{"id":125095,"date":"2009-01-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009"},"modified":"2017-09-04T21:45:17","modified_gmt":"2017-09-04T16:15:17","slug":"shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri Gokulrao Sheshrao Deshmukh vs Smt. Kusumbai W on 16 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Gokulrao Sheshrao Deshmukh vs Smt. Kusumbai W on 16 January, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: S.R. Dongaonkar<\/div>\n
                               1\n\n    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n              WRIT PETITION NO. 2714\/2008\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n    Patil Patwari Saraya Sansthan,\n    Morshi, Registration No. E-59,\n    through its Secretary\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    Shri Gokulrao Sheshrao Deshmukh,\n    R\/o Ramnagar, Morshi,\n    Tah. Morshi, Distt. Amravati   ...PETITIONER\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n                            ...versus...\n                    \n    Vasant Mahadeorao Akarte (Dead)\n    by L.Rs.\n    1)       Smt. Kusumbai wd\/o Vasant Akarte,\n                   \n             aged about 65 years,\n\n    2)      Prashant s\/o Vasant Akarte,\n      \n\n\n            aged about 40 years,\n   \n\n\n\n    3)      Pravin s\/o Vasant Akarte,\n            aged about 33 years.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Nos. 1 to 3, R\/o. Near Govt. Hospital,\n    Morshi, Tq. Morshi, Distt. Amravati\n\n    4)      Sau. Anita w\/o Dilip Kale,\n            aged about 35 years,\n\n\n\n\n\n            R\/o. Wardhamaneri, Tah. Arvi,\n            Distt. Wardha.\n\n    5)      Sau. Yogita Awinash Wankhade,\n            aged about 30 years, R\/o. Chandrur\n            Bazar, Tq. Chandur Bazar,\n            Distt. Amravati         ..RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:15:24 :::\n                                     2\n\n\n\n    ===============================================\n          Shri K.N.Dadhe, Adv. for the petitioner,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n          None for respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                    CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                    DATE   : 16th JANUARY, 2009<\/p>\n
      ORAL JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
      1.          Heard Shri Dadhe, Advocate, for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      None for the respondents though served, for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
      Heard on merits forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
      2.          The petitioner is a Trust bearing Registration No.<\/p>\n
      E-59 of Amravati.        It had brought R.C.S.No. 53\/2002<\/p>\n
      before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Morshi, for<\/p>\n
      eviction,     possession, arrears of rents and mesne profit<\/p>\n
      against one Vasant Mahadeorao Akarte, of whom the<\/p>\n
      present respondents are L.Rs. In the suit proceeding, the<\/p>\n
      then defendant filed W.S.         Amongst other defences,                   he<\/p>\n
      also contended that the suit was barred by principle of<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:15:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
    res-judicata and the Secretary G.S.Deshmukh had no<\/p>\n
    right to file the said suit for want of compliance of<\/p>\n
    provisions of Indian Trust Act. The issues were framed.\n<\/p>\n
    The plaintiff led his evidence.       It appears that the<\/p>\n
    defendant did not lead any evidence though he contested<\/p>\n
    the matter.    The learned Civil Judge relying on the<\/p>\n
    observations of Gujrat High Court in AIR 1973 Guj 113<\/p>\n
    (Atmaram<\/p>\n
                  Ranchhodbhai     vs.   Gulamhusein                Gulam<\/p>\n
    Mohiyaddin and other) and this court in 1994 Mh L J<\/p>\n
    280 (Nagar Wachan Mandir, Pandharpur vs. Akbaralli<\/p>\n
    Abdulhusen and<\/a> sons and others), found that as all<\/p>\n
    trustees of the petitioner\/plaintiff trust were not party<\/p>\n
    plaintiffs to the suit, the same was liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    He has found that instrument of trust was not filed on<\/p>\n
    record. He further found that the plea was taken by the<\/p>\n
    respondent\/defendant that the suit was barred by res-\n<\/p>\n
    judicata and the plaintiff had not shown new cause of<\/p>\n
    action, as such also the suit was liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:15:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
    Other issues were cursorily              addressed by the learned<\/p>\n
