{"id":88595,"date":"1989-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2"},"modified":"2016-12-30T11:32:37","modified_gmt":"2016-12-30T06:02:37","slug":"haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2","title":{"rendered":"Haridev Misra vs Jamunadas Agarwal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Haridev Misra vs Jamunadas Agarwal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1989<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1989 SCR  (1) 756, \t  1989 SCC  (2) 112<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Singh<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Kuldip Singh (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nHARIDEV MISRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJAMUNADAS AGARWAL &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT17\/02\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 SCR  (1) 756\t  1989 SCC  (2) 112\n JT 1989 (1)   356\t  1989 SCALE  (1)455\n\n\nACT:\n    U.P.  Urban\t Building (Regulation of  Letting  Rent\t and\nEviction) Act, 1972--Sections 3(i) and 20(2)(a)--Eviction of\ntenant for default-Landlord raising a new plea that  tenancy\nwas  for furnished house-Whether permissible to\t raise\tsuch\nplea.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The respondent-landlord filed a suit for eviction of the\nappellantstenant from the house in question on the ground of\nfailure to pay rent and for realisation of arrears of  rent.\nWhile the respondent pleaded that the rate of rent was Rs.70\nper  month, the appellant contended that it was\t only  Rs.40\nand  not Rs.70, and that he was paying Rs.30 per  month\t for\nthe  furniture, provided by the landlord which\the  returned\nsometime after the tenancy commenced.\n    The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the rate\nof rent was Rs.40 per month and, as such, the appellant\t was\nnot defaulter. In the revision filed by the respondent,\t the\nRevisional Court held that the rent was Rs.70 per month.\n    The\t appellant  filed a writ petition  before  the\tHigh\nCourt,\twhich quashed the revisional order and remanded\t the\ncase  for deciding the revision petition  afresh.Thereafter,\nthe revisional court again allowed the revision.\n    The appellant challenged the revisional order before the\nHigh Court which dismissed the same.\n    In\tthe  appeal, by special leave, it was  contended  on\nbehalf\tof  the appellant-tenant that in the face  of  clear\nadmission of the respondent in the receipt, the rent of\t the\nhouse was Rs.40 per month, and that the amount of Rs.70\t per\nmonth  mentioned in the rent note had been explained in\t the\nreceipts, to be Rs.40 as house rent and Rs.30 for furniture.\nOn  behalf  of\tthe respondent, it was\tcontended  that\t the\ntenancy\n757\nwas  for a furnished building and failure to pay a  part  of\nthe rent, in respect of furniture, would attract the  provi-\nsions of s. 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building\t (Regulation\nof  Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and  the  appellant\nwas  liable  to be ejected. It was also contended  that\t the\ntenancy\t being\tof a furnished house the  tenant  could\t not\nunder law, unilaterally surrender part of tenancy.\nAllowing the appeal,\n    HELD:  It  was never the case of the respondent  at\t any\nstage  that furnished house was given on rent to the  appel-\nlant.  In  the\tnotice before filing the  suit\tand  in\t the\nplaint,\t it was specifically pleaded that rent of the  house\nwas  Rs.70 per month and the tenant was in arrears.  In\t the\nwritten\t statement,  appellant took a clear stand  that\t the\nrent  of  the  house was only Rs.40 and Rs.30  was  for\t the\nfurniture,  which according to him, was returned  after\t the\ncommencement of the tenancy. [760C-D]\n    In\tthe  face of clear pleadings on the  record,  it  is\nimpermissible  to raise the plea that the landlord rented  a\nfurnished  house to the tenant. It would be contrary to\t the\npleadings.  That apart, neither before the trial  court\t nor\nbefore\tthe  Revisional Court and not even before  the\tHigh\nCourt this plea was raised. [760F]\n    The trial court relied upon the rent receipts, 39\/C\t and\n40\/C, produced by the appellant. It was clearly mentioned in\nthe  receipt  39\/C that Rs.40 were towards  house  rent\t and\nRs.30  towards furniture charges and Rs.3 towards water\t and\nelectricity charges. The respondent admitted the contents of\nthe  receipt  but  explained that  Rs.30  towards  furniture\ncharges was mentioned at the request of the tenant. [758G-H]\n    In the face of the clear admission by the .respondent in\nthe  two receipts, the finding of the Revisional Court\tthat\nthe monthly rent was Rs.70 is erroneous. [759D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  912  of<br \/>\n1989.\n<\/p>\n<p>    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  11.5.1988  of\t the<br \/>\nAllahabad High Court in Misc. W.P. No. 7886 of 1985.<br \/>\nYogeshwar Prasad and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\"> 758<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Satish Chandra and Madan Lokur for the Respondents.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nKULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>    This  appeal  arises out of a suit filed  by  respondent<br \/>\n(plaintiff)  landlord in the Court of Judge,  Small  Causes,<br \/>\nGorakhpur, for eviction of the appellants (defendant) tenant<br \/>\nfrom  the house in question on the ground of failure to\t pay<br \/>\nthe  rent and for realisation of arrears of rent  and  elec-<br \/>\ntricity\t charges  amounting to Rs.2,560.60. It\twas  pleaded<br \/>\nthat  the  tenant was to pay a monthly rent of\tRs.70  apart<br \/>\nfrom Rs.3 per month as water and electricity charges and was<br \/>\nin  arrears  since July, 1979 which he failed  to  pay.