{"id":101091,"date":"1975-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2"},"modified":"2018-02-12T09:09:22","modified_gmt":"2018-02-12T03:39:22","slug":"dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2","title":{"rendered":"Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithabrao Maruthirao Janagavai on 3 April, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithabrao Maruthirao Janagavai on 3 April, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1111, \t\t 1975 SCR 67<\/div>\n
Author: N Untwalia<\/div>\n
Bench: Untwalia, N.L.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDATTONPANT GOPALVARAO DEVAKATE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVITHABRAO MARUTHIRAO JANAGAVAI,\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/04\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR 1111\t\t  1975 SCR   67\n 1975 SCC  (2) 246\n CITATOR INFO :\n O\t    1979 SC1745\t (16)\n RF\t    1980 SC1253\t (3)\n R\t    1980 SC1422\t (7)\n RF\t    1991 SC 744\t (10)\n RF\t    1992 SC1696\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\nTransfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), Sections 106, 110\t and\n111-Scope of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant was tenant under the respondent's\t predecessor\nfor  a period of one year tenancy commencing from  April  9,\n1945.  The respondent purchased the property in August, 1968\nand  the appellant became his tenant. On November  19,\t1968\nthe respondent gave notice to the appellant terminating\t his\ntenancy\t and asking him to deliver possession by December  8\n1968.\tThereafter he filed an application for\teviction  of\nthe appellant under the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961.\t The\ntrial\tcourt  dismissed  the  application  but\t the   first\nappellate  court  allowed  the appeal  and  the\t High  Court\nconfirmed the order in revision.\nIn  appeal to this Court it was contended, inter alia,\tthat\nthere was no valid notice terminating the tenancy.\nAllowing the appeal to this Court,\nHELD : (1) There are no grounds justifying the\tinterference\nwith  the findings of fact recorded by the  first  appellate\ncourt  and the High Court that the respondent  required\t the\npremises   reasonably  and  bona  fide\tfor   his   personal\noccupation,  and  that no hardship would be  caused  to\t the\ntenant by passing the decree.\n(2)  The  lease was not for a manufacturing purpose and\t the\nholding over by the appellant under s. 1 1 6 of the Transfer\nof  Property Act created a monthto-month tenancy  terminable\nby 15 days notice ending with the tenancy month given  under\ns. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. [70B].\n(3)Under  s.  110  of  the  Transfer  of  Property  Act,  in\ncomputing the period of one year the date of commencement of\nthe  tenancy,  that is, April 9, 1945, had to  be  excluded.\nTherefore,  the one year's tenancy ended on April  9,  1946.\nBy holding over the tenancy from month-to-month started from\nApril 10, 1946 ending on the 9th day of the following month.\nTherefore,  the view taken by the first appellate court\t and\nby  the High Court that the one year's tenancy ended on\t the\n8th April, 1946 and hence the monthly' tenancy started\tfrom\nthe  9th  day  of the month ending on the  8th\tday  of\t the\nfollowing month is clearly erroneous in law.  That being  so\nthere was no valid and legal termination of the\t contractual\ntenancy. [70 E, F & H].\nBenoy  Krishna Das and others v. Salsiccioni and others\t 59,\nIndian Appeals, 414, applied.\n(4)The\tappellant  was a contractual tenant who\t would\thave\nbecome a statutory tenant within the meaning of s. 2 (r)  of\nthe  Mysore  Act if he would have  continued  in  possession\nafter the termination of the tenancy in his  favour. Without\ntermination  of\t the contractual tenancy by a  valid  notice\nor   other  mode  set  out  in s. Ill  of  the\tTransfer  of\nProperty Act, it was not open  to the landlord to treat\t the\nappellant  as  a  statutory tenant  and\t seek  his  eviction\nwithout service of a valid notice to quit. [71 D].\nGanga Dutt Murarka v. Kartik Chandra Das and others<\/a> [1961] 3\nS.C.R.813  and Pooran Chand v. Motilal and others<\/a>  [1963]  2\nSuppl.\tS.C.R. 906, referred to.\n68\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1180(N) of
\n1974.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nthe 29th March, 1974 of the Karnataka High Court in C. Revn.
