{"id":74145,"date":"1980-04-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-04-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980"},"modified":"2016-12-24T04:05:09","modified_gmt":"2016-12-23T22:35:09","slug":"parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980","title":{"rendered":"Parasram Harnand Rao vs Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain … on 10 April, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Parasram Harnand Rao vs Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain … on 10 April, 1980<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1655, \t\t 1980 SCR (3) 444<\/div>\n
Author: S M Fazalali<\/div>\n
Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPARASRAM HARNAND RAO\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHANTI PRASAD NARINDER KUMAR JAIN & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT10\/04\/1980\n\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nKAILASAM, P.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR 1655\t\t  1980 SCR  (3) 444\n 1980 SCC  (3) 565\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1986 SC1218\t (15)\n\n\nACT:\n     Delhi Rent\t Control Act,  Section 25 read with Order IX\nRule 9\tC. P.  C., scope  of-Whether the  dismissal  of\t the\nearlier suit  of respondent-tenant for default of appearance\nunder Order  IX Rule  9 C.  P. C.  a bar  for an application\nunder section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.\n     Transfer of  tenancy rights by the Official Liquidator,\nwhether voluntary  and did  not come  under the\t mischief of\nsection 14(1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellant  landlord executed  a lease in respect of\nthe disputed  premises in  favour of  respondent 2 for three\nyears as  far back  as 1-4-1942. In 1948, a suit was brought\nby the\tappellant for eviction of the tenant for non payment\nof rent\t on the\t ground of  conversion of  the user  of\t the\npremises. The  suit for possession was however dismissed but\na decree dated 31-11-1948 for arrears of rent was passed and\nit  was\t  held\tthat   Laxmi  Bank   was  the  real  tenant.\nSubsequently, the  Bombay High\tCourt ordered the Bank to be\nwound up  and in  the winding up proceedings, the High Court\nappointed an  Official Liquidator  who on 16-2-1961 sold the\ntenancy rights\tto respondent  No. 1. The sale was confirmed\nby the\tHigh Court  on the same date and as a result thereof\nrespondent No.\t1 took possession the premises on 24-2-1961.\nOn 5-1-1961,  the landlord  appellant filed  an\t application\nunder the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of Laxmi Bank.\nOn 31-7-1961,  a decree for eviction was passed in favour of\nthe appellant.\tOn 22-1-1963,  respondent No. 1 filed a suit\nfor declaration\t that  he  was\ta  tenant  of  the  landlord\nappellant. The\tsuit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 5-\n5-1964 and  an application  to set  aside the ex parte order\nwas also  dismissed and\t the appeal  against that order also\nfailed. Thereafter  respondent No.  1 filed  an\t application\nunder Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for recalling\nthe warrant  of possession  issued by the Court in pursuance\nof the\tdecree dated  31-7-1961 in  favour of the appellant.\nThe Rent  Controller allowed  it on 20-12-1966. An appeal to\nthe Rent  Controller Tribunal was ordered by order dated 25-\n11-1968 in favour of the appellant. A second appeal filed by\nrespondent No. 1 to the High Court was allowed in his favour\nand the\t Rent Controller's  order allowing  recalling of the\nwarrant of  possession was  restored. Hence  the  appeal  by\nspecial leave by the landlord.\n     Allowing the appeal, the Court\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The application\tof respondent  No.  1  under\nSection 25  of the  Delhi Rent Control Act is clearly barred\nby  the\t principle  contained  in  order  IX  Rule  9  Civil\nProcedure  Code.  It  was  the\tappellant  who\tbrought\t the\nprevious suit which resulted in a decree for eviction of the\ntenant on  31-7-1961-a date  when  the\tIst  respondent\t had\nalready taken  possession  of  the  premises  by  virtue  of\ntransfer made  by the  Official Liquidator. There is nothing\nto show\t that respondent  No. 1\t was  a\t tenant\t within\t the\nmeaning of Delhi Rent Control\n445\nAct so as to maintain an application under section 25 of the\nAct, when  in fact  he was an unlawful sub-lessee. [447A, E,\nF-G]\n     Suraj Ratan  Thirani and  Ors. v.\tAzamabad Tea Co. and\nOrs.<\/a> [1964] 6 S. C. R. 192; applied.\n     2. The  language of  section 14(b)\t of the\t Delhi\tRent\nControl Act is wide enough not only to include any sub-lease\nbut even an assignment or any other mode by which possession\nof the\ttenanted premises  is parted.  In view\tof the\twide\namplitude of  s.  14  (b),  it\tdoes  not  exclude  even  in\ninvoluntary sale. [448D-E]\n     In the instant case, the official Liquidator had merely\nstepped into  the shoes of Laxmi Bank which was the original\ntenant and  even if  the official liquidator had transferred\nthe tenancy  interest to respondent No. 1 under the order of\nthe Court,  it was  on behalf of the original tenant. It was\nundoubtedly a  voluntary sale  which clearly fell within the\nmischief of  s. 14  (1) (b)  of the  Delhi Rent Control Act.\nAssuming that  the sale\t by the\t Official Liquidator  was an\ninvoluntary sale,  then it  undoubtedly became an assignment\nas provided  for by  s. 14  (b) of  Delhi Rent\tControl Act.\n[448A-C]\n     Krishna Das  Nandy v.  Bidhan Chandra  Roy, A.I.R. 1959\nCal. 181 Overruled.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1085 of
\n1970.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 17. 3. 1969 of the Delhi High Court in SAD No. 2\/69.\n<\/p>\n