\t The<br \/>\nappellant  contested the suit mainly on the ground that\t the<br \/>\nrate  of rent was not Rs.70 per month but it was only  Rs.40<br \/>\nand  besides  that  he was provided with  furniture  by\t the<br \/>\nlandlord  for which he was paying Rs.30 per month. His\tcase<br \/>\nfurther\t was that some time after the tenancy commenced,  he<br \/>\nreturned the furniture.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t Judge,\t Small Causes Court, by his  judgment  dated<br \/>\n10th.  November, 1983, dismissed the suit holding  that\t the<br \/>\nrate  of rent was Rs.40 per month and as such the  appellant<br \/>\nwas  not a defaulter. The respondent filed a revision  which<br \/>\nwas allowed by the Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur. The<br \/>\nRevisional  Court held that the rate of rent was  Rs.70\t per<br \/>\nmonth.\tThe  appellant\tfiled a writ  petition\tagainst\t the<br \/>\nrevisional  order before the Allahabed High Court. The\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  allowed\tthe writ petition,  quashed  the  revisional<br \/>\norder and remanded the case for deciding the revision  peti-<br \/>\ntion afresh. Thereafter, the Revisional Court again  allowed<br \/>\nthe  revision and set aside the judgment of the Trial  Court<br \/>\nand  ordered ejectment. The appellant again  challenged\t the<br \/>\nrevisional order by way of a writ petition before the  Alla-<br \/>\nhabad  High  Court but the same was  dismissed.\t Hence\tthis<br \/>\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The Trial Court primarily relied upon documents 39\/C and<br \/>\n40\/C produced by the defendants. Document 39\/C is a  receipt<br \/>\nby  the plaintiff wherein details of Rs.73 are given. It  is<br \/>\nclearly\t mentioned  in the receipt that Rs.40  were  towards<br \/>\nhouse  rent, Rs.30 towards furniture charges and Rs.3  water<br \/>\nand electricity charges. The plaintiff admitted the contents<br \/>\nof  receipt 39\/C but he explained that Rs.30 towards  furni-<br \/>\nture charges were mentioned at the request of the defendant.<br \/>\nThe plaintiff strongly relied upon the rent note 97\/C where-<br \/>\nin  monthly  rent of the house was mentioned at\t Rs.70.\t The<br \/>\nTrial Court rejected the rent<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">759<\/span><br \/>\nnote  on  the  ground that the same was not  signed  by\t the<br \/>\ndefendant.  Basing  its findings on the\t receipt  39\/C,\t the<br \/>\nTrial Court dismissed the suit. The Revisional Court, on the<br \/>\nother  hand, found force in the contention of the  plaintiff<br \/>\nthat the rent note 97\/C was signed by the defendant. It\t was<br \/>\nheld that the admission, if any, of the plaintiff in receipt<br \/>\n391C  is  contradicted\tby the rent note 97\/C  and  as\tsuch<br \/>\ncannot\tbe  taken into consideration. The  Revisional  Court<br \/>\nthus differed from the Trial Court and ordered ejectment.<br \/>\n    Before  us,\t the counsel for the appellant\tShri  Prasad<br \/>\ncontends that in the face of clear admission of the respond-<br \/>\nent in the receipt 39\/C the rent of the house was Rs.40\t per<br \/>\nmonth. He further contents that the rent note, even if taken<br \/>\ninto consideration, has been explained by the receipts\t39]C<br \/>\nand 40\/C. According to him Rs.70 per month mentioned in\t the<br \/>\nrent note has been explained in the receipts to be Rs.40  as<br \/>\nhouse rent and Rs.30 for the furniture. We find force in the<br \/>\ncontention  of\tthe learned counsel. In the  face  of  clear<br \/>\nadmission by the respondent in the two receipts the  finding<br \/>\nof the Revisional Court to the effect that the monthly\trent<br \/>\nwas  Rs.70  is\terroneous. Faced with  this  situation\tShri<br \/>\nSatish\tChandra, learned counsel for the respondent  invited<br \/>\nour  attention to Section 3(i) of the U.P.  Urban  Buildings<br \/>\n(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972  (here-<br \/>\ninafter called &#8216;the Act&#8217;) and contends that the tenancy\t was<br \/>\nfor  a\tfurnished building and as such failure to  pay\teven<br \/>\nRs.30  in respect of furniture would attract the  provisions<br \/>\nof  Section 20(2)(a) of the Act and the appellant is  liable<br \/>\nto be ejected. Section 3(i) and Section 20(2)(a) of the\t Act<br \/>\nare as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Section\t3(i)&#8221;building&#8221;, means a\t residential<br \/>\n\t      or  nonresidential  roofed structure  and\t in-<br \/>\n\t      cludes&#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t     (i)  any land (including  any  garden),<br \/>\n\t      garages  and  outhouses, appurtenant  to\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      building;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t    (ii)  any  furniture  supplied  by\t the<br \/>\n\t      landlord for use in such building;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t    (iii) any fittings and fixtures  affixed<br \/>\n\t      to  such\tbuilding  for  the  more  beneficial<br \/>\n\t      enjoyment thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Section\t20(2)(a).  &#8220;that the  tenant  is  in<br \/>\n\t      arrears of rent for not less than four months,<br \/>\n\t      and has failed to pay the same to the landlord<br \/>\n\t      within one month from the date of service upon<br \/>\n\t      him of a notice of demand.