{"id":80406,"date":"2010-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010"},"modified":"2019-01-20T03:47:58","modified_gmt":"2019-01-19T22:17:58","slug":"dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dropati Devi vs Vth Additional &#8230; on 6 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dropati Devi vs Vth Additional &#8230; on 6 August, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                                  1\n\n\n                                                        Court No.24\n\n                 Writ Petition No.74 (RC) of 1992\n\nSmt. Dropati Devi                           ...      Petitioner\n\n                                Versus\n\nV Additional District Judge, Sultanpur\nand others                                  ...      Opposite parties\n\n                            -----------\n\nHon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>      Heard Mr. R. K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.<br \/>\nThough the names of Mr. S. K. Mehrotra and Mr. Rajesh Singh<br \/>\nChauhan have been printed in the cause list as counsel for the<br \/>\nopposite parties, yet none responds on their behalf to press this<br \/>\npetition. As the writ petition is quite old and pertains to the year<br \/>\n1992, I proceed to hear the case finally.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The writ petition is directed against the order of V Additional<br \/>\nDistrict Judge, Sultanpur dated 27.3.1992 allowing the appeal of<br \/>\nopposite party No.4 and dismissing the Suit of landlord\/petitioner<br \/>\nwhich was decreed by the Munsif South, Sultanpur exercising the<br \/>\njurisdiction of Small Causes Court, who decreed the Suit on<br \/>\n2.5.1990 after considering documentary and oral evidence on<br \/>\nrecord.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Learned   Counsel   for   the   petitioner   submits      that   the<br \/>\npetitioner is a landlady and is owner of the shop in dispute which<br \/>\nwas originally tenanted to one Sri Hari Krishna\/opposite party<br \/>\nNo.3 @ Rs.60\/- per month. The opposite party No.3 gave the<br \/>\nshop to Sri Ram Raj\/opposite party No.4. The petitioner gave<br \/>\nnotice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Proper Act to the<br \/>\nopposite party nos.3 and 4, to which the opposite party No.4<br \/>\nreplied mentioning that the opposite party No.3 was not the<br \/>\ntenant, whereas opposite party No.4 was the real tenant. Being<br \/>\naggrieved, the petitioner filed a Suit which was numbered as<br \/>\nS.C.C. No. 35 of 1982 on the ground that the petitioner gave the<br \/>\ndisputed shop to the opposite party No.3 for doing tailoring work<br \/>\nunder the name and style &#8216;Avon&#8217; in the year 1974, who in turn<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>sub-let the premises to the opposite party No.4, without obtaining<br \/>\nprior permission from the petitioner. The petitioner has also<br \/>\nmentioned that no rent has been paid from May, 1980 to March,<br \/>\n1981.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The opposite party No.2\/Munsiff South framed four issues in<br \/>\nwhich issue No.3 relates to whether the opposite party No.4 was<br \/>\nthe sub-tenant of opposite party No.3, whereas issue nos.1 and 2<br \/>\nrelate to tenancy of opposite party No.3. In the written statement,<br \/>\nthe opposite party No.3 reiterated that he was never a tenant and<br \/>\nfurther pleaded that he was working with opposite party No.4.<br \/>\nThereafter, he established a new shop in the name and style of<br \/>\n&#8216;New Avon&#8217; Tailor. The opposite party No.4 has also filed a written<br \/>\nstatement that he is the tenant and he is paying rent @ Rs.40\/-<br \/>\nper month.\n<\/p>\n<p>        After considering all aspects of the matter, the Munsiff<br \/>\nSouth, came to the conclusion that the opposite party No.3 was<br \/>\nthe original tenant of petitioner\/landlady, who was paying the rent<br \/>\n@ Rs.40\/- per month. As regards tenancy, the trial Court recorded<br \/>\na finding of fact that the opposite party No.4 was the sub-tenant<br \/>\nof opposite party No.3.