{"id":13544,"date":"1965-04-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-04-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965"},"modified":"2018-01-13T20:29:05","modified_gmt":"2018-01-13T14:59:05","slug":"pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965","title":{"rendered":"Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 153, \t\t 1966 SCR (1) 102<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Shah, J.C., Mudholkar, J.R., Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPANDURANG DHONI CHOUGULE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMARUTI HARI JADHAV\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n26\/04\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nSHAH, J.C.\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nSIKRI, S.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR  153\t\t  1966 SCR  (1) 102\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1966 SC 439\t (4)\n R\t    1972 SC2379\t (9)\n R\t    1973 SC  76\t (5)\n RF\t    1978 SC1341\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\nCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), s. 115-Revisional\nJurisdiction\tof   High    Court-Tests--Construction\t  of\ndocument   of law-When jurisdiction can be exercised.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn  a  suit  for  redemption of\t a  mortgage  filed  by\t the\nrespondents' predecessors on a_ mortgage executed by them in\nfavour of the appellants' predecessors, a decree was  passed\ndirecting  the respondents' predecessors -to pay  a  certain\nsum within a specified time to the appellant's\tpredecessors\nand recover possession of the mortgage property and in\tcase\nof  failure  to pay within the specific time they  shall  be\ndeemed\tto have lost the right of redemption for  all  time.\nAccording  to the respondents the money was not\t paid;\teven\nso,  the  relationship between the parties continued  to  be\nthat  of the mortgagors and mortgagees.\t So the\t respondents\nfiled an application-under the Bombay Agriculturists Debtors\nRelief\tAct  for justice of the debt., The  appellants\talso\nfiled  an application for adjustment of the debt  due  under\nthe  decree; but in doing so, they made it clear  that\tthey\nwere  making the application as a matter of  precaution\t and\nwithout\t prejudice to their contentions that the  equity  of\nredemption  had been extinguished and the parties no  longer\nstood  in  the relationship of creditors and  debtors.\t The\ntrial  court  rejected the appellants' contention  that\t the\nmortgage  had been extinguished and held that the equity  of\nredemption  still  vested  in the respondents;\tbut  as\t the\nrespondents'  application was barred by time,  it  dismissed\nthe respondents' application.  On appeal, the District Court\nheld, inter alia, that the decree was a composite decree and\non  the\t respondents' failure to pay  the  decrement  amount\nwithin\tthe  time  specified,  their  right  lo\t redeem\t the\nmortgage  was  extinguished by virtue of the  express  terms\ncontained in it, and dismissed the respondents' appeal.\t  On\nrevision  under s. 115 of the Code of Civil  Procedure,\t the\nHigh Court construed the decree as a preliminary decree\t and\nfound that the clause purporting to extinguish the equity of\nredemption  did\t not  effect its essential  character  as  a\npreliminary  decree  and did not in law out an\tend  to\t the\nrelationship of creditor and debtor between the parties.  In\nappeal\tto  this  Court, the appellants\t contended  that  in\nreversing  the\tconclusion of the District Court,  the\tHigh\nCourt exceeded its jurisdiction under s. 115 of the Code.\nHELD : This contention was well founded and must be  upheld.\n[106H]\nWhile  exercising  its jurisdiction under s. 115 it  is\t nut\ncompetent  to  the  High Court to  correct  errors  of\tfact\nhowever,  gross they may be, or even errors of\tlaw,  unless\nthe  said  errors have relation to the jurisdiction  of\t the\ncourt  to  try the dispute itself.  The tests laid  down  in\nClauses\t (a) (b) and (c) of s.. 115, before the\t High  Court\nexercises its revisional jurisdiction, are, does the alleged\nmisconstruction of the statutory provision have relation  to\nthe  erroneous\tassumption  of\tthe  jurisdiction;  or\t the\nerroneous failure to exercise jurisdiction; or the  exercise\nof  jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity  by\nthe  subordinate; court.  