{"id":89093,"date":"2004-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004"},"modified":"2018-04-25T15:24:21","modified_gmt":"2018-04-25T09:54:21","slug":"pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"Pukhraj D. Jain &amp; Ors vs G. Gopalakrishna on 16 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pukhraj D. Jain &amp; Ors vs G. Gopalakrishna on 16 April, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Mathur<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, G.P. Mathur<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2082 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nPukhraj D. Jain &amp; Ors.\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nG. Gopalakrishna\t\t\t\t\t \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/04\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nS. Rajendra Babu &amp; G.P. Mathur\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>G.P. MATHUR, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThis appeal by special leave has been preferred by the defendants<br \/>\nagainst the judgment and order dated 17.3.1997 of High Court of Karnataka<br \/>\nby which the Regular First Appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed and<br \/>\ncase was remanded to the trial court with certain directions.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tIn order to understand the controversy involved it is necessary to set<br \/>\nout the facts which are little involved.\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\t  The appellant no.6 to 10 are sons and daughters of Shri M.G.<br \/>\nDayal and they were owners of the suit property (residential building<br \/>\nat Jayanagar, Bangalore).  They executed an agreement to sell the suit<br \/>\nproperty in favour of Dr. G. Gopalakrishna  (plaintiff\/respondent no.1)<br \/>\non 5.12.1974 for a consideration of Rs.1,42,500\/- and received<br \/>\nRs.42,500\/- by way of  advance.  The respondent no.1 was also put in<br \/>\npossession of the ground floor of the property.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tThe respondent no.1 issued a legal notice rescinding the<br \/>\ncontract and claimed refund of the advance amount paid by him. On<br \/>\n7.11.1977 he filed OS No.801 of 1977 (subsequently renumbered as<br \/>\nOS No.1891 of 1980) against the appellant nos. 6 to 10 (owners of the<br \/>\nproperty) claiming the amount which had been paid by way of<br \/>\nadvance.  After considerable period of time respondent no.1 moved an<br \/>\namendment application seeking permission to convert the suit into one<br \/>\nfor specific performance of the agreement of sale.  This application<br \/>\nwas rejected by the trial court on 3.12.1984 on the ground that the suit<br \/>\nfor specific performance had become barred by limitation.  The<br \/>\nRevision Petition preferred against the said order being CRP No.702<br \/>\nof 1985 was dismissed by the High Court at the admission stage on<br \/>\n29.5.1985.\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)\tThe appellant nos. 1 to 5 (Pukhraj D.Jain and his four sons)<br \/>\npurchased the property in dispute from the original owners, namely,<br \/>\nrespondent nos. 6 to 10 on 18.4.1985 for Rs.3,60,000\/- and they were<br \/>\nput in possession of the first floor of the building.\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv)\tRespondent no.1 filed an amendment application on 26.6.1985<br \/>\nseeking an amendment of the plaint in OS No.801 of 1977 and<br \/>\nclaiming an additional amount of Rs.125 towards the cost of the legal<br \/>\nnotice.  The amendment application was allowed  and the respondent<br \/>\nno.1 was required to pay an additional court fee of Rs.12.50 in view of<br \/>\nthe enhanced claim.  However, instead of paying aforesaid amount the<br \/>\nrespondent no.1 filed a memo stating that he was not in a position to<br \/>\npay the court fee and as such the plaint may be rejected being<br \/>\ndeficiently stamped.  The trial court decreed the suit for recovery of<br \/>\nthe amount on 24.7.1985.\n<\/p>\n<p>(v)\tThough the suit filed by respondent no.1 was decreed yet he<br \/>\npreferred a revision petition being CRP No.3797 of 1985 challenging<br \/>\nthe judgment and decree passed in his favour.  The High Court though<br \/>\nobserved that it was an unusual revision filed by a plaintiff yet<br \/>\nallowed the same on 18.2.1987, set aside the judgment and decree of<br \/>\nthe trial court and rejected the plaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>(vi)\tThe appellants nos.1 to 5 after execution of the sale deed in<br \/>\ntheir favour on 18.4.1985, filed a suit being OS no. 4631 of 1986<br \/>\nseeking eviction of respondent no.1 from the ground floor of the<br \/>\nhouse in dispute and also for  mesne profits.\n<\/p>\n<p>(vii)\tOn 2.4.1988 the respondent no.1 filed another suit being OS<br \/>\nno.1629 of 1988 against appellant nos. 6 to 10 in the Court of City<br \/>\nCivil Judge, Bangalore for specific performance of the agreement<br \/>\ndated 5.12.1974.  