{"id":73895,"date":"2008-11-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008"},"modified":"2018-05-03T00:42:07","modified_gmt":"2018-05-02T19:12:07","slug":"anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Anil Kaushik vs Swaran Kala Kaushik & Anr. on 3 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Anil Kaushik vs Swaran Kala Kaushik & Anr. on 3 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                                       Date of Order : 03.11.2008\n\n+                           RFA 577\/2007\n\n     ANIL KAUSHIK                              ..... Appellant\n               Through:     Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Advocate\n\n                            versus\n\n     SWARAN KALA KAUSHIK & ANR.           ..... Respondents<\/pre>\n
              Through: Mr. Rupesh Sharma, Adv. for R- 1& 2<\/p>\n
     CORAM:\n<\/p>\n
     HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
\n     HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA<\/p>\n
1.   Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
\n     to see the judgment?\n<\/p>\n
2.   To be referred to the Reporter or not?\n<\/p>\n
3.   Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?\n<\/p>\n
: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)<\/p>\n
1.         Anil Kaushik son of Swaran Kala Kaushik is in dispute<\/p>\n
with his mother with respect to property bearing No.A-300, Majlis<\/p>\n
Park, Delhi. The same was purchased by Swaran Kala Kaushik vide<\/p>\n
sale deed dated 23.2.1996 Ex.DW-1\/A. It records that Swaran Kala<\/p>\n
Kaushik has paid a total sale consideration of Rs.1,60,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
(Rupees One Lac Sixty Thousand) to the seller, being Rs.16,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
(Rupees Sixteen Thousand) paid in cash as advance and the
\n                                                         Page 1 of 10<\/span>
\n balance sum paid by 3 cheques in sum of Rs.48,000\/- each, dated<\/p>\n
5.2.1996, drawn on her account maintained with Punjab National<\/p>\n
Bank, Azadpur, Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
2.           Case of Anil Kaushik is that property No.A-300, Majlis<\/p>\n
Park, Delhi was purchased by his mother from out of the sale<\/p>\n
proceeds received by her when she sold property No.A-254, Majlis<\/p>\n
Park, Delhi belonging to his father. So stating, Anil Kaushik claims<\/p>\n
1\/3rd share in the house for the reason he alleges that the<\/p>\n
remaining 2\/3rd share belongs 1\/3rd each to his mother and his<\/p>\n
brother Sunil Kaushik.\n<\/p>\n
3.           The defence of Swaran Kala Kaushik is that property<\/p>\n
No.A-254, Majlis Park, Delhi was sold on 22.11.1995 for a sale<\/p>\n
consideration of Rs.3,60,000\/- (Rupees Three Lac Sixty Thousand).\n<\/p>\n
Rs.2,10,000\/- (Rupees Two Lac Ten Thousand) from out of the sale<\/p>\n
proceeds was utilized in the marriage of her daughter and balance<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.1,50,000\/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand) was<\/p>\n
distributed by her amongst her two sons, three daughters and self<\/p>\n
i.e. each family member getting Rs.25,000\/- (Rupees Twenty Five<\/p>\n
Thousand).\n<\/p>\n
4.           At the trial Anil Kaushik examined himself as his sole<\/p>\n
witness and deposed on the lines pleaded in the plaint.      Suffice
\n                                                           Page 2 of 10<\/span>
\n would it be to note at this stage that Anil Kaushik led no evidence<\/p>\n
to prove that the deposits made in the Punjab National Bank,<\/p>\n
Azadpur, Delhi wherefrom cheques were issued by his mother<\/p>\n
when the subject property was purchased were augmented when<\/p>\n
property No.A-254, Majlis Park, Delhi was sold.\n<\/p>\n
5.         Swaran Kala Kaushik examined herself as DW-1. She<\/p>\n
examined the clerk from the Sub-Registrar’s office as DW-2 to<\/p>\n