\nPetn.  No. 1054 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
V.   S. Desai and R. B. Datar for the appellant
\nY.   S.\t Chitale,  P. C. Kapur and Y. N.  Ganpule,  for\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nUNTWALIA,  J.-The  defendant-appellant\tin  this  appeal  by
\nspecial leave was a tenant of the suit premises situated  in
\nthe  town of Hubli when the plaintiffs-respondent  purchased
\nthe  property  from the original owners by  two\t sale  deeds
\nexecuted in August, 1968.  The appellant thereafter became a
\ntenant\tunder  the  respondent.\t The latter  gave  a  notice
\npurporting to terminate the former’s tenancy and  thereafter
\nfiled an application under section 21(1) (a) and (h) of\t the
\nMysore Rent Control Act, 1961-hereinafter referred to as the
\nAct,  for his eviction from the suit premises consisting  of
\ntwo  shops.   The  appellant resisted  the  application\t for
\neviction  on several grounds.  The Trial Court dismissed  it
\nbut on appeal by the landlord the District Judge allowed the
\napplication  for eviction.  The tenant filed an\t application
\nin  revision  under section 50 of the Act in  the  Karnataka
\nHigh   Court.\tThe  High  Court  dismissed   the   revision
\napplication.  Hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The  issue as to the appellant’s liability to be evicted  on
\nthe  ground  mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section  (1)  of
\nsection\t 21 of the Act was not pursued and eventually  given
\nup.  The learned Additional Munsif who tried the application
\nin  the\t first instance held against the respondent  on\t the
\nquestion  of  the  premises being  reasonably  and  bonafide
\nrequired  by the landlord within the meaning of clause\t(b).
\nHe also held that having regard to all the circumstances  of
\nthe  case  greater’ hardship would be caused  by  passing  a
\ndecree\tfor eviction than by refusing to pass it.   In\tthat
\nview  of the matter also as provided in sub-section  (4)  of
\nsection\t 21, the Trial Court refused to pass a\tdecree.\t  It
\nfurther held that the lease was for a manufacturing    purpose
\nor at least the dominant purpose was a manufacturing one, it
\nwas   a\t yearly\t lease\tand  could  not\t be  terminated\t  by
\nless than 6  months notice or in any view of the matter\t the
\nnotice given even   treating the tenancy to be a monthly one
\nwas illegal and invalid.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned District Judge in appeal has reversed  all\t the
\nfindings of the Trial Court.  He has held that the  landlord
\nrequired the premises reasonably and bonafide for occupation
\nby  himself  and  that no hardship would be  caused  to\t the
\ntenant by passing a decree for eviction.  He also held\tthat
\nthe  lease was not for a manufacturing purpose nor a  yearly
\none.   The notice terminating the monthly tenancy  was\tgood
\nand valid.  The High Court in revision has affirmed the view
\nof the Appellate Court on all the controversial issues.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t     69<\/span><\/p>\n
Mr.  V.\t S. Desai, learned counsel for the  appellant  urged
\nthree points in support of this appeal :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   That the findings of the lower Appellate
\n\t      Court  and  the High Court in  regard  to\t the
\n\t      reasonable  and  bonafide requirement  of\t the
\n\t      suit  premises for occupation by the  landlord
\n\t      are vitiated in law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   The\t  finding   on\t the   question\t  of
\n\t      comparative  hardship of the landlord and\t the
\n\t      tenant has been recorded by committing  errors
\n\t      of law.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   That the notice terminating the  tenancy
\n\t      was invalid because the lease was a yearly one
\n\t      being for a manufacturing purpose and even  if the t
\nenancy be a monthly one, the notice  was
\n\t      not in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Y.\t V. Chitaley controverted the  submissions  made  on
\nbehalf\tof the appellant and added in the  alternative\tthat
\nthe appellant was a statutory tenant and hence no notice was
\nrequired  to be given before seeking a decree  for  eviction
\nagainst him.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant\thad taken the suit premises on\trent  for  a
\nperiod\tof  one year from the  respondent’s  predecessors-in
\ninterest  by  a written document Ext.  P-12  dt.  15-6-1945.