    Civil   Judge.          Consequently          he        dismissed               the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff\/petitioner’s suit by the judgment dated 3.9.2004.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          Petitioner\/plaintiff       then   preferred          an       appeal<\/p>\n
    R.C.A. No. 220\/2004 before the District Judge, Amravati.\n<\/p>\n
    The learned District Judge-I, Amravati, found that the suit<\/p>\n
    was not properly instituted by all the trustees of the trust<\/p>\n
    and therefore, he held that the suit was liable to be<\/p>\n
    dismissed and therefore, he dismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          These judgments are challenged in this Writ<\/p>\n
    Petition.\n<\/p>\n
    5.          Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted<\/p>\n
    that the plaintiff’s evidence coupled with the documents<\/p>\n
    which he had produced, has clearly established that all<\/p>\n
    the trustees of the petitioner’s trust by resolution had<\/p>\n
    authorized the Secretary Shri G.S.Deshmukh to institute<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:15:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
    the instant suit, so also the instrument of trust provides<\/p>\n
    for such authorization and Secretary of the Trust can<\/p>\n
    institute such a suit.    Therefore, the authorities referred<\/p>\n
    by the learned Civil Judge as well as learned District<\/p>\n
    Judge     were   not   applicable   to   the       instant          matter.\n<\/p>\n
    According to him, when the plaintiff has deposed about<\/p>\n
    the authorization, and no evidence was led by the<\/p>\n
    defendants otherwise to disprove such authorization, the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff’s suit would not fail.         He has relied on the<\/p>\n
    Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rashid A.\n<\/p>\n
    Maskati and another        vs.   State of Maharashtra and<\/p>\n
    others (1998 (2) Mh.L.J. 188). He, therefore, submitted<\/p>\n
    that the courts below have taken a wrong view of the<\/p>\n
    matter and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, so also the<\/p>\n
    appeal.    As the courts below had erred on appreciating<\/p>\n
    the legal issue in proper perspective, this petition should<\/p>\n
    be allowed and those judgments be quashed and set<\/p>\n
    aside.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:15:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
    6.      As    stated   above,     none     appeared             for      the<\/p>\n
    respondents though served.\n<\/p>\n
    7.      As only legal issue is being considered, it is<\/p>\n
    necessary to peruse the observations of the Gujrat High<\/p>\n
    Court in AIR 1973 SC 113; Atmaram Ranchhodbhai<\/p>\n
    vs.   Gulamhusein Gulam Mohiyaddin and others.                             In<\/p>\n
    para 8, it has been observed thus-\n<\/p>\n
          “8. It is, therefore, clear that one co-trustee cannot<\/p>\n
          give notice to quit determining the tenancy. The
\n          decision to determine the tenancy by giving notice
\n          to quit must be taken by all co-trustees unless, of<\/p>\n
          course, the instrument of trust otherwise provides,
\n          or the beneficiaries being competent to contract<\/p>\n
          consent, or in any particular case it is established
\n          that on the peculiar facts obtaining in that case,
\n          the delegation of the power to determine the<\/p>\n
          tenancy was necessary. But when we say that
\n          the tenancy must be determined by all co-trustees,
\n          we must make it clear that what we mean is that
\n          the decision to terminate the tenancy must be<\/p>\n
          taken by all the co-trustees. The formal act of
\n          giving notice to quit pursuant to the decision taken
\n          by all the co-trustees may be performed by one co-
\n          trustee on behalf of the rest. The notice to quit
\n          given in such a case would be a notice given with
\n          the sanction and approval of all the co-trustees
\n          and would be clearly a notice given by all co-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:15:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
            trustees.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8.        This       court   in       Nagar       Wachan               Mandir,<\/p>\n
    Pandharpur          vs. Aklbaralli Abdulhusen and Sons and<\/p>\n
    others<\/a> (1994 Mh.L.J. 280 )              has observed in para 11,<\/p>\n
    thus-\n<\/p>\n
            “After hearing both the learned counsel I am not<\/p>\n
            inclined to accept the submission of Shri
\n            Abhyankar whereas I am inclined to accept the<\/p>\n
            contentions of Shri Apte as I find that the Full
\n            Bench decision of Gujarat reported in AIR 1973<\/p>\n
            Gujarat 113, Atmaram Ranchhodbhai vs.