prove the sale deed in her name.      She examined her son Sunil<\/p>\n
Kumar as DW-3. She examined her daughter Rita as DW-4.\n<\/p>\n
6.         Swaran Kala Kaushik, her son Sunil Kumar and her<\/p>\n
daughter Rita, deposed in harmony with the defence taken by<\/p>\n
Swaran Kala Kaushik.     They stated that when House No.A-254,<\/p>\n
Majlis Park was sold for Rs.3,60,000\/- (Rupees Three Lac Sixty<\/p>\n
Thousand), Rs.2,10,000\/- (Rupees Two Lac Ten Thousand) was<\/p>\n
spent on the marriage of the daughter of Swaran Kala Kaushik and<\/p>\n
that balance sum of Rs.1,50,000\/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand)<\/p>\n
was divided as stated by Swaran Kala Kaushik.\n<\/p>\n
7.         Noting that the onus lies on the person, who urges<\/p>\n
atransaction to be benami, to prove the source of funds for<\/p>\n
acquisition of the property; holding that Anil Kaushik failed to<\/p>\n
establish that the funds to acquire the subject property were the
\n                                                          Page 3 of 10<\/span>
\n ones which were realized when property No.A-254, Majlis Park,<\/p>\n
Delhi was sold and noting that Swaran Kala Kaushik was the<\/p>\n
registered   owner   of   the   property   and   had   paid   the   sale<\/p>\n
consideration from out of a bank account maintained by her;\n<\/p>\n
further noting her testimony that she used to earn money by doing<\/p>\n
tailoring work, learned Trial Judge has dismissed the suit filed by<\/p>\n
Anil Kaushik.\n<\/p>\n
8.           At the hearing held today, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant has urged that the evidence of Swaran Kala Kaushik that<\/p>\n
she was having independent income by doing tailoring work is<\/p>\n
unsubstantiated by any evidence save and except her self-serving<\/p>\n
statement and therefore a presumption arises in favour of Anil<\/p>\n
Kaushik that the suit property was purchased by utilizing the funds<\/p>\n
which were acquired when property No.A-254, Majlis Park, Delhi<\/p>\n
was sold.\n<\/p>\n
9.           In our decision pronounced on 20.10.2008 in RFA<\/p>\n
No.784\/2003 SATISH KUMAR Vs. PREM KUMAR & ORS. we had<\/p>\n
noted the law relating to benami transactions; the onus of proof<\/p>\n
and discharge thereof. In paras 14 to 19 of the said decision we<\/p>\n
had observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                              Page 4 of 10<\/span><\/p>\n
 “14. The law relating to onus of proof of a property
\nbeing benami and discharge of said onus was first
\nexpounded by the Federal Court in the decision reported
\nas Gangadara Ayyar & Ors v Subramania Ayyar &
\nOrs AIR 1949 FC 88 in following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
“It was contended by the learned Counsel for the
\nappellants that the decision of the Court below against
\nthe appellants regarding these properties had been
\nreached because of a wrong approach to this matter in
\nlaw and that the rule of onus of proof as regards benami
\ntransactions had not been fully appreciated. It is settled
\nlaw that the onus of establishing that a transaction is
\nbenami is on the plaintiff and it must be strictly made
\nout. The decision of the Court cannot rest on mere
\nsuspicion, but must rest on legal grounds and legal
\ntestimony. In the absence of evidence, the apparent title
\nmust prevail. It is also well established that in a case
\nwhere it is asserted that an assignment in the name of
\none person is in reality for the benefit of another, the
\nreal test is the source whence the consideration came
\nand that when it is not possible to obtain evidence which
\nconclusively establishes or rebuts the allegation, the
\ncase must be dealt with on reasonable probabilities and
\nlegal inferences arising from proved or admitted facts.
\nThe Courts below proceeded to decide the case after
\nfully appreciating the above rule and in our judgment
\ntheir decision does not suffer from the defect pointed
\nout by the learned Counsel for the appellants.”