\nThe   tenancy  commenced  from\t9-4-1945.   The\t  respondent
\npurchased the property in August, 1968 and gave a notice  on
\n19-11-1968  which was served on the appellant on  21-11-1968
\nterminating his tenancy and asking him to deliver possession
\nby  the 8th December, 1968.  We have been taken through\t the
\nportions of the judgments of all the three courts below\t and
\nthe relevant pieces of documentary and oral evidence adduced
\nby  the\t par-ties.   On\t the  question\tof  the\t  respondent
\nrequiring the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for\t his
\npersonal  occupation  as also on the  point  of\t comparative
\nhardship  two  views were possible on the materials  in\t the
\nrecord\tof  this case.\tA view in favour of the\t tenant\t was
\ntaken  by the Trial Court but against him by  the  Appellate
\nCourt.\tThe findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Court
\nwere  not found to be such by the High Court as\t to  justify
\nthe exercise of its revisional power under section 50 of the
\nAct.  It is true that the power conferred on the High  Court
\nunder  section 50 is not as ,narrow as the revisional  power
\nof  the High Court under section 115 ,.of the Code of  Civil
\nProcedure.   But at the same time it is not wide  enough  to
\nmake  the High Court a second court of first appeal.  We  do
\nnot think that there are such pressing grounds in this\tcase
\nwhich  would  justify our upsetting the views  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt confirming those of the lower Appellate Court.  It  is
\nnot  necessary\tto discuss the first two  points  urged\t on
\nbehalf of the petitioner in any detail and we reject them on
\nthe short ground mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
Coming\tto the question of notice we would like to state  at
\nthe outset that on the basis of the evidence in the case the
\nAppellate  Court took the view that the lease was not for  a
\nmanufacturing  purpose.\t  The lease was for one\t year  which
\nexpired on 9-4-1946.  The tenant held over under section 116
\nof  the\t Transfer  of Property Act.   ‘Ext.   P-12  did\t not
\nmention the purpose of the lease.  The learned
\n70<\/span>
\nDistrict Judge was of the opinion that the appellant started
\nmanufacturing  Soda  in\t a small  portion  of  the  demised,
\npremises  after\t the lease for one year was taken.   In\t any
\nview of the matter the dominant purpose of the lease was not
\na manufacturing one but was the sale of aerated water.\t The
\nHigh Court has affirmed this finding in revision.  We do not
\nfeel inclined to upset the findings of the two courts  below
\nin  this  regard.   If the purpose of the lease\t was  not  a
\nmanufacturing  one, then the holding over under section\t 116
\nof  the\t Transfer of Property Act created  a  month-to-month
\ntenancy terminable by 15 days notice ending with the tenancy
\nmonth given under-section 106 of the said Act.
\nThe appellant, however, must succeed on the last  submission
\nmade on his behalf that even so, the notice was invalid.  As
\nalready stated the notice purported to terminate the tenancy
\nby  the 8th December, 1968 treating the month of tenancy  as
\ncommencing  from the 9th day of a month and ending.  on\t the
\n8th day of the month following.\t The requisite period of  15
\ndays was given but the defect in the notice was that it\t did
\nnot  expire with the end of the month of the  tenancy.\t The
\nend of the month of the tenancy was the 9th day and not\t the
\n8th day as wrongly held by the High Court affirming the view
\nof the lower Appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
Under Ext.  P-12 the appellant agreed to pay Rs. 600 as rent
\nfor   one  year\t from  9-4-1945.   The\ttenancy\t  obviously,
\ntherefore,  commenced from that date.  That being so,  under
\nsection.,110  of the Transfer of Property Act  in  computing
\nthe  period of one year the date of commencing i.e. the\t 9th
\nday of April, 1945 had to be excluded.\tThe    one    year’s
\ntenancy ended on the 9th April, 1946.It is clearly mentioned
\nto be so in Ext.  P-12 in these words :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “I  shall make use and enjoyment of  the\tsaid
\n\t      shops as a
\n\t      tenant for one year and deliver your shops  to
\n\t      you without objections on 9-4-1946”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
By holding over the tenancy from month-to-month started from
\nthe 10th April, 1946 ending on the 9th day of the  following
\nmonth  This view finds support from the Rent  Receipts\tExt.
