{"id":124238,"date":"2010-06-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010"},"modified":"2019-01-16T11:48:43","modified_gmt":"2019-01-16T06:18:43","slug":"second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Second Appeal No. 321 Of 1999 vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Second Appeal No. 321 Of 1999 vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Bhangale<\/div>\n
                                     1\n\n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n\n                    NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n                                             \n    Second Appeal No. 321 of 1999\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n    Appellant       :    Sitaram son of Mahagu Bandabuche,\n\n                         aged about 50 years, occ: Cultivator,\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n                         resident of Mahalgaon, Tahsil Mohadi,\n                        \n                         District Bhandara\n\n                         versus\n                       \n    Respondents     :    1) Ashok son of Gopalrao Bhongade, aged<\/pre>\n
                         about 35 years, occ: Cultivator,<\/p>\n
                         2) Jaipal son of Gopalrao Bhongade, aged<\/p>\n
                         about 27 years, occ: Cultivator<\/p>\n
                         Both residents of Mahalgaon, Tahsil<\/p>\n
                         Mohadi, District Bhandara<\/p>\n
    Ms Shilpa O. Tapadiya, Advocate holding for
\n    Mr A.M. Quazi, Advocate for appellant<\/p>\n
    None appears for respondents<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:02:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        Coram :        A. P. Bhangale, J<\/p>\n
                                        Dated     :     22nd June 2010<\/p>\n
    Judgment<\/p>\n
    1.          This appeal is filed at the instance of original plaintiff<\/p>\n
    aggrieved by the judgment and order dated                 22.3.1999 passed by<\/p>\n
    the Additional District Judge, Bhandara in Regular Civil Appeal No.<\/p>\n
    117   of   1997   whereby   the    judgment       and      decree        passed        on<\/p>\n
    10.9.1997 in Regular Civil Suit No. 62 of 1994 by the Civil Judge,<\/p>\n
    Junior Division, Mohadi was set aside and the suit was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original<\/p>\n
    status in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          The plaintiff had instituted Regular Civil Suit praying for<\/p>\n
    mandatory perpetual injunction and damages.               The plaintiff claimed<\/p>\n
    that he possessed house property at village Mahalgaon bearing<\/p>\n
    Gram Panchayat House No.          36\/1 and the house of the defendant<\/p>\n
    was adjacent to on the northern side bearing GP House No.                           35\/1<\/p>\n
    beyond which there was a public drainage and a road.                               It is<\/p>\n
    claimed that both the houses originally belonged to one owner.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:02:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
    Southern    portion           was   purchased         by   the     plaintiff   while      northern<\/p>\n
    portion    by        father    of    the   defendants.              The    plaintiff     and      the<\/p>\n
    defendants became owners of respective portions of the house.                                       It<\/p>\n
    is contended that house of the defendants is situated towards lower<\/p>\n
    level than the house of the plaintiff and the                            rain water from the<\/p>\n
    premises of the plaintiff used to flow naturally towards the drain<\/p>\n
    through the court-yard of the defendants since time immemorial<\/p>\n
    and after the purchase of their respective portions of the said<\/p>\n
    house by the plaintiff and father of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
    4.              In     1st    week    of   June        1994        the    defendants        started<\/p>\n
    constructing         the     compound      wall       to   their    house      obstructing        the<\/p>\n
    natural flow of rain water.                  When the plaintiff objected,                         the<\/p>\n
    defendants had assured the plaintiff that they will make necessary<\/p>\n
    arrangement for disposal of rain water flowing from the premises of<\/p>\n
    the plaintiff.               Since the defendants completed construction of<\/p>\n
    compound, but did not make any arrangement of drainage and<\/p>\n
    closed the water course.\n<\/p>\n
    5.              On 12.6.1994 and 17.6.1994 due to heavy rains the rain<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:02:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
    water accumulated in the court-yard and entered in the plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
    house made of mud wall causing damage to flooring, wall and<\/p>\n
    household articles due to accumulated rain water.                          The plaintiff<\/p>\n
