{"id":123928,"date":"1998-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998"},"modified":"2016-01-12T21:15:55","modified_gmt":"2016-01-12T15:45:55","slug":"vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998","title":{"rendered":"Vijatabai &amp; Ors vs Shriram Tukaram &amp; Ors on 20 November, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vijatabai &amp; Ors vs Shriram Tukaram &amp; Ors on 20 November, 1998<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Misra<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sujata V. Manohar., A.P. Misra.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nVIJATABAI &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHRIRAM TUKARAM &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t20\/11\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nSUJATA V. MANOHAR., &amp; A.P. MISRA.\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<br \/>\nMISRA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  short  question raised in the appeal is whether<br \/>\non the facts and  circumstances\t of  this  case\t when  in  a<br \/>\nproceeding  under  Section  8  of  the\tBombay\tTenancy\t and<br \/>\nAgriculture  Lands  (Vidarbha\tRegion)\t  Act,\t 1958,\t the<br \/>\nrespondent No.\t  1  in\t terms\tof  the\t compromise declared<br \/>\nhimself not be be the tenant of the  disputed  land  and  in<br \/>\npursuance   thereof  his  name\tbeing  the  deleted  by\t the<br \/>\nTahsildar under Section 8(3) could the Tahsildar in exercise<br \/>\nof his suo motu power under Section 49B after lapse of about<br \/>\n11 years declare respondent No.\t 1 to be  tenant  under\t the<br \/>\nsaid Act?\n<\/p>\n<p>In  the\t present appeal respondent No.1 claims to be<br \/>\ntenant of the suit land of which appellants  and  respondent<br \/>\nNo.  2\tclaim  to  be the landlord\/owner.  To appreciate the<br \/>\ncontroversy it is necessary to give certain facts.  On\t20th<br \/>\nMarch  1959  appellants&#8217;  predecessors\tfiled an application<br \/>\nbefore the  Tenancy  Tahsildar\tfor  deleting  the  name  of<br \/>\nrespondent No.\t  1  from the list of tenants to correct the<br \/>\nrecords\t prepared  under  Section  8(1)\t of  the  1958\tAct.<br \/>\nAccording to the said application the suit land is owned and<br \/>\npossessed  by  the applicants and they have been cultivating<br \/>\nit personally by engaging Saldar and worked as a  Saldar  in<br \/>\nthe field  of  the  applicants\tfor  nearly  20\t years.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent No.\t1 was also engaged as such  along  with\t his<br \/>\nfather.\t  The  applicants  also entrusted their bullocks and<br \/>\nimplement  to  the  custody  of\t their\tSaldars\t since\t the<br \/>\nbeginning.    It   was\tspecifically  averred  in  the\tsaid<br \/>\napplication that the Patwari of\t the  village  Dongarkhadala<br \/>\nand  Kherdi  in collusion with the non-applicant had entered<br \/>\nthe name of the respondent No.\t1 in  the  list\t of  tenants<br \/>\nprepared and  published under Section 8.  Hence a prayer was<br \/>\nmade for deleting the said name which was  wrongly  recorded<br \/>\ntherein.   During  the pendency of the said procceding it is<br \/>\nnot in dispute a  compromise  was  arrived  at\tbetween\t the<br \/>\nappellants and respondent  No.\t1 on 21th December 1960.  In<br \/>\nparagraph (8) of the  said  compromise\trespondent  No.\t   1<br \/>\nadmitted that he was never tenant of the appellants over the<br \/>\ndisputed land.\t  The  said  compromise also spelt out other<br \/>\nconditions.  It seems that respondent No.  1 even  prior  to<br \/>\nthis  compromise on 3rd December 1960 made an application in<br \/>\nthe said proceeding that his name be deleted from  the\tlist<br \/>\nof tenants.    This  was done as earlier the parties seem to<br \/>\nhave arrived at\t a  compromise\twhich  ultimately  was\tonly<br \/>\nsigned later.\t In  pursuance to this on 30th December 1960<br \/>\nthe Tahsildar ordered the deletion of name of respondent No.<br \/>\n1 in exercise of his power  under  Section  8(3)  read\twith<br \/>\nSection 100(2) of the said Act.