{"id":88775,"date":"2001-11-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-11-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2"},"modified":"2015-06-06T00:02:13","modified_gmt":"2015-06-05T18:32:13","slug":"s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2","title":{"rendered":"S.N. Kapoor (Dead) By His Lrs. &#8230; vs Basant Lal Khatri &amp; Ors. &#8230; on 5 November, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.N. Kapoor (Dead) By His Lrs. &#8230; vs Basant Lal Khatri &amp; Ors. &#8230; on 5 November, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Raju<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M.B. Shah, Doraiswamy Raju<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 7517  of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nS.N. KAPOOR (DEAD) BY HIS LRS.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAPPELLANTS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBASANT LAL KHATRI &amp; ORS.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t  RESPONDENTS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t05\/11\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nM.B. Shah &amp; Doraiswamy Raju\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>W I T HCIVIL APPEAL NO. 7518 OF 2001<br \/>\n(Arising out of S.L.P.[C] No.13103 of 2000)<\/p>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>RAJU, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Landlady is the appellant in the above appeals of which one arising<br \/>\nout of the order dated 19.1.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi<br \/>\nHigh Court in C.M. No.5154\/99 in C.R. No.513\/98 rejecting the prayer for<br \/>\nconverting the application filed initially for eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) of the<br \/>\nDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 into one under Section 14\tD of the said Act and to<br \/>\nconsider the claim of the Landlady accordingly and the other arising out of the<br \/>\norder dated 3.7.2000 made in Civil Revision No.573\/98 dismissing the main<br \/>\nrevision petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLate Shri S.N. Kapoor, the original owner of the premises at A-278,<br \/>\nDefence Colony, New Delhi, was serving in the Indian Army and after his<br \/>\nretirement he established his residence at Bhopal with his wife and 5 children in<br \/>\nthe year 1968.\tThe premises in question at New Delhi was under tenancy.  In<br \/>\n1982 the eldest son was said to have got married.  Late Shri Kapoor and his wife<br \/>\nbegan residing with their eldest son and daughter in law.  After the Bhopal Gas<br \/>\nLeak Accident, Late Shri Kapoor was also affected with serious ophthalmic<br \/>\nproblems and he was under going treatment in All India Institute of Medical<br \/>\nSciences at New Delhi.\tIn view of all the above, he called upon the respondents<br \/>\nto vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises for him to occupy by<br \/>\nshifting his residence from Bhopal to New Delhi.  Since the request was not<br \/>\ncomplied with in 1986, Eviction Case No. E.119\/86 for eviction of the respondent<br \/>\nNo.1 came to be instituted also for the reason that the relationship between Mrs<br \/>\nKapoor and her daughter in law were getting strained and in the advance age of<br \/>\nMr. Kapoor he wanted to live in peace with his wife at Delhi.  After getting leave<br \/>\nto defend, the first respondent opposed the application contesting the bona fides<br \/>\nof the landlord.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAfter trial by an order dated 16.3.98, the Additional Rent Controller held<br \/>\nthat though late Shri Kapoor was the owner of the property in question and did<br \/>\nnot own any other property in Delhi, yet the claim for owners occupation was not<br \/>\nbona fide, in that the desire to shift to Delhi was not in accordance with law.<br \/>\nAggrieved, late Shri Kapoor filed Civil Revision No.513\/98 before the High Court<br \/>\nof Delhi.  Pending disposal of the revision, on 1.4.99 Shri S.N. Kappor expired<br \/>\nand his wife was brought on record by way of substitution to enable her to<br \/>\ncontinue the proceedings.  Thereafter, the wife of Shri Kapoor filed an application<br \/>\nunder Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 14-D of<br \/>\nthe Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 that the petition filed for eviction under Section<br \/>\n14 (1) (e) be converted as one under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act,<br \/>\n1958, she having become a widow entitled to recovery of possession and her<br \/>\nclaims considered accordingly.