{"id":94767,"date":"2009-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-01T11:05:29","modified_gmt":"2016-09-01T05:35:29","slug":"deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Deen Mohammed Qureshi vs Ram Vallabh & Ors on 18 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Deen Mohammed Qureshi vs Ram Vallabh & Ors on 18 March, 2009<\/div>\n
                                    1\n\n9\n             S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1550\/2005.\n                       Deen Mohammed Qureshi\n                                Vs.\n                          Ram Vallabh & Ors.\n\n\n\n    Date of Order :: 18th March 2009.\n\n          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI\n\n    Mr. Usman Ghani, for the petitioner.\n                                 .....\n\n    BY THE COURT:<\/pre>\n
          At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
    submitted that the show cause notices have been served but<\/p>\n
    nobody has appeared for the respondents; and that the<\/p>\n
    amount of Rs. 5,000\/- as required by the order dated<\/p>\n
    25.08.2005 has indeed been deposited by the petitioner.<\/p>\n
    Thereafter, on merits, the learned counsel referred to the facts<\/p>\n
    of the case that an application was moved by the respondent<\/p>\n
    No.1 under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural<\/p>\n
    Indebtedness Act, 1957 (‘the Act of 1957’) while alleging an<\/p>\n
    amount of Rs. 14,377\/- having been advanced by him to the<\/p>\n
    petitioner on 31.07.1992 carrying interest @ 2% per month;<\/p>\n
    and seeking recovery of the said amount with interest. The<\/p>\n
    learned counsel submitted that the application so moved was<\/p>\n
    opposed by     the petitioner       while denying the   alleged<\/p>\n
    transaction and with the objection that he was not an
\n                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
agriculturist within the meaning of the Act of 1957 and hence,<\/p>\n
the application was not competent.\n<\/p>\n
      The learned counsel referred to the observations made<\/p>\n
in paragraph 9 of the order dated 31.03.2000 as passed by the<\/p>\n
Debt Relief Court, Shahpura noticing the contention on the<\/p>\n
part of the petitioner that he was not an agriculturist and hence<\/p>\n
the application was not maintainable; and submitted that such<\/p>\n
a contention has not even been dealt with by the learned Debt<\/p>\n
Relief Court. The learned counsel further referred to the<\/p>\n
provisions as contained in Section 6 of the Act of 1957 to point<\/p>\n
out that any application thereunder has to contain a statement<\/p>\n
about the debtor being an agriculturist and then referred to the<\/p>\n
definition as contained in Section 2 (b) of the Act of 1957<\/p>\n
signifying that the “agriculturist” for the purpose of the said Act<\/p>\n
means a person who earns his livelihood wholly or mainly from<\/p>\n
agriculture. With reference to the decision of this Court in the<\/p>\n
case of Firm Jani Khushalji Jethaji Vs. Maharaj Bhopal Singh:<\/p>\n
1964 RLW 118, the learned counsel contended that it has to<\/p>\n
be precisely established that the debtor concerned derives<\/p>\n
substantial part of his income from agriculture and mere<\/p>\n
reference to the khatedari rights would not be sufficient; and<\/p>\n
for the creditor-applicant having failed to establish such<\/p>\n
fundamental facts, the application as made in this case,
\n                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
purportedly under Section 6 of the Act of 1957, was not<\/p>\n
maintainable at all.\n<\/p>\n
      The learned counsel further contended that there had<\/p>\n
been a specific objection of the petitioner about the<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 being engaged in money lending business<\/p>\n
and not having licence therefor but this contention has also not<\/p>\n
been dealt with properly and the learned Revisional Court<\/p>\n
merely brushed the said objection aside with the observations<\/p>\n
that the petitioner had not stated the fact about the respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 being a moneylender in his examination-in-chief. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel contended that the fact of himself            being a<\/p>\n
moneylender having been admitted by the respondent No.1 in<\/p>\n
his cross-examination, nothing further was required to be<\/p>\n
stated by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      None of the submissions as noticed above makes out a<\/p>\n
case for admission of this writ petition. Merely because the<\/p>\n
respondent has not appeared in response to the show cause<\/p>\n
notice, it cannot be said that the petition is required to be<\/p>\n
admitted for this reason alone and even without the petitioner<\/p>\n
making out a case worth consideration. Similarly, if the<\/p>\n
petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs. 5,000\/-, that was<\/p>\n
only in compliance of the order passed by this Court for the<\/p>\n
purpose of stay of recovery proceedings until the matter was
\n                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
considered by the Court after the return of the notices. In fact,<\/p>\n
the stay order was operative for 10 weeks from 25.08.2005<\/p>\n
while the notices were made returnable within 6 weeks. Be<\/p>\n
that as it may, such deposit does not by itself make out a case<\/p>\n
for admission.\n<\/p>\n
      The contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner:<\/p>\n
one, on the maintainability of the application under Section 6<\/p>\n
of the Act of 1957 on the ground that the petitioner is not an<\/p>\n
agriculturist within the meaning of the said Act; and second,<\/p>\n
about want of money lending licence with the respondent No.1<\/p>\n
remain fundamentally baseless for the reason that such<\/p>\n
objections were not as such taken in the reply as filed by the<\/p>\n
petitioner before the Debt Relief Court.\n<\/p>\n
