{"id":88916,"date":"1973-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973"},"modified":"2019-03-12T11:27:55","modified_gmt":"2019-03-12T05:57:55","slug":"krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973","title":{"rendered":"Krishnawati vs Hans Raj on 29 November, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Krishnawati vs Hans Raj on 29 November, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 280, \t\t 1974 SCR (2) 524<\/div>\n
Author: D Palekar<\/div>\n
Bench: Palekar, D.G.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKRISHNAWATI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHANS RAJ\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/11\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nBENCH:\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR  280\t\t  1974 SCR  (2) 524\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1987 SC1782\t (15)\n R\t    1987 SC2055\t (6)\n F\t    1988 SC1362\t (6)\n R\t    1989 SC1141\t (20)\n\n\nACT:\nDelhi  Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) Ss. 14 and 39  (2)-Onus\nof proving sub-letting--Mixed question of law and fact, what\nis.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant\ttook  a\t lease of  shop\t premises  from\t the\nrespondent.  From the time of letting, a chemist's  business\nwas carried on in the shop by S with the occasional help  of\nthe  appellant.\t S and the appellant were living as  husband\nand wife to the knowledge of the respondent.  The respondent\napplied under s. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for\neviction of the appellant on the ground that she had  sublet\nthe premises toS. The Rent Controller and the  Tribunal\non  appeal  held  that\tthe appellant  and  S.\twere  living\ntogether  as  husband and wife, and   that  therefore  there\nwasno  question\t of any subletting by  the  appellant.\tIn\nsecond appeal,\tholding that two substantial  questions\t of\nlaw were involved namely, one relatingto the status of the\nappellant  as  the wife of S, and the  other,  whether\tsub-\nlettingwas  established,  the High Court  concluded  that\nthere was subletting in favour oOf S.\nAllowing the appeal to this Court,\nHELD : (1) Under s. 39 (2) of the Act the High.-Court  could\ninterfere  in second appeal only if there was a\t substantial\nquestion of law.  On the question whether the appellant\t was\nlegally\t married  no finding was necessary in  the  eviction\nsuit.\tIt was sufficient for the rent court to\t proceed  on\nthe finding that the appellant and S were living together as\nhusband and wife, whether they were legally married or\tnot.\n[528C-D, E-F]\n(2)The\tquestion  whether there was subletting\tis  not\t a\nmixed question of law and fact.\t In a mixed question of\t law\nand fact the ultimate conclusion has to be drawn by applying\nprinciples   of\t  law  to  basic  findings,   but   in\t the\ndetermination  of a question of fact no application  of\t any\nprinciple  of  law is required in finding either  the  basic\nfacts  or  in  arriving at  the\t ultimate  conclusion.\t The\nquestion to be determined in the circumstances of this\tcase\nwas whether it was likely that the appellant had sublet\t the\npremises  to S. The negative answer given by the rent  court\nis  merely the factual common sense inference which did\t not\ncall  for the application of any principle of law.  [528F-G;\n529A-B]\nMeenakshi Mills, Madurai v. The Commissioner of\t Income-tax,\nMadras,<\/a> [1956] S.C.R. 691, followed.\n(3)When eviction is sought on the ground of subletting the\nonus  of  proving  subletting is on the\t landlord.   If\t the\nlandlord  prima-facie  shows that the occupant\twas  in\t the\nexclusive  possession of the premises let out  for  valuable\nconsideration, it would then be for the tenant to rebut\t the\nevidence.   But in the present case the respondent  produced\nno  evidence to show subletting in spite of the\t appellant's\ndenial in the written statement. [527C-D]\nAssociated  Hotels  of\tIndia Ltd.  Delhi v.  S.  B.  Sardar\nRanjit Singh,<\/a> [1968] 2 S.C.R. 548, followed.\n(4)Under  s. 14 (4) premises could be deemed to have  been\nsub-let by the tenant only when the Controller is  satisfied\nthat  some  person is let into possession  ostensibly  as  a\npartner\t  in  business\tbut  really  for  the  purposes\t  of\nsubletting.  This provision has no application to the  facts\nand circumstances of the present case. [526G-H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1475 of 1970.
