{"id":128629,"date":"2010-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010"},"modified":"2016-02-17T13:57:33","modified_gmt":"2016-02-17T08:27:33","slug":"d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"-D) Smt. Mandodari Jawaharlal … vs Hasan Nathu Tadvi on 1 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
-D) Smt. Mandodari Jawaharlal … vs Hasan Nathu Tadvi on 1 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                               1\n                                           W.P. No.1999 of 1991.\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n                WRIT PETITION NO.1999 OF 1991.\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n     Gondu Ramu Pandit,\n     deceased through L.heir\n\n     Dr. J.G. Pandit, deceased by his\n     legal heirs:\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     1-A) Rahul Jawaharlal Pandit,\n     age 35 yrs. Occu. Agril.\n             \n     r\/o at & post Kochur (Khurd),\n     Rq. Raver, Dist.Jalgaon.\n            \n     1-B) Sau. Indira Balkrishna Mohane,\n     age 50 yrs. Occu. Household,\n     r\/o c\/o Dr. B.R. Mohane, A-87,\n     Highway Apartment, Sion,\n     Mumbai -22.\n      \n\n\n     1-C) Sau Surekha Sahebrao Patil,\n   \n\n\n\n     age 45 years, occu. Household,\n     R\/o C\/o S.N. Patil, New Super\n     D-17\/3, Bhusawal Thermal Power\n     Station, at post Deepnagar,\n     Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.\n\n\n\n\n\n     1-D) Smt. Mandodari Jawaharlal Pandit,\n     age 65 years, occu. Household,\n     r\/o C\/o Rahul J. Pandit,\n     at post Kochur (Khurd),\n     Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon.         .. PETITIONERS.\n\n\n\n\n\n              VERSUS\n\n     1) Hasan Nathu Tadvi\n\n     2) Zipru Lalkha Tadvi,\n     deceased by his L.Rs.\n     a) Tahara Zipru Tadvi etc.\n\n     3) Sardar Ughadu Tadvi,\n\n\n\n\n                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:39:57 :::\n                                   2\n                                                W.P. No.1999 of 1991.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n     deceased by his heirs:\n     a) Bismilla Sardar Tadvi etc.\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n     4) Amir Dagadu Tadvi,\n     deceased by his heirs\n     a) Daut Amir Tadvi etc.\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     5) Ramjan Mahitap Tadvi,\n\n     all residing at Kalmode,\n     Taluka Raver,District Jalgaon.\n\n\n\n\n                          \n     6) The Member of\n     Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal\n     (formal party).\n                  \n     7) The State of Maharashtra.                .. RESPONDENTS.\n                 \n                            ...\n     Shri V.T. Chaudhari, Advocate for Petitioners.\n     Smt. V.A. Shinde, Advocate for R.No.7.\n     Shri A.G. Talhar, Advocate for respondents\n     (absent).\n      \n\n                            ...\n   \n\n\n\n                                      CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                          1st December, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT:\n<\/p>\n
     1.     This writ petition is directed against<\/p>\n
     the judgment and order dated 26th October,<\/p>\n
     1990    passed   by    the       Maharashtra            Revenue<\/p>\n
     Tribunal, Jalgaon in REV.TRB.48 OF 1989.\n<\/p>\n
     2.     The   facts    of     the     case         which          are<\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                     3<\/span>
\n                                                   W.P. No.1999 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     incorporated in the writ petition are as<\/p>\n
     under:\n<\/p>\n
            The suit land in Survey No.44\/1 and<\/p>\n
     44\/2 admeasuring 1 hector and 17 R. assess<\/p>\n
     as     Rs.9-31       paise,     situated           at      village<\/p>\n
     Kochur,    ig taluka    Raver,        District           Jalgaon.\n<\/p>\n
     The    suit    land     was        previously           held        and<\/p>\n
     owned by some of the respondents and that<\/p>\n
     the     deceased        Gundu        Ramu         Pandit            had<\/p>\n
     purchased        the         suit      land          from           the<\/p>\n
     respondents       in     the        year,      1963,         for        a<\/p>\n
     consideration           of      Rs.7000\/-               under           a<\/p>\n
     registered       sale    deed        and    from        the       said<\/p>\n
     consideration           the         respondents              bought<\/p>\n
     another big piece of land. It is further<\/p>\n
     case     of    the     petitioner           that        when        his<\/p>\n
     father    purchased          the     suit     land,         it      was<\/p>\n
     barren, dry land and that he himself and<\/p>\n
     his father spent more than Rs.20,000\/- and<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                       4<\/span>
\n                                                        W.P. No.1999 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     converted    the        dry      land         into        a     Bagayat<\/p>\n
