{"id":115729,"date":"2011-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011"},"modified":"2015-06-13T19:31:57","modified_gmt":"2015-06-13T14:01:57","slug":"dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & … vs Sadhu Dadu Shettigar & Anr on 30 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & … vs Sadhu Dadu Shettigar & Anr on 30 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: R.V.Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik<\/div>\n
                                                        1\n\n\n\n                                                                              Reportable \n\n\n                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                    CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8400-8401 OF 2011\n\n                  [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6095-6096\/2009]\n\n\n\n\nDnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Anr.                                ... Appellants\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nSadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Anr.                                 ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
       Leave granted. Parties will be referred by their ranks in the first matter <\/p>\n
arising from the suit for possession in RCS No.278\/1993.\n<\/p>\n
2.     The case of appellants is as under : The appellants are brothers and are <\/p>\n
the   owners   of   premises   No.289   (New   No.424)   Gandhi   Chowk,   Vita <\/p>\n
(described   in   schedule   `A’   to   the   plaint   and   referred   to   as   the   `said <\/p>\n
property’). Two rooms in the said property, one measuring 10′ 6″ x 22′ and <\/p>\n
the other measuring 10′ x 10′ (described the schedules B and C to the plaint <\/p>\n
                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
and together referred to as the “suit portions”) are the subject matter of the <\/p>\n
dispute. The said property originally belonged to Ranganath Bhandare, who <\/p>\n
was   living   in   the   said   property   with   his   wife   Laxmibai   (mother   of   the <\/p>\n
appellants), two sons (appellants 1 and 2) and a daughter. After the death of <\/p>\n
Ranganath   Bhandare,   the   daughter   got   married   in   1984   and   started   living <\/p>\n
separately.   Appellant   No.2   got   married   in   1985   and   shifted   to   Sangli   in <\/p>\n
connection with his employment in the beginning of 1986. Appellant No.1 <\/p>\n
was   away   at   Pune   in   connection   with   his   employment.   Thus   appellants’ <\/p>\n
mother Laxmibai who was aged and suffering from several complaints was <\/p>\n
staying   alone   in   the   said   property   from   the   middle   of   1986.   The   second <\/p>\n
respondent (Chhaya) was engaged in or about the year 1985 as a servant to <\/p>\n
look   after   Laxmibai   and   was   allowed   to   reside   in   one   room   as   a   licencee <\/p>\n
without any rent. In November 1986, Laxmibai died. The second respondent <\/p>\n
requested   the   appellant   for   some   time   to   vacate   the   room   stating   that   she <\/p>\n
would leave as soon as she got some alternative accommodation. As second <\/p>\n
respondent had looked after their mother and their property, the appellants <\/p>\n
agreed for  her continuing as licencee  for some  time.  She did not however <\/p>\n
vacate. Taking advantage of the fact that the owners were not around, she <\/p>\n
and   the   first   respondent   (Sadhu)   with   whom   she   had   a   `living-in-\n<\/p>\n
relationship’, broke open the door of another room (10′ x 10′) and occupied <\/p>\n
                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
it. Further, first respondent started asserting that he is the tenant of the suit <\/p>\n
portions (two rooms) and filed RCS 114\/1993 on the file of the Civil Judge, <\/p>\n
Junior   Division,   Vita,   against   the   first   appellant,   seeking   a   permanent <\/p>\n
injunction. In these circumstances, the appellants filed RCS No.278\/1993 for <\/p>\n
possession of the suit portions, contending that respondents were gratuitous <\/p>\n
licencees   regarding   one   room    and   unauthorized   encroachers  in   respect   of <\/p>\n
second   room.   They   also   sought   damages\/mesne   profits   for   wrongful <\/p>\n
occupation.\n<\/p>\n
3.     The suit was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the first <\/p>\n
respondent (second defendant) was the husband of second respondent (first <\/p>\n
defendant); that they were in occupation of the suit premises as tenants on a <\/p>\n
monthly rent of `25 from February 1982; that the rent was increased to `60\/-\n<\/p>\n
per   month   from   1988;   that   the   appellants   illegally   disconnected   the <\/p>\n
electricity supply to the suit portions on 25.8.1991 and tried to forcibly evict <\/p>\n
the respondents; that the first respondent had therefore lodged a complaint <\/p>\n
under section 24(4) of the Bombay Rents Hotel, and Lodging House Rates <\/p>\n
Control Act, 1947 (`Rent Act’ for short) and filed an application for fixation  <\/p>\n
of standard rent under section 11 of the Rent Act. They also alleged that the <\/p>\n
appellants prevented them from carrying out repairs to the premises which <\/p>\n
                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