\nAppeal\tby Special Leave from the Judgment and Order.  dated
\nthe  29th  May, 1970 of the High Court of  Delhi  in  Second
\nAppeal No. 25-D of 1966.\n<\/p>\n
525<\/span><\/p>\n
V.M. Tarkunde, M. N. Bombhra and Saroja Gopala Krishnan\t for
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Hardyal Hardy, S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja, A. C. Sehgal and
\nO.   P. Gupta for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was, delivered by
\nPALEKAR, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from an order
\npassed\tby  the single Judge of the High Court of  Delhi  in
\nsecond\tappeal\tunder section 39 of the Delhi  Rent  Control
\nAct, No. 59 of 1958.\n<\/p>\n
On  or about September 10, 1959 the respondent landlord\t let
\nout  the premises in suit to the appellant on a rent of\t Rs.
\n125\/- per month.  The premises consisted of a shop.  On 1-9-
\n1962  the respondent applied under section 14 of  the  above
\nAct to the Rent Controller, Delhi for evicting the appellant
\non  the ground that she had sub-let the entire\tpremises  to
\none  Sohan  Singh  who, according  to  the  respondent,\t was
\nrunning\t a  business  under the\t name  of  Royal  Dispensing
\nChemists and Druggists in the shop.  It was further  alleged
\nthat  the appellant was charging a fabulous amount  as\trent
\nfrom  her  sub-tenant  Sohan Singh.  The  appellant  in\t her
\nwritten\t statement  admitted  the tenancy  but\tdenied\tsub-
\nletting.   She alleged that Sohan Singh was her husband\t and
\nfrom  the  time of the lease the business of a\tChemist\t was
\nbeing run there in the premises by her husband and she\talso
\noccasionally helped him in the running of the business.
\nThe  Rent Controller was of the view that the appellant\t was
\nthe  legally  Wedded wife of Sohan Singh.  In any  event  he
\nheld, Sohan Singh and the appellant were living together  as
\nhusband\t and wife and, therefore, there was no\tquestion  of
\nany  sub–letting  by the appellant of the  premises.\tThat
\nfinding\t was  confirmed\t in  appeal  by\t the  Rent   Control
\nTribunal, Delhi.  Aggrieved by the decision, the  respondent
\nwent in second appeal to the High Court under section  39(1)
\nof  the\t Act.\tIt was contended before\t the  court  by\t the
\nrespondent  that two substantial questions of law  and\tfact
\nwere  involved in the appeal-one relating to the  status  of
\nthe  appellant\tas wife and the other whether on  the  facts
\nfound  the ground of sub-letting had been established.\t The
\nlearned\t single\t Judge\tagreed\tthat  the  appeal   involved
\nsubstantial  questions of law as submitted, and came to\t the
\nconclusion  that  there was sub-setting in favour  of  Sohan
\nSingh.\t Accordingly,  he  gave an order  for  evicting\t the
\nappellant.  So this appeal by special leave.
\nIt is contended on behalf of the appellant that the  learned
\nsingle\tJudge  has interfered with a pure finding  of  fact.
\nUnder  section\t39(2)  of  the\tAct  the  High\tCourt  could
\ninterfere  in second appeal only if there was a\t substantial
\nquestion  of law.  In the present case, he submitted,  there
\nwas  no question of law, much less substantial\tquestion  of
\nlaw  and,  therefore,  the  High  Court\t was  in  error\t  in
\ninterfering with the concurrent finding of the Rent  Control
\nauthorities, There is great force in this contention.