     P. R. Mridul and O. P. Sharma for the Appellant.
\n     S. K. Bisaria for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     FAZAL ALI,J.  This appeal\tby special leave is directed
\nagainst a  judgment of\tthe Delhi Court and arises out of an
\napplication filed  by Respondent No. 1 who claimed to be the
\ntenant of the appellant, recalling the warrant of possession
\nissued by  the Controller in pursuance of a decree dated 31-
\n7-1961 passed against the 1st respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The case  had a  rather chequered\tcareer having passed
\nthrough several phases. To begin with the landlord-appellant
\nexecuted a  lease in  respect of  the disputed\tpremises  in
\nfavour of  Respondent No.  2 for  three years as far back as
\n1.4.1942. In  1948, a  suit was brought by the appellant for
\neviction of the tenant for non-payment of rent on the ground
\nof conversion  of the  user of\tthe premises.  The suit\t for
\npossession was\thowever dismissed but a decree dated 31. 11.
\n1948 for  arrears of  rent was\tpassed and  it was held that
\nLaxmi Bank  was the  real tenant.  Subsequently, the  Bombay
\nHigh Court ordered the
\n446<\/span>
\nBank to\t be wound  up and in the winding up proceedings, the
\nsaid High  Court appointed an Official Liquidator who on 16.\n<\/p>\n
2. 1961\t sold the  tenancy rights  to Respondent No. 1-S. N.
\nJain. This  sale was confirmed by the High Court on the same
\ndate and  as  a\t result\t there\tof  respondent\tNo.  1\ttook
\npossession of  the premises on 24.2.1961. On 5. 4. 1961, the
\nland-lord-appellant filed  an application  under  the  Delhi
\nRent Control Act for eviction of Laxmi Bank. On 31. 7. 1961,
\na decree  for eviction was passed in favour of the landlord-
\nappellant. On 23-1-1963. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for a
\ndeclaration that  he was a tenant of the landlord-appellant.
\nThis suit  was dismissed for non-prosecution on 5.5.1964 and
\nan application\tto set\taside the  ex parte  decree was also
\ndismissed and  the appeal  against that\t order also  failed.
\nThereafter Respondent No. 1 filed an application under s. 25
\nof Delhi  Rent Control\tAct (hereinafter  referred to as the
\nAct) for  recalling the\t warrant of possession issued by the
\nCourt in  pursuance of\tthe decree dated 31.7.1961 in favour
\nof the landlord.\n<\/p>\n
     The present appeal arises out of these proceedings. The
\nRent Controller\t allowed the  application and  recalled\t the
\nwarrant of  possession by  its Order dated 20. 12. 1966. The
\nmatter was  then taken\tup by  the landlord in appeal to the
\nRent Control  Tribunal which by its Order dated 25. 11. 1968
\nreversed the  order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the
\ntenant’s application.  A second\t appeal against the order of
\nTribunal was  then filed  by the  tenant to  the High  Court
\nwhich reversed\tthe order  of the  Rent Control Tribunal and
\nrestored the order of the Rent Controller, hence this appeal
\nby special leave.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.  Mridul  appearing  for  the  appellant  challenged
\nbefore us the findings of the High Court on point nos. 1 & 3
\nwhich are formulated at page 91 of the judgment of the Delhi
\nHigh Court. These points may be extracted thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(1) The  application made by the appellant before
\n     the High  Court under  section 25\twas  not  barred  by
\n     reason of\tthe dismissal  of the  appellants  suit\t for
\n     default of appearance under Order IX Rule 9, C.P.C.
