{"id":109431,"date":"1998-08-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-08-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998"},"modified":"2017-06-26T08:56:04","modified_gmt":"2017-06-26T03:26:04","slug":"p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998","title":{"rendered":"P.R. Deshpande vs Maruti Balaram Haibatti on 11 August, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
P.R. Deshpande vs Maruti Balaram Haibatti on 11 August, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: Thomas<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T. Thomas<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nP.R. DESHPANDE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMARUTI BALARAM HAIBATTI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t11\/08\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. THOMAS\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nTHOMAS, J.\n<\/p>\n
     When this\tappeal came up for consideration on 7-4-1995
\nbefore R.  M. Sahai  and N. Venaktachala, JJ, learned Judges
\nordered this  to be listed before a larger Bench, in view of
\nthe  preliminary   objections  raised\tby  the\t landlord  –
\nrespondent regarding  maintainability  of  the\tappeal\t(the
\nreference order is reported in 1995 Supple, (2) SCC 539).\n<\/p>\n
     This appeal  by special  leave is\tagainst the order of
\nthe High  Court of  Karnataka dismissing a revision petition
\nfiled by  the  appellant-tenant\t under\tSection\t 50  of\t the
\nkarnataka Rent\tControl Act,  1961  (for  short\t “the  Act”)
\nchallenging  an\t  order\t of   eviction\tpassed\tagainst\t the
\nappellant. While  dismissing the  revision petition on 25-7-
\n1994, learned  Judge of\t the High  Court granted six months’
\ntime  to  appellant-tenant  for\t vacating  the\tpremises  in
\nquestion and  directed him  to file  an undertaking within 4
\nweeks. Appellant-tenant\t has pursuant to the said direction,
\nfiled the  undertaking that  he would  vacate  the  premises
\nwithin six months.\n<\/p>\n
     The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel
\nfor the\t respondent is\tthat the  tenant is  precluded\tfrom
\napproaching this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
\nof India  after giving\tthe aforesaid undertaking before the
\nHigh Court. In support of the said objection learned counsel
\ncited the  decision of\ta two  Judge Bench of this Court (K.
\nJayachandra Reddy  and S. C. Agrawal, JJ) in R. N. Gosain v.
\nYashpal Dhir<\/a>  (1992 4  SCC  683)  wherein  it  was  held  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
     ”\t By    furnishing    the    said
\n     undertaking the  petitioner elected
\n     to\t avail\t the   protection   from
\n     eviction from  the premises  and he
\n     enjoyed the  said\tprotection  till
\n     the passing  of the  order\t by  the
\n     Supreme Court  on March  26,  1992,
\n     staying   dispossession\tof   the
\n     Petitioner.  Having  done\tso,  the
\n     petitioner cannot\tbe permitted  to
\n     invoke  the   jurisdiction\t of  the
\n     Supreme Court  under Article 136 of
\n     the  Constitution\tand  assail  the
\n     said judgment of the High Court.”\n<\/p>\n
     Learned Judges  found support  to the  said  view\tfrom
\nthree decisions of this Court rendered by two member Benches
\nin Vidhi  Shanker vs.  Heera  Lal  (1987  supple,  SCC\t200)
\nRamchandra Jai\tRam Randive  (since deceased) vs. Chandanmal
\nRupchand &  ors. (1987\tsupple. SCC 254) and Thacker Hariram
\nMotiram vs. Balkrishan Chatrabhu Thacker & Ors.<\/a> (1989 supple
\nSCC 655). In all those three decisions Sabyasachi Mukherjee,
\nJ. (as\the then\t was), speaking\t for the  Bench,  adopted  a
\nuniform approach  that “whatever  be the  merits of the case
\n…………  it   would  not\tbe  proper,  after  such  an
\nundertaking was\t given in  the High Court and time was taken
\non the\tbasis of  such undertaking,  to interfere  with\t the
\nfinding made  by the  High Court,” Appeals were dismissed on
\nthat score alone.\n<\/p>\n
     Relying on\t those decisions  Agrawal, J.,\tspeaking for
\nthe two Judge Bench in R. N. Gosain vs. Yashpal Dhir<\/a> (supra)
\nhas observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
     ” Law  does not  permit a person to
\n     both approbate  and reprobate. This
\n     principle is  based on the doctrine
\n     of election  which postulates  that
\n     no party  can accept and reject the
\n     same instrument  and that ‘a person
\n     cannot  say  at  one  time\t that  a
\n     transaction is  valid  and\t thereby
\n     obtain some advantage, to which the
\n     could  only   be  entitled\t on  the
\n     footing that  it is valid, and then
\n     turn round\t and say  it is void for
\n     the purpose  of securing some other
\n     advantage.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A passage\tfrom Halsbury’s Laws of England was cited by
\nthe learned  Judges (vide  para 1508  in Vol.  16 of the 4th
\nEdn.).\n<\/p>\n