\t This fact was also recorded<br \/>\nby the\tTahsildar in his order.\t It is significant to record<br \/>\nhere that none of the  parties\tfiled  appeal  against\tthis<br \/>\norder and this became final.\n<\/p>\n<p>In fact,  after\t this  order  in  pursuance  of\t the<br \/>\ncompromise  as\taforesaid,  10\taccess\t38  gunathas of land<br \/>\nsituated at Mouza Kherdi was purchased by respondent No.   1<br \/>\nfrom the  appellants  for  a  consideration  of Rs.  7000\/-.<br \/>\nHence not only the name of respondent No.  1 was deleted but<br \/>\nthe compromise was acted upon by respondent No.\t 1 by taking<br \/>\nthe  aforesaid\tland  from   appellants\t  under\t  the\tsaid<br \/>\ncompromise.   After  lapse  of\tabout  11  years in 1971 the<br \/>\nTehsildar initiated proceeding suo motu under Section 49B of<br \/>\nthe said Act.  In pursuance to\tthis  notice  the  appellant<br \/>\n(landlord)  filed  the written statement and stated that the<br \/>\nland in suit belongs to his family since  1940\tand  it\t was<br \/>\ncultivated personally by the family by engaging Saldars.  It<br \/>\nwas never leased out to anybody at any time.  It was further<br \/>\nstated that  respondent\t No.   1 was also one of the Saldars<br \/>\n(servant) who had been cultivating land as such.  Respondent<br \/>\nNo.  1 filed  reply  by\t stating  that\the  and\t his  father<br \/>\ncultivated the suit  land  as  tenant.\t  Respondent No.  1,<br \/>\nhowever, admitted to have purchased the suit land of an area<br \/>\nof 10 acres 38 guathas from the\t appellants  no\t 11th  March<br \/>\n1961.\tThe  Tehsildar\tby means of order dated 2nd February<br \/>\n1971  with  due\t consideration\tof  the\t earlier  order\t  of<br \/>\nTahsildar  passed  under  Section 8(3) read with Section 100<br \/>\n(2) of the aforesaid Act also  with  due  reference  to\t the<br \/>\naforesaid compromise,  held  that  respondent No.  1 had not<br \/>\ncultivated the suit land as tenant during the  year  1958-59<br \/>\nand  hence  he\tis  not entitled for restoration of the suit<br \/>\nland.  Hence he dropped the proceedings under Sec.    49  B.<br \/>\nAggrieved by  this  respondent\tNo.    1 preferred an appeal<br \/>\nbefore Special Deputy Collector (Land Reforms)\twho  allowed<br \/>\nthe  appeal  by holding the compromise was brouth upon under<br \/>\npressure and allurement, hence could not be acted upon\tthus<br \/>\nin view\t of  evidence on record held respondent No.  1 to be<br \/>\nthe tenant of the suit land primarily on the basis  of\tsole<br \/>\nentry  recorded under Section 8 of the said Act published on<br \/>\n1th April 1959.\t The appellants challenged this order before<br \/>\nMaharashtra  Revenue  Tribunal\t in   revision\t which\t was<br \/>\ndismissed.  Thereafter a writ petition was filed in the High<br \/>\nCourt  which  was  dismissed  and finally the letters patent<br \/>\nappeal in the High Court was also dismissed.<br \/>\nThe learned Senior Counsel for the  appellants\tShri<br \/>\nMohta  submits once in the proceeding under Section 8 of the<br \/>\naforesaid Act, between the appellants  and  the\t respondent,<br \/>\nthe  question was determined by holding respondent not to be<br \/>\nthe tenant of the appellants and that  order  having  become<br \/>\nfinal  since  no  appeal  was  preferred, he is stopped from<br \/>\nraising\t a  contradictory  plea\t in  subsequent\t  proceeding<br \/>\ninitiated  by Tahsildar under Section 49B, in respect of the<br \/>\nsame land.  He submits only foundation for the claim of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  to be the tenant is the said entry, only for one<br \/>\nyear, i.e.  1958-59 and that entry having been deleted there<br \/>\nwas no foundation even for the\tTahsildar  to  initiate\t suo<br \/>\nmotu proceedings.    Further  respondent and his father were<br \/>\nSaldar (servant) of the appellants and the  said  entry\t was<br \/>\nobtained  by  them  in\tcollusion  with\t the  Patwari of the<br \/>\nconcerned village and for that he would have no\t sustainable<br \/>\nclaim for  adjudication.   