    claimed      damages      of    Rs.   2000\/-    for    the     illegal      act    of     the<\/p>\n
    defendants and held them liable for loss.                    The matter was also<\/p>\n
    reported to the Police Station; Gram Panchayat and Tahsildar. The<\/p>\n
    Authorities    who visited        the spot had        asked defendants to open<\/p>\n
    the water course for the water to flow from the premises of the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff.    But defendants          remained adamant and did not follow<\/p>\n
    directions from the Authorities concerned.\n<\/p>\n
    6.            The   plaintiff    was    constrained     to     issue      notice      dated<\/p>\n
    26.6.1994     to    the    defendants      through     Advocate         which       though<\/p>\n
    defendants had received, did not comply nor any reply was given.\n<\/p>\n
    The plaintiff claimed that defendants shall arrange to provide water-\n<\/p>\n
    way to enable overflow of rain water from the premises of the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff to flow under or through the premises\/court-yard of the<\/p>\n
    defendants towards the main drain which is situated beyond the<\/p>\n
    house of defendants as rain water accumulated is                           harmful and<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:02:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
    injurious    to   the    plaintiff   and   other    neighbourers.             The     plaintiff<\/p>\n
    claimed      easementary right to better enjoy the premises owned by<\/p>\n
    him and as necessity for accumulated rain water to flow away<\/p>\n
    naturally towards lower levels of the land and to the main drains.\n<\/p>\n
    Thus,    perpetual       mandatory     injunction    was        claimed        against       the<\/p>\n
    defendants for direction that they shall break open the suit way as<\/p>\n
    suggested in plaint and pay damages or any other relief as the<\/p>\n
    Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
    7.            The defendants had resisted the suit claim, disputed and<\/p>\n
    denied      the   suit   claim.      According      to    them,       their     father      had<\/p>\n
    prepared the foundation on the compound fencing in the year 1981<\/p>\n
    for rain water\/drainage water to flow through Nali towards north<\/p>\n
    direction to connect to the main village drain constructed by Gram<\/p>\n
    Panchayat.          The      defendants        contended         that       one       Ramdas<\/p>\n
    Bandebuche had mischievously blocked Nali by putting the heap of<\/p>\n
    clay and increased the height to prevent flow of rain water. It is<\/p>\n
    not disputed that the plaintiff had lodged report to Police; Tahsildar,<\/p>\n
    Mohadi and Gram Panchayat.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:02:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
    8.          The trial Court had framed and answered the issues as<\/p>\n
    under :\n<\/p>\n
         “(a)   Is it proved by the plaintiff that the rain water<\/p>\n
         was flowing from the court-yard of the defendants since<\/p>\n
         the time immemorable ? ..         Yes<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         (b)    Is it proved by the plaintiff that the defendants<\/p>\n
         constructed compound wall and thereby water flow is<\/p>\n
         obstructed ? ..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           Yes<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         (c)    Is it proved by the plaintiff that due to the act of<\/p>\n
         the defendants he sustained damage of Rs. 2000\/- ? ..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         No<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         (d)    Is   the       plaintiff   entitled      for          mandatory<\/p>\n
         injunction ? .. Yes<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         (e)    Is the plaintiff entitled for damages ?          ..    No<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         (f)    What relief and order ? ..       As per final order.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                The suit was decreed for permanent injunction. The trial<\/p>\n
    Court   which had benefit        to view the witnesses while deposing<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:02:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
    before it, concluded that due to construction by the defendants rain<\/p>\n
    water   which      flew    from    the     plaintiff’s    premises       was      obstructed.\n<\/p>\n
    Thus, the trial Court had directed the defendants to reopen the<\/p>\n
    drain which is shown in plaint map C-1 and to permanently restrain<\/p>\n
    the defendants from blocking the water and damaging the drain by<\/p>\n
    any means.\n<\/p>\n
    9.           The 1st Appellate Court which allowed the appeal setting<\/p>\n
    aside the decree, however, did not agree with the trial Court and<\/p>\n
