{"id":116272,"date":"1966-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966"},"modified":"2018-03-06T00:54:54","modified_gmt":"2018-03-05T19:24:54","slug":"purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966","title":{"rendered":"Purshottam vs Ramcharanlal And Ors. on 24 September, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Purshottam vs Ramcharanlal And Ors. on 24 September, 1966<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: AIR 1967 MP 237<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Surajbhan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: N Golvalker, Surajbhan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>Surajbhan, J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1. This appeal is by the defendant against whom a decree for his ejectment has been passed The mortgagee whose tenant he claimed to be has also filed an appeal (being F.A. 15 of 1963) against the decree for redemption But his appeal is confined only to the costs of the suit awarded against him. However, as both the appeals wise out of the same suit and judgment, the disposal of the instant appeal shall govern the disposal of both the appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The plaintiff-respondents are the purchasers of equity of redemption from the heirs and legal representatives of the original mortgagor. Shyamlal Kachar, who had mortgaged the properly consisting of 2 1\/2 shops, with Harprashad, appellant in the connected appeal, on four different mortgage deeds, and the total amount of the mortgage money was Rs. 10,500. The mortgages carried interest in lieu of rent. The original mortgagor, Shyamlal, failed to pay the rent, with the result that Harprashad, mortgagee, brought a civil suit, No. 84 of 1953, and in the execution of its decree, recovered possession of the mortgaged property. Harprashad. mortgagee, inducted two tenants, on monthly tenancy of Rs. 10 and Rs. 17 respectively, and Purshottam, appellant in the instant appeal, is one of them. The plaintiff-respondents filed suit for redemption of the property after giving proper notice, and defendant No. 1. Harprashad, appellant, resisted it on the ground that no tender of the mortgage money was ever made to him and though the plaintiff-respondents are entitled to redemption on payment of the mortgage money and interest, they were not entitled to khas possession, Purshottam, defendant No. 2, and one Rajaram, defendant averred that they could not be evicted being the tenants of the mortgagee, except on any of the grounds provided in the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. (hereinafter called the Act).\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The teamed Additional District Judge framed as many as six issues in the suit and came to the conclusion that though the plaintiff-respondents had failed to prove the tender of the mortgage amount of Rs. 10,500 on the dates as alleged in the plaint, yet they were entitled to a mortgage decree for redemption of the mortgaged property on the payment of the mortgage money and interest found due. He also held that the tenants of the mortgagee are liable to be ejected since their tenancies stood terminated with the redemption of the mortgage, and they could not take advantage of the Act. Accordingly, he passed a preliminary decree.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. We heard Shri Motilal Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals, and Shri Patankar, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>  5. We will first deal with appeal No. 14 of 1963. Shri Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended before us that even with the redemption of the mortgage, the tenancy of Purshottam, appellant, created by the mortgagee while acting in the manner required under Section 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, will not only not come to an end, but will also continue under the plaintiff-mortgagors, and he could be evicted only under the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Shri Patankar, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued<br \/>\nthat after the redemption of the mortgage,<br \/>\nPurshottam does not continue to be a tenant<br \/>\nof the mortgagor, nor does fee mortgagor re<br \/>\nmain his landlord, and therefore, tenancy not<br \/>\nbeing subsisting after redemption, the appellant<br \/>\ncannot seek protection of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7.   In our opinion, the contention of the appellant is untenable;   (a)   firstly, since under the terms of the mortgage-deeds (Exhibits D-1 to D-4), the mortgagor was entitled to be placed  in  possession  of  the  mortgaged    property after he paid the money due under the mortgage-deeds,   the   mortgagee  could   not  so  deal with the said property as would either defeat that right of the mortgagor or put an impediment in his way to secure that right.   In the face of the Rent legislations which came into force,  it  became  all the more imprudent    on the part of the mortgagee to engraft tenancy rights   on   the   mortgaged   property.     Even  in the absence of those legislations, tenancy rights created  by  the  mortgagee either extending in duration  beyond  the  period within which  the mortgaged property could be redeemed or continuing  after  redemption  were  not     countenanced as any prudent act of management under Section 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act and  were  held   to come  to  an end  with  the redemption.    <a href=\"\/doc\/1122405\/\">See  Mahabir     Gope  v.  Harbans Narain Singh, AIR<\/a>  1952 SC 205  (206); Hariharprasad     Singh     v.     Devnarayan     Prasad, AIR  1956 SC 305 and Asaram v. Mt. Ramkal, AIR     1958     SC     183.     (b)     secondly,    there being  no   privity   of  contract   or  estate  arising after   the   redemption   between   the   mortgagor and  the  persons inducted  over the mortgaged property by  the mortgagee, neither the mortgagor  would   become  in  law   the  landlord  of such   persons  nor  would   such   persons be  his tenants within the meaning of either the Transfer of Property Act or the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act and attract the provisions of any of those Acts; and (c) thirdly, the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control   Act  do not  at all  come  into  play  for these reasons   The Act governs the rights and liabilities both of the landlord as also of his tenants and its provisions come into play only when the suit is between the landlord and his tenant and  the  right set up  therein, claiming ejectment of the tenant is liable to be examined and determined only after the tenancy is lawfully terminated prior to the date of such suit, It is  by  the decree of the Court, trying that suit,  that such  right  of ejectment  is granted, provided   it   is   available   under   the     relevant provisions   of  that  Act.     