Thus the findings recorded by the<br \/>\nauthority\/Court as aforesaid contrary to this are liable  to<br \/>\nbe set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, Shri Deshpande,  learned  counsel<br \/>\nfor the respondent supported the decision that respondent is<br \/>\na  tenant  of the disputed land and proceeding under section<br \/>\n49B was rightly initiated by Tahsildar suo motu.    Further,<br \/>\nthere  being  no termination of his tenancy under Section 19<br \/>\nof the aforesaid Act and in any case,  unless  an  order  is<br \/>\npassed\tby  the\t Tahsildar  under Section 36(2) the landlord<br \/>\ncannot obtain possession of the suit land.   The  submission<br \/>\nis  that  as  he was a tenant on appointed day, namely, 28th<br \/>\nAugust 1958 as also recorded and hence by virtue of  Section<br \/>\n46 and 49A is entitled to become statutory owner.<br \/>\nBefore\twe  proceed  to decide the controversy it is<br \/>\nnecessary to record certain admitted facts.  On\t 20th  March<br \/>\n1959   the   appellants\t filed\tapplication  before  Tenancy<br \/>\nTahsildar under Section 8(3) for deletion  of  the  name  of<br \/>\nrespondent No.\t1 from the list of tenants pertaining to the<br \/>\nsuit land  as  prepared\t under\tSection 8(I).  That entry in<br \/>\nfavour of respondent No.  1 as tenant was recorded for\tonly<br \/>\none year namely in the records of 1958-59 which was actually<br \/>\nprepared under\tSection\t 8(1)  as  aforesaid.\tThus in this<br \/>\nproceeding question which arose was, whether respondent\t No.<br \/>\n1 is  a tenant of the suit land of the appellants or not?  A<br \/>\ncompromise was arrived at which led respondent\tNo.    1  to<br \/>\nfile  an  application  dated  3rd  December  1960 before the<br \/>\nTahsildar in the said proceeding for deleting his name\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  list  of tenants and withdrawing allegation, if any, to<br \/>\nthe contrary in his written statement.\tThis was followed by<br \/>\na written compromise dated 21st December 1960.\t Under\tthat<br \/>\nrespondent No.\t  1 admitted that he was never the tenant of<br \/>\nthe appellants of the land in suit.    The  said  compromise<br \/>\ncontemplated  that  10\tacres  38 gunthas of land out of the<br \/>\nsuit land, appellants would sell to respondent No.  1 for  a<br \/>\nconsideration of  Rs.  7000\/- and the said consideration was<br \/>\nactually paid on the date of this  compromise  in  pursuance<br \/>\nthereof the  respondent\t No.   1 purchased the said land for<br \/>\nthe said  consideration.    For\t 11  years   thereafter\t  no<br \/>\nproceeding or action was initiated by respondent No.  1 over<br \/>\nthe  suit  land and parties continued to enjoy the suit land<br \/>\nin terms of the said compromise and as a consequence of\t the<br \/>\norder  passed under section 8 (3) recording in favour of the<br \/>\nappellant by deleting the name of respondent.  It is only on<br \/>\n2nd February 1971 i.e., after 11 years, suo motu  proceeding<br \/>\nwas initiated  by  Tahsildar  under  Section  49B.  It is on<br \/>\nthese admitted acts and the aforesaid facts, the controversy<br \/>\nis to be adjudicated.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the second round of proceeding under Section\t 49B<br \/>\nTahsildar  upheld  the\tcontention  of the appellants on the<br \/>\nbasis of the compromise\t as  aforesaid\tbut  in\t appeal\t the<br \/>\nCollector  negatived the contention holding in favour of the<br \/>\nrespondent.  Similarly, the revision was also  dismissed  by<br \/>\nthe Tribual.\t Both  the  appeal  and\t the  revision\twere<br \/>\ndismissed primarily  by\t holding  that\tthe  compromise\t was<br \/>\narrived\t under\tpressure  and  allurement  and\tthat  he was<br \/>\nrecorded as tenant in the year 1958-59.\t The  writ  petition<br \/>\nand  letters patent appeal filed by the appellants were also<br \/>\ndismissed.  The High Court upheld the order  of\t the  courts<br \/>\nbelow  and  further  recorded  that  without an order of the<br \/>\nTahsildar under Section 36(2), which is not in\tthe  present<br \/>\ncase,  the  appellants\tcannot obtain possession of the suit<br \/>\nland.  