\n            Gulamhjusein Gulam Mohiyaddin (supra) is
\n            directly on the point and arises under the Rent
\n            Act. It has been held by the Full Bench of Gujarat<\/p>\n
            that unless instrument of trust otherwise provides
\n            all co-trustees must join for filing a suit to recover<\/p>\n
            the possession of the property from the tenant. It
\n            is nobody’s case in this matter that the instrument
\n            of the Trust provides otherwise.              In fact,<\/p>\n
            instrument of the trust is not even produced on the
\n            record, and on the proper construction of Sections
\n            47 and 48 of the Indian Trust Act which are
\n            reproduced above, the contention raised by Shri<\/p>\n
            Apte is correct. Section 47 clearly deprives the
\n            trust from delegating his office in any of his duties
\n            to co-trustee or to a stranger unless conditions
\n            mentioned in the said section are complied with.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            It is not in dispute in this matter that the
\n            conditions referred to in section 47 are not
\n            complied with by the plaintiffs. When one reads<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:15:24 :::<\/span>
\n                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
     both section 47 and section 48, it would not be
\n     difficult to record a finding that the present suit
\n     filed by the two trustees is not maintainable. The<\/p>\n
     second submission with reference to Section 6 of
\n     the Societies Registration Act, 1980 cannot be<\/p>\n
     accepted in view of the definition of Public Trust
\n     given in section 2 (13) of the Bombay Public Trust
\n     Act. Section 2(13) of Public Trusts Act reads as<\/p>\n
     follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                   “Public Trust means an express
\n         or constructive trust for either public<\/p>\n
         religious or charitable purpose or both
\n         and includes a temple, a Math, Wakf,<\/p>\n
         Church, Synagogue, Agiary or other place
\n         of public religious worship a dharmada or<\/p>\n
         any     other    religious or    charitable
\n         endorsement and the Society either for
\n         religious or charitable purpose or for both
\n         and registered under the Societies<\/p>\n
         Registration Act, 1860.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Considering the said definition of the Public Trust,
\n     it is very clear that the society registered under
\n     the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860,<\/p>\n
     is also included in the definition of the said Public
\n     Trust and hence suit filed only by two trustees will
\n     not be maintainable. Granting of a lease is a
\n     matter, which cannot be delegated by a trustee<\/p>\n
     and, therefore, it must follow as a necessary
\n     corollary that determination of a lease also cannot
\n     be regarded as a matter which can be delegated
\n     by a co-trustee to another co-trustee or to any one
\n     else. The power and function to determine the
\n     lease is of the same nature and as the power and
\n     function to grant a lease cannot be delegated,<\/p>\n
                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:15:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
          equally other cannot be. Both the functions are
\n          effected with beneficiary’s judgment. All the co-
\n          trustees are bound to exercise their judgment and<\/p>\n
          no one co-trustee can delegate these functions to
\n          his co-trustee or to any other person. These<\/p>\n
          observations made by the Full Bench apply to the
\n          facts of the present case and for the same
\n          reasoning I refuse to accept the contention raised<\/p>\n
          by Shri Abhyankar”.\n<\/p>\n
    9.      On perusal of these two judgments, it would be<\/p>\n
    seen that the facts of those cases were such that the<\/p>\n
    instrument of trust did not provide for filing the suit or<\/p>\n
    defending the suit by one of the trustees or chairman or<\/p>\n
    the secretary of such trust.\n<\/p>\n
    10.     In this regard, therefore, it is necessary to closely<\/p>\n
    note the provisions of section 47 & 48 of the Indian Trust<\/p>\n
    Act, which read thus-\n<\/p>\n
          47. Trustee cannot delegate. – A trustee cannot
\n          delegate his office or any of his duties either to a
\n          co-trustee or to a stranger unless (a) the
\n          instrument of trust so provides, or (b) the
\n          delegation is “in the regular course or business, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (c) the delegation is necessary, or (d) the<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:15:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
          beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents
\n          to the delegation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Explanation – The appointment of an attorney or
\n          proxy to do an act merely ministerial and involving<\/p>\n
          no independent discretion is not a delegation
\n          within the meaning of this section.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          48. Co-trustees cannot act singly. – When
\n          there are more trustees than one, all must join in
\n          the execution of the trust, except where the
\n          instrument of trust otherwise provides.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The provisions require that if there are more trustees than<\/p>\n
    one, then all trustees must join in the execution of the<\/p>\n