     land.\n<\/p>\n
     3.    The    Assistant               Collector,                 Jalgaon<\/p>\n
     Division,     Jalgaon            started             a      suo        motu<\/p>\n
     enquiry under Section 3 of the Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     Restoration  ig   of    Land         to     Scheduled              Tribes<\/p>\n
     Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the<\/p>\n
     Restoration Act).                It is the case of the<\/p>\n
     petitioner that the petitioner challenged<\/p>\n
     the     constitutional                validity                of         the<\/p>\n
     Restoration       Act       by       way      of      filing           writ<\/p>\n
     petition before this Court and stay was<\/p>\n
     granted to the further proceedings before<\/p>\n
     the Assistant Collector, Jalgaon Division,<\/p>\n
     Jalgaon.     It        is     further              case         of       the<\/p>\n
     petitioner        that        the         validity             of        the<\/p>\n
     Restoration Act was upheld by the Surpeme<\/p>\n
     Court in Lingappa’s case and thereafter,<\/p>\n
     stay granted by this Court was effected<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                       5<\/span>
\n                                                    W.P. No.1999 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     and further proceedings were directed to<\/p>\n
     be started.           It is further case of the<\/p>\n
     petitioner that in the mean while there<\/p>\n
     was amendment to the Restoration Act and<\/p>\n
     the definition of Collector was enlarged<\/p>\n
     and     Tahsildar          was       also      empowered               to<\/p>\n
     conduct    ig  the         proceedings             under             the<\/p>\n
     Restoration      Act.            Thereafter          the      matter<\/p>\n
     was transferred to the Tahsildar, Raver,<\/p>\n
     which    was    numbered          as    112      of      1975        and<\/p>\n
     after recording the statements of both the<\/p>\n
     parties,       the    Tahsildar         passed           order         on<\/p>\n
     30.4.1986       and    allowed         the     claim         of      the<\/p>\n
     respondents and further directed that the<\/p>\n
     suit     land        may     be        restored            to        the<\/p>\n
     respondents.                 Being          aggrieved                and<\/p>\n
     dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment<\/p>\n
     and order passed by the Tahsildar, Raver,<\/p>\n
     the petitioner preferred an appeal being<\/p>\n
     Appeal No.REV-TRB-86 OF 1986, before the<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                       6<\/span>
\n                                                        W.P. No.1999 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay.                                    The<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the<\/p>\n
     said appeal and remanded the matter to the<\/p>\n
     Sub     Divisional           Officer,               Jalgaon              for<\/p>\n
     holding fresh enquiry.                     After remand, the<\/p>\n
     Sub Divisional Officer recorded statement<\/p>\n
     of the respondent Hasan Nathu Tadvi and<\/p>\n
     the     statement          of     the          petitioner                and<\/p>\n
     thereafter       came      to        the      conclusion               that<\/p>\n
     though the respondents are following the<\/p>\n
     custom,       usages    of       Muslims           and       they        are<\/p>\n
     known as Tadvi Pathan and Tadvi Musalman,<\/p>\n
     they    are    in   fact        tribal          and       therefore,<\/p>\n
     they are entitled for restoration of the<\/p>\n
     suit land.\n<\/p>\n
     4.     Aggrieved       by the         judgment             and       order<\/p>\n
     passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated<\/p>\n
     17th June, 1989 in Adivasi Case No.17 of<\/p>\n
     1987, the petitioner preferred an appeal<\/p>\n
     under    Section       6    of       the      Restoration                Act<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                      7<\/span>
\n                                                     W.P. No.1999 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     being Appeal No.REV.TRB.48 OF 1989 before<\/p>\n
     the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay.<\/p>\n
\n\n     It    is   the    contention          of     the      petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     that       though       the         Maharashtra              Revenue\n\n     Tribunal     has       accepted       the       contention             of\n\n     the    petitioner,        instead          of    allowing            the\n\n\n\n\n                              \n     appeal,     remanded\n                 ig                the    matter        to      the       Sub\n\n     Divisional Officer, Jalgaon.                        Hence, this\n               \n     writ petition.\n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     5.     The learned Counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