     Learned Judges  who referred this matter have expressed
\nin the\treference order\t that remedy  under Article 136 is a
\nConstitutional\tright\twhich  cannot\tbe  taken   away  by
\nlegislation,  much   less  by  invoking\t the  principles  of
\nelection or estoppel. The following observations made in the
\nreference order are worthy of quotation here:\n<\/p>\n
     ” The  principle of  ‘approbate and
\n     reprobate’ or  the law  of election
\n     which is  the basis of the decision
\n     in\t R.  N.\t Gosain’s  case\t (supra)
\n     cannot, in\t our opinion, be applied
\n     appropriately  to\t preclude   this
\n     Court    from     exercising    its
\n     jurisdiction under Article 136. The
\n     doctrine of  election is founded on
\n     equitable principle  that\twhere  a
\n     person persuades another one to act
\n     in a  manner to  his prejudice  and
\n     derives  any  advantage  from  that
\n     then  he  cannot  turn  around  the
\n     claim that\t he was\t not  liable  to
\n     perform his part as it was void. It
\n     applies  where   a\t vendor\t  or   a
\n     transferor\t of  property  tries  to
\n     take advantage  of his  own  wrong.
\n     this  principle   cannot,\tin   our
\n     opinion, be extended to shut out or
\n     preclude a person from invoking the
\n     constitutional remedy  provided  to
\n     him under Article 136. The law that
\n     there  is\t no   estoppel\t against
\n     statute is well settled. Here it is
\n     a remedy under the Constitution and
\n     no law  can be framed much less the
\n     principle\tof  election  which  can
\n     stand in  the way\tof the appellant
\n     from  invoking  the  constitutional
\n     jurisdiction of this Court.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The doctrine  of election\tis  based  on  the  rule  of
\nestoppel –  the principle  that\t one  cannot  approbate\t and
\nreprobate inheres in it. Doctrine of estoppel by election is
\none of\tthe  species  of  estoppel  in\tpais  (or  equitable
\nestoppel) which\t is a  rule in equity. By that rule a person
\nmay be\tprecluded by  his actions or conduct or silence when
\nit is  his duty\t to speak,  from asserting  a right which he
\notherwise would\t have had, (vide Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th
\nEdn.).\n<\/p>\n
     It is  now trite  that the principle of estoppel has no
\napplication  when   statutory  rights  and  liabilities\t are
\ninvolved. It  cannot imped  right of appeal and particularly
\nthe constitutional remedy. The House of Lords has considered
\nthe same  question in  Evans vs.  Bartlam (1937\t 2 All\tE.R.\n<\/p>\n
646). The  House was  dealing with  an order of the Court of
\nAppeal whereby Scott L.J. approved the contention of a party
\nto put\tthe matter  on the  rule of  election on the premise
\nthat the  defendant knew or must be presumed to know that he
\nhad the\t right to  apply to  set the  judgment aside  and by
\nasking for  and obtaining  time he  irrevocably\t elected  to
\nabide by the judgment. Lord Atkin, reversing the above view,
\nhas observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
     ” My  Lords, I  do not  find myself
\n     convinced\tby  these  judgments.  I
\n     find nothing in the facts analogous
\n     to\t cases\twhere  a  party,  having
\n     obtained\tand   enjoyed\tmaterial
\n     benefit from  a judgment,\thas been
\n     held precluded  from  attacking  it
\n     while he  still is\t in enjoyment of
\n     the benefit.  I cannot bring myself
\n     to think  that a  judgment\t debtor,
\n     who asks for and receives a stay of
\n     execution, approbates the judgment,
\n     so as  to preclude\t him  thereafter
\n     from  seeking   to\t set  it  aside,
\n     whether by appeal or otherwise. Nor
\n     do I  find it possible to apply the
\n     doctrine of election.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Lord Russell  of Killowen\twhile  concurring  with\t the
\naforesaid observations has stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “My lord, I confess to a feeling of
\n     some  bewilderment\t at  the  theory
\n     that a  man  who,\tso  long  as  it
\n     stands, must  perforce  acknowledge
\n     and bow  to a judgment of the court
\n     regularly obtained), by seeking and
\n     obtaining a temporary suspension of
\n     its   execution,\t thereby   binds
\n     himself  never   to   dispute   its
\n     validity or  its  correctness,  and
\n     never to  seek to have it set aside
\n     or reversed. If this were right, no
\n     defeated litigant\tcould safely ask
\n     his  adversary   for  a   stay   of
\n     execution pending\tan  appeal,  for
\n     the grant\tof the request would end
\n     the right\tof appeal.  The doctrine
\n     of election  applies only\tto a man
\n     who elects\t with full  knowledge of
\n     the facts.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A party to a lis can be asked to give an undertaking to
\nthe court  if he requires stay of operation of the judgment.