In this suit issue no.3 relating to the bar of limitation<br \/>\nand issue no.4 relating to the maintainability of the suit were framed.<br \/>\nThe respondent no.1  also filed an application under section 10 CPC<br \/>\nseeking stay of his own suit OS no. 1629 of 1988 on the ground that<br \/>\nthe issues involved were also directly and substantially in issue in a<br \/>\npreviously instituted suit being OS no. 4631 of 1986 which had been<br \/>\nfiled by the appellants nos.1 to 5 for his eviction from the ground floor<br \/>\nof the house and for possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>(viii)\tThe Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore dismissed OS no. 1629<br \/>\nof 1988 on 30.9.1995 after deciding issues no.3 and  4 wherein he<br \/>\nheld that the suit was barred by limitation and the same was not<br \/>\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ix)\tThe respondent no.1 preferred RFA no.635 of 1996 in the High<br \/>\nCourt against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1995  of the Addl.<br \/>\nCity Civil Judge, Bangalore.  The High Court allowed the appeal and<br \/>\nset aside the judgment and decree of the Addl. City Civil Judge and<br \/>\nremanded the matter to the trial court to dispose of  the application<br \/>\nmoved by the respondent no.1 (plaintiff) under section 10 CPC for<br \/>\nstay of  his suit.  It is this judgment and order which is subject matter<br \/>\nof challenge in the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>(x)\tThe suit for eviction of respondent no.1 and possession (OS no.<br \/>\n4631 of 1986) filed by the appellant nos. 1 to 5 was decreed by the<br \/>\ntrial court on 20.12.1997.  RFA no. 171 of 1998 preferred by<br \/>\nrespondent no.1 against the aforesaid judgment and decree was<br \/>\ndismissed by the High Court on 2.7.2001.  This development has<br \/>\ntaken place subsequent to the filing of special leave petition in this<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t  The only ground urged in the appeal preferred by respondent no.1 in<br \/>\nthe High Court was that as he had filed an application under section 10 CPC<br \/>\non 21.10.1993 seeking stay of his suit (OS no.1629 of 1988), it was<br \/>\nobligatory upon the trial court to consider the said application first before<br \/>\ndeciding issues no.3 and 4.  The High Court has observed that the<br \/>\ndefendants in the suit had sought time to file objection in reply to the<br \/>\napplication moved under section 10 read with section 151 of CPC seeking<br \/>\nstay of his suit. Thereafter the suit was listed on several dates for<br \/>\nconsideration of the application but finally, after hearing the counsel for the<br \/>\nparties, the learned Addl. City Civil Judge dismissed the suit by deciding<br \/>\nissues no. 3 and 4 and the application under section 10 CPC was not at all<br \/>\nconsidered.  It was obligatory on the part of the learned Addl. City Civil<br \/>\nJudge to have considered the application moved under section 10 CPC at<br \/>\nthe first instance before deciding issues no. 3 and 4.  The High Court has<br \/>\nheld that the course adopted by the learned Addl. City Civil Judge in not<br \/>\ndeciding the application moved by the plaintiff and in proceeding to decide<br \/>\nissues no. 3 and 4 was wholly illegal.  On these findings the judgment and<br \/>\ndecree of the High Court were set aside and the case was remanded to the<br \/>\ncourt of Addl. City Civil with a direction to dispose of the application under<br \/>\nsection 10 read with 151 CPC moved by the plaintiff on priority basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tWe have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the<br \/>\nrecords.  In our opinion, the view taken by the High Court is wholly<br \/>\nerroneous in law and must be set aside.  The proceedings in the trial of a suit<br \/>\nhave to be conducted in accordance with provisions of the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure.  Section 10 CPC no doubt lays down that no court shall proceed<br \/>\nwith the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and<br \/>\nsubstantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties<br \/>\nor between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under<br \/>\nthe same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in<br \/>\nIndia having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed.  However, mere filing of<br \/>\nan application under section 10 CPC does not in any manner put an embargo<br \/>\non the power of the court to examine the merits of the matter.  The object of<br \/>\nthe section is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from<br \/>\nsimultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in<br \/>\nissue.  The section enacts merely a rule of procedure and a decree  passed in<br \/>\ncontravention thereof is not a nullity.  