     invited      my       attention         to       the         finding<\/p>\n
     recorded         by     the         Maharashtra              Revenue<\/p>\n
     Tribunal          and         submitted             that             the<\/p>\n
     contentions           which     were       raised            by      the<\/p>\n
     petitioners before the Maharashtra Revenue<\/p>\n
     Tribunal      have       been        accepted.                It       is<\/p>\n
     further               submitted                 that                 the<\/p>\n
     respondents\/applicants                belong            to        Tadvi<\/p>\n
     Muslim \/ Tadvi Pathan community and the<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                     8<\/span>
\n                                                      W.P. No.1999 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     said    community    is    or        the         caste         is      not<\/p>\n
     recognized    as     a    tribal              community.               The<\/p>\n
     learned   Counsel        for       the      petitioner               also<\/p>\n
     invited my attention to the circular vide<\/p>\n
     No.CBC-1684\/309\/K-11 dated 24th April, 1985<\/p>\n
     in   which,   it    is     specifically                   mentioned<\/p>\n
     that Muslim Tadvis are not tribal.\n<\/p>\n
                ig                                                     It is<\/p>\n
     the case of the petitioner that though the<\/p>\n
     circular was brought to the notice of the<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, it did not<\/p>\n
     discuss about the said circular.                                  It is<\/p>\n
     further submitted that copy of the caste<\/p>\n
     certificate    which       was           produced             by       the<\/p>\n
     respondents    before              the       Sub        Divisional<\/p>\n
     Officer, the Sub Divisional Officer should<\/p>\n
     not have taken into consideration the said<\/p>\n
     caste     certificate              since          no        original<\/p>\n
     certificate   was        produced            before          the       Sub<\/p>\n
     Divisional         Officer.                       Though               the<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has held in<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                     9<\/span>
\n                                                  W.P. No.1999 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     favour of the petitioner that respondents<\/p>\n
     have      not      produced            original                caste<\/p>\n
     certificate,           the     Maharashtra                Revenue<\/p>\n
     Tribunal has remanded the matter back to<\/p>\n
     the authority.           According to the learned<\/p>\n
     Counsel     for    the        petitioner,             when         the<\/p>\n
     findings    are
\n                ig      recorded          in    favour          of      the<\/p>\n
     petitioner,       the    appeal       should         have        been<\/p>\n
     allowed      by        the     Maharashtra                Revenue<\/p>\n
     Tribunal.       He invited my attention to the<\/p>\n
     other grounds taken in the petition and<\/p>\n
     submitted that when the contentions of the<\/p>\n
     petitioner       are     accepted,          there         was        no<\/p>\n
     option      for        the     Maharashtra                Revenue<\/p>\n
     Tribunal        than     to        allow       the        appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     However, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal<\/p>\n
     remanded     the       matter       back       to       the        Sub<\/p>\n
     Divisional       Officer,          though       it      was        not<\/p>\n
     warranted. The learned Counsel, therefore,<\/p>\n
     submitted that the writ petition deserves<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                       10<\/span>
\n                                                     W.P. No.1999 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    On the other hand, the learned A.G.P.\n<\/p>\n
     appearing        for       the    respondent             authority<\/p>\n
     invited      my      attention          to      the        findings<\/p>\n
     recorded        by     the        Maharashtra                Revenue<\/p>\n
     Tribunal to the effect that some of the<\/p>\n
     Legal Representatives of the respondents<\/p>\n
     were not brought on record and also the<\/p>\n
     Sub     Divisional           Officer          while          passing<\/p>\n
     order, did not take into consideration the<\/p>\n
     mandate of section 3(3) of the Restoration<\/p>\n
     Act to the effect that no undertaking was<\/p>\n
     taken     from       the     tribal.         Therefore,               the<\/p>\n
     learned      A.G.P.         would        submit           that          no<\/p>\n