was in a dilapidated condition and were threatening to evict them from the <\/p>\n
premises.   Therefore,   the   first   respondent   filed   a   suit   for   permanent <\/p>\n
injunction   in   RCS   No.114\/1993   to   restrain   the   first   appellant   from <\/p>\n
dispossessing him from the premises without due process of law.\n<\/p>\n
4.      The   suit   for   permanent   injunction   (RCS   No.114\/1993)   filed   by   first <\/p>\n
respondent  was resisted  by the first  appellant. The  averments in the plaint <\/p>\n
and   written   statement   in   the   suit   for   injunction   were   the   same   as   the  <\/p>\n
averments   in   the   written   statement   and   plaint   respectively   in   the   suit   for <\/p>\n
possession filed by appellants.\n<\/p>\n
5.      Both suits were tried together. The trial court decreed both the suits by <\/p>\n
a common judgment dated 17.7.2002. The trial court held that the appellants <\/p>\n
are   the   owners   and   they   have   established   that   second   respondent   (first <\/p>\n
defendant) was their licencee. The trial court after exhaustive consideration <\/p>\n
of the evidence held that the respondents had failed to prove that they were <\/p>\n
residing in the suit premises as tenants from February, 1982 on a monthly <\/p>\n
rent of  `25 or that they were paying the rent at the rate of  `60\/- per month <\/p>\n
from the year 1988. The trial court also held that the second respondent was <\/p>\n
in   possession   of   the   two   rooms   as   a   licencee   with   the   permission   of <\/p>\n
                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
Lakshmibai and had continued in occupation as gratuitous licencee and was <\/p>\n
not   a   tenant;   and   that   the   first   respondent   had   not   trespassed   or   forcibly <\/p>\n
occupied   the   second   room   but   was   residing   in   the   suit   portions   with   the <\/p>\n
licensee   (second   respondent)   as   her   husband.   As   the   respondents   were <\/p>\n
licensees   and   the   licence   had   been   revoked,   the   trial   court   held   that   the <\/p>\n
appellants   were   entitled   to   possession   of   the   suit   portions.   Consequently, <\/p>\n
RCS No.278\/1993 for possession filed by the appellants was decreed and the <\/p>\n
respondents were directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit portions <\/p>\n
within sixty days. The trail court also directed a separate enquiry regarding <\/p>\n
damages  and mesne   profits.   As  the claim  for  tenancy  was  rejected,  but  as <\/p>\n
respondents were in occupation of two rooms, the trial court decreed RCS <\/p>\n
No.114\/1993 filed by first respondent in part, and directed that the appellants <\/p>\n
shall not evict the first   respondent otherwise than in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
As   the   trial   court   has   granted   a   decree   for   possession   simultaneously,   the <\/p>\n
decree in RCS No.114\/1993 was academic.\n<\/p>\n
6.      Feeling   aggrieved   respondents   1   and   2   filed   Regular   Civil   Appeal <\/p>\n
No.180\/2002   against   the   decree   for   possession.   Respondent   No.1   filed   a <\/p>\n
Regular   Civil   Appeal   No.198\/2002   against   the   dismissal   of   his   suit   for <\/p>\n
injunction.   The   first   appellate   court   (District   Court,   Sangli)   allowed   both <\/p>\n
                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
appeals by its common judgment dated 13.12.2007. The first appellate court <\/p>\n
formulated   the   following   five   questions   for   consideration   :     (i)   Whether <\/p>\n
defendants in RCS No.278\/93 are in unauthorized and illegal possession by <\/p>\n
making an encroachment in suit property?   (ii) Whether the suit property-B <\/p>\n
& C portions was given to Chhaya as a gratuitous licensee in since 1986?\n<\/p>\n
(iii)   Whether   the   possession   of   schedules   B   &   C   properties   by   Sadhu   is <\/p>\n
referable   to   any   legal   right?     (iv)   Whether   the   possession   of   Sadhu   was <\/p>\n
illegally obstructed by the owners? (v) What relief?\n<\/p>\n
7.     The first appellate court answered the first two points in the negative <\/p>\n
and the third and fourth in the affirmative. The first appellate court held that <\/p>\n
appellants failed to prove that the respondents were gratuitous licensees or <\/p>\n
that they had encroached upon one room. Consequently, it dismissed the suit <\/p>\n
for possession by appellants and decreed the suit for injunction by the first <\/p>\n
respondent.   It   did   not   address   itself   or   decide   whether   respondents   were <\/p>\n
tenants. It held that they had paid some amounts and appellants had failed to <\/p>\n
explain the said payments.\n<\/p>\n
8.     The second appeals filed by the appellants challenging the judgment <\/p>\n
and decree of the first appellate court were dismissed by the High Court by a  <\/p>\n
                                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
short common order dated 7.10.2008 holding that the finding of fact by the <\/p>\n
lower appellate court that the respondents were not gratuitous licensees did <\/p>\n
not   call   for   interference   and   no   substantial   question   of   law   arose   for <\/p>\n