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Against the order dated 2.5.1990 passed by the Munsiff<br \/>\nSouth, the opposite party No.4 filed a Revision under Section 25<br \/>\nof Small Causes Court before the V Additional District Judge,<br \/>\nSultanpur, who allowed the revision by the order dated 27.3.1992<br \/>\nand set aside the judgment and order dated 2.5.1990. While<br \/>\nallowing, the Revision Court has held that notice regarding<br \/>\nejectment and termination of tenancy is necessary. Further, paper<br \/>\nNo.7-Ga is notice, whereas paper No.7-Ga pertains to refusal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        As regards sub-tenancy, the opposite party No.1 held that in<br \/>\nnotice, the petitioner has not terminated the tenancy, hence it is<br \/>\nbad, which is patently wrong and against the material on record<br \/>\ninsofar as a perusal of Annexure No.1 would show that notice<br \/>\nfulfils the requirement of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Petitioner&#8217;s Counsel submits that even if there are minor<br \/>\ndefects in language of notice, then also it is not be faulted, but in<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the instant case, the notice fulfils all ingredients which are<br \/>\nnecessary. Further, he asserts that intention of notice is to be<br \/>\nlooked into from its language, wherein it has been stated that the<br \/>\ntenancy has been terminated and the petitioner does not want to<br \/>\nkeep the opposite party No.3 as tenant. The Revisional Court has<br \/>\nignored the document mainly Exhibit-1, paper No.7-Ga refusal<br \/>\nand the application sent by the opposite party No.3 for registering<br \/>\nthe shop and further document showing the name of opposite<br \/>\nparty No.3 in the Nagarpalika record.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Though Mr S. K. Mehrotra is not present, yet I have perused<br \/>\nthe affidavits filed by him on behalf of opposite party No.4. In the<br \/>\nsaid counter-affidavit, he stated that the opposite party No.1<br \/>\nallowed the revision of opposite party No.4, after considering the<br \/>\nentire evidence on record. He further stated that the opposite<br \/>\nparty No.4 is the tenant of the accommodation in dispute. Since<br \/>\nthe order of trial Court was vitiated by manifest illegality,<br \/>\nRevisional Court has rightly allowed the revision and the<br \/>\nRevisional Order does not suffer from any legal or jurisdictional<br \/>\nerror or any error of law. He further stated that the shop in<br \/>\ndispute had been let out by the petitioner only to the opposite<br \/>\nparty No.4 and it had never been let out to Hari Kishan, who was<br \/>\nan employee of opposite party No.4 for sometime in the disputed<br \/>\nshop and subsequently he left his job with the opposite party<br \/>\nNo.4. Therefore, the tenancy in the above shop in dispute has<br \/>\nremained throughout with the opposite party No.4 and the<br \/>\nallegation that the opposite party No.3 gave the shop to the<br \/>\nopposite party No.4 and had started taking rent from him is<br \/>\nabsolutely false, concocted and baseless and is specifically as<br \/>\nsuch. The question of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of<br \/>\nProperty Act had been properly dealt with and considered by the<br \/>\nRevisional Court resulting into a concluded finding of fact needing<br \/>\nno interference. The facts noted in the Revisional Court&#8217;s Order<br \/>\nare correct and the same are reiterated. He further averred that<br \/>\nth entry of name of opposite party No.3 in the Municipal Bill was a<br \/>\nmanipulated entry which did not reflect the correct state of affairs.<br \/>\nHari Kishan\/opposite party No.3 was never the tenant of the shop<br \/>\nin dispute and his name was wrongly entered in the Municipal<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>records which cannot be held to be the evidence to establish the<br \/>\nclaim of the petitioner that the opposite party No.4 was not tenant<br \/>\nof the petitioner in the shop in question. The entries in the Nagar<br \/>\nPalika    do   not   constitute   the       evidence   of   tenancy   in   the<br \/>\naccommodation in question. The opposite party No.4 was not<br \/>\nconcerned with the making of entires in the Municipal Records<br \/>\nwhich, therefore, cannot have any evidentiary value against the<br \/>\nopposite party No.4. Further, he reiterated that the opposite party<br \/>\nNo.3 was never the tenant in the shop in dispute which in fact had<br \/>\nbeen let out to the opposite party No.4 by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>         Rebutting the allegations made by the opposite party No.4,<br \/>\nthe petitioner filed supplementary affidavit, wherein it has been<br \/>\nstated that the shop in dispute of which the petitioner is the<br \/>\nlandlady was originally let out to the opposite party No.3, who<br \/>\nwas running the tailoring shop and after winding up his business,<br \/>\nhe gave the shop to Ram Raj\/opposite party No.4 on rent basis,<br \/>\ncreating a sub-tenancy. Ram Raj started another business of<br \/>\nselling plastic in the shop and Hari Kishan is not taking any<br \/>\ninterest in the litigation and Ram Raj is pursuing the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>         After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and<br \/>\nperusing the record, I find that the Revisional Court allowed the<br \/>\nrevision merely on technical ground, as the notice under Section<br \/>\n106 of the Transfer of Property Act has not been served properly.