\tAs noticed earlier, this application came to be<br \/>\nrejected by an Order dated 19.1.2000 on the ground that the High Court had no<br \/>\nsuch powers to order for such conversion and the decision in 1995 Supp. (3)<br \/>\nSCC 172 in which this Court had an occasion to entertain such a claim for<br \/>\nconversion could not be a precedent for the High Court to do so since this Court<br \/>\nhad wide powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.\t It is against this<br \/>\nOrder of rejection SLP (c) No.12298\/2000 came to be filed.  Subsequently, the<br \/>\nrevision was also heard on merits of the claim under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act<br \/>\nand came to be rejected resulting in the filing of SLP (c) No.13103\/2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHeard, Shri Kailash Vasdev, Senior Advocate, for the appellant in both the<br \/>\nappeals and Shri Prag P. Tripathy, Senior Advocate, for the respondents.<br \/>\nLearned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the orders of the<br \/>\nRent Controller as well as that of the learned Single Judge in the High Court are<br \/>\ncontrary to law and that the correct principles governing the claim have not been<br \/>\nproperly applied to the indisputable material on record and that grave miscarriage<br \/>\nof justice resulted thereby.   Argued the learned counsel for the appellant that on<br \/>\nthe indisputable materials on record the High Court ought to have allowed the<br \/>\napplication for conversion as prayed for and ordered eviction of the respondent<br \/>\nand the conclusion to the contrary are unsustainable in law.  Per contra, the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondent contending with equal force urged that the<br \/>\nconcurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller as well as the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge of the High Court on the question of bona fide need for owners occupation<br \/>\nof the premises in question are well merited and do not call for any interference<br \/>\nin this appeal.\t It was also further contended that even under Section 14-D of the<br \/>\nAct, the essential pre-requisite of the claim being bona fide need to be<br \/>\nsubstantiated to get relief and in as much as there had been concurrent findings<br \/>\nagainst the claim, no exception could be taken to the Order passed declining the<br \/>\nrequest for conversion of the claim even on merits dehors the question of<br \/>\nentertainabilty of the same at that stage of the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe plea based on concurrent findings, in our view, could not come to the<br \/>\nrescue of the tenant in this case, having regard to the perfunctory nature of the<br \/>\nsaid findings and want of proper consideration and lack of application of relevant<br \/>\nprinciples governing the issue.\t When the Court exercising jurisdiction under<br \/>\nSection 25-B (8) was obliged to objectively consider whether the order passed by<br \/>\nthe Rent Controller was according to law, but has miserably failed to do so<br \/>\nresulting in miscarriage of justice, the High Court must be held to have failed to<br \/>\nexercise its powers and consequently, this Court is bound to interfere in the<br \/>\nmatter to render real and substantive justice.\t  All the more so when as in this<br \/>\ncase it is shown that improper and wrong inferences have been drawn in utter<br \/>\ndisregard of the materials on record and too technical a view has been found to<br \/>\nhave been taken.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSo far as the challenge made to the order of the High Court rejecting the<br \/>\nprayer to modify the relief claimed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for eviction<br \/>\ninto one under Section 14-D, the manner of disposal adopted seems to be to<br \/>\nsummary and cursory.  The Court has not chosen to, except stating that this<br \/>\nCourt had such powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, has not<br \/>\nassigned any reason as to why it cannot do so, if the circumstances so warranted<br \/>\nor justified in a given case.  The tenability or otherwise of such a claim would<br \/>\ndepend upon the question as to whether a decision on the claim based upon<br \/>\nsuch altered provision would require any fresh enquiry and proof of new facts,<br \/>\nbefore it could be taken up for consideration.\tIn Surjit Singh Kalra Vs. U.O.I. &amp;<br \/>\nAnr. [1991(2) SCC 87], this Court held that Sections 14-B to 14-D though<br \/>\ndifferent from proviso to Section 14(1)(e) and the tenant cannot contest the<br \/>\napplication on grounds specified therein, can and is entitled to show that<br \/>\nlandlords requirement was not bona fide, even when made under Section 14-D.<br \/>\nIn EMC Steel Limited, Calcutta Vs. Union of India &amp; Anr., etc. [(1991)2 SCC<br \/>\n101] also this Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of Section 14-D,<br \/>\nobserved that the special right conferred upon the widow under Section 14D can<br \/>\nbe availed of by her only once and she had to also prove her bona fide need like<br \/>\nother landlords and that the restriction under Section 19 on re-letting after<br \/>\nrecovery of possession will also apply to her.