      In paragraph 1 of the application (Annex.1) as filed by<\/p>\n
the creditor, it was precisely stated that the opposite party, i.e.,<\/p>\n
the present petitioner, was an agriculturist within the meaning<\/p>\n
of the Act of 1957. The petitioner did not put such an assertion<\/p>\n
to specific denial. The vague and uncertain denial as unfolded<\/p>\n
in paragraph 1 of the reply (Annex.2) had been in relation to<\/p>\n
the particulars of the movable properties as stated in<\/p>\n
paragraph 4 of the said application. It is also noticed that no<\/p>\n
specific issue was framed in the trial of the said application on<\/p>\n
the question as to whether the petitioner was an agriculturist. It
\n                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
is further noticed that such an argument, about want of<\/p>\n
consideration of his objection by the Debt Relief Court was not<\/p>\n
even advanced by the petitioner before the Revisional Court.<\/p>\n
Neither the applicant-creditor was cross-examined on this<\/p>\n
aspect of the matter nor the petitioner chose to make a<\/p>\n
categoric assertion, of himself being not an agriculturist, in his<\/p>\n
statements before the Court. There appears no reason to<\/p>\n
consider determination of such a factual dispute in the writ<\/p>\n
proceedings when no such objection had been taken in<\/p>\n
precise terms before the Original Court and not even in the<\/p>\n
arguments before the Revisional Court. The contention as<\/p>\n
urged before this Court about the petitioner being not an<\/p>\n
agriculturist could only be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
      The position is worse in regard to the other objection<\/p>\n
about want of money lending licence with the creditor. In the<\/p>\n
reply as filed before the Debt Relief Court, there is not even a<\/p>\n
whisper about such objection nor any issue was framed in that<\/p>\n
regard. The observations as made by the learned Revisional<\/p>\n
Court that this aspect of the matter was not even suggested by<\/p>\n
the petitioner in his examination-in-chief cannot be said to be<\/p>\n
entirely   unwarranted    because       such   an   objection   was<\/p>\n
suggested only before the Revisional Court and never any<\/p>\n
attempt was made for raising a specific issue in that regard
\n                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
before the Original Court.\n<\/p>\n
      Even while finding that the objection regarding money<\/p>\n
lending licence is not contained in the pleadings, in view of the<\/p>\n
submissions as made by the learned counsel, the statement of<\/p>\n
the creditor (Annex.3) has also been examined and it is<\/p>\n
noticed that the creditor has definitely admitted of having no<\/p>\n
money lending licence but then, read as a whole, his<\/p>\n
statement is nothing more than admitting some stray acts of<\/p>\n
lending the money; and is not of any admission of a regular<\/p>\n
money lending business.\n<\/p>\n
      Taking an overall view of the matter, this Court finds no<\/p>\n
substance in the contentions as attempted to be urged in this<\/p>\n
writ petition. On the contrary, it appears that the learned<\/p>\n
Revisional Court has taken a rather compassionate view of the<\/p>\n
matter and has modified the quarterly installments as fixed by<\/p>\n
the Debt Relief Court from Rs. 4,463.25 to Rs. 2,000\/- per<\/p>\n
month.\n<\/p>\n
      There being no force in the contentions sought to be<\/p>\n
urged, the writ petition does not merit admission.<\/p>\n
      The writ petition deserves to be, and is hereby,<\/p>\n
dismissed summarily.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.\n<\/p>\n
          7<\/span><\/p>\n
Mohan\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Deen Mohammed Qureshi vs Ram Vallabh & Ors on 18 March, 2009 1 9 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1550\/2005. Deen Mohammed Qureshi Vs. Ram Vallabh & Ors. Date of Order :: 18th March 2009. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Usman Ghani, for the petitioner. ….. BY THE COURT: At […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nDeen Mohammed Qureshi vs Ram Vallabh & Ors on 18 March, 2009 - 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\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Deen Mohammed Qureshi vs Ram Vallabh & Ors on 18 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-01T05:35:29+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Deen Mohammed Qureshi vs Ram Vallabh & Ors on 18 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-01T05:35:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1229,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Deen Mohammed Qureshi vs Ram Vallabh & Ors on 18 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-01T05:35:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Deen Mohammed Qureshi vs Ram Vallabh & Ors on 18 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Deen Mohammed Qureshi vs Ram Vallabh & Ors on 18 March, 2009 - 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\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Deen Mohammed Qureshi vs Ram Vallabh & Ors on 18 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-01T05:35:29+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Deen Mohammed Qureshi vs Ram Vallabh & Ors on 18 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-01T05:35:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009"},"wordCount":1229,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009","name":"Deen Mohammed Qureshi vs Ram Vallabh & Ors on 18 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-01T05:35:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deen-mohammed-qureshi-vs-ram-vallabh-ors-on-18-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Deen Mohammed Qureshi vs Ram Vallabh & Ors on 18 March, 2009"}]},{"@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\/94767","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=94767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94767\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}