\nD-1 and D-I(a)The evidence on behalf of the respondent\tthat
\nthere was a mistake in those receipts is not correct as\t the
\nsaid  receipts\tare in conformity with Ext.  P-12.   On\t the
\nother hand Ext.\t P-13 and P-14, the other two Rent Receipts,
\nbeing not in accord with Ext.  P-12 could not be relied\t on.
\nIn  Ext.  P. 16 the Controller by his order dated  29-9-1963
\nwhile  fixing  the  fair rent of the suit  premises  at\t Rs.
\n10501-\tper  year had fixed it with effect  from  10-4-1963.
\nThat also shows that the: tenancy month commenced from\t10th
\nday  of\t a month and ended on the 9th day of  the  following
\nmonth.\n<\/p>\n
The view taken by the learned District Judge as,also by\t the
\nHigh  Court  that the one year’s tenancy ended\ton  the\t 8th
\nApril, 1946 when the tenant agreed to deliver possession  on
\nthe 9th April and hence the monthly tenancy started from the
\n9th day of the month ending on the 8th day of the  following
\nmonth is clearly erroneous in law-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t     71<\/span><\/p>\n
That  being so there was no valid and legal  termination  of
\nthe contractual tanancv.\n<\/p>\n
In Benoy Krishna Das and others v. Salsiccioni and others(1)
\non  the\t facts\tof  that case  Lord  Tomlin  delivering\t the
\njudgment of the judicial Committee of the Privy Council held
\nthe notice to be valid.\t A lease for residential purposes of
\ncertain property in Calcutta was expressed to be front\tJune
\n1, 1921, for the ensuing four years.  The tenant held  over.
\nThe  monthly  tenancy  was sought to be\t terminated  by\t the
\nlessee stating therein that possession would be given up  on
\nMarch 1. The landlord’s contention that the notice ended  on
\nFebruary  29, 1928 was not accepted.  The four\tyears  lease
\nwas  held  to have ended on midnight of June 1,\t 1925.\t The
\nmonthly tenancy began on the 2nd of the month ending on\t the
\n1st and so the notice was held to be valid.\n<\/p>\n
We do not think that the alternative argument put forward by
\nMr.  Chitaley that no notice was necessary in this  case  is
\ncorrect.   The appellant was a contractual tenant who  would
\nhave become a statutory tenant within the meaning of  clause\n<\/p>\n
(r)  of section 2 of the Act if he would have  continued  in
\npossession  after  the\ttermination of the  tenancy  in\t his
\nfavour.\t   Otherwise  not.   Without  termination   of\t the
\ncontractual tenancy by a valid notice or other mode set\t out
\nin  Sec. II I T. P. Act it was not open to the\tlandlord  to
\ntreat  the  appellant a,,; a statutory tenant and  seek\t his
\neviction without service of a notice to quit.
\nIn support of his contention Mr. Chitaley placed reliance on
\ntwo  decisions\tof this Court namely Ganga Dutt\t Murarka  v.
\nKartik\tChandra\t Das and others<\/a>(2) and in  Pooran  Chand  v.