\n(Emphasis Supplied)<\/p>\n
15. In the decision reported as M.Nagendriah v M.
\nRamachandraih & Anr 1969 (1) UJ 697 (SC) the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court explained the law relating to
\nproof of benami transactions in following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
“……………Now if that is so, then the onus of proving that
\nthese purchase were benami was on the appellant and it
\nwas for him to show by convincing evidence that the
\nsource of money for these acquisitions was traceable to
\n                                                           Page 5 of 10<\/span>
\n the joint funds from this business. Admittedly this has
\nnot been shown by any affirmative evidence, Shri Gupta,
\nhowever, laid stress on the contention that the
\nrespondent had also not been shown to possess
\nsufficient funds with which properties in question could
\nbe acquired. On this reasoning the counsel tried to
\ninduce us to infer that the properties must be held to be
\njoint of the appellant and Ramachandraiah. This, in our
\nopinion, is not a correct approach. Ostensible owner
\nmust be held to be a true owner in the absence of
\ncogent evidence establishing that he is a mere
\nbenamidar, or is holding property for another person
\nwho claims to be the beneficial or real owner. The onus
\nalso does not change merely because the beneficial
\nowner and the ostensible owner are brothers or they
\nmay be owning some other property jointly. The mere
\ncircumstance that the ostensible owner has not proved
\nthat he had himself paid the price or that he had
\nsufficient funds to be able to do so, would also net be
\nenough by itself to sustain the claim of the alleged
\nbeneficial owner. The initial onus is always on the party
\nseeking to dislodge the ostensible title. We are not
\nunmindful of the fact that in this country benami
\ntransactions are not uncommon and they are certainly
\nnot forwarded upon. We are equally conscious of the fact
\nthat the appellant and respondent Ramachandraiah are
\nreal brothers and not utter strangers. But at the same
\ntime it cannot be ignored, as just observed, that the
\ninitial onus must as a matter of law be on the party
\nasserting benami nature of title………..” (Emphasis
\nSupplied)<\/p>\n
16. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
\nM.Nagendriah’s case (supra) to the effect that the onus
\nof proof of benami transactions cannot be discharged
\nmerely on account of some deficiency in the evidence
\nled by the alleged benami owner leads to an irresistible
\nconclusion that the onus of proof of benami transaction
\nis very heavy on the person alleging the same and can
\nbe discharged only by leading positive evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    Page 6 of 10<\/span><\/p>\n
 17. In the decision reported as Jaydayal Poddar & Anr
\nv Mst. Bibi Hazra & Ors AIR 1974 SC 171 the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court enumerated six circumstances which
\nmust be looked into by the courts in determining
\nwhether a particular transaction is benami or not. At this
\njuncture, it would be apposite to refer to following
\nobservations made by the Hon’ble Court in the said
\ndecision:-\n<\/p>\n
“It is well settled that the burden of proving that a
\nparticular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is
\nnot the real owner, always rests on the person asserting
\nit to be so. This burden has to be strictly discharged by
\nadducing legal evidence of a definite character which
\nwould either directly prove the fact of Benami or
\nestablish circumstances unerringly and reasonably
\nraising an inference of that fact. The essence of a
\nbenami is the intention of the party or parties
\nconcerned; and not unoften such intention is shrouded in
\na thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But
\nsuch difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the
\ntransaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus
\nthat rests on him; nor justify the acceptance of mere
\nconjectures or surmises, as a substitute for proof. The
\nreason is that a deed is a solemn document prepared
\nand executed after considerable deliberation and the
\nperson expressly shown as the purchaser or transferee
\nin the deed, starts with the initial presumption in his
\nfavour that the apparent state of affairs is the real state
\nof affairs. Though the question, whether a particular sale
\nis Benami or not, is largely one of fact, and for
\ndetermining this question, no absolute formulae or acid
\ntests, uniformally applicable in all situations, can be laid
\ndown; yet in weighing the probabilities and for gathering
\nthe relevant indicia, the courts are usually guided by
\nthese circumstances : (1) the source from which the
\npurchase money came; (2) the nature and possession of
\nthe property, after the purchase; (3) motive, if any, for
\ngiving the transaction a benami colour; (4) the position
\nof the parties and the relationship, if any between the
\nclaimant and the alleged benamidar; (5) the custody of
\n                                                       Page 7 of 10<\/span>
\n the title-deeds after the sale and (6) the conduct of the
\nparties concerned in dealing with the property after the
\nsale.\n<\/p>\n
The above indicia are not exhaustive and their efficacy
\nvaries according to the facts of each case. Nevertheless
\nNo. I, viz. the source whence the purchase money came,
\nis by far the most important test for determining
\nwhether the sale standing in the name of one person, is
\nin reality for the benefit of another.” (Emphasis
\nSupplied)<\/p>\n
18. After noting leading judicial authorities on the point,
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as
\nValliammal (D) by Lrs. v Subramaniam & Ors AIR
\n2004 SC 4187 summarized the law relating to proof of