\nThe  High  Court  has dealt with the case as if\t this  is  a
\nmatrimonial proceeding-in which the status of the  appellant
\nas the wife of Sohan
\nM8–602 SUP CI\/74
\n526<\/span>
\nSingh was under direct challenge.  The simple question which
\nhad  to be determined in the case was whether having  regard
\nto  the fact that the appellant and Sohan Singh were  living
\nas husband and wife, it was open to draw, in the absence  of
\nevidence  to  the contrary, the factual inference  that\t the
\nwife  had sub-let the premises to her husband.\t Sub-letting
\nlike  letting, is a particular type of demise  of  immovable
\nproperty and is distinct from permissive user like that of a
\nlicensee.   If\ttwo  persons live together  in\ta  house  as
\nhusband\t and wife and one of them who owns the house  allows
\nthe other to carry on business in a part of it,it will be in
\nthe absence of any other evidence, a rash inference to\tdraw
\nthat  the owner has let out that part of the premises.\t And
\nthat  is  what\tthe learned single Judge  has  done  in\t the
\npresent case.  He was of the view that even if it is assumed
\nthat the appellant was the wife of Sohan Singh, she, who was
\nentitled  to  possession of the shop premises as  a  tenant,
\nmust be presumed to have sub-let the same to Sohan Singh  to
\ncarry  on  his business, In support of\tthis  conclusion  he
\nrelied\ton clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section  (1)  of
\nsection\t 14  of\t the Act read with  sub-section\t 4  of\tthat
\nsection.  The provisions are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      14(1) Provided that the Controller may, on  an
\n\t      application  made\t to him\t in  the  prescribed
\n\t\t\t    manner,  make  an  order for  the  rec
\novery  of
\n\t      possession  of the premises on one or more  of
\n\t      the following grounds only, namely\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)……………………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   that the tenant has, on or after the 9th
\n\t      day   of\tJune,  1952  sub-let,  assigned\t  or
\n\t      otherwise\t parted with the possession  of\t the
\n\t      whole  or\t any part of  the  premises  without
\n\t      obtaining\t the  consent  in  writing  of\t the
\n\t      landlord;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Sub-section (4) of section 14 is as follows :
\n\t      “(4)  For\t the purposes of clause (b)  of\t the
\n\t      proviso to sub-section (1),any premises  which
\n\t      have been let for being used for the  purposes
\n\t      of  business or profession shall be deemed  to
\n\t      have  been  sub-let  by  the  tenant,  if\t the
\n\t      Controller   is  satisfied  that\tthe   tenant
\n\t      without  obtaining the consent in\t writing  of
\n\t      the  landlord  has,  after  the  16th  day  of
\n\t      August, 1958, allowed any person or occupy the
\n\t      whole  or any part of the premises  ostensibly
\n\t      on the ground that such person is a partner of
\n\t      the  tenant in the business or profession\t but
\n\t      really  for  the purpose of  sub-letting\tsuch
\n\t      premises to that person.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Under  sub-section (4) referred to above the premises  could
\nbe  deemed to have been sub-let by the tenant only when\t the
\nController  is\tsatisfied  that\t some  person  is  let\tinto
\npossession  ostensibly as a partner in business\t but  really
\nfor the purposes of sub-letting.  These provisions evidently
\nhave no application to the facts of the present case.  It is
\nnot the case of anybody that the appellant was the owner  of
\nthe  business carried on in the premises and she had let  in
\nSohan Singh into possession ostensibly as a partner in their
\nbusiness.  The learned Judge was,
\n527<\/span>
\ntherefore, in error in relying on the provisions of the\t Act
\nfor  presuming\tthat  the appellant must  have\tsub-let\t the
\npremises.\n<\/p>\n
The case of the respondent in his application under  section
\n14  of\tof the Act was that the appellant  had\tsub-let\t the
\nwhole  premises to Sohan Singh who was running the  business
\nunder  the name of Royal Dispensing Chemists  and  Druggists
\nand  that  the\tentire premises have  been  sub-let  by\t the
\nappellant  and\tthe  appellant had  completely\tparted\twith
\npossession  without the written consent of  the\t respondent.