consideration.   The   said   common   judgment   is   under   challenge   in   these <\/p>\n
appeals by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
9.      Normally this Court will not, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article <\/p>\n
136 of the Constitution of India, interfere with finding of facts recorded by <\/p>\n
the   first   appellate   court,   which   were   not   disturbed   by   the   High   Court   in <\/p>\n
second appeal. But what should happen if the first appellate court reverses <\/p>\n
the findings of fact recorded by the trial court by placing the burden of proof <\/p>\n
wrongly   on   the   plaintiffs   and   then   holding   that   the   plaintiffs   did   not <\/p>\n
discharge   such   burden;   or   if   its   decision   is   based   on   evidence   which   is <\/p>\n
irrelevant   or  inadmissible;   or   if  its  decision   discards  material   and   relevant <\/p>\n
evidence, or is based on surmises and conjectures; or if  it bases its decision <\/p>\n
on   wrong   inferences   drawn   about   the   legal   effect   of   the   documents <\/p>\n
exhibited; and if grave injustice occurs in such a case on account of High <\/p>\n
Court missing the real substantial question of law arising in the appeal and <\/p>\n
erroneously   proceeds   on   the   basis   that   the   matter   does   not   involve   any <\/p>\n
question   of   law   and   summarily   dismisses   the   second   appeal   filed   by   the <\/p>\n
                                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant? In this context we may remember that the legal effect of proved <\/p>\n
facts   and   documents   is   a   question   of   law.   (See  Dhanna   Mal     vs.   Rai  <\/p>\n
Bahadur   Lala   Moti   Sagar  [AIR   1927   P.C.   102]   and  Gujarat   Ginning   &  <\/p>\n
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Motilal Hirabhai Spinning & Manuacturing Co.\n<\/p>\n
Ltd. [AIR 1936 PC 77]. In such cases, if the circumstances so warranted, this <\/p>\n
court may interfere in an appeal by special leave under Article 136. Let us  <\/p>\n
therefore   consider   whether   circumstances   in   this   case   warrant   such <\/p>\n
interference.\n<\/p>\n
10.     Two   suits   were   tried   together.   In   both   the   suits   (suit   for   possession  <\/p>\n
filed by the appellants,  and suit for permanent  injunction filed by the first <\/p>\n
respondent),   the   trial   court   framed   issues   placing   the   burden   on   both   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff and defendants. The appellants were required to prove whether the <\/p>\n
suit portions were given to second respondent as a gratuitous licensee. The <\/p>\n
respondents were required to prove that they were in occupation from 1982 <\/p>\n
as   tenants,   initially   by   paying  `  25\/-   per   month   as   rent   up   to   1988   and <\/p>\n
thereafter at the rate of ` 60\/- per month. These issues were proper as it was <\/p>\n
evident   from   the   pleadings   that   respondents   were   in   possession   of   suit <\/p>\n
rooms,   and   appellants   claimed   that   the   respondents   were   licencees   and <\/p>\n
respondents claimed that they were tenants, but admitted that there was no <\/p>\n
                                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
document evidencing tenancy\/lease or payment of rent. The entire evidence <\/p>\n
was   analysed   in   detail   by   the   trial   court,   leading   to   the   findings   that   the <\/p>\n
respondents were in occupation of the suit portions as gratuitous licensees <\/p>\n
and   the   respondents   failed   to   prove   that   they   were   tenants   paying   rent.   In <\/p>\n
appeals filed by the respondents, the court wrongly shifted the entire burden <\/p>\n
of proof on the appellants and held that the appellants had failed to prove  <\/p>\n
that   respondents  were   gratuitous  licensees   and   consequently   dismissed   the <\/p>\n
suit   for   possession   filed   by   the   appellants.   As   noticed   above,   admittedly  <\/p>\n
there was no lease deed or tenancy agreement to evidence the tenancy; nor <\/p>\n
were   there   any   receipts   for   payment   of   any   rent.   The   first   appellant   had <\/p>\n
given evidence on oath that respondents were gratuitous licensees and they <\/p>\n
had never paid any rent or other charges and his evidence was corroborated <\/p>\n
by   a   neighbour   (PW2).   In   the   circumstances,   the   burden   was   on   the <\/p>\n
occupants (respondents) to establish that they were tenants and not licensees.\n<\/p>\n
But   the   first   appellate   court   chose   to   wrongly   place   the   burden   upon   the <\/p>\n
appellants.   The   first   appellate   court   failed   to   record   any   finding   that   the <\/p>\n
respondents were the tenants. The documents produced by the respondents <\/p>\n
which merely showed their possession were wrongly interpreted to hold that <\/p>\n
the appellants failed to prove that respondents were gratuitous tenants.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
11.     The   undisputed   facts   noted   by   the   first   appellate   court   are   :   The <\/p>\n
appellants   are   the   owners   of   the   Premises   No.289   (Schedule   A   property), <\/p>\n