\nMotilal\t &  others<\/a>(,’).\t  Neither  of  these  supports\t his
\ncontention.   In  the case of Ganga Dutt Murarka  a  passage
\nfrom  the decision of the Federal Court in the case  of\t Kai
\nKhushroo Bezonee Capadia v. Bai Jerbai Hirjibhoy Warden\t and
\nanother(1) was quoted with approval.  A portion of it may be
\nusefully quoted here also.  It runs thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  such circumstance, acceptance of rent  by
\n\t      the  landlord  from a statutory  tenant  whose
\n\t      lease   has  already  expired  could  not\t  be
\n\t      regarded\tas  evidence of a new  agreement  of
\n\t      tenancy,\tand it would not be open to  such  a
\n\t      tenant  to urge, by way of defence, in a\tsuit
\n\t      for  ejectment brought against him, under\t the
\n\t      provision\t of  Rent Restriction  Act  that  by
\n\t      acceptance of rent a fresh tenancy was created
\n\t      which  had to be determined by a fresh  notice
\n\t      to quit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The tenancy of the appellant in the above case was found  to
\nhave  been  determined\tby efflux  of  time  and  subsequent
\noccupation was not in pursuance of any contract, express  or
\nimplied but by virtue of the protection given by  successive
\nstatutes.  In the case of
\n(1)  59, Indian Appeals, 414,
\n(2)  [1961](3) S.C.R. 813.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1963] (2) Suppl.\tS.C.R. 906.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  [1949] Federal Court Reports, 262.\n<\/p>\n
10 SC\/75-6
\n72<\/span>
\nPooran\tChand,\tSubba Rao, J. as he then was, said  at\t912,
\nwhen a similar argument was advanced before him : –\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It is not necessary in this appeal to express
\n\t      our   opinion   on  the\tvalidity   of\tthis
\n\t      contention, for we are satisfied that the term
\n\t      of the tenancy had expired by efflux of  time;
\n\t      and,  therefore,\tno  question  of   statutory
\n\t      notice would arise.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
No  notice  is necessary if a lease  of\t immovable  property
\ndetermined  under clause (a) of section 111 of the  Transfer
\nof Property Act by efflux of the time limited thereby.
\nIn the result we allow this appeal and set aside the  decree
\nof  eviction passed against the appellant and in  favour  of
\nthe  respondent by the lower Appellate Court as affirmed  by
\nthe High Court.\t In the circumstances we shall make no order
\nas to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\t V.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
73<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithabrao Maruthirao Janagavai on 3 April, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1111, 1975 SCR 67 Author: N Untwalia Bench: Untwalia, N.L. PETITIONER: DATTONPANT GOPALVARAO DEVAKATE Vs. RESPONDENT: VITHABRAO MARUTHIRAO JANAGAVAI, DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/04\/1975 BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. KRISHNAIYER, V.R. CITATION: 1975 AIR 1111 1975 SCR […]<\/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-101091","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithabrao Maruthirao Janagavai on 3 April, 1975 - 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\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithabrao Maruthirao Janagavai on 3 April, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2\" \/>\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=\"1975-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-12T03:39:22+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\\\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithabrao Maruthirao Janagavai on 3 April, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-12T03:39:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2\"},\"wordCount\":2228,\"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\\\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2\",\"name\":\"Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithabrao Maruthirao Janagavai on 3 April, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-12T03:39:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithabrao Maruthirao Janagavai on 3 April, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithabrao Maruthirao Janagavai on 3 April, 1975 - 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\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithabrao Maruthirao Janagavai on 3 April, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-12T03:39:22+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\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithabrao Maruthirao Janagavai on 3 April, 1975","datePublished":"1975-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-12T03:39:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2"},"wordCount":2228,"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\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2","name":"Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithabrao Maruthirao Janagavai on 3 April, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-12T03:39:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dattonpant-gopalvarao-devakate-vs-vithabrao-maruthirao-janagavai-on-3-april-1975-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithabrao Maruthirao Janagavai on 3 April, 1975"}]},{"@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\/101091","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=101091"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101091\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101091"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101091"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101091"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}