\nIt was also alleged that the appellant was charging fabulous
\namount of rent from the sub-tenant Sohan Singh.\t Sub-letting
\nwas,’ therefore, the principal ground on which eviction\t was
\nsought.\t  When eviction is sought on that ground it  is\t now
\nsettled\t law that  the onus to prove sub-letting is  on\t the
\nlandlord.   If\tthe  landlord  prima-facie  shows  that\t the
\noccupant who was in exclusive possession of the premises let
\nout  for  valuable consideration, it would then be  for\t the
\ntenant\tto  rebut the evidence.\t  See:Associated  Hotels  of
\nIndia  Ltd.,  Delhi V. S.B. Sardar  Ranjit  Singh<\/a>(1).In\t the
\npresent\t case  the respondent produced no evidence  to\tshow
\nsuch  sub-letting in spite of the appellant’s denial in\t the
\nwritten statement of any sub-letting.  It was averred by her
\ntherein that Sohan Singh was her husband and that right from
\nthe  taking  of the shop premises on rent  Sohan  Singh\t was
\ncarrying on business of a Chemist therein and appellant also
\nhelped him occasionally as his wife.  The averment that\t she
\nwas   the  wife\t of  Sohan  Singh  provided  the   necessary
\nammunition  for a formidable battle in which the  respondent
\ntook  upon  himself  to show that she was  not\tthe  legally
\nmarried wife of Sohan Singh.  He called Sohan Singh’s  first
\nwife as his first witness in this case but all that the lady
\nwas  able  to  say  was that she had  no  knowledge  if\t the
\nappellant  was married to Sohan Singh but she knew  that  he
\nlived  with the appellant since about six years\t before\t her
\ndeposition, recorded in 1963.  The respondent himself in his
\ntestimony  admitted  that  he had  never  himself  made\t any
\nenquiry\t as  to whether Sohan Singh and\t the  appellant\t are
\nhusband\t and wife or not.  Nor could he deny that they\twere
\nliving\ttogether.  His reasons for saying that\tSohan  Singh
\nwas a sub-tenant were in his own words ; “As Sohan Singh  is
\nthe tenant, I can, therefore, say that the capital  invested
\nin the shop might be that of Sohan Singh.  Neither any talks
\nregarding  sub-letting\ttook place in my presence,  nor\t the
\nrent was paid in my presence,” In undertaking to prove\tthat
\nthe  appellant\twas not Sohan Singh’s  wife  the  respondent
\ncompletely lost sight of his own weak position.\t The  appel-
\nlant  had passed a rent note in the respondent’s favour\t and
\nit was the case of the appellant that in that rent note\t the
\nrespondent  had\t in his own handwriting\t written’  that\t the
\nappellant  was\tthe  wife of  Sohan  Singh.   The  appellant
\nsummoned him to produce his rent note but the respondent did
\nnot produce it.\t So in his cross examination he was shown  a
\ntyped  copy of it and this he accepted as a true copy.\t The
\ntrue  copy disclosed that the appellant was accepted as\t the
\nwife of Sohan Singh.  Besides, when the appellant and  Sohan
\nSingh  gave evidence of the ,fact that they were  living  as
\nhusband and wife and looking after the
\n(1)  [1968] 2 S.C.R. 548.\n<\/p>\n
528<\/span><\/p>\n
business in the shop there was hardly any cross\t examination
\non  the\t point.\t The respondent relied principally  on\tsome
\nprevious  self-serving\tstatements made by  Sohan  Singh  in
\nother  proceedings  which could not be used  as\t substantive
\nevidence  in  the  present case.   The\tevidence  was  clear
\nnamely, that to the knowledge of the respondent, the  appel-
\nlant  and  Sohan Singh were living as husband and  wife\t and
\nfrom  the day the rent note was passed by the  appellant  in
\n1959  a Chemist’s shop was opened in the premises which\t was
\nrun  principally  by  Sohan Singh but  occasionally  by\t the
\nappellant also.\t The question is whether that evidence gives
\nrise to the factual inference that the appellant had  sublet
\nthe premises to Sohan Singh.  The first two courts held that
\nit  did not.  This was a concurrent finding of fact  and  it
\nseems  to us that the learned counsel for the  appellant  is
\nright  in  contending that the High Court in  second  appeal
\nshould not have interfered with that finding especially when
\nsection 39(2) of the Act provides that no appeal shall it to
\nthe High Court unless ‘the appeal involved some\t substantial
\nquestion of law.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  single  Judge  thought  that  two\t substantial
\nquestions of law were involved-one relating to the status of
\nthe  appellant\tas the alleged wife of Sohan Singh  and\t the
\nsecond\t whether  on  the  facts  found,   sub-letting\t was
\nestablished.   Both these questions involved,  according  to
\nthe  learned Judge, substantial questions of mixed fact\t and
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
As  to the first question whether the appellant was  legally
\nmarried,  that\twas  a\tquestion on  which  no\tfinding\t was
\nnecessary  in an eviction suit.\t It was sufficient  for\t the