Thus the Court held respondent  No.    1\t to  be\t the<br \/>\ntenant\tprimarily based on the said one entry of 1958-59 and<br \/>\non the oral evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>Normally  this\tCourt  would  not interfere with any<br \/>\nsuch finding of fact recorded but where the conclusions\t are<br \/>\narrived\t at  by\t misconstruing\tthe provisions of an Act and<br \/>\nwithout appreciating the principle  of\testoppel,  including<br \/>\nadjudicating  of  such\tright  in early proceeding under the<br \/>\nsame Act  between  the\tsame  party  this  Court  would\t not<br \/>\nhesitate to  reconsider\t such  adjudication  of\t facts.\t The<br \/>\nfacts are very clear in the present  case.    the  question,<br \/>\nwhether respondent  No.\t 1 was a tenant of appellants of the<br \/>\nsuit land came up for consideration under this very Act\t and<br \/>\nthe  Tahsildar\tin a proceeding initiated under Section 8(3)<br \/>\npassed an order deleting the name of respondent\t as  tenant.<br \/>\nThe question,  whether\trespondent  No.\t   1  was  tenant of<br \/>\nappellants or not was directly in issue in  this  proceeding<br \/>\nwhich  was  finally  adjudicated by the competent Authority,<br \/>\nholding\t against  the  respondent  Section  49B\t refers\t  to<br \/>\ntransfer  of  possession  and  ownership of lands to certain<br \/>\ndispossessed tenant.  This section is applicable only  where<br \/>\na  tenant referred to in section 46 or 49A was in possession<br \/>\nof the land on the appointed day but was dispossessed before<br \/>\nthe relevant date.  Thus before a power could  be  exercised<br \/>\nunder  it  there has to be a tenant of the suit land, who is<br \/>\ndispossessed on the relevant date.  But\t this  fact  was  no<br \/>\nmore  res  integra between the appellants and respondent No.<br \/>\n1 on the date suo motu notice was issued by  the  Tahsildar.<br \/>\nAs  aforesaid,\tdispute\t if  any  regarding  tenancy between<br \/>\nrespondent No.\t1 and appellants  of  the  suit\t land  stood<br \/>\nconcluded in  the  proceedings\tunder  section\t8.  The said<br \/>\norder passed under section 8 is appealable but no appeal was<br \/>\npreferred.  Thus so far the appellants\tand  respondent\t are<br \/>\nconcerned,  inter  se  between\tthem,  as  they were parties<br \/>\ntherein, this issue became final.  In other  words,  on\t the<br \/>\ndate   when  Tahsildar\texercised  his\tsuo  motu  power  of<br \/>\ninitiating  proceeding\tunder  section\t49B  there  was\t  no<br \/>\nmaterial on the record of the Tahsildar to proceed under it,<br \/>\nthe  only  record  of an entry of 1958-59 stood creased when<br \/>\nname of respondent No.\t 1  was\t deleted  by  the  competent<br \/>\nauthority under this very Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Tahsildar  while exercising his suo motu power under<br \/>\nSection 49B has to initiate on the basis of materials before<br \/>\nhim not\t arbitrarily.  Every  exercise\tof  suo\t motu  power<br \/>\nexplicitly  or\timplicitly reveals to correct an error crept<br \/>\nin under a statue, what ought to have been done was not done<br \/>\nor which escaped the attention of any  statutory  authority,<br \/>\nor error or deliberate omission or commission by the subject<br \/>\nconcerned   requires   correction,  of\tcourse,\t within\t the<br \/>\nlimitation of any&#8230; such statute. This has to be  based  on<br \/>\nsome  relevant material on record, it is not an omnipower to<br \/>\nbe exercised on the likes and dislikes of such an authority.<br \/>\nThough such a power is a wide power but has to be  exercised<br \/>\nwith  circumspection within the limitations of such statute.<br \/>\nWider  the  power  the\tgreater\t circumspection\t has  to  be<br \/>\nexercised.\n<\/p>\n<p>Returning to the present case it has to be seen what<br \/>\non the records of the Tahsildar when he initiated proceeding<br \/>\nunder Section 49B.  Admittedly the only documentary evidence<br \/>\non records was the sole entry of 1958-59 which stood deleted<br \/>\nby an  order  of  the  competent  authority, viz.  