\tThis Court in V. Rajaswari Vs.<br \/>\nBombay Tyres Intdl. Ltd. [1995 Suppl.(3) SCC 172] countenanced such a claim<br \/>\nof the widow in an appeal filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, even<br \/>\nwhen the claim under Section 14(1)(e) came to be rejected by the courts below.<br \/>\nIn that case, this Court held that we are of the view that under Section 14-D, the<br \/>\ntenant has practically no defence whatever.  All that has to be proved under the<br \/>\nsaid Section extracted above are  (i) that the landlady is a widow and (ii) the<br \/>\npremises are required by her for her own residence.  The Court further observed<br \/>\nthat the fact that she is living with her daughter or any other person, is no ground<br \/>\nto say that the premises in question is not required for her residence.\t  So far as<br \/>\nSection 14(1)(e) is concerned, the bona fide nature of the requirement need be<br \/>\nestablished for getting an order of eviction and even in the absence of a specific<br \/>\nstipulation in this regard this Court, in order to make the enabling power under<br \/>\nSection 14-D to be more reasonable read into it also the need to substantiate<br \/>\nthat the request of the widow to recover possession of the premises for her own<br \/>\nresidence should be bona fide.\tThe common determining factor being the\t Bona<br \/>\nfides in both cases, and the landlady seeks an adjudication on the basis of<br \/>\nmaterials already on record there should be no impediment for the<br \/>\nAuthorities\/Courts functioning even under the Act to permit such conversion or<br \/>\nalteration and consider the claims made under the altered provision of law.  As a<br \/>\nmatter of fact subsequent developments and altered circumstances were held to<br \/>\nbe relevant in adjudging the nature and character of the claim made, at all stages<br \/>\nof the proceedings.  The High Court, in our view, erred in refusing to allow the<br \/>\napplication for modification of the claim made under Section 14(1)(e) into one<br \/>\nunder Section 14-D, for being considered on its merits.\t The order dated<br \/>\n19.1.2000 in CM 5154\/99 is set aside and the appeal filed against the same is<br \/>\nallowed and application of the appellant for modification of the claim is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThat the landlord has no other building in New Delhi is not in controversy<br \/>\nand it is also a fact specifically noticed also by the Rent Controller.\t The question<br \/>\nthat does really arise for consideration is as to whether the claim of the landlady<br \/>\nor the need to occupy the premises at New Delhi, in the circumstances, pleaded<br \/>\nor demonstrated could be said to be not bona fide or reasonable merely because<br \/>\nthe landlady is residing, for the time being, at Bhopal\t altogether a different city<br \/>\nin a different Sate also, along with her son and his family notwithstanding her<br \/>\ndecision to live separately at New Delhi.  The need felt by the landlady to do so<br \/>\ndoes appear to be sincere and honest and not a mere pretence only to evict the<br \/>\ntenant.\t No material has been brought on record and no proof has been made by<br \/>\nthe tenant by any positive material that it is neither genuine nor bona fide or<br \/>\nreasonable but a mere excuse to get rid of the tenant.\tThough the choice or<br \/>\nproclaimed need cannot be whimsical or merely fanciful yet certain amount of<br \/>\ndiscretion has to be allowed in favour of the landlady too and courts should not<br \/>\nalso impose its own wisdom forcibly upon the landlady to arrange her own affairs,<br \/>\naccording to their own perception carried away only by the interests or hardship<br \/>\nof the tenant and inconvenience that may result to him in passing an order of<br \/>\neviction.  In adjudging the claim under Section 14-D what is required to be<br \/>\nsubstantiated is that the landlady is a widow and that she wants the premises for<br \/>\nher own residence and that the claim by her is bona fide and not a feigned one.<br \/>\nSo far as a claim under Section 14(1)(e) is concerned, the very requirement has<br \/>\nto be shown not only to be bona fide but the move of the landlord\/landlady to<br \/>\nseek the eviction of the tenant must be genuine.  As far as the claim under<br \/>\nSection 14-D is concerned, the widow-landladys need for her own residence is<br \/>\nrecognized statutorily to be a valid one, but the move or request made to avail of<br \/>\nthe special benefit must be shown to be a bona fide and not a pretext only to get<br \/>\nrid of the tenant.  