It is not for a litigant to dictate to the<br \/>\ncourt as to how the proceedings should be conducted, it is for the court to<br \/>\ndecide what will be the best course to be adopted for  expeditious disposal of<br \/>\nthe case.  In a given case the stay of proceedings of later suit may be<br \/>\nnecessary in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and harassment of<br \/>\nparties.  However, where subsequently instituted suit can be decided on<br \/>\npurely legal points without taking evidence, it is always open  to the court to<br \/>\ndecide the relevant issues and not to keep the suit pending which has been<br \/>\ninstituted with an oblique motive and to cause harassment to the other side.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe facts in the present case speak for themselves.  The agreement in<br \/>\nquestion was executed by appellants nos.6 to 10 (original owners) in favour<br \/>\nof G. Gopalakrishna (respondent no.1) on 5.12.1974.  He himself issued a<br \/>\nlegal notice rescinding the contract and claiming refund of the advance<br \/>\namount paid.  Thereafter on 7.11.1977 he filed a suit for recovery of the<br \/>\nadvance amount paid by him.  This clearly shows that he gave up his right<br \/>\nunder the contract for execution of sale deed of the property in his favour.<br \/>\nAfter considerable period of time he filed an application for amendment<br \/>\nseeking to convert the suit into one for specific performance of  agreement<br \/>\nof sale but the said application was dismissed by the trial court on 3.12.1984<br \/>\nas being barred by limitation.  The Revision preferred against the said order<br \/>\nwas dismissed by the High Court and therefore the finding of the trial court<br \/>\nthat the relief seeking specific performance of agreement of sale had become<br \/>\ntime barred  attained finality.  The suit for recovery of the amount was<br \/>\ndecreed by the trial Court on 24.7.1985 but on account of very clever device<br \/>\nadopted by respondent no.1 of seeking additional sum of Rs.125\/- towards<br \/>\ncost of legal notice and thereafter not paying the requisite additional court<br \/>\nfee of Rs.12.50 on the enhanced claim, the High Court in a Revision filed by<br \/>\nhim set aside the decree for refund of the amount and rejected the plaint.<br \/>\nThe suit giving rise to the present appeal was instituted by respondent no.1<br \/>\non 2.4.1988 wherein he again sought specific performance of the agreement<br \/>\nto sell  dated 5..12.1974.  The trial court was of the opinion that the present<br \/>\nsuit was filed after nearly 14 years.   Even in the earlier suit (OS no.801 of<br \/>\n1977) the amendment sought by the respondent no.1 wherein he wanted to<br \/>\nconvert his suit into one for specific performance of agreement of sale had<br \/>\nbeen rejected and a finding had been recorded that the relief for specific<br \/>\nperformance had already become time barred and this finding had been<br \/>\naffirmed in Revision by the High Court.  Article 54 of the Limitation Act<br \/>\nprovides a  limitation of three years for instituting a suit for specific<br \/>\nperformance of a contract.  This period of 3 years has to be reckoned from<br \/>\nthe date fixed for the performance, or if, no such date is fixed, when the<br \/>\nplaintiff has notice that performance is refused.  The appellant nos. 6 to 10<br \/>\n(original owners of the property) had opposed the application moved by<br \/>\nrespondent no.1 in the earlier suit for amendment seeking relief of specific<br \/>\nperformance of the agreement on the ground of limitation and their plea was<br \/>\naccepted. Thus it is crystal clear that long before filing of the present suit the<br \/>\nrespondent no.1 had notice of the fact that the original owners were not<br \/>\nprepared to execute the sale deed in his favour.  The original owners<br \/>\n(appellant nos. 6 to 10) sold the property in dispute in favour of  appellants<br \/>\nnos.1 to 5 on 18.4.1985 after the amendment application had been rejected<br \/>\nby the trial court on the finding that the relief for specific performance had<br \/>\nbecome barred by limitation.  On these facts no other inference was possible<br \/>\nand the trial court was  perfectly justified in holding that the suit (OS<br \/>\nno.1629 of 1988) was barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tSection 16(C) of the Specific Relief Act lays down that specific<br \/>\nperformance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person who fails<br \/>\nto aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and<br \/>\nwilling to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be<br \/>\nperformed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been<br \/>\nprevented or waived by the defendant.  Explanation II to this sub-section<br \/>\nprovides that the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and<br \/>\nwillingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.  The<br \/>\nrequirement of this provision is that plaintiff must aver that he has always<br \/>\nbeen ready and willing to perform the additional terms of the contract.