tthe  landlord  by  both\t the
\nTribunals,  no longer survives and it was also not  agitated
\nbefore the High Court.\tIt may be stated at this stage\tthat
\nthe  findings  of  both the tribunals  on  the\tquestion  of
\nbonafide requirement were recorded against the landlord,  on
\nthe sole ground that the landlord must
\n\t\t\t    937<\/span>
\nhave  foreseen his requirement for additional  accommodation
\neven  at the time when he let out a part of the premises  on
\nJanuary\t 22, 1964 to the appellant and therefore he was\t not
\nentitled to ask for eviction under cl. (e) of the proviso to
\nsub-section (1) of s. 14 of the Act.  It is the view of both
\nthe Tribunals that when eviction is asked for within about I
\nI months of the letting, the claim of the landlord cannot be
\nconsidered to be bonafide.\n<\/p>\n
The  landlord carried the matter in appeal before  the\tHigh
\nCourt under s. 39 of the Act.  That section runs as  follows
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “39(1)  Subject  to  the\tprovisions  of\tsub-
\n\t      section  (2), an appeal shall lie to the\tHigh
\n\t      Court  from  an  order made  by  the  Tribunal
\n\t      within sixty days from the date of such  order
\n\t      ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided that the High Court may entertain the
\n\t      appeal after the expiry of the said period  of
\n\t      sixty  days,  if\tit  is\tsatisfied  that\t the
\n\t      appellant\t was prevented by  sufficient  cause
\n\t      from filing the appeal in time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)No  appeal shall lie  under  sub-section
\n\t      (1),   unless   the   appeal   involves\tsome
\n\t      substantial question of law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t Before\t the  High Court, counsel for  both  parties
\n\t made\ta  representation  that\t the  Rent   Control
\n\t Tribunal has not recorded a finding on the question
\n\t whether the premises avaiable with the landlord can
\n\t be   considered   to\tbe   “reasonably    suitable
\n\t residential  accommodation” as contemplated by\t cl.\n<\/p>\n
\t (e) of the proviso to s. 14 (1).  Hence they made a
\n\t joint\trequest to remand the case to  the  Tribunal
\n\t for a finding on the said question on the basis  of
\n\t the  evidence\talready on record.   Accepting\tthis
\n\t joint request, the learned Judge remanded the\tcase
\n\t to the Tribunal.  The latter, after a consideration
\n\t of the materials on record as well as the extent of
\n\t the premises in the occupation of the landlord\t and
\n\t also  having  due regard to the  number  of  family
\n\t members living with the latter, held, in his report
\n\t dated May 4, 1970, that the portion of the premises
\n\t in  the occupation of the landlord was\t not  reaso-
\n\t nably\tsufficient  for a family consisting  of\t the
\n\t landlord,  his wife, his son, son’s wife and  their
\n\t children.   On\t this basis, he recorded  a  finding
\n\t that\tthe  premises  in  the\toccupation  of\t the
\n\t respondent  were  not reasonably suitable  for\t his
\n\t residence.\n<\/p>\n
\t So  far as we could see, the correctness  of  these
\n\t findings recorded by the Rent Control Tribunal,  in
\n\t favour of the landlord, do not appear to have\tbeen
\n\t challenged by the tenant before the High Court when
\n\t the appeal came up for final hearing.\tOn the other
\n\t band,\twe find that the same contentions that\twere
\n\t raised\t regarding the bonafide requirement  of\t the
\n\t landlord and which found
\n\t 938<\/span>
\n\t acceptance at the hands of the Rent Controller\t and
\n\t the Tribunal before remand were again raised by the
\n\t tenant-appellant  before the High Court.  That\t is,
\n\t in  short,  the  appellant  herein  was  contesting
\n\t before the High Court, the appeal of the  landlord,
\n\t ignoring the findings of the Tribunal dated May  4,
\n\t 1970.\t The  main  point  that\t was  urged  by\t the
\n\t appellant before the High Court was that as the two
\n\t subordinate  Tribunals\t have  recorded\t  concurrent
\n\t findings  negativing  the  claim  of  the  landlord
\n\t regarding his bonafide requirement of the premises,
\n\t the  appeal filed by the landlord did\tnot  involve
\n\t any substantial question of law.  On this basis the
\n\t appellant   pressed  for  the\tdismissal   of\t the
\n\t landlord’s   appeal.\tOn  the\t other\t hand,\t the
\n\t respondent   urged   that  both   the\t subordinate
\n\t Tribunals have not properly considered the question
\n\t of   the  landlord’s  requirement;  and  that\t the
\n\t findings  recorded against him were  on  irrelevant
\n\t consideration.\t  According  to\t the  landlord\t the
\n\t various  material  factors which have to  be  taken
\n\t into  account for adjudicating upon such  a  claim,
\n\t have  not been properly borne in mind by  both\t the
\n\t Tribunals.   Quite  naturally the  landlord  placed
\n\t considerable  reliance on the findings recorded  on
\n\t May 4, 1970 in his favour by the Tribunal.