    held that the plaintiff had no right to pass water through the<\/p>\n
    drainage and dismissed             the   suit.      The judgment             appears        sans<\/p>\n
    discussion of legal position in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
    10.          The     second       appeal     was    admitted        on     28.6.2001         and<\/p>\n
    grounds 5, 6 and 7 contained in the memo of appeal were treated<\/p>\n
    as substantial questions of law which read thus :\n<\/p>\n
          “(4)   The appellate court ought to have considered that<\/p>\n
          admittedly     the     houses        owned     by     the      plaintiff     and<\/p>\n
          defendant were previously owned by the common owner<\/p>\n
          and in view of the legal position under the Easement<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:02:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
     Act that the property has been subdivided, each of the<\/p>\n
     sub-division will have a right to use and enjoy the same<\/p>\n
     by exercising all the rights for the reasonable enjoyment<\/p>\n
     of their respective portion, however this legal preposition<\/p>\n
     has   not    been        considered        by     the     appellate       court      by<\/p>\n
     reversing the findings of the lower court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6)    The lower appellate court ought to have further<\/p>\n
     appreciated that from the defence of the defendant itself<\/p>\n
     the case of the plaintiff has proved as in the defence<\/p>\n
     the   defendant          has    taken      the     pleas        that   neighbourer<\/p>\n
     Ramdas Bandabuche intentionally blocked that drain from<\/p>\n
     which the water from the house of the plaintiff has been<\/p>\n
     flowing     for    all    these     years        without         challenging        the<\/p>\n
     contention of the plaintiff of his right.\n<\/p>\n
     7)    The         lower        appellate         court      ought        to        have\n\n\n\n\n\n     appreciated       that     admittedly          since     last    more      than     20\n\n<\/pre>\n
     years the water from the house of the plaintiff has been<\/p>\n
     flowing     through       the    court-yard of           the     portion      of    the<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:02:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
          house of defendant and therefore the right is created in<\/p>\n
          favour of the plaintiff and that in case the defendant<\/p>\n
          who has obstructed the flow of water by constructing<\/p>\n
          the compound wall was not in any case justified in<\/p>\n
          obstructing the flow of water and thus the appellate<\/p>\n
          court ought to have confirmed the decree passed by the<\/p>\n
          lower court.”\n<\/p>\n
    11.<\/p>\n
                 I have heard submissions advanced on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    appellant.      The respondents remained absent.       None appeared on<\/p>\n
    their behalf.\n<\/p>\n
    12.          Learned counsel for the appellant criticised the judgment<\/p>\n
    and order of the 1st Appellate Court and took me through evidence<\/p>\n
    on record and submitted that defendants have no right to construct<\/p>\n
    unlawfully causing obstruction to natural flow of rain or drain water<\/p>\n
    naturally flowing from higher level towards lower level on north side<\/p>\n
    to the main drain of village. Reference is made to the ruling in<\/p>\n
    Umrah Khatoon v. Md Zafir Khan and<\/a> ors reported in AIR 1997 SC<\/p>\n
    1315.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:02:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
                    In the said case, the plaintiff had claimed title over suit<\/p>\n
    lane and in the alternative, contended that if plaintiff’s title is not<\/p>\n
    to be accepted, the plaintiff had in any case acquired easementary<\/p>\n
    right    to    discharge    the   drain    water.       The      plaintiff’s     claim      for<\/p>\n
    easementary right was accepted by the trial Court as well as the<\/p>\n
    1st appellate court.          Held, plea of non-maintainability of the suit<\/p>\n
    cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the last court<\/p>\n
    and that too after the defendant had lost on merit.                              Course of<\/p>\n
    Justice should not be allowed to be thwarted on technical ground.\n<\/p>\n
    It    was     held   that   the   prayer   of   the    plaintiff     to    allow     her     to<\/p>\n
    discharge drain water over the land in question is more in accord<\/p>\n
    with justice than to deny it; as it had been found that plaintiff had<\/p>\n
    in fact discharged the drain water through the lane for long many<\/p>\n
    years.      Decree of the trial Court was upheld.\n<\/p>\n
    13.             The legal right of easement cannot be disputed on the<\/p>\n
    ground that when a neighbourer by constructing compound wall by<\/p>\n