It is well-settled that a plea  of\nlimitation or plan of\n103.\nres   judicata\tis  a  plea  of\t law  which   concerns\t the\njurisdiction  of the court which tries the  proceedings.   A\ndistinction  must  be  drawn  between  errors  committed  by\nsubordinate  courts in deciding questions of law which\thave\nrelation   to,\t or  are  concerned   with,   questions\t  of\njurisdiction of the said court, and error of law which\thave\nno  such  relation  or connection.  It\tis  undesirable\t and\ninexpedient  to\t lay  down general rule in  regard  to\tthis\nposition. [107 A-E; 108 D-E]\nManindra  Land\tand Building Corporation  Ltd.\tv.  Bhutnath\nBanerjee  and  Others,\tA.I.R.<\/a>\t1964  S.C.  1336  and\tVora\nAbbasbhai Alinahomed V. Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai, A.I.R.<\/a>\n1964 S.C. 1341.\nThe construction of a document of title is no doubt a  point\nof law.\t Even so, it cannot be held to justify the  exercise\nof the High Courts' revisional jurisdiction under s. 115  of\nthe  Code because it has no relation to the jurisdiction  of\nthe  Court.   Like  other matters  which  are  relevant\t and\nmaterial  in determining the question of the  adjustment  of\ndebts, the question about the existence of the debt has been\nleft to the determination of the courts which are authorised\nto administer the provisions of the Act; and even in dealing\nwith  such  questions, the trial court or  District.   Court\ncommits\t an  error of law, it cannot be said that,  such  an\nerror  of law would necessarily involve the question of\t the\nsaid  court'-, jurisdiction within the meaning of s. 115  of\nthe Code. [108H-109C]\nOBITER\t:  When Legislature pass Acts  dealing\twith  socio-\neconomic matters, or make provisions for the levy of  sales-\ntax,  it is realised that the operative provisions  of\tsuch\nlegislation present difficult problems of construction;\t and\nas sometimes, the Act in question provides for a  revisional\napplication  to the High Court or authorises a reference  to\nbe  made  to  it.  In  such  cases,  the  High\tCourt\twill\nundoubtedly   deal   with  the\tproblems   raised   by\t the\nconstruction  of the relevant provisions in accordance\twith\nthe  extent  of\t the jurisdiction conferred  on\t it  by\t the\nmaterial   provisions  contained  in  the  statute   itself.\nSometimes, however, no such specific provision is made,\t and\nthe  question raised in regard to the construction,  of\t the\nprovisions of such a statute reach the High Court under\t its\ngeneral\t revisional jurisdiction under s. 115 of  the  Code.\nIn  this class of cases, the revisional jurisdiction of\t the\nHigh Court has to be exercised in accordance with the limits\nprescribed by the said section. [107 E-H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 163 of 1963.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and decree  dated
\nOctober 31, 1960 of the Bombay High Court in Civil  Revision
\nApplication No. 2131 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
S.   P. Sinha and M. I. Khowja, for the appellants.
\nC.   B. Agarwala and A. G. Patraparkhi, for the respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by :
\nGajendragadkar, C.J. This appeal by special leave arises out
\nof proceedings initiated under the provisions of the  Bombay
\nAgricultural  Debtors  Relief  Act, 1939 (No.  28  of  1939)
\n(hereinafter called ‘the Act’).\t The respondents Maruti Hari
\nJadhav and two
\n104<\/span>
\nothers\tmoved  the     B.A.D.R. Court at Karad\ton  May\t 26,
\n1949,  for\t\t adjustment of\tthe debt alleged  to
\nbe   due\t  from them to\tthe  appellants,  Pandurang.
\nDhondi\tChougule & others.  Their case was that the debt  in
\nquestion  was  due under a mortgage deed executed  by  their
\ngand-father in favour of the grand-father of the  appellants
\non  August  29, 1881.  By this\tmortgage,  six\tagricultural
\nlands situated atKapil\tin the former State of Oundh  had
\nbeen  mortgaged to the\t\t   portage  with  possession
\nfor   a\t  sum  of  Rs.\t575.   In  1908,   the\t respondents
\npredecessoes-in-interest sued on this mortgage in the  Court
\nof  the Sub-Judge at Kapil (Civil Suit No. 28  of  1908-09).