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\"> 760<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    Shri Satish Chandra contends that definition of building<br \/>\nunder  Section 3(i) includes any furniture supplied  by\t the<br \/>\nlandlord for use in such building and as such non-payment of<br \/>\npart of the rent meant for furniture would amount to arrears<br \/>\nof  rent and the appellant having failed to pay the same  is<br \/>\nliable\tto be ejected. In other words, he contends  that  it<br \/>\nwas a furnished house which was let-out to the appellant. He<br \/>\nalso  contends that tenancy being of a furnished house,\t the<br \/>\ntenant\tcould not under law unilaterally surrender  part  of<br \/>\nthe  tenancy by returning the furniture. There may  be\tsome<br \/>\nforce  in the abstract proposition of law canvassed by\tShri<br \/>\nSatish Chandra on the basis of Sections 3(i) and 20(2)(a) of<br \/>\nthe  Act, but there is no basis for him in the present\tcase<br \/>\nto advance the same. It was never the case of the respondent<br \/>\nat  any stage that furnished house was given on rent to\t the<br \/>\nappellant. In the notice before filing the suit, and in\t the<br \/>\nplaint\tit was specifically pleaded that rent of  the  house<br \/>\nwas  Rs.70 per month and the tenant was in arrears.  In\t the<br \/>\nwritten statement appellant took a clear stand that the rent<br \/>\nof  the\t house was only Rs.40 and Rs.30\t was  for  furniture<br \/>\nwhich,\taccording  to the appellant, he returned  after\t the<br \/>\ncommencement of the tenancy. The respondent filed a replica-<br \/>\ntion  to the written statement of appellant. In Clause 3  of<br \/>\nthe  replication the respondent denied that either the\trent<br \/>\nwas  Rs.40 per month or Rs.30 was being charged\t for  furni-<br \/>\nture.  He stated that neither any such goods had  been\tsup-<br \/>\nplied  to  the appellant by him nor the rent was  agreed  at<br \/>\nRs.40 per month.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It\tis thus obvious from the pleadings that at no  stage<br \/>\nthe respondent pleaded that he had given furnished house  on<br \/>\nrent  to  the  tenant. Rather the supply  of  furniture\t was<br \/>\ncategorically denied. In the face of clear pleadings on\t the<br \/>\nrecord it is impermissible to raise the plea that the  land-<br \/>\nlord  rented  a furnished house to the tenant. It  would  be<br \/>\ncontrary  to  the pleadings. That apart neither\t before\t the<br \/>\nTrial  Court  nor before the Revisional Court and  not\teven<br \/>\nbefore the High Court this plea was raised. Therefore, there<br \/>\nis no force in the contention of Shri Satish Chandra and the<br \/>\nsame is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>    This Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgments of the<br \/>\nHigh  Court and of the Revisional Court are set\t aside.\t The<br \/>\njudgment  of  the Trial Court is restored and  the  suit  of<br \/>\nrespondent is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>N.P.V.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeal allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">761<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Haridev Misra vs Jamunadas Agarwal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 SCR (1) 756, 1989 SCC (2) 112 Author: K Singh Bench: Kuldip Singh (J) PETITIONER: HARIDEV MISRA Vs. RESPONDENT: JAMUNADAS AGARWAL &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT17\/02\/1989 BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) SHETTY, K.J. (J) [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88595","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Haridev Misra vs Jamunadas Agarwal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1989 - 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\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Haridev Misra vs Jamunadas Agarwal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2\" \/>\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=\"1989-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-30T06:02:37+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Haridev Misra vs Jamunadas Agarwal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-30T06:02:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2\"},\"wordCount\":1315,\"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\\\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2\",\"name\":\"Haridev Misra vs Jamunadas Agarwal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-30T06:02:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Haridev Misra vs Jamunadas Agarwal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1989\"}]},{\"@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":"Haridev Misra vs Jamunadas Agarwal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1989 - 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\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Haridev Misra vs Jamunadas Agarwal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-30T06:02:37+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Haridev Misra vs Jamunadas Agarwal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1989","datePublished":"1989-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-30T06:02:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2"},"wordCount":1315,"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\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2","name":"Haridev Misra vs Jamunadas Agarwal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-30T06:02:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haridev-misra-vs-jamunadas-agarwal-ors-on-17-february-1989-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Haridev Misra vs Jamunadas Agarwal &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1989"}]},{"@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\/88595","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=88595"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88595\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88595"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88595"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88595"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}