\nIt is  done on\tthe supposition\t that the order would remain
\nunchanged.  By\t directing  the\t  party\t to   give  such  an
\nundertaking no\tcourt can  scuttle or  foreclose a statutory
\nremedy of  appeal or  revision, much  less a  constitutional
\nremedy. If the order is reversed or modified by the superior
\ncourt or  even the  same court\ton a  review the undertaking
\ngiven by  the party  will automatically\t cease\tto  operate.
\nmerely because\ta party\t has complied with the directions to
\ngive an\t undertaking as\t a condition  for obtaining  stay he
\ncannot be presumed to communicate to the other party that he
\nis thereby giving up his statutory remedies to challenge the
\norder. No  doubt he  is bound to comply with his undertaking
\nso long\t a s the order remains alive and operative. However,
\nit is  open to\tsuch superior  court to consider whether the
\noperation of the order or judgment challenged before it need
\nbe stayed  or suspended\t having regard\tto the fact that the
\nconcerned party\t has given undertaking in the lower court to
\nabide by  the decree  or order within the time fixed by that
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
     We are,  therefore, in agreement with the view of Sahai
\nand Venkatachala,  JJ, that  the appeal\t filed under Article
\n136 of the Constitution by special leave cannot be dismissed
\nas not\tmaintainable on\t the more  ground that appellant has
\ngiven an undertaking to the High Court on being so directed,
\nin order to keep the High Court’s order in abeyance for some
\ntime.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  merits it\twas contended  that dismissal of the
\nrevision petition  filed by  the tenant, without considering
\nit on merits, was bad in law. The revision petition was held
\nnot maintainable  as it\t was not  accompanied by  deposit of
\narrears of  rent.  It  was  a  condition  for  preferring  a
\nrevision under\tthe Act\t that the  tenant should deposit the
\nentire arrears of rent.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 29 of the Act reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “29. Deposit  and payment\tof  rent
\n     during the\t pendency of proceedings
\n     for  eviction.   –\t (1)  No  tenant
\n     against  whom  an\tapplication  for
\n     eviction  has   been  made\t  by   a
\n     landlord under Section 21, shall be
\n     entitled to contest the application
\n     before the Court under that Section
\n     or\t to   prefer  or   prosecute   a
\n     revision petition\tunder Section 50
\n     against an\t order made by the Court
\n     on\t application  under  Section  21
\n     unless he\thas paid  or pays to the
\n     landlord or deposits with the Court
\n     or the  District Judge  or the High
\n     Court, as\tthe  case  may\tbe,  all
\n     arrears of\t rent due  in respect of
\n     the  premises   upto  the\tdate  of
\n     payment or\t deposits and  continues
\n     to pay or to deposit any rent which
\n     may  subsequently\t become\t due  in
\n     respect of the premises at the rate
\n     at which it was last paid or agreed
\n     to be  paid, until\t the termination
\n     of the proceedings before the court
\n     or the  District Judge  or the High
\n     Court, as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
     (2) The  deposit of  the rent under
\n     sub-section  (1)\tshall  be   made
\n     within the\t time and  in the manner
\n     prescribed and shall be accompanied
\n     by such  fee as  may be  prescribed
\n     for  the\tservice\t of  the  notice
\n     referred to in sub-section (5).\n<\/p>\n
     (3) Where\tthere is  any dispute as
\n     to the amount of rent to be paid or
\n     deposited\tunder  sub-section  (1),
\n     the  Court\t shall,\t on  application
\n     made to  it either by the tenant or
\n     the landlord  and after making such
\n     enquiry  as   it  deems   necessary
\n     determine summarily the rent tot be
\n     so paid or deposited.\n<\/p>\n
     (4) If  any tenant\t fails to pay or
\n     deposit the  rent as aforesaid, the
\n     Court, the\t District Judge\t or  the
\n     High Court,  as the  case\tmay  be,
\n     shall  unless   the  tenant   shows
\n     sufficient cause  to the  contrary,
\n     stop all  further\tproceedings  and
\n     make an  order directing the tenant
\n     to put  the landlord  in possession
\n     of\t the  premises\tor  dismiss  the
\n     appeal or revision petition, as the
\n     case may be.\n<\/p>\n
     (5) When  any deposit is made under
\n     sub-section  (1),\tthe  court,  the
\n     Court, the\t District Judge\t or  the
\n     High Court,  as the  case\tmay  be,
\n     shall cause   notice of the deposit
\n     to be served on the landlord in the
\n     prescribed manner\tand  the  amount
\n     deposited\tmay,   subject\tto  such
\n     conditions as may be prescribed, be
\n     withdrawn\tby   the   landlord   on
\n     application  made\tby  him\t to  the
\n     Court in this behalf.”\n<\/p>\n
     The words in sub-section (1) “or to prefer or prosecute
\na revision  petition under Section 50” encompass two stages.