\nRent Court to proceed on the finding that the appellant\t and
\nSohan  Singh were living as husband and wife,  whether\tthey
\nwere legally married or not.  This was specifically  pointed
\nout  by the Additional Rent Controller in his judgment.\t  As
\nregards\t the second question, one does not see how it  is  a
\nmixed question of law and fact.\t In the ‘determination of  a
\nquestion  of fact no application of any principle of law  is
\nrequired  in finding either the basic facts or\tarriving  at
\nthe ultimate conclusion; in a mixed question of law and fact
\nthe  ultimate  conclusion  has\tto  be\tdrawn  by   applying
\nprinciples of law to basic findings.  See : Meenakshi Mills,
\nMadurai\t v. The Commissioner of Income-Tax,  Madras<\/a>  (1).The
\nbasic  facts in the present case were (1) the appellant\t and
\nSohan Singh were living as husband and wife to the knowledge
\nof  the respondent; (2) the appellant took the lease of\t the
\nshop premises from the respondent in 1959; (3) from the time
\nof the letting a Chemist’s business was carried in the\tshop
\nby  Sohan Singh with the occasional help of  the  appellant.
\nThe  question  to  be determined was whether  in  the  above
\ncircumstances it was likely that the appellant had
\n(1)  [1956] S.C.R. 691.\n<\/p>\n
529<\/span><\/p>\n
sub-let\t the premises to Sohan Singh.  The  negative  answer
\ngiven to it by the Rent Courts is merely the factual  common
\nsense  inference which did not call for the  application  of
\nany principle of law.  In out view, no question of  law-much
\nless,  a  substantial question of law-was  involved  in\t the
\nsecond\tappeal\tand  the  learned  Judge  was  in  error  in
\ndisturbing  the\t concurrent  findings of fact  of  the\trent
\ncontrol authorities.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal is, therefore, allowed, the order passed by\t the
\nHigh  Court  is\t set  aside and that  of  the  Rent  Control
\nAuthorities is restored with costs throughout.
\nV.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
530<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Krishnawati vs Hans Raj on 29 November, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 280, 1974 SCR (2) 524 Author: D Palekar Bench: Palekar, D.G. PETITIONER: KRISHNAWATI Vs. RESPONDENT: HANS RAJ DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/11\/1973 BENCH: PALEKAR, D.G. BENCH: PALEKAR, D.G. KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH CITATION: 1974 AIR 280 1974 SCR (2) 524 […]<\/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-88916","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKrishnawati vs Hans Raj on 29 November, 1973 - 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\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Krishnawati vs Hans Raj on 29 November, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973\" \/>\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=\"1973-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-12T05:57:55+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Krishnawati vs Hans Raj on 29 November, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-12T05:57:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973\"},\"wordCount\":2272,\"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\\\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973\",\"name\":\"Krishnawati vs Hans Raj on 29 November, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-12T05:57:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Krishnawati vs Hans Raj on 29 November, 1973\"}]},{\"@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":"Krishnawati vs Hans Raj on 29 November, 1973 - 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\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Krishnawati vs Hans Raj on 29 November, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-12T05:57:55+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Krishnawati vs Hans Raj on 29 November, 1973","datePublished":"1973-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-12T05:57:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973"},"wordCount":2272,"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\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973","name":"Krishnawati vs Hans Raj on 29 November, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-12T05:57:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnawati-vs-hans-raj-on-29-november-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Krishnawati vs Hans Raj on 29 November, 1973"}]},{"@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\/88916","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=88916"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88916\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88916"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88916"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88916"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}