\n\t  (3) The  transfer to the appellant by the Official
\n     Liquidator of  the tenancy\t rights being  voluntary did
\n     not come within the mischief of section 14(1)(b) of the
\n     Act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  first place  it was argued that so far as point
\nNo. 1 is concerned, the High Court was wrong in holding that
\nthe application\t of Respondent\tNo. 1  was not barred by the
\nreason of  the dismissal of the appellant’s suit for setting
\naside the  ex-parte decree  by the principle of Res Judicata
\nor Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. It was contended that
\n447<\/span>
\neven if\t the previous  suit filed  by respondent  No. 1\t for
\ndeclaration of\this status  as a  tenant was  dismissed\t for
\ndefault but  as the application for setting aside the decree
\nalso failed,  there was\t an adjudication  against  the\tthen
\nplaintiff-respondent No.  1 and\t therefore the\tpresent suit
\nwas clearly  barred by\tthe principles\tof Res\tJudicata  or
\nOrder IX Rule 9. At any rate there can be no escape from the
\nposition that  the application\tof respondent No. 1 would be
\nclearly barred\tby the\tprinciple contained in Order IX Rule
\n9, C.P.C.  In case  of Suraj  Ratan Thirani  & Ors.  v.\t The
\nAzamabad Tea Co. & Ors.<\/a>(1) this Court held thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “We are not however impressed by the argument that
\n     the ban  imposed by  O.  IX,  r.  9  creates  merely  a
\n     personal  bar   or\t estoppel   against  the  particular
\n     plaintiff suing  on the same cause of action and leaves
\n     the matter\t at large  for\tthose  claiming\t under\thim.
\n     Beyond the\t absence  in  O.  IX,  r.  9  of  the  words
\n     referring “to those claiming under the plaintiff” there
\n     is nothing\t to warrant  this argument.  It has  neither
\n     principle, nor  logic to  commend it  .. The rule would
\n     obviously have no value and the bar imposed by it would
\n     be rendered meaningless if the plaintiff whose suit was
\n     dismissed\tfor  de\t fault\thad  only  to  transfer\t the
\n     property to  another and the latter was able to agitate
\n     rights which  his vendor  was  precluded  by  law\tfrom
\n     putting forward.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  instant case  it was  appellant who brought the
\nprevious suit which resulted in a decree for eviction of the
\ntenant on  31-7-1961-a date  when  the\t1st  respondent\t had
\nalready taken  possession  of  the  premises  by  virtue  of
\ntransfer made  by the Official Liquidator. Thus the identity
\nof the\tsubject matter\tbeing substantially  the same,\tthis
\ncase clearly falls within the ambit of the ratio in the case
\nsupra. On  this ground\talone  therefore  the  appellant  is
\nentitled to  succeed because the High Court with due respect
\ndoes not  appear to  have properly  construed the  scope  of
\nOrder IX Rule 9 C.P.C. There is however nothing to show that
\nrespondent No.1\t was  tenant  within  the  meaning  of\tRent
\nControl Act  so as to maintain an application under s. 25 of
\nthe Act\t when in  fact he  was an  unlawful  sub-lessee.  As
\nregards point No. 3, the High Court relying on a decision of
\nCalcutta High  Court in Krishna Das Nandy vs. Bidhan Chandra
\nRoy(2)\thas   found  that  as  the  transfer  in  favour  of
\nrespondent No. 1 by the Official Liquidator was confirmed by
\nthe Court,  the status of the tenant by respondent No. 1 was
\nacquired by operation of law and therefore the transfer
\n448<\/span>
\nwas an\tinvoluntary transfer  and  the\tprovisions  of\tRent
\nControl Act would not be attracted. After careful perusal of
\nCalcutta case,\tin the\tfirst  place  it  appears  that\t the
\nsection concerned has not been extracted and we are not in a
\nposition to know what was the actual language of the section
\nof the\tBengal Act.  Secondly, in  our opinion, the official
\nliquidator had\tmerely stepped\tinto the shoes of Laxmi Bank
\nwhich was  the original\t tenant and  even  if  the  official
\nliquidator  had\t  transferred  the   tenancy   interest\t  to
\nrespondent No.\t1 under\t the orders  of the Court, it was on
\nbehalf\tof   the  original  tenant.  It\t was  undoubtedly  a
\nvoluntary sale\twhich clearly  fell within  the mischief  of
\ns.14(1)(b) of  the Delhi Rent Control Act. Assuming that the
\nsale by\t the official  Liquidator was  an involuntary  sale,
\nthen it\t undoubtedly became an assignment as provided for by
\ns. 14(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act. S. 14(b) runs thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “14(b)-that the  tenant has,\ton or  after the 9th
\n     day of June, 1952, sublet, assigned or otherwise parted
\n     with the  possession of  the whole\t or any\t part of the
\n     premises with  out obtaining  the consent in writing of
\n     the landlord.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The language  of s.  14(b) is  wide enough\t not only to
\ninclude any  sub-lease but  even an  assignment or any other
\nmode by which possession of the tenanted premises is parted.