<br \/>\nTherefore not only there should be such an averment in the plaint but the<br \/>\nsurrounding circumstances must also indicate that the readiness and<br \/>\nwillingness continue from the date of the contract till the hearing of the suit.<br \/>\nIt is well settled that equitable remedy of specific performance cannot be had<br \/>\non the basis of pleadings which do not contain averments of readiness and<br \/>\nwillingness of the plaintiff to perform his contract in terms of Forms 47 and<br \/>\n48 of CPC.  Here the respondent no.1 himself sent a legal notice rescinding<br \/>\nthe contract and thereafter filed OS no.801 of 1977 on 7.11.1977 claiming<br \/>\nrefund of the advance paid by him.  In fact the suit for recovery of the<br \/>\namount was decreed by the trial court on 24.7.1985 but he himself preferred<br \/>\na revision against the decree wherein an order of rejection of the plaint was<br \/>\npassed by the High Court.    In such circumstances, it is absolutely apparent<br \/>\nthat the respondent no.1 was not ready and willing to perform his part of the<br \/>\ncontract and in view of the mandate of section 16 of the Specific Relief Act<br \/>\nno decree for specific performance could be passed in his favour.  The trial<br \/>\ncourt, therefore, rightly held that the suit filed by respondent no.1 was not<br \/>\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIn view of these facts the decree passed by the trial court dismissing<br \/>\nthe suit was perfectly correct and the High Court committed manifest error<br \/>\nof law in not adverting to these aspects of the matter and in accepting the<br \/>\ncontention raised on behalf of respondent no.1, which relate to a matter of<br \/>\nprocedure and not to substance, that the application moved by him under<br \/>\nsection 10 CPC seeking stay of the suit had not been considered on merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>            The appeal is accordingly allowed  with costs throughout and the<br \/>\njudgment and order of  the High Court dated  17.3.1997    is set aside.   The<br \/>\ndecree dismissing the suit passed by the trial court is affirmed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Pukhraj D. Jain &amp; Ors vs G. Gopalakrishna on 16 April, 2004 Author: G Mathur Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, G.P. Mathur CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2082 of 1998 PETITIONER: Pukhraj D. Jain &amp; Ors. RESPONDENT: G. Gopalakrishna DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/04\/2004 BENCH: S. Rajendra Babu &amp; G.P. Mathur JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT G.P. [&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-89093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Pukhraj D. Jain &amp; Ors vs G. Gopalakrishna on 16 April, 2004 - 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\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pukhraj D. Jain &amp; Ors vs G. Gopalakrishna on 16 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-25T09:54:21+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\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pukhraj D. Jain &amp; Ors vs G. Gopalakrishna on 16 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-25T09:54:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2405,\"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\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004\",\"name\":\"Pukhraj D. Jain &amp; Ors vs G. Gopalakrishna on 16 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-25T09:54:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pukhraj D. Jain &amp; Ors vs G. Gopalakrishna on 16 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Pukhraj D. Jain &amp; Ors vs G. Gopalakrishna on 16 April, 2004 - 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\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pukhraj D. Jain &amp; Ors vs G. Gopalakrishna on 16 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-25T09:54:21+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\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pukhraj D. Jain &amp; Ors vs G. Gopalakrishna on 16 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-25T09:54:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004"},"wordCount":2405,"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\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004","name":"Pukhraj D. Jain &amp; Ors vs G. Gopalakrishna on 16 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-25T09:54:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pukhraj-d-jain-ors-vs-g-gopalakrishna-on-16-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pukhraj D. Jain &amp; Ors vs G. Gopalakrishna on 16 April, 2004"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/89093","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=89093"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89093\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}