Gandhi   Chowk,   Vita.   The   suit   property   earlier   belonged   to   Ranganath <\/p>\n
Bhandare   (father   of   appellants)   who   died   in   the   year   1979.   Dnyaneshwar <\/p>\n
(the   first   appellant)   was   employed   in   Pune   and   was   away   from   Vita   for <\/p>\n
several years. Lata, the sister of appellants got married and left the premises <\/p>\n
in the year 1984. Mukund, the second appellant got married in 1985 and left <\/p>\n
Vita   and   shifted   to   Sangli   in   the   first   half   of   1986.   Appellants’   mother  <\/p>\n
Laxmibai who was staying alone, died in November, 1986. Property bearing  <\/p>\n
No.289 consists of a ground floor and first floor. Two rooms described in <\/p>\n
Schedules   B   &   C   to   the   plaint   were   in   the   possession   of   the   second <\/p>\n
respondent Chhaya and the first respondent Sadhu. There was no lease deed <\/p>\n
or   tenancy   agreement   evidencing   tenancy,   nor   were   any   receipts   to   show <\/p>\n
payment of any rent.  It is in this background, that the evidence was required <\/p>\n
to be examined.\n<\/p>\n
12.     Laxmibai was an old lady. The second appellant who was staying with <\/p>\n
his   aged   mother   in   1985,   was  obviously   not   able   to   look   after   her.   In   the  <\/p>\n
beginning   of   1986,   he   left   Vita   in   connection   with   his   employment.\n<\/p>\n
Laxmibai was all alone from then till her death in November, 1986. Seen in <\/p>\n
                                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
this   background,   the   evidence   of   first   appellant   (PW1)   that   the   second <\/p>\n
respondent was appointed as a servant to look after his mother in the year <\/p>\n
1985   and   was   permitted   to   stay   in   a   portion   of   the   premises   free   of   rent, <\/p>\n
corroborated by the evidence of the neighbour (PW2) and the fact that there <\/p>\n
is absolutely no evidence of tenancy, that when his mother Laxmibai died, <\/p>\n
second respondent sought permission to continue living in a portion of the <\/p>\n
property till she got some alternative accommodation, and that the appellant <\/p>\n
agreeing   for   the   same,   particularly   as   that   also   solved   the   problem   of <\/p>\n
someone   looking   after   the   property   as   care   taker,   becomes   very   probable.\n<\/p>\n
His   evidence   is   not   shaken   in   cross-examination.   There   is   nothing   to <\/p>\n
disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and PW2.\n<\/p>\n
13.     According   to   the   appellants,   the   first   respondent   was   not   legally <\/p>\n
married   to   second   respondent   and   was   a   live-in-partner.   According   to   the <\/p>\n
respondents   they   were   a   married   couple.   Whether   they   were   a   married <\/p>\n
couple or whether they were merely living together, is not very relevant for <\/p>\n
the   decision   in   this  case,   as   the   fact   that   both   were   living   in   the   schedule <\/p>\n
portion   was   not   disputed.   Further   one   of   the   witnesses   of   respondents   —\n<\/p>\n
G.S.Thakale   (DW3)   gave   evidence   that   second   respondent   and   first <\/p>\n
respondent were his tenants in the year 1980 and that they got married some <\/p>\n
                                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
time   in   the   year   1981   and   that   thereafter   they   shifted   to   the   premises   of  <\/p>\n
appellants, demonstrates that at some point of time, second respondent and <\/p>\n
first respondent were living together without marriage. DW3 also admitted <\/p>\n
that   he   did   not   have   any   personal   knowledge   about   the   solemnization   of <\/p>\n
marriage of second respondent with first respondent. However all the courts <\/p>\n
proceeded on the basis that they were married in the absence of any evidence <\/p>\n
to rebut the claim of Respondents 1 and 2 that they were a married couple.\n<\/p>\n
14.     None of the owners was staying at Vita and according to appellants <\/p>\n
second  respondent continued  to stay  in a portion of Premises  No.289 as a <\/p>\n
gratuitous licencee even after November 1986 and the first respondent was <\/p>\n
also   living   with   her.     Admittedly,   there   was   no   lease   deed   or   tenancy <\/p>\n
agreement   between   the   parties.   No   rent   receipts   are   produced   by   the <\/p>\n
defendants. No document was produced by respondents which showed that <\/p>\n
they  were tenants  of  the suit  portions (B  & C  schedule   properties)  or  that <\/p>\n
they   were   paying   any   rent   to   the   owners   of   the   property.   As   it   was   an <\/p>\n
admitted   position   that   there   was   no   document   evidencing   the   tenancy   or <\/p>\n
evidencing payment of any rent, the trial court also placed the burden upon <\/p>\n
the defendants to prove that they were residing in the premises as tenants.\n<\/p>\n
The trial court believed the evidence of PW1 supported by the evidence of <\/p>\n
the neighbour (S.B.Bhandare) (PW2), that Laxmibai was ailing and to look <\/p>\n
                                               13<\/span><\/p>\n
after   her   and   to   look   after   the   house,   Laxmibai   had   engaged   the   second <\/p>\n