\nFirst is at the threshold when tenant files the petition for
\nrevision. Second is a stage when he prosecutes his revision.
\nOn the\tfirst  stage  when  his\t revision  petition  is\t not
\nmaintainable unless  it is  accompanied by either payment or
\ndeposit of  “all the  arrears of  rent due up to the date of
\npayment or  deposit”. If  the revision\tis validly preferred
\nthen in the next stage of prosecution of revision the tenant
\nhas to\tcontinue to  pay or  deposit  “any  rent  which\t may
\nsubsequently  become   due”   until   termination   of\t the
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel  for the  appellant contended  that the
\nliability of the tenant under Section 29(1) of the Act would
\ncome into  operation only  after the  court  determines\t the
\namount to be paid. This argument is based on sub-section (3)
\nbut the\t contingency under that sub-section would arise only
\nwhere there is a dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid
\nor to  be  deposited.  In  this\t case  the  appellant  filed
\nrevision petition  on 20.4.1991. High Court has noticed that
\n“admittedly, the  tenant did  not deposit  the rent on 20-4-
\n1991 when the revision petition was filed before the learned
\nDistrict Judge.”\n<\/p>\n
     The admitted position being as above, it is not open to
\nthe appellant  now to  contend that  he\t did  not  make\t the
\ndeposit along  with filing  of revision petition due to want
\nof an order from the Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel  for the  appellant made  an attempt to
\nraise a contention that though the appellant did not deposit
\nthe arrears  of rent along with filing the revision petition
\nhe has subsequently paid rent arrears on 27-5-1991 and hence
\nthe revision  must be  treated as preferred on that date. We
\nare not\t disposed to countenance the said contention in this
\nparticular case for two reasons. Firstly, that the landlord-
\nrespondent filed  an application  under Section 29(4) of the
\nAct before  the District  Court and the tenant has not taken
\nup such\t a ground  in the  petition filed  by  him  thereto.
\nSecondly, even\tin the\tSpecial Leave  Petition he  has\t not
\nadopted any  such contention  and hence the landlord, has no
\noccasion to meet the factual situation on the basis of which
\nthe aforesaid contention is raised.\n<\/p>\n
     In the result, we dismiss this appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India P.R. Deshpande vs Maruti Balaram Haibatti on 11 August, 1998 Author: Thomas Bench: K.T. Thomas PETITIONER: P.R. DESHPANDE Vs. RESPONDENT: MARUTI BALARAM HAIBATTI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/08\/1998 BENCH: K.T. THOMAS ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T THOMAS, J. When this appeal came up for consideration on […]<\/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-109431","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nP.R. Deshpande vs Maruti Balaram Haibatti on 11 August, 1998 - 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\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.R. Deshpande vs Maruti Balaram Haibatti on 11 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-26T03:26:04+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\\\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.R. Deshpande vs Maruti Balaram Haibatti on 11 August, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-26T03:26:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2383,\"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\\\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998\",\"name\":\"P.R. Deshpande vs Maruti Balaram Haibatti on 11 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-26T03:26:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.R. Deshpande vs Maruti Balaram Haibatti on 11 August, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"P.R. Deshpande vs Maruti Balaram Haibatti on 11 August, 1998 - 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\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.R. Deshpande vs Maruti Balaram Haibatti on 11 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-26T03:26:04+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\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.R. Deshpande vs Maruti Balaram Haibatti on 11 August, 1998","datePublished":"1998-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-26T03:26:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998"},"wordCount":2383,"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\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998","name":"P.R. Deshpande vs Maruti Balaram Haibatti on 11 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-26T03:26:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-deshpande-vs-maruti-balaram-haibatti-on-11-august-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.R. Deshpande vs Maruti Balaram Haibatti on 11 August, 1998"}]},{"@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\/109431","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=109431"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109431\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109431"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109431"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}