    trust, except where the instrument of trust otherwise<\/p>\n
    provides.\n<\/p>\n
    11.     The Societies Registration Act, 1860,              Section 6<\/p>\n
    provides thus –\n<\/p>\n
          “6. How suits by and against societies. –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Every society registered under this Act may sue or
\n          be sued in the name of the President, Chairman,
\n          or Principal Secretary in default of such
\n          determination, in the name of such persons as
\n          shall be appointed by the governing body of the
\n          occasion:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:15:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
                   Provided that it shall be competent for
\n          any person having a claim or demand against the
\n          society, to sue the president or chairman, or<\/p>\n
          principal secretary or the trustees thereof, if on
\n          application to the governing body some other<\/p>\n
          officer or person be not nominated to be the
\n          defendant.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    12.     In the present case,      the evidence led by the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff shows that the plaintiff had produced some<\/p>\n
    documents on record. One of them is Exh. 42 which is<\/p>\n
    the resolution of the trustees of the petitioner Trust,<\/p>\n
    which reads thus-\n<\/p>\n
          “Resolution No. (6)<\/p>\n
                   Regarding delegation of powers for Court<\/p>\n
          actions in respect of property of the Trust.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   It is unanimously resolved by all the<\/p>\n
          trustees of the Trust that powers for Court actions,
\n          for legal proceedings and other Court formalities
\n          etc., in respect of the movable and immovable
\n          properties of the Society are delegated to Shri<\/p>\n
          G.S.Deshmukh, Secretary of the Society.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Resolution is unanimously resolved.
\n            Proposer : Shri R.G.Kanfade,
\n            Seconder : Shri Punabrao Raut.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  After unanimously resolving the above<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:15:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
          mentioned resolution and after giving vote of
\n          thanks, the President has declared the meeting to
\n          be over.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Sd\/-                            sd\/-\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n          Member Secretary      Tulsiram Sudebhanji Padole\n                                  President of the Meeting\n                                        Dt. 3.11.94\"\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n<\/pre>\n
    It would be seen that all the rights in respect of movable<\/p>\n
    and immovable properties for court actions, the authority<\/p>\n
    was granted the Secretary Shri G.S.Deshmukh, who had<\/p>\n
    deposed in favour of the plaintiff.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    13.     This takes me to consider the documents which<\/p>\n
    are placed now on record in the petition.         It appears that<\/p>\n
    in Suo Muto Inquiry No. 7\/91,         the Assistant Charity<\/p>\n
    Commissioner, Amravati Region, Amravati, by order, had<\/p>\n
    framed a scheme in respect of the petitioner trust. Clause<\/p>\n
    6 of the said scheme provides thus-\n<\/p>\n
          (6) Holding and ownership of property by the
\n          Public Trust – Whole movable and immovable
\n          property would stand in the name of the trust.
\n          The maintenance, affairs and management of the
\n          said property would be as per the provisions of<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:15:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
          the scheme and the Rules framed under Public
\n          Trust Act, 1950 and the same would be within the
\n          custody of the trustees.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    It further shows that the Secretary of the trust was obliged<\/p>\n
    to execute the resolution of the trust as his duty.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, he was duty bound to execute the resolution of<\/p>\n
    the trust referred above. It would thus be seen that in the<\/p>\n
    present case there was an instrument of trust which cast<\/p>\n
    a duty on the Secretary of the Trust to carry out the<\/p>\n
    execution of the resolution of the trust.                  Once this<\/p>\n
    resolution is passed by the trustees of the petitioner trust,<\/p>\n
    the Secretary was duty bound to carryout the Court<\/p>\n
    proceedings on behalf of the petitioner trust. In this view<\/p>\n
    of the matter, therefore, the authorities referred by the<\/p>\n
    Courts below at the instance of the respondents i.e.<\/p>\n
    AIR 1973 Gujarat 117; Amritlal Nathubhai Shah and<\/p>\n
    others vs. Union Government of India and<\/a> another and<\/p>\n
    1994 Mh,L.J. 280; N.W.Mandir vs. Akbaralli, would not<\/p>\n
    be applicable to the set of facts in the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:15:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                14<\/span><\/p>\n
    14.     In this regard, the view expressed by the Division<\/p>\n
    Bench of this Court in 1998(2) Mh.L.J. 188; Rasheed A.\n<\/p>\n
    Maskati and another vs.         State of Maharashtra and<\/p>\n
    others, is thus-\n<\/p>\n
          “In the writ petition, possession of the premises
\n          illegally continued by the Government was sought<\/p>\n
          to be reverted back to the Trust and not the