respondent as a maid  servant and given her a place to stay free of cost as <\/p>\n
licencee and that the first respondent was also staying with her and neither of <\/p>\n
them had ever paid any rent to appellants or Laxmibai.\n<\/p>\n
15.       The   trial   court   considered   the   following   documentary   evidence <\/p>\n
produced   by   the   respondents   to   establish   that   they   were   the   tenants   :   (a) <\/p>\n
Assessment Register extracts (Ex. 61 and Ex. 62); (b) Tax paid receipts (Ex.\n<\/p>\n
63, Exs. 67 to 72); (c) Bank cash deposit challan counter foils (Ex. 64 to Ex.\n<\/p>\n
66); (d) Electoral roll for 1991 (Ex. 74); (e) Notices through counsel dated <\/p>\n
9.10.1992 and 15.6.1993 (Ex. 75 & Ex.77) with acknowledgments (Ex. 76 & <\/p>\n
Ex.78).     The trial court held that none of the above documents established  <\/p>\n
the   claim   of   tenancy   by   the   respondents   and   consequently,   held   that <\/p>\n
respondents   failed   to   prove   that   they   were   in   occupation   of   the   premises <\/p>\n
from February 1982 as tenants on a rent of  `25 per month  from 1982 and <\/p>\n
`60   per   month   from   1988.   The   court   however   held   that   there   was   no <\/p>\n
evidence   to   show   that   Sadhu   broke   open   the   lock   of   10′   x   10′   room   and <\/p>\n
occupied   it   illegally.   The   court   held   that   as   the   evidence   showed   that <\/p>\n
respondents were living as husband and wife and rejected the claim of the <\/p>\n
appellants   that   first   respondent   had   forcibly   occupied   the   premises, <\/p>\n
                                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
particularly as the appellants had not lodged any complaint in regard to such <\/p>\n
illegal occupation. The fact that the respondents were in possession of the B <\/p>\n
& C schedule properties was not in dispute and therefore the evidence that <\/p>\n
was   required   was   evidence   to   show   tenancy   and   not   possession.   The   trial <\/p>\n
court found that the tax receipts were issued in the name of the owners and <\/p>\n
the fact that first respondent had produced some tax receipts merely showed <\/p>\n
that   the   owner   had   sent   the   tax   through   respondents   for   payment   as   they <\/p>\n
were not staying in Vita. In regard to remittances to the Bank, he found that  <\/p>\n
stray   remittances   of  `300,  `60   and  `300  did   not  prove  that   they   were   paid <\/p>\n
towards the rent, or that the said payments were made with the knowledge <\/p>\n
and   consent   of   the   appellants.   In   regard   to   the   other   documents,   the   trial <\/p>\n
court   held   that   all   documents   showed   that   the   respondents   were   in <\/p>\n
possession but did not establish any tenancy.\n<\/p>\n
16.     On the very same material (that is Assessment Register extracts, tax <\/p>\n
paid   receipts,   bank   cash   deposit   challans,   Electoral   Roll   and   notices),   the <\/p>\n
first appellate court came to the   conclusion that the case of appellants (in <\/p>\n
the   pleadings   and   evidence),   that   second   respondent   was   inducted   as   a <\/p>\n
licencee   was   not   believable.   Though   the   first   appellate   court   does   not <\/p>\n
anywhere   record   a   finding   that   the   respondents   had   established   that   they <\/p>\n
were  the tenants,   but  concluded  that the  appellants failed  to  give a  proper  <\/p>\n
                                             15<\/span><\/p>\n
explanation   in   regard   to   the   documents   produced   by   the   respondents   and <\/p>\n
therefore   their   suit   should   be   dismissed.   We   may   examine   each   of   the <\/p>\n
conclusions purportedly recorded by the first appellate court with reference <\/p>\n
to documents.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Tax paid Receipts (Exs. 63, 67 to 72)<\/p>\n
17.    Ex. 63, 67 to 72 are the tax receipts issued by the Vita Municipality <\/p>\n
produced   by   first   respondent   which   showed   that   the   taxes   for   the   period <\/p>\n
1989-90   upto   1992-1993   were   paid   in   the   name   of   the   registered   owner <\/p>\n
Ranganath Bhandare. The first appellate court held that the appellant has not <\/p>\n
explained   these   receipts.   But   if   the   respondents   were   licencees   in   the <\/p>\n
premises, looking after Laxmibai and the premises, there is nothing strange <\/p>\n
in the appellants who were not living at Vita, to send the tax amount through <\/p>\n
respondents, for payment to the Municipal authorities. It is possible that first <\/p>\n
respondent   was   planning   from   1988-89   onwards   to   create   some   kind   of <\/p>\n
evidence to claim tenancy and had therefore retained the tax receipts. What <\/p>\n
is significant is that these receipts do not show that the amounts paid as taxes <\/p>\n
were paid by the first respondent were from his personal funds. Further the <\/p>\n
case of the first respondent is that he was a tenant from 1982 to 1988 paying <\/p>\n
`25\/- p.m. and thereafter `60\/- per month. It is not the case of the respondents <\/p>\n
                                              16<\/span><\/p>\n
that in addition to rent, they were required to pay the municipal  taxes and <\/p>\n