\nbenami transactions as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“There is a presumption in law that the person who
\npurchases the property is the owner of the same. This
\npresumption can be displaced by successfully pleading
\nand proving that the document was taken benami in
\nname of another person for some reason, and the person
\nwhose name appears in the document is not the real
\nowner, but only a benami. Heavy burden lies on the
\nperson who pleads that recorded owner is a benami-
\nholder.” (Emphasis Supplied)<\/p>\n
19. Having laid down the afore-noted legal position in
\nrespect of proof of benami transactions, the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court proceeded to note the six circumstances
\nenumerated in Jaydayal Poddar’ s case (supra) and
\nconcluded that the source from where the purchase
\nmoney came and the motive as to why the property was
\npurchased benami are the most important tests for
\ndetermining whether the sale standing in the name of
\none person, is in reality for the benefit of another
\nperson. The Hon’ble Court emphasized that a party
\ninvoking the plea of benami in order to prove the real
\n                                                      Page 8 of 10<\/span>
\n       ownership of the property which is the subject-matter of
\n      lis is required to show that there were valid reasons for
\n      purchase of the property in name of the benamidar and
\n      that the purported real owner had paid the sale
\n      consideration for the purchase of the property.”\n<\/p>\n
10.         In the backdrop of aforenoted legal position the facts of<\/p>\n
this case lead to the irresistible conclusion that the decision of the<\/p>\n
learned Trial Judge is correct.\n<\/p>\n
11.         It has to be noted that property No.A-254, Majlis Park<\/p>\n
was sold on 22.11.1995 and the subject property was purchased<\/p>\n
on 23.2.1996. Anil Kaushik has led no evidence to establish that<\/p>\n
sale proceeds realized when property No.A-254, Majlis Park was<\/p>\n
sold was credited into the account of Swaran Kala Kaushik<\/p>\n
maintained by her with the Punjab National Bank, Azadpur Branch.\n<\/p>\n
It has been noted by us that the sale deed Ex.DW-1\/A records that<\/p>\n
three cheques each in sum of Rs.48,000\/- (Rupees Forty Eight<\/p>\n
Thousand) have been tendered by Swaran Kala Kaushik to the<\/p>\n
seller while purchasing the property in question.       Further, the<\/p>\n
testimony of Swaran Kala Kaushik, her son and her daughter that<\/p>\n
Rs.2,10,000\/- (Rupees Two Lac Ten Thousand) was spent on the<\/p>\n
marriage of her daughter and this money was from out of the sale<\/p>\n
proceeds of property No.A-254, Majlis Park has remained unshaken<\/p>\n
in spite of the three being cross examined. Further, the statement
\n                                                            Page 9 of 10<\/span>
\n by the three that balance sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
(Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand) was distributed amongst the<\/p>\n
family members has gone unchallenged.\n<\/p>\n
12.       We find no merit in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
13.       The appeal is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                J.R.MIDHA, J.\n<\/p>\n
November 03, 2008
\nMM<\/p>\n
                                                    Page 10 of 10<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Anil Kaushik vs Swaran Kala Kaushik & Anr. on 3 November, 2008 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Order : 03.11.2008 + RFA 577\/2007 ANIL KAUSHIK ….. Appellant Through: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Advocate versus SWARAN KALA KAUSHIK & ANR. ….. Respondents Through: […]<\/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-73895","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnil Kaushik vs Swaran Kala Kaushik & Anr. on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anil Kaushik vs Swaran Kala Kaushik & Anr. on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-02T19:12:07+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anil Kaushik vs Swaran Kala Kaushik & Anr. on 3 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-02T19:12:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2387,\"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\\\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Anil Kaushik vs Swaran Kala Kaushik & Anr. on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-02T19:12:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anil Kaushik vs Swaran Kala Kaushik & Anr. on 3 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Anil Kaushik vs Swaran Kala Kaushik & Anr. on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anil Kaushik vs Swaran Kala Kaushik & Anr. on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-02T19:12:07+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anil Kaushik vs Swaran Kala Kaushik & Anr. on 3 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-02T19:12:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008"},"wordCount":2387,"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\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008","name":"Anil Kaushik vs Swaran Kala Kaushik & Anr. on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-02T19:12:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-kaushik-vs-swaran-kala-kaushik-anr-on-3-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anil Kaushik vs Swaran Kala Kaushik & Anr. on 3 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73895","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=73895"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73895\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73895"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73895"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73895"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}