     interference is warranted in the judgment<\/p>\n
     and     order     of       the        Maharashtra            Revenue<\/p>\n
     Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
     7.    With   the       assistance          of      the       learned<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:57 :::<\/span>
\n                               11<\/span>
\n                                                W.P. No.1999 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     Counsel for the petitioner, I have perused<\/p>\n
     the findings recorded by the Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     Revenue   Tribunal.           In      para        No.6,          the<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has observed<\/p>\n
     that some of the Legal Representatives of<\/p>\n
     the respondents before the Sub Divisional<\/p>\n
     Officer were not brought on record.\n<\/p>\n
                ig                                               It is<\/p>\n
     further observed that there are some other<\/p>\n
     persons who are legal representatives of<\/p>\n
     the deceased respondent. However, the Sub<\/p>\n
     Divisional Officer did not care to issue<\/p>\n
     notice to the legal heirs of the deceased<\/p>\n
     respondents       bringing         their           names           on<\/p>\n
     record. There are also observations about<\/p>\n
     the operative part of the order passed by<\/p>\n
     the Sub Divisional Officer in para no.6 of<\/p>\n
     the   judgment.      The      Maharashtra               Revenue<\/p>\n
     Tribunal in paragraph 7 has observed that<\/p>\n
     the   provisions    of     section          3(3)         of      the<\/p>\n
     Restoration Act are mandatory and unless<\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                  12<\/span>
\n                                                W.P. No.1999 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     the undertaking is taken the order under<\/p>\n
     section     3(1)     cannot       be      passed.                  In<\/p>\n
     paragraph      8     the        Maharashtra             Revenue<\/p>\n
     Tribunal     has     also        observed          that          the<\/p>\n
     authority    has      failed       to      consider              the<\/p>\n
     judgment of this Court reported in 1984<\/p>\n
     Mh.L.J.     432
\n                ig        wherein       this          Court           has<\/p>\n
     observed    that      even       assuming           that         the<\/p>\n
     tribals     have      converted           into          another<\/p>\n
     religion, it is to be found out whether<\/p>\n
     after conversion they have been following<\/p>\n
     the   tribal       way     of     life.              The         Sub<\/p>\n
     Divisional Officer did not make any detail<\/p>\n
     enquiry as to whether the respondents were<\/p>\n
     following      the       tribal        way        of         life.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, in the light of observations in<\/p>\n
     paragraph 6,7 and 8 of the judgment, the<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal felt that the<\/p>\n
     matter is required to be remanded back to<\/p>\n
     the   Sub   Divisional       Officer,          Jalgaon           for<\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                    13<\/span>
\n                                                     W.P. No.1999 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     fresh consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     8.    It is true that so far as the findings<\/p>\n
     which     are    recorded          by      the       Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     Revenue         Tribunal           about            the           caste<\/p>\n
     certificate          produced      by      the       respondents<\/p>\n
     are concerned, it is observed that the Sub<\/p>\n
     Divisional Officer has accepted the said<\/p>\n
     caste certificate though the original was<\/p>\n
     not   produced        before       the       Sub       Divisional<\/p>\n
     Officer.        Therefore,              the          Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     Revenue Tribunal reached to the findings<\/p>\n
     that it was not permissible for the Sub<\/p>\n
     Divisional       Officer      to    place           reliance            on<\/p>\n
     the copies of the caste certificates in<\/p>\n
     absence of original certificate on record.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore,       to    that     extent,           the      findings<\/p>\n
     recorded        by     the      Maharashtra                  Revenue<\/p>\n
     Tribunal are in favour of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     However,        so     far      bringing               of         Legal<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                 14<\/span>
\n                                               W.P. No.1999 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     Representatives            of          the           deceased<\/p>\n
     respondents on record, the sub Divisional<\/p>\n