\n\t The  High  Court  rejected the\t contention  of\t the
\n\t appellant  that it has no jurisdiction to  consider
\n\t the  correctness of the findings. recorded  by\t the
\n\t two  subordinate  authorities especially  when\t the
\n\t relevant  matters  to\tbe taken  into\taccount\t for
\n\t deciding  such\t a question have not been  borne  in
\n\t mind  by those authorities.  The High Court  is  of
\n\t the view that the rejection by the Rent  Controller
\n\t and  the Tribunal of the claim of the\tlandlord  on
\n\t the sole ground that he should have anticipated his
\n\t requirement  for the, next 10 or II months when  he
\n\t let out the premises on lease on January 22,  1964,
\n\t was erroneous.\t The High Court has further observed
\n\t that none of the subordinate authorities have\theld
\n\t that after letting out the premises on January\t 22,
\n\t 1964 and before filing the application for eviction
\n\t on  November  26, 1964, the landlord has  made\t any
\n\t demand from the tenant for payment of higher  rent.
\n\t Finally,  the High Court having due regard  to\t the
\n\t above\tcircumstances and the size of the family  of
\n\t the  landlord\tand  the findings  recorded  by\t the
\n\t Tribunal on May 4, 1970 held that the, decision  of
\n\t the  two  subordinate\tauthorities  dismissing\t the
\n\t landlord’s application was erroneous.\tOn the other
\n\t hand, the learned Judge held that the landlord\t has
\n\t made out his claim under cl. (e) of the proviso  to
\n\t S. 14(1) of the Act.  On this reasoning the learned
\n\t Judge reversed the decision of the Rent  Controller
\n\t and the Tribunal and allowed the application of the
\n\t landlord  for\teviction  of  the  appellant.\t The
\n\t appellant  was given six months’ time for  vacating
\n\t the premises.\n<\/p>\n
\t Mr.   Hardev\tSingh,\tlearned\t counsel   for\t the
\n\t appellant,  has very strenously urged that in\tview
\n\t of the concurrent findings”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t 939<\/span><\/p>\n
\t recorded  by the two subordinate  tribunals,  there
\n\t was  no  question of law, much less  a\t substantial
\n\t question  of law arising for  consideration  before
\n\t the High Court in the appeal filed by the
\n\t landlord.  Hence he urged that the interference  by
\n\t the  High  Court with the  concurrent\tfindings  so
\n\t recorded   was\t not  justified.   Learned   counsel
\n\t further pointed out that the landlord has not\tmade
\n\t out  his claim under cl. (e) of the proviso  to  s.
\n\t 14(1) of the Act.  Mr. Hardev Singh referred us  to
\n\t certain  decisions of this Court dealing  with\t the
\n\t question,  under what circumstances it can be\tcon-
\n\t sidered that a substantial question of law  arises.
\n\t We do not think it necessary, in the  circumstances
\n\t of  this case, to refer to those decisions,  as  in
\n\t our  opinion  they  have no bearing  on  the  short
\n\t question  that arises for consideration before\t us,
\n\t namely, the power of the High Court under s. 39, to
\n\t consider  the\tcorrectness of a  finding  regarding
\n\t bonafide  requirement under cl. (e) of the  proviso
\n\t to s. 14(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t As  we have already pointed out, the sole  question
\n\t that  has to be decided by us is whether  the\tHigh
\n\t Court\tin  reversing  the  decisions  of  the\tRent
\n\t Controller  and the Tribunal, in the  circumstances
\n\t of  this case, can be considered to  have  exceeded
\n\t its jurisdiction under s. 39(2).  We are  satisfied
\n\t that\tthe   High  Court  has\tnot   exceeded\t its
\n\t jurisdiction in any manner.\n<\/p>\n
\t The  argument\tof Mr. Hardev Singh  that  the\tHigh
\n\t Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under s.  39(2)
\n\t of the Act when it reversed the finding of the\t two
\n\t subordinate authorities on the question of bonafide
\n\t requirement has, in our opinion, no substance.\t  In
\n\t Smt.\tKamla Soni v. Rup Lal Mehra(1),\t this  Court
\n\t observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “……\tWhether\t on  the  facts\t proved\t the
\n\t      requirement  of  the landlord  is\t bona  fide,
\n\t      within the meaning of s. 14(1)(e) is a finding
\n\t      on a mixed question of law and fact……..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
From  the above observations it is clear that  an  inference
\ndrawn by the subordinate authorities that the requirement of
\nthe  respondent was not bonafide, could not be\tregarded  as
\nconclusive.   The  High Court, in proper  cases,  has  ample
\njurisdiction  to interfere with that finding and record\t its
\nown conclusions on the basis of the materials on record.