that they were therefore paying the municipal taxes. If payment of taxes was <\/p>\n
part   of   the   consideration   for   the   tenancy,   there   is   no   explanation   by <\/p>\n
respondents as to why they did not pay the taxes for earlier years.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Assessment Register Extracts (Exs.61 and 62)<\/p>\n
18.     The respondents relied upon the assessment register extracts (Exs. 61 <\/p>\n
and   62)   pertaining   to   the   years   1988-89   to   1991-92   in   regard   to   property <\/p>\n
No.289. Appellants have relied upon assessment Register extract (Ex. 4) and <\/p>\n
CTS   extracts   (Exs.   5   to   8).   These   documents   show   that   premises   No.289 <\/p>\n
originally stood in the name of Ranganath Bhandare as owner and thereafter <\/p>\n
the property was mutated in the names of his legal representatives, namely, <\/p>\n
the   appellants,   their   mother   and   sister.   They   also   showed   that   initially <\/p>\n
Bhanudas   Keshav   Waghmode   was   a   tenant   in   the   said   property.   Ex.   62 <\/p>\n
pertaining to the years 1988-89 to 1991-92 showed that apart from Bhanudas <\/p>\n
Keshav Waghmode, first respondent was also an occupant of a portion of the <\/p>\n
premises.\n<\/p>\n
19.     The  fact   that  Bhanudas   Keshav   Waghmode   was   a  tenant   of  another <\/p>\n
portion of premises No.289 is not in dispute. The fact that second respondent <\/p>\n
                                                17<\/span><\/p>\n
and first respondent were also living in premises No.289, has never been in <\/p>\n
dispute.   The   issue   is   whether   they   were   in   occupation   as   tenants   or   as <\/p>\n
licensees. The assessment register extract would not help the respondents to <\/p>\n
establish that they were tenants of a portion of the premises. It will at best  <\/p>\n
help them to show that they were occupying a portion of premises No.289.\n<\/p>\n
The   fact   that   the   name   of   first   respondent   was   introduced   as   an   occupant <\/p>\n
only during the year 1988-1989 belies his case that he was in occupation of <\/p>\n
the suit portions as a tenant from 1982. It only shows that in the absence of <\/p>\n
the   owners,   first   respondent   had   managed   to   get   his   name   inserted   in   the <\/p>\n
municipal records as an occupant.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Remittances to owner’s account (Exs. 64, 65 and 66)<\/p>\n
20.     Exs. 64 to 66 produced by first respondent show that he had deposited <\/p>\n
`300, `60 and `360\/- on 19.8.1988, 20.11.1991 and 14.3.1989 to the account <\/p>\n
of first appellant with Bank of Karad. The case of the respondents was that <\/p>\n
when Laxmibai inducted them as tenants of the suit portions on a monthly  <\/p>\n
rent of `25\/-; that they used to pay rent to Laxmibai; that after her death, they <\/p>\n
used   to   pay   rent   to   the   first   appellant;   that   in   1988,   the   first   appellant <\/p>\n
compelled them to increase the rent to ` 60\/-; that as both the appellants were <\/p>\n
living   outside   Vita,   the   first   respondent   used   to   deposit   rent   in   the   bank <\/p>\n
                                              18<\/span><\/p>\n
account of the first appellant with Bank of Karad.  The first appellate court <\/p>\n
held   the   fact   that   the   amounts   were   deposited   to   first   appellant’s   account <\/p>\n
showed that the appellants had given the account number to first respondent <\/p>\n
and inferred that the said amounts might have been deposited towards rent.\n<\/p>\n
21.     Appellants   have   given   satisfactory   explanation.   They   submitted   that <\/p>\n
the bank account was a non-functional and non-operated account at Vita and <\/p>\n
as no notice of deposit was given, they were unaware of the deposits. They <\/p>\n
submitted  that Bank of Karad went into liquidation and they therefore did <\/p>\n
not even have any record of these payments. They argued that as the second <\/p>\n
respondent was looking after Laxmibai and as respondents were also looking <\/p>\n
after the premises, the respondents would have come to know about the bank <\/p>\n
account of the first appellant and that first respondent, being aware that one <\/p>\n
day or the other, the owners will take action to evict them, had deposited the <\/p>\n
said amounts to create some kind of evidence. It should also be noted that <\/p>\n
the   respondents  did   not  send   any   communication   informing   the  appellants <\/p>\n
about the deposits to the first appellant. Nor did the challans showed that the <\/p>\n
deposits were being made towards rent. These factors when coupled with the <\/p>\n
following three circumstances show that the deposits were not bonafide: (i) <\/p>\n
There were no rent receipts from either Laxmibai or from the appellants; (ii) <\/p>\n
the respondents did not choose to send the rents by postal money orders; and <\/p>\n
                                                 19<\/span><\/p>\n
(iii)   there   is   no   explanation   as   to   non-deposit   of   the   alleged   rents   for   the <\/p>\n
earlier   period.   These   receipts   cannot   be   relied   upon   to   support   the <\/p>\n
uncorroborated   oral   testimony   of   DW-1   (Sadhu)   that   the   same   were <\/p>\n