In   the  instant  suit, claim of ejectment, both of the mortgagee  as also of the persons claiming possession under him, is not to be examined and determined in the light of any    of the    provisions    of    the Madhya   Pradesh  Accommodation Control  Act inasmuch as the suit is not at all a suit between a landlord and tenant and the claim with respect   to   possession  arises   with  arid   in   terms and consequences of the decree for redemption; There  is no occasion  or cause which subsists to attract the provisions  of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation  Control Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>  8. This Court also in the following cases have held that the contract of tenancy entered into by a mortgagee does not subsist after redemption of the mortgage and the tenant claiming possession thereunder cannot dispute fee rights of the mortgagor to claim vacant possession of the mortgaged property. See Alladadkhan Kallukhan v. Kazi Nasiruddin, 1961 Jab LJ 1094; Moolchand v. Mathuradas, S.A. No. 149 of 1961, D\/- 31-12-1961 (MP-Gwalior) decided by Sharma, J. and Sheocharan v. Singhal Bhaiyalal, S.A. No. 473 of 1966, D\/- 22-8-1966 (MP) (decided by Golvalker J.).\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to above, we hold that a tenant of the mortgagee in possession, cannot resist eviction by the mortgagor or redemption of the mortgaged property by relying on the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, and as such, this appeal by the appellant deserves to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. Now turning to the next appeal No. 15 of 1963, filed by Harprashad. Shri Gupta, the learned counsel has urged before us that the learned Judge, while arriving at the conclusion that the tender of the mortgage money was not proved by the respondents, should not have passed a decree with costs in favour of the plaintiff, and at the same time, he should not have refused to award costs to the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. Shri Patankar, the learned counsel for the respondents, has on the other hand contended that the defendant No. 1 and other defendants, resisted the suit on such grounds which were not available to them, and therefore, the learned Judge was right in not awarding costs to the defendants, and as the plaintiff-respondents had to file a suit, he rightly allowed them the costs.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. The contention of Shri Gupta has no<br \/>\nForce. The general rule is that a successful<br \/>\nparty is entitled to costs unless he is found<br \/>\nguilty of misconduct, negligence, or omission,<br \/>\nor unless there is some other good cause for<br \/>\ndenial of costs to him. It is true that the<br \/>\nlearned Judge came to the conclusion that the<br \/>\nplaintiff-respondents had not proved the tender of the mortgage-money. But the plaintiffs<br \/>\nhad given a timely notice expressing his offer<br \/>\nto redeem the mortgage. Further, when the<br \/>\nmatter was taken to Court, the defendant, by<br \/>\ncontesting the claim of the plaintiffs with respect to possession, tried to deprive him of the<br \/>\nuse of the properly the Court could not but<br \/>\naward costs of the suit to the plaintiffs It<br \/>\ncannot be urged that the discretion has not<br \/>\nbeen exercised by the Judge properly. It may<br \/>\nbe pointed out that the defendant mortgagee<br \/>\ngave mortgaged shops on rent, one to the brother of his son-in law and another to defendant No. 2, The learned Judge, though he<br \/>\nhas not specifically mentioned the aforesaid<br \/>\nreason, it must have weighed with him. Thus<br \/>\nhe was right in not awarding costs of the suit<br \/>\nto the defendants. So this appeal also deserves<br \/>\nto be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. The result therefore is, that we dismiss both the appeals with costs, and maintain the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court. The appellant, in each of the two appeals, shall bear the costs of the respondents However, we fix one set of counsel&#8217;s fee for both the appeals, according to schedule, if certified  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Purshottam vs Ramcharanlal And Ors. on 24 September, 1966 Equivalent citations: AIR 1967 MP 237 Author: Surajbhan Bench: N Golvalker, Surajbhan JUDGMENT Surajbhan, J. 1. This appeal is by the defendant against whom a decree for his ejectment has been passed The mortgagee whose tenant he claimed to be has also [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-116272","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Purshottam vs Ramcharanlal And Ors. on 24 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Purshottam vs Ramcharanlal And Ors. on 24 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1966-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-05T19:24:54+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Purshottam vs Ramcharanlal And Ors. on 24 September, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-05T19:24:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966\"},\"wordCount\":1609,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966\",\"name\":\"Purshottam vs Ramcharanlal And Ors. on 24 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-05T19:24:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Purshottam vs Ramcharanlal And Ors. on 24 September, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"Purshottam vs Ramcharanlal And Ors. on 24 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Purshottam vs Ramcharanlal And Ors. on 24 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-05T19:24:54+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Purshottam vs Ramcharanlal And Ors. on 24 September, 1966","datePublished":"1966-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-05T19:24:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966"},"wordCount":1609,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966","name":"Purshottam vs Ramcharanlal And Ors. on 24 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-05T19:24:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-ramcharanlal-and-ors-on-24-september-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Purshottam vs Ramcharanlal And Ors. on 24 September, 1966"}]},{"@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\/116272","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=116272"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116272\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=116272"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=116272"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=116272"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}