\nWe  may\t also  point  out that in the  case  before  us\t the
\nposition  is  made worse for the appellant in  view  of\t the
\nfinding\t recorded by the Tribunal in favour of the  landlord
\non   May  4,  1970.   We  have\talready\t pointed   out\t the
\ncircumstances  under which a finding was called for  by\t the
\nHigh, Court.  The High Court has accepted those findings and
\nheld in favour of the landlord that he has
\n(1)  C. A. No. 2150 of 1966 decided on 26-9-1969.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    940<\/span><\/p>\n
made out a case under cl. (e) of the proviso to S. 14(1)  of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Hardev Singh referred us to the decision of this  Court
\nreported in Bhagwan Dass and another v. S. Rajdev Singh\t and
\nanother(1), wherein it has been observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A  second  appeal  lies\tto  the\t High  Court
\n\t      against  the  decision  of  the  Rent  Control
\n\t      Tribunal under Section 39(2) of the Delhi Rent
\n\t      Control Act, 1958, only if the appeal involves
\n\t      some  substantial question of law.   The\tRent
\n\t      Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal, on a
\n\t      consideration  of\t the relevant terms  of\t the
\n\t      agreement\t  and\toral   evidence\t  and\t the
\n\t      circumstances found that a clear case of\tsub-
\n\t      letting  was established.\t On that finding  no
\n\t      question\tof  law,  much\tless  a\t substantial
\n\t      question of law, arose.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The first part of the above extract lays down the nature  of
\nthe jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under s.  39(2)
\nof  the Act.  In that decision, on facts, it was found\tboth
\nby  the\t Rent  Controller and the Tribunal,  on\t a  relevant
\nconsideration  of  the materials on record, that a  case  of
\nsub-letting was established.  On such a finding concurrently
\narrived\t at  by both the authorities, it was  held  by\tthis
\nCourt  that  no\t question of law, much\tless  a\t substantial
\nquestion  of  law arose for consideration  before  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
But the facts in the case before us are entirely  different.
\nWe  have already pointed out that the question that fell  to
\nbe  considered by the High Court was whether the claim\tmade
\nby the landlord under cl. (e) of the proviso to s. 14(1)  of
\nthe  Act was bonafide.\tAs already pointed out, this  Court,
\nin  Smt.   Kamla Soni v. Rup Lal Mehra(1), has held  that  a
\nfinding\t on such an issue is not one of fact alone but is  a
\nfinding\t of mixed question of law and fact, and that it\t was
\nopen  to  the High Court when  exercising  its\tjurisdiction
\nunder  s. 39(2) of the Act, to consider the  correctness  or
\notherwise of such, a finding.  The findings recorded on such
\nan issue by the subordinate tribunals are not conclusive.
\nFrom  the above discussion, it follows that the\t High  Court
\nhas not exceeded its jurisdiction under s. 39(2) of the Act.
\nIn  consequence, the appeal fails and is dismissed.  In\t the
\ncircumstances  of  the\tcase, parties will  bear  their\t own
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\ndismissed.\n(1)  A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 986.\n<\/pre>\n
(2)  C. A. No 2150 of 1966 decided on 26-9-1969.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    941<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Madan Lal Puri vs Sain Das Berry on 27 July, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 585, 1971 SCR 935 Author: C Vaidyialingam Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A. PETITIONER: MADAN LAL PURI Vs. RESPONDENT: SAIN DAS BERRY DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/07\/1971 BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. RAY, A.N. PALEKAR, D.G. CITATION: 1973 AIR 585 […]<\/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-68966","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMadan Lal Puri vs Sain Das Berry on 27 July, 1971 - 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\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madan Lal Puri vs Sain Das Berry on 27 July, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971\" \/>\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=\"1971-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-08T05:19:38+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madan Lal Puri vs Sain Das Berry on 27 July, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-08T05:19:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971\"},\"wordCount\":2324,\"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\\\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971\",\"name\":\"Madan Lal Puri vs Sain Das Berry on 27 July, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-08T05:19:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madan Lal Puri vs Sain Das Berry on 27 July, 1971\"}]},{\"@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":"Madan Lal Puri vs Sain Das Berry on 27 July, 1971 - 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\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madan Lal Puri vs Sain Das Berry on 27 July, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-08T05:19:38+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madan Lal Puri vs Sain Das Berry on 27 July, 1971","datePublished":"1971-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-08T05:19:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971"},"wordCount":2324,"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\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971","name":"Madan Lal Puri vs Sain Das Berry on 27 July, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-08T05:19:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madan-lal-puri-vs-sain-das-berry-on-27-july-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madan Lal Puri vs Sain Das Berry on 27 July, 1971"}]},{"@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\/68966","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=68966"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68966\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}