     Officer did not take care and all Legal<\/p>\n
     Representatives       of    the    respondents                were<\/p>\n
     not brought on record.             The provisions of<\/p>\n
     section 3(3) of the Restoration Act were<\/p>\n
     not   followed,
\n               ig        which         according            to       the<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra        Revenue            Tribunal,               were<\/p>\n
     mandatory before passing any order under<\/p>\n
     Section 3(1) of the Restoration Act.                          That<\/p>\n
     apart,   the   Maharashtra         Revenue           Tribunal<\/p>\n
     has also reached to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
     the Sub Divisional Officer was supposed to<\/p>\n
     consider   the      effect        of      the        tribals’<\/p>\n
     conversion into another religion and after<\/p>\n
     conversion,    whether       they      were        following<\/p>\n
     the tribal way of life.               Therefore, in my<\/p>\n
     opinion,   there    was     no     way       out      for       the<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal but to remand<\/p>\n
     the   matter   back    to       the    Sub       Divisional<\/p>\n
                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:57 :::<\/span>
\n                             15<\/span>
\n                                           W.P. No.1999 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     Officer       for     fresh          consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, possible view is taken by the<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
          Hence,    no   case    is     made          out        for<\/p>\n
     interference in the impugned judgment and<\/p>\n
     order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
     9.      In the result, writ petition stands<\/p>\n
     dismissed.     Interim relief, if any, stands<\/p>\n
     vacated.     Rule stands discharged.\n<\/p>\n
                              [ S.S. SHINDE ]
\n                                  JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                           …\n<\/p>\n
     PLK\/*<\/p>\n
                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:39:57 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court -D) Smt. Mandodari Jawaharlal … vs Hasan Nathu Tadvi on 1 December, 2010 Bench: S. S. Shinde 1 W.P. No.1999 of 1991. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1999 OF 1991. Gondu Ramu Pandit, deceased through L.heir Dr. J.G. Pandit, deceased by his legal heirs: […]<\/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-128629","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n-D) Smt. Mandodari Jawaharlal ... vs Hasan Nathu Tadvi on 1 December, 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\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"-D) Smt. Mandodari Jawaharlal ... vs Hasan Nathu Tadvi on 1 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-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=\"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-17T08:27:33+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\\\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"-D) Smt. Mandodari Jawaharlal … vs Hasan Nathu Tadvi on 1 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-17T08:27:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1606,\"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\\\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010\",\"name\":\"-D) Smt. Mandodari Jawaharlal ... vs Hasan Nathu Tadvi on 1 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-17T08:27:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"-D) Smt. Mandodari Jawaharlal … vs Hasan Nathu Tadvi on 1 December, 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":"-D) Smt. Mandodari Jawaharlal ... vs Hasan Nathu Tadvi on 1 December, 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\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"-D) Smt. Mandodari Jawaharlal ... vs Hasan Nathu Tadvi on 1 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-17T08:27:33+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\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"-D) Smt. Mandodari Jawaharlal … vs Hasan Nathu Tadvi on 1 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-17T08:27:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010"},"wordCount":1606,"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\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010","name":"-D) Smt. Mandodari Jawaharlal ... vs Hasan Nathu Tadvi on 1 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-17T08:27:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-smt-mandodari-jawaharlal-vs-hasan-nathu-tadvi-on-1-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"-D) Smt. Mandodari Jawaharlal … vs Hasan Nathu Tadvi on 1 December, 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\/128629","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=128629"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128629\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}