Tahsildar<br \/>\nhimself in accordance with law under this very same statute.<br \/>\nQuestion is, has the Tahsildar any power under\tSection\t 49B<br \/>\nto set\taside  an order passed under Section 8?\t Section 49B<br \/>\ndoes not contain words, &#8220;Notwithstanding any thing  in\tthis<br \/>\nstatute&#8221;  orders  passed  by  Tahsildar both under Section 8<br \/>\norder is not subject to Section 49B.  This  apart,  what  is<br \/>\nprimarily  required for exercise of such power is that there<br \/>\nhas to be a tenant and he is dispossessed  on  the  relevant<br \/>\ndate.\tSo there has to be a tenant first, a tenant referred<br \/>\nunder Section 46 and 49A.   To\tappreciate  the\t controversy<br \/>\nSection 8 and 49B are quoted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t &#8220;Section  8  &#8211; Record of rights of ordinary tenants<br \/>\n\t(1) As soon as may be  after  this  Act\t comes\tinto<br \/>\n\tforce  the  Tahsildar shall cause a list of persons,<br \/>\n\tother than occupancy tenants, and protected lessees,<br \/>\n\twho are deemed to be tenants under  sub-section\t (1)<br \/>\n\tof  Section 6 to be prepared for entry in the Record<br \/>\n\tof Rights  in  accordance  with\t the  provisions  of<br \/>\n\tChapter IX of the Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(2)    After  such  list  is  prepared\tit  shall be<br \/>\n\tpublished  in  the  prescribed\tmanner\tand  if\t  no<br \/>\n\tapplication is made by the landlord or the tenant or<br \/>\n\tany  other  person interested within a period of six<br \/>\n\tmonths of the date of such publication disputing the<br \/>\n\tcorrectness or omission\t of  any  entry,  such\tlist<br \/>\n\tshall be final.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(3)    If an application is made to the Tahsildar by<br \/>\n\tthe landlord or\t the  tenant  or  any  other  person<br \/>\n\tinterest   in\tthe  prescribed\t manner\t within\t the<br \/>\n\taforesaid  period,  disputing  the  correctness\t  or<br \/>\n\tomission  of  such entry, the Tahsildar shall decide<br \/>\n\tthee dispute in accordance with\t the  provisions  of<br \/>\n\tsub-section  (2) of section 100 of this Act and such<br \/>\n\tdecision subject to appeal or  revision\t under\tthis<br \/>\n\tAct  shall, notwithstanding section 106 of the code,<br \/>\n\tbe final.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(4)  In\t deciding  the\tquestion  referred   to\t  in<br \/>\n\tsub-section (3) the Tahsildar shall, notwithstanding<br \/>\n\tanything  contained  in\t Section  92  of  the Indian<br \/>\n\tEvidence Act, 1872, or in Section 49 of\t the  Indian<br \/>\n\tRegistration  Act, 1908, or in any other law for the<br \/>\n\ttime being in force, have power to inquire into\t and<br \/>\n\tdetermine  the\treal  nature  of the transaction and<br \/>\n\tshall  be  at  liberty,\t  notwithstanding   anything<br \/>\n\tcontained in any law as aforesaid, to admit evidence<br \/>\n\tof any oral agreement or a statement or unregistered<br \/>\n\tdocument with a view to such determination.&#8221;<br \/>\n\t&#8220;Section 49B &#8211; Transfer of possession and  ownership<br \/>\n\tof  lands  to certain dispossessed tenants &#8211; Where a<br \/>\n\ttenant referred to in Section 46 or Section 49A\t was<br \/>\n\tin  session  on\t the  appointed\t day  but  is not in<br \/>\n\tpossession of the land held by him on  the  relevant<br \/>\n\tdate  on  account  of  his being dispossessed before<br \/>\n\tthat date, otherwise than in the manner\t and  by  an<br \/>\n\torder of the Tahsildar as bravados in Section 36 and<br \/>\n\tthe land is in the possession of the landlord or his<br \/>\n\tsucessor-in-interest  on  the 31st day of July, 1969<br \/>\n\tand is not put\tto  a  non-agricultural\t use  on  or<br \/>\n\tbefore the last mentioned date; the Tahsildar shall,<br \/>\n\tnotwithstanding\t anything  contained  in section 36,<br \/>\n\teither suo motu or on the application of the  tenant<br \/>\n\thold  an inquiry, and direct that such land shall be<br \/>\n\ttaken from the possession of the landlord, or as the<br \/>\n\tcase may be, his successor-in-interest and shall  be<br \/>\n\trestored   to  the  tenant  and\t the  provisions  of<br \/>\n\tSections 46 to 49A shall, in so far as they  may  be<br \/>\n\tapplicable  apply thereto, as if the tenant had held<br \/>\n\tthe  land  on  the  relevant  date  subject  to\t the<br \/>\n\tmodification  that the ownership of land shall stand<br \/>\n\ttransferred to and vest\t in  the  tenant,  and\tsuch<br \/>\n\ttenant\tshall  be deemed to be the full owner of the<br \/>\n\tland, on the date on which the land is\trestored  to<br \/>\n\thim.