    violating local laws of building construction                   or in a highhanded<\/p>\n
    manner is attempting to obstruct the                  natural flow of drainage\/rain<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:02:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                               11<\/span><\/p>\n
    water flowing naturally from             higher level towards lower level of<\/p>\n
    the     land   would   furnish   valid    cause     of      action      for    a      relief    of<\/p>\n
    perpetual injunction.     The Court in such case is concerned with                             an<\/p>\n
    important question as to whether the defendant shall be restrained<\/p>\n
    from causing interference with the plaintiff’s right ? The Court<\/p>\n
    would      expect the defendant to observe reasonable conduct and<\/p>\n
    not to cause any interference or harm to the plaintiff’s natural<\/p>\n
    rights if not strictly speaking easementary right in the eye of law.\n<\/p>\n
    The substantial questions of law raised above shall, therefore, be<\/p>\n
    answered accordingly.       In the facts and circumstances of the case,<\/p>\n
    in my opinion, the trial Court was well within its jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
    grant    permanent     injunction   to    protect    the        natural       right     of     the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff by issuing an appropriate order to prevent defendants from<\/p>\n
    obstructing the rain water\/drain water naturally flowing from higher<\/p>\n
    level of land towards lower level connecting through the drain<\/p>\n
    towards the main drain on north side constructed by the village<\/p>\n
    panchayat.      There was no justification muchless legal one for the<\/p>\n
    1st appellate court to disturb merely on assumptions and surmises<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:02:49 :::<\/span>
\n                                            12<\/span><\/p>\n
    the findings recorded by the trial Court on merits.\n<\/p>\n
    14.         In the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
    The impugned judgment and order dated 22.3.1999 passed by the<\/p>\n
    1st   Appellate   Court   viz.   Additional   District    Judge,      Bhandara          in<\/p>\n
    Regular Civil Appeal No. 117 of 1997 is set aside.                   The judgment<\/p>\n
    and decree passed by the trial court viz. Civil Judge, Junior Division,<\/p>\n
    Mohadi     on 10.9.1997 in Regular Civil Suit No. 62 of 1994 is<\/p>\n
    restored by decreeing the suit accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  A. P. BHANGALE, J<\/p>\n
    hsj<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:02:49 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Second Appeal No. 321 Of 1999 vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010 Bench: A.P. Bhangale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 321 of 1999 Appellant : Sitaram son of Mahagu Bandabuche, aged about 50 years, occ: Cultivator, resident of Mahalgaon, Tahsil Mohadi, […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124238","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSecond Appeal No. 321 Of 1999 vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010 - 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\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Second Appeal No. 321 Of 1999 vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-16T06:18:43+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Second Appeal No. 321 Of 1999 vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-16T06:18:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1838,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Second Appeal No. 321 Of 1999 vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-16T06:18:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Second Appeal No. 321 Of 1999 vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Second Appeal No. 321 Of 1999 vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010 - 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\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Second Appeal No. 321 Of 1999 vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-16T06:18:43+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Second Appeal No. 321 Of 1999 vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-16T06:18:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010"},"wordCount":1838,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010","name":"Second Appeal No. 321 Of 1999 vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-16T06:18:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-321-of-1999-vs-unknown-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Second Appeal No. 321 Of 1999 vs Unknown on 22 June, 2010"}]},{"@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\/124238","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=124238"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124238\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}