<br \/>\nA notice for ejectment and termination of tenancy has been<br \/>\nissued. Sri Bhagwan Das, husband of the petitioner has proved<br \/>\nthe notice and has also proved the paper No.7-Ga which is refusal<br \/>\nof notice. Notices which were sent on correct address would be<br \/>\npresumed that the notice has reached to the correct man. As<br \/>\nregards sub-tenancy, the Revisional Court has rejected the plea<br \/>\non flimsy ground, without considering the document, which shows<br \/>\nthe name of opposite party No.3 and the same has been acted on<br \/>\nthe statement of opposite party No.4. Further, the admission is<br \/>\nthe best evidence, yet the Revisional Court discarded the said<br \/>\nadmission. Further, the Revisional Court held that in the notice,<br \/>\nthe petitioner has not terminated the tenancy, hence the notice is<br \/>\nbad, as the notice does fulfil the essential ingredients of the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Even if<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>there are minor contradictions in language, then also it is not to<br \/>\nbe faulted. The intention of notice is to be looked into from its<br \/>\nlanguage which reveals that tenancy has been terminated and the<br \/>\npetitioner does not want to keep the opposite parties as her<br \/>\ntenant. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegalities and<br \/>\ninfirmities.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated<br \/>\n27.3.1992 passed by the opposite party No.1 is hereby set aside.<br \/>\nIt is further directed that the premises in question shall be handed<br \/>\nover by the opposite parties by 31.7.2011 provided he pays the<br \/>\nrent regularly.\n<\/p>\n<p>Dt. 6.8.2010<br \/>\nLakshman\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Dropati Devi vs Vth Additional &#8230; on 6 August, 2010 1 Court No.24 Writ Petition No.74 (RC) of 1992 Smt. Dropati Devi &#8230; Petitioner Versus V Additional District Judge, Sultanpur and others &#8230; Opposite parties &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; Hon&#8217;ble Rajiv Sharma, J. Heard Mr. R. K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Though the [&hellip;]<\/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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-80406","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dropati Devi vs Vth Additional ... on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dropati Devi vs Vth Additional ... on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-19T22:17:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dropati Devi vs Vth Additional &#8230; on 6 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-19T22:17:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1518,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Dropati Devi vs Vth Additional ... on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-19T22:17:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dropati Devi vs Vth Additional &#8230; on 6 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Dropati Devi vs Vth Additional ... on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dropati Devi vs Vth Additional ... on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-19T22:17:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dropati Devi vs Vth Additional &#8230; on 6 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-19T22:17:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010"},"wordCount":1518,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010","name":"Dropati Devi vs Vth Additional ... on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-19T22:17:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dropati-devi-vs-vth-additional-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dropati Devi vs Vth Additional &#8230; on 6 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/80406","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=80406"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80406\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80406"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80406"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80406"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}