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided that,\tthe  tenant  shall  be\tentitled  to<br \/>\n\trestoration  of\t the land under this section only if<br \/>\n\the undertakes to cultivate the land personally,\t and<br \/>\n\tof  so\tmuch thereof as together with the other land<br \/>\n\theld by him as owner  or  tenant  shall\t not  exceed<br \/>\n\tthree family holdings.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Section\t 49B stipulates enquiry where a tenant under<br \/>\nSection 46 or Section 49A was in possession on the appointed<br \/>\ndate but was disposed on the relevant date to transfer\tback<br \/>\nsuch land  to  such  tenant and confer ownership on him.  So<br \/>\nfar initiating proceeding  there  has  to  be  something  on<br \/>\nrecord to show that one is a tenant of the suit land.  It is<br \/>\nsignificant  both  Section 46 and Section 49A open; with the<br \/>\nwords &#8220;Notwithstanding anything\t in  this  chapter&#8230;&#8230;..&#8221;.<br \/>\nThus notwithstanding confines to the Sections of the chapter<br \/>\nin which  these sections 46 and 49A are placed viz.  Chapter<br \/>\nIII.  We find Section 8 is in Chapter II.  So orders  passed<br \/>\nunder Section  8 would have its full effect.  Section 46 and<br \/>\nSection 49A confer right of  ownership\tof  the\t land  on  a<br \/>\ntenant from  the specified date.  Thus Sections 49B, 49A and<br \/>\n46 refer to a tenant.  Tenant is defined under Section 2(32)<br \/>\nto mean;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Section  2(32)\t &#8211;  tenant  means a person who holds<br \/>\n\tland on lease and includes &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a)  a person who  is  deemed  to  be  tenant  under<br \/>\n\tSection 6, 7, and 8\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) a person who is Protected  lessee  or  occupancy<br \/>\n\ttenant,\t and  the word &#8216;landlord&#8217; shall be construed<br \/>\n\taccordingly.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It  means a person holding land on lease and further<br \/>\nhe is deemed to be a tenant under Section 6, 7\tand  8.\t   A<br \/>\nperson\tlawfully cultivating any land of other person who is<br \/>\nnot cultivating such land personally or through other member<br \/>\nof his family or servant then such a person would be  deemed<br \/>\nto be  a  tenant  under Section 6.  This question was up for<br \/>\nconsideration in  a  proceeding;  under\t Section  8.\tThen<br \/>\nSection\t 7  also  refers to a person holding alienated land,<br \/>\ntrust etc.  on a condition specified therein to\t be  a\tdeem<br \/>\ntenant.\t However,  we  are  not concerned under it.  Finally<br \/>\nadjudication is made under Section 8, as to who\t is  tenant,<br \/>\nin case any objection is raised either by tenant landlord or<br \/>\nany other   person.\t When\tobjection  is  raised  under<br \/>\nSub-section (2) of Section 8 disputing\tcorrectness  of\t any<br \/>\nentry, which is raised inthis case, regarding 1958-59 entry,<br \/>\nthe   Tahsildar\t decides  the  dispute\tin  accordance\twith<br \/>\nsub-section (2) of Section 100 of this Act, which is  final,<br \/>\nsubject to  appeal or revision.\t For deciding this Tahsildar<br \/>\nis empowered to enquire to determine the real nature of\t the<br \/>\ntransaction  between the parties, by taking such evidence as<br \/>\nhe deems fit by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 8.<br \/>\nWe find in the present case Tahsildar  reopened\t the<br \/>\nvery question  which  finally stood concluded, viz.  whether<br \/>\nrespondent No.