deposited towards rent.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Electoral Roll (Ex. 74) :\n<\/p>\n
22.     The Electoral Roll (Ex. 74) showed the respondents as husband and <\/p>\n
wife  and  they  were  staying  in  the  premises   No.289  in  the   year  1991.  The <\/p>\n
appellate court held that Ex. 74 showed the respondents as the residents of <\/p>\n
premises No.289 in the year 1991 and if the second respondent was a mere  <\/p>\n
licensee and if there was no marriage solemnized between her and the first <\/p>\n
respondent, the name  of first respondent would not have been recorded as <\/p>\n
husband in Ex. 74. From this the first appellate court inferred that the second <\/p>\n
respondent was not a mere licensee and appellants had failed to prove that <\/p>\n
the first respondent was not the husband of the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n
23.     The   Electoral   Roll   will   not   show   whether   a   person   is   occupying   a <\/p>\n
premises as a tenant or as a licencee. It may at best show that the person was  <\/p>\n
residing in the premises. The fact that both respondents were residing in the <\/p>\n
premises   had   never   been   disputed.   If   they   represented   that   they   were <\/p>\n
                                              20<\/span><\/p>\n
husband   and   wife,   the   electoral   roll   will   reflect   the   same.   The   inference <\/p>\n
drawn   by   the   first   appellate   court   from   the   electoral   roll,   that   second <\/p>\n
respondent was not a mere licencee, is totally illogical and unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Notices (Exs. 75 to 78)<\/p>\n
24.    The   first   appellate   court   found   that   notices   dated   9.10.1992   and <\/p>\n
15.6.1993 issued by the respondents were not replied by the appellants and <\/p>\n
draws an inference therefrom that the averments therein should be true. But <\/p>\n
by then the litigations were already pending. The petition for fixation of fair  <\/p>\n
rent   had   been   filed   on   3.1.1992   (Application   No.1\/1992).   A   criminal   case <\/p>\n
under section 24(4) of Rent Act had also been filed (Crl. Case No.6\/1992).\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter,   in   1993,   suits   were   filed   by   the   second   defendant   in   RCS <\/p>\n
No.114\/1993   and   by   the   appellants   in   RCS   No.278\/1993.   In   view   of   the <\/p>\n
pending litigation, non issue of the replies to the notices cannot be treated as <\/p>\n
an admission of the averments in the notices.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Application for fixation of standard rent<\/p>\n
25.    The first respondent filed a petition for fixation of standard rent in the <\/p>\n
year 1992 wherein he had claimed to be the tenant. The first appellate court  <\/p>\n
held that as this was not controverted, the allegations therein should be true.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 21<\/span><\/p>\n
The fact that the first respondent filed an application for determination of the <\/p>\n
standard rent is not disputed. But it is also not in dispute that the appellants <\/p>\n
filed a counter in the said proceedings wherein they clearly stated that the <\/p>\n
first respondent had no connection with the property and the premises was <\/p>\n
not   given   to   him   on   rent   or   on   any   other   understanding   and   that   the   first  <\/p>\n
respondent was falsely claiming tenancy with the help of second respondent.\n<\/p>\n
It may be mentioned that the said petition for fixation of standard rent was <\/p>\n
not pursued by the first respondent and ultimately it was dismissed for non-\n<\/p>\n
prosecution on the ground that the first respondent had failed  to prosecute <\/p>\n
the   matter   from   1998.   Therefore,   filing   of   the   application   for   fixation   of <\/p>\n
standard rent does not assist the respondents in proving tenancy.\n<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
27.     It is thus seen that none of the documents produced or relied upon by <\/p>\n
respondents evidenced tenancy or payment of rent. The documents no doubt <\/p>\n
established that respondents were in possession of a portion of the premises <\/p>\n
No.289, but that fact  was never in dispute. It should be noted that though <\/p>\n
respondents submitted that they occupied the suit portions in 1982, they did <\/p>\n
not prove occupation of the suit portions from 1982. The first appellate court <\/p>\n
erroneously   held   that   the   appellants   had   failed   to   offer   satisfactory <\/p>\n
                                                 22<\/span><\/p>\n
explanation   regarding   the   documents   relied   upon   by   the   respondents   and <\/p>\n
held that therefore the suit should be dismissed. The first appellate court has <\/p>\n
not   recorded   any   finding   that   these   documents   produced   by   respondents <\/p>\n
established   a   tenancy.   In   fact   as   noticed   above,   there   is   no   finding   in   the <\/p>\n
entire judgment that the respondents had proved that they were the tenants.\n<\/p>\n
The documents relied upon by respondents do not establish a tenancy. The <\/p>\n
trial   court   found   that   none   of   these   documents   established   tenancy.   The <\/p>\n