\n          trustees. For filing such petition, it was enough if<\/p>\n
          a person having interest in the trust moved the
\n          Court”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Although in that case, the eviction was sought from the<\/p>\n
    alleged illegal possession, the petition on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    trust held maintainable even by a person who is having<\/p>\n
    interest. A contention was raised that in such cases<\/p>\n
    objection ought to have been filed by the trust, by joining<\/p>\n
    all the trustees to the petition, which was repelled. In my<\/p>\n
    opinion, when in the present case,               there was an<\/p>\n
    instrument of trust in the form of a scheme framed by the<\/p>\n
    Assistant Charity Commissioner, the duty was cast upon<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:15:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                15<\/span><\/p>\n
    the secretary to carry out the resolution of the trust and<\/p>\n
    there was a resolution of the trustees to take the action in<\/p>\n
    respect of the properties of the trust, suit would not fail<\/p>\n
    merely because all the trustees are not made party<\/p>\n
    plaintiffs. As such, the judgments of the Courts below are<\/p>\n
    not correct on this aspect. Such incorrect view can not be<\/p>\n
    allowed to stand and defeat the suit of a trust.\n<\/p>\n
    15.     On perusal of the judgments of the Courts below,<\/p>\n
    it would be seen that they have not addressed the other<\/p>\n
    issues in detail.   Even the defendants had not led any<\/p>\n
    evidence. In this view of the matter, though the judgments<\/p>\n
    of the Courts below do not seem to be correct, the decree<\/p>\n
    as prayed by the petitioner\/ plaintiff can not be passed.\n<\/p>\n
    Only thing that can be done is to quash and set aside the<\/p>\n
    judgments of the courts below and remand the matter to<\/p>\n
    the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Morshi, for fresh<\/p>\n
    disposal, according to law, by allowing the parties to lead<\/p>\n
    the evidence afresh, if they desire, and after hearing the<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:15:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                     16<\/span><\/p>\n
    parties.\n<\/p>\n
    16.        In sequel,   the petition is partly allowed.                         The<\/p>\n
    judgments of courts below are hereby quashed and set<\/p>\n
    aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court of Civil<\/p>\n
    Judge,     Junior   Division,        Morshi,     for fresh             disposal,<\/p>\n
    according to law, after allowing the parties to lead<\/p>\n
    evidence and hearing them afresh. The learned Judge is<\/p>\n
    also directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible in<\/p>\n
    any case within a period of six months, after appearance<\/p>\n
    of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    JUDGE<\/p>\n
       Rvjalit<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:15:24 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shri Gokulrao Sheshrao Deshmukh vs Smt. Kusumbai W on 16 January, 2009 Bench: S.R. Dongaonkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2714\/2008 Patil Patwari Saraya Sansthan, Morshi, Registration No. E-59, through its Secretary Shri Gokulrao Sheshrao Deshmukh, R\/o Ramnagar, Morshi, Tah. Morshi, Distt. […]<\/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-125095","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Gokulrao Sheshrao Deshmukh vs Smt. Kusumbai W on 16 January, 2009 - 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\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Gokulrao Sheshrao Deshmukh vs Smt. Kusumbai W on 16 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-04T16:15:17+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Gokulrao Sheshrao Deshmukh vs Smt. Kusumbai W on 16 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-04T16:15:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2583,\"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\\\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri Gokulrao Sheshrao Deshmukh vs Smt. Kusumbai W on 16 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-04T16:15:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Gokulrao Sheshrao Deshmukh vs Smt. Kusumbai W on 16 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Gokulrao Sheshrao Deshmukh vs Smt. Kusumbai W on 16 January, 2009 - 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\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Gokulrao Sheshrao Deshmukh vs Smt. Kusumbai W on 16 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-04T16:15:17+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Gokulrao Sheshrao Deshmukh vs Smt. Kusumbai W on 16 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-04T16:15:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009"},"wordCount":2583,"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\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009","name":"Shri Gokulrao Sheshrao Deshmukh vs Smt. Kusumbai W on 16 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-04T16:15:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gokulrao-sheshrao-deshmukh-vs-smt-kusumbai-w-on-16-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Gokulrao Sheshrao Deshmukh vs Smt. Kusumbai W on 16 January, 2009"}]},{"@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\/125095","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=125095"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125095\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=125095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=125095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}