\t1 was or was not the tenant  of\t suit  land?<br \/>\nHe   further  errocously  entered  into\t a  new\t promise  of<br \/>\nreopening the question of validity of the  compromise  which<br \/>\ncould  have been in issue if at all in appeal or revision by<br \/>\nholding that compromise was arrived at\tunder  pressure\t and<br \/>\nallurement.   How this question be up for determination when<br \/>\nthis became final under this very same\tstatute.    This  is<br \/>\nalso not  a case that respondent No.  1 made any application<br \/>\neven under Section 46(1A)(a) for getting back the possession<br \/>\nfrom the appellants or any application\tunder  Section\t49B.<br \/>\nSo  no\tthe relevant date there did not exist any record for<br \/>\nthe Tahsildar to initiate proceedings suo  motu\t except\t the<br \/>\nrecord of  1958-59  entry  which stood deleted.\t This apart,<br \/>\nfinding of pressure and allurement  recorded  was  not\teven<br \/>\npleaded.   No pleading has been placed before us which shows<br \/>\nsuch a pleading though it was brought in by  oral  evidence.<br \/>\nOn  the other hand, we find the compromise was acted upon as<br \/>\nrespondent No.\t1 purchased part of the same suit land of an<br \/>\narea of 10 acres 38 gunthas for\t the  consideration  of\t Rs.<br \/>\n7000\/-.\t In other words, the compromise was acted upon under<br \/>\nwhich respondent  gained  part of the same property.  On the<br \/>\nfacts of this case and further when respondent did not raise<br \/>\nany such issue for 11 years, we find exercise  of  power  by<br \/>\nTahsildar   suo\t  motu\tunder  Section\t49B  to\t be  without<br \/>\njurisdiction and unsustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>It  would  be  impermissible  to permit any party to<br \/>\nraise an issue inter se where such an issue under  the\tvery<br \/>\nAct has\t been  decided\tin an early proceeding.\t Even if res<br \/>\njudicata in its strict sense may not apply but its principle<br \/>\nwould be applicable.  Parties who are disputing now, if they<br \/>\nwere parties in an early  proceeding  under  this  very\t Act<br \/>\nraising\t the  same issue, would be stopped from raising such<br \/>\nan issue both on the principle of estoppel and\tconstructive<br \/>\nres judicata.\t The finding recorded even by the High Court<br \/>\nthat possession by the landlord could only be  by  an  order<br \/>\nunder  Section\t36(2)  is  also not sustainable as that only<br \/>\nconceived of the  case\twhere  tenant  is  dispossessed\t and<br \/>\nlandlord  is seeking to get back possession of the suit land<br \/>\nfrom such tenant.  In the present case\tthere  was  no\tsuch<br \/>\nquestion.  For\tthis  respondent No.  1 has to be at least a<br \/>\ntenant and whether  he\tis  a  tenant  stood  concluded,  as<br \/>\naforesaid  earlier,  hence  initiation\tof  proceeding under<br \/>\nSection 49B cannot be sustained in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the respondent faintly  referred<br \/>\nto Section  6  of  the Act to contend that respondent No.  1<br \/>\nwould be deemed tenant.\t As aforesaid, Section 6 refers to a<br \/>\nperson lawfully cultivating any land  belonging\t to  another<br \/>\nperson\tto  be held to be deemed tenant in case such land is<br \/>\nnot cultivated personally by the  owner.    In\tthe  earlier<br \/>\nproceeding  when application is made by the appellants under<br \/>\nSection 8(3) of the Act\t it  was  specifically\tstated\tthat<br \/>\nappellants  were  cultivating  the  suit land personally and<br \/>\nthrough respondent&#8217;s father and later respondent No.   1  as<br \/>\ntheir\tSaldar\t(Servant)  and\tthis  question\thaving\tbeen<br \/>\nspecifically pleaded order was\tpassed\tunder  Section\t8(3)<br \/>\nholding respondent No.\t  1  not to be the tenant.  In other<br \/>\nwords, respondent No.\t1  could  not  be  said\t to  be\t the<br \/>\nlawfully   cultivating\t the  land  of\tanother\t person,  as<br \/>\nappellants (owner)  were  personally  cultivating  the\tland<br \/>\nthemselves  or\tthrough their Saldars, hence Section 6 would<br \/>\nnot confer  any\t benefit  to  the  respondent.