Viewed in the context of the indisputable facts on record that<br \/>\nthe widow has no other premises of her own at New Delhi and that she wants to<br \/>\nreside away from Bhopal and aloof from her daughter-in-law are by themselves<br \/>\nsufficient to sustain her claim.  The rejection of the claim seems to be on hyper<br \/>\ntechnical appreciation of the materials on record and does not constitute a real,<br \/>\nproper and effective consideration at all. Therefore, viewed from any angle, we<br \/>\nfind the need and requirement of the appellant-landlady to be bona fide and<br \/>\nconsequently an order of eviction shall follow.\t We allow the claim of the landlady<br \/>\nfor eviction and the appeal against the order dated 3.7.2000 shall stand allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSo far as the time to be granted to the tenant to vacate and deliver vacant<br \/>\npremises is concerned, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant<br \/>\nfairly consented for one years time, subject, of course, to the usual undertakings<br \/>\nto be given by the tenant.  We accept the same and, accordingly, give one year<br \/>\ntime to the tenant to deliver vacant premises and this is subject to the condition<br \/>\nthat the first respondent  tenant shall file in this Court the usual Undertaking<br \/>\nwithin two weeks from the date of this judgment.  The parties will bear their<br \/>\nrespective costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>J.\n<\/p>\n<p>[M.B. Shah]<\/p>\n<p>J.\n<\/p>\n<p>[Doraiswamy Raju]<\/p>\n<p>November 5, 2001.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India S.N. Kapoor (Dead) By His Lrs. &#8230; vs Basant Lal Khatri &amp; Ors. &#8230; on 5 November, 2001 Author: Raju Bench: M.B. Shah, Doraiswamy Raju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7517 of 2001 PETITIONER: S.N. KAPOOR (DEAD) BY HIS LRS. APPELLANTS Vs. RESPONDENT: BASANT LAL KHATRI &amp; ORS. RESPONDENTS DATE OF JUDGMENT: [&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-88775","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>S.N. Kapoor (Dead) By His Lrs. ... vs Basant Lal Khatri &amp; Ors. ... on 5 November, 2001 - 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\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.N. Kapoor (Dead) By His Lrs. ... vs Basant Lal Khatri &amp; Ors. ... on 5 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2\" \/>\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=\"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-05T18:32:13+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\\\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.N. Kapoor (Dead) By His Lrs. &#8230; vs Basant Lal Khatri &amp; Ors. &#8230; on 5 November, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-05T18:32:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2\"},\"wordCount\":2321,\"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\\\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2\",\"name\":\"S.N. Kapoor (Dead) By His Lrs. ... vs Basant Lal Khatri &amp; Ors. ... on 5 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-05T18:32:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.N. Kapoor (Dead) By His Lrs. &#8230; vs Basant Lal Khatri &amp; Ors. &#8230; on 5 November, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"S.N. Kapoor (Dead) By His Lrs. ... vs Basant Lal Khatri &amp; Ors. ... on 5 November, 2001 - 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\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.N. Kapoor (Dead) By His Lrs. ... vs Basant Lal Khatri &amp; Ors. ... on 5 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-05T18:32:13+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\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.N. Kapoor (Dead) By His Lrs. &#8230; vs Basant Lal Khatri &amp; Ors. &#8230; on 5 November, 2001","datePublished":"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-05T18:32:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2"},"wordCount":2321,"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\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2","name":"S.N. Kapoor (Dead) By His Lrs. ... vs Basant Lal Khatri &amp; Ors. ... on 5 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-05T18:32:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kapoor-dead-by-his-lrs-vs-basant-lal-khatri-ors-on-5-november-2001-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.N. Kapoor (Dead) By His Lrs. &#8230; vs Basant Lal Khatri &amp; Ors. &#8230; on 5 November, 2001"}]},{"@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\/88775","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=88775"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88775\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88775"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88775"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88775"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}