\nIn view\t of the\t wide amplitude of s.14(b) we are clearly of
\nthe opinion  that it  does not\texclude even  an involuntary
\nsale. Fore  these reasons  therefore we\t are unable to agree
\nwith the  view taken  by  the  High  Court.  The  appeal  is
\naccordingly allowed,  the judgment  and decree\tof the\tHigh
\nCourt are set aside and the plaintiff’s application under s.
\n25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.  Bisaria,   learned  counsel\tappearing  for\t the
\nrespondent submitted  that as  the tenant  has been  in\t the
\npremises for a period of 19 years and is conducting business
\ntherein,  he  may  be  permitted  sufficient  time  to\tmake
\nalternative  arrangements.  Mr.\t Mridul\t appearing  for\t the
\nappellant fairly conceded that he would have no objection if
\none year’s  time is  allowed to\t the respondent\t provided he
\ngives an  undertaking for  handing over\t peaceful and vacant
\npossession at  the expiry  of the  time. We  therefore allow
\ntime to\t the respondent\t to vacate the premises on or before
\n15th  April,   1981  on\t the  condition\t that  he  files  an
\nundertaking within two weeks to the effect (1) that he shall
\nhand-over vacant  and peaceful possession to the landlord on
\nor before 15th April, 1981; (2) that he shall not induct any
\nper son\t on the premises; (3) that he shall go on paying the
\ncompensation for  wrongful use of premises equivalent to the
\nrent.\n<\/p>\n
449<\/span><\/p>\n
     The undertaking must be filed supported by an affidavit
\nwithin two weeks from today failing which the order granting
\ntime shall stand revoked.\n<\/p>\n
     There will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n450<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Parasram Harnand Rao vs Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain … on 10 April, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1655, 1980 SCR (3) 444 Author: S M Fazalali Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza PETITIONER: PARASRAM HARNAND RAO Vs. RESPONDENT: SHANTI PRASAD NARINDER KUMAR JAIN & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT10\/04\/1980 BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA […]<\/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-74145","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nParasram Harnand Rao vs Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain ... on 10 April, 1980 - 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\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parasram Harnand Rao vs Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain ... on 10 April, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980\" \/>\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=\"1980-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-23T22:35:09+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\\\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parasram Harnand Rao vs Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain … on 10 April, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-23T22:35:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980\"},\"wordCount\":1618,\"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\\\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980\",\"name\":\"Parasram Harnand Rao vs Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain ... on 10 April, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-23T22:35:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parasram Harnand Rao vs Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain … on 10 April, 1980\"}]},{\"@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":"Parasram Harnand Rao vs Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain ... on 10 April, 1980 - 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\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parasram Harnand Rao vs Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain ... on 10 April, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-23T22:35:09+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\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parasram Harnand Rao vs Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain … on 10 April, 1980","datePublished":"1980-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-23T22:35:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980"},"wordCount":1618,"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\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980","name":"Parasram Harnand Rao vs Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain ... on 10 April, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-23T22:35:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parasram-harnand-rao-vs-shanti-prasad-narinder-kumar-jain-on-10-april-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parasram Harnand Rao vs Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain … on 10 April, 1980"}]},{"@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\/74145","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=74145"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74145\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74145"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74145"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74145"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}