appellants  had  explained   all  documents  relied  upon  by   the  respondents  by <\/p>\n
demonstrating that they only prove occupation (which was not disputed) but <\/p>\n
not   tenancy.   When   there   was   nothing   more   to   explain,   the   first   appellate <\/p>\n
court   held   that   appellants   failed   to   explain   those   documents   and <\/p>\n
consequently   failed   to   establish   that   respondents   were   licencees.   The   first <\/p>\n
appellate court inferred from documents which disclosed mere occupation of <\/p>\n
a portion of the house and documents which showed some payments which <\/p>\n
cannot be linked to rent, that appellants  failed to prove  that the occupation <\/p>\n
by respondents was as gratuitous licensees. It did not however infer from the <\/p>\n
documents that there is a tenancy. The entire reasoning is therefore unsound.\n<\/p>\n
In spite of this legal lacunae, the High Court did not interfere on the ground <\/p>\n
that no question of law was involved. It failed to notice that the inferences  <\/p>\n
and  legal   effect  from proved  facts  is  a  question  of  law  and  the  inferences <\/p>\n
                                              23<\/span><\/p>\n
drawn   by   the   first   appellate   court   were   wholly   unwarranted.   The   fact   that <\/p>\n
was proved was possession of suit portions which was not in dispute, but not <\/p>\n
tenancy in regard to the suit portions, which was in dispute. In the absence  <\/p>\n
of any documentary evidence showing the tenancy or payment of rent, the <\/p>\n
evidence   of   PWs.1   and   2   is   more   trustworthy   and   probable   than   the <\/p>\n
uncorroborated interested evidence of DW1. (The evidence of DWs. 2 and 3 <\/p>\n
does not have any bearing on the issue of tenancy claimed by respondents).\n<\/p>\n
We therefore find that the judgments of the first appellate court and the High <\/p>\n
Court are unsustainable and the finding of the trial court that respondents are <\/p>\n
gratuitous licencees was correct and justified.\n<\/p>\n
28.     Therefore, we allow this appeal, set  aside the  judgment  of the High <\/p>\n
Court and the first appellate court and restore the decree for possession of <\/p>\n
the suit portions granted by the trial court.     Parties to bear their respective <\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       …………………………..J.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                                       (R.V. Raveendran)\n\n\n\n\n\nNew Delhi;                                             .............................J.\n\nSeptember 30, 2011.                                    (A.K. Patnaik)\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & … vs Sadhu Dadu Shettigar & Anr on 30 September, 2011 Author: R.V.Raveendran Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8400-8401 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6095-6096\/2009] Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Anr. […]<\/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-115729","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & ... vs Sadhu Dadu Shettigar & Anr on 30 September, 2011 - 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\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & ... vs Sadhu Dadu Shettigar & Anr on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-13T14:01:57+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & … vs Sadhu Dadu Shettigar & Anr on 30 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-13T14:01:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4918,\"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\\\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & ... vs Sadhu Dadu Shettigar & Anr on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-13T14:01:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & … vs Sadhu Dadu Shettigar & Anr on 30 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & ... vs Sadhu Dadu Shettigar & Anr on 30 September, 2011 - 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\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & ... vs Sadhu Dadu Shettigar & Anr on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-13T14:01:57+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & … vs Sadhu Dadu Shettigar & Anr on 30 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-13T14:01:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011"},"wordCount":4918,"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\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011","name":"Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & ... vs Sadhu Dadu Shettigar & Anr on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-13T14:01:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dnyaneshwar-ranganath-bhandare-vs-sadhu-dadu-shettigar-anr-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & … vs Sadhu Dadu Shettigar & Anr on 30 September, 2011"}]},{"@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\/115729","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=115729"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115729\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115729"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115729"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115729"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}