\t  Section  6<br \/>\nexcludes  a  person to be deemed tenant in case the owner is<br \/>\ncultivating the land personally.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  view  of the aforesaid findings we hold that the<br \/>\ndecision by the Appellate and the  Revisional  Authority  in<br \/>\nthe  proceedings under Section 49B and the High Court in the<br \/>\nwrit  petition\tand  finally  under  letters  patent  appeal<br \/>\ncontrary to what we have recorded above cannot be sustained.<br \/>\nthee   authorities  and\t the  Court  misdirected  itself  to<br \/>\nconclude in favour of respondent by not properly  construing<br \/>\nthe  provisions\t off  the  Act and the power of Tahsildar to<br \/>\nexercise under Section 49B of the Act. The said decision  to<br \/>\nthe contrary is hereby set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly,  the appeal is allowed and the findings<br \/>\nrecorded against the appellants\t in  the  proceedings  under<br \/>\nSection\t 49B  of  the  Act  are\t hereby quashed. Cost on the<br \/>\nparties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Vijatabai &amp; Ors vs Shriram Tukaram &amp; Ors on 20 November, 1998 Author: Misra Bench: Sujata V. Manohar., A.P. Misra. PETITIONER: VIJATABAI &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRIRAM TUKARAM &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/11\/1998 BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR., &amp; A.P. MISRA. ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT MISRA, J. &#8212;&#8212;&#8211; The short question [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123928","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vijatabai &amp; Ors vs Shriram Tukaram &amp; Ors on 20 November, 1998 - 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\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vijatabai &amp; Ors vs Shriram Tukaram &amp; Ors on 20 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-12T15:45:55+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vijatabai &amp; Ors vs Shriram Tukaram &amp; Ors on 20 November, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-12T15:45:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998\"},\"wordCount\":3947,\"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\\\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998\",\"name\":\"Vijatabai &amp; Ors vs Shriram Tukaram &amp; Ors on 20 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-12T15:45:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vijatabai &amp; Ors vs Shriram Tukaram &amp; Ors on 20 November, 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":"Vijatabai &amp; Ors vs Shriram Tukaram &amp; Ors on 20 November, 1998 - 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\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vijatabai &amp; Ors vs Shriram Tukaram &amp; Ors on 20 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-12T15:45:55+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vijatabai &amp; Ors vs Shriram Tukaram &amp; Ors on 20 November, 1998","datePublished":"1998-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-12T15:45:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998"},"wordCount":3947,"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\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998","name":"Vijatabai &amp; Ors vs Shriram Tukaram &amp; Ors on 20 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-12T15:45:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijatabai-ors-vs-shriram-tukaram-ors-on-20-november-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vijatabai &amp; Ors vs Shriram Tukaram &amp; Ors on 20 November, 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\/123928","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=123928"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123928\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123928"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123928"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123928"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}