\nThis  suit  was, however, withdrawn with liberty to  file  a
\nfresh  suit.  Then followed another suit by the\t respondents
\nin the same Court for redemption of the mortage (No. 102  of
\n1932-33).  On September 2, 1936, a decree came to be  passed
\nin the said suit.  According to the respondents, the  decree
\ndirected  them to pay Rs. 3,677-12-6 within six months\tfrom
\nthe  date on which it was drawn but the said money  had\t not
\nbeen  paid;  even so, the relationship between\tthe  parties
\ncontinued to be that of ‘the mortgagors and the\t mortgagees,
\nand  so, they were entitled to claim adjustment of the\tdebt
\nin  question.  The respondents also pleaded that the  decree
\nwhich  was  passed in the said suit was in the nature  of  a
\npreliminary decree, and though the appellants were  entitled
\nto  apply  for\tmaking\tthe  said  decree  final  after\t the
\nexpiration of the six months’ period prescribed by it,\tthey
\ntook  no  such\taction and  the\t mortgage  debt,  therefore,
\nremains unpaid arid the equity of redemption vesting in\t the
\nrespondents  is\t unextinguished.   That, in  brief,  is\t the
\nnature\tof  the\t claim\tmade  by  the  Respondents  in\t the
\napplication  made  by them under the Act for  adjustment  of
\ntheir debt due to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
It  appears that the State of Oundh merged in the  erstwhile
\nState  of Bombay and thereafter the Act was extended to\t the
\nsaid  State.   That  is how the\t respondents  commenced\t the
\npresent\t proceedings  under the provisions of the  Act\tthus
\nextender to the State of Oundh.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellants also made an application for the  adjustment
\nof the debt due under the decree in Suit No. 102\/1932-33  in
\nthe Court of Joint Civil Judge Karad; but in doing so,, they
\nmade   it  perfectly  clear  that  they\t were\tmaking\t the
\napplication is a matter (-f precaution and without prejudice
\nto  their contention that the equity of redemption had\tbeen
\nextinguished  and  the\tparties\t no  longer  stood  in\t the
\nrelationship of creditors and debtors.\tIn fact, it was\t the
\nappellants  the first made the application on May 19,  1949,
\nand the respondents followed by their application on May
\n105<\/span>
\n26, 1949.  For the purpose of hearing these two applications
\nwere  consolidated by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
At  the hearing of these proceedings the  appellants  raised
\nseveral\t contentions.\tThey  urged that  the  mortgage\t was
\nextinguished   and  the\t respondents  were  therefore,\t not
\nentitled  to  claim adjustment of the debt,  and  they\talso
\ncontended  that the application made by the respondents\t was
\nbarred\tby time.  The trial Judge rejected  the\t appellants’
\nargument  that the mortgage had been extinguished, and\theld
\nthat   the  equity  of\tredemption  still  vested   in\t the
\nrespondents.   He,  however, found  ‘that  the\trespondents’
\napplication for adjustment of the debt was barred by time.In
\nthe result, the respondents failed and their application was
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
The matter then went in appeal to the District Court,  North
\nSatara.\t  The appellate Court held that the decree  in\tsuit
\nNo.  102  of  1932-33  amounted\t to  a\tfinal  decree  which
\nabsolutely  debarred the right of the mortgaging  to  redeem
\nthe property in view of the fact that had failed to pay\t the
\ndecretal  amount within the time prescribed by it.  It\talso
\nagreed\twith  the  view taken by the trial  Court  that\t the
\nrespondents  application was barrey by limitation.   In\t the
\nresult,\t  the  appeal  preferred  by  the  respondents\t was
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
The  dispute  the  reached  the Bombay\tHigh  Court  in\t its
\nrevisional  jurisdiction under s. 115 of the  Code.   Before
\nthe High Court it was urged that the Code of Civil Procedure
\ndid  not apply to the State of Oundh at the  relevant  time;
\nthat  is  why by an interlocutory judgment, the\t High  Court
\nremanded the proceedings to the trial Court with a direction
\nthat  the issue as to whether the Code of  Civil  Proceedure
\napplied\t to the State of Oundh at the relevant time,  should
\nbe  tried.  On remand, the trial Court made a  finding\tthat
\nthe Code of Civil Procedure had been made applicable to\t the
\nState  of Oundh as far back as 1909-10.\t The High Court\t had
\nalso directed that the issue as to who was, in possession of
\nthe property at the relevant time, should be tried; and\t the
\nfinding returned by the trial Court was that the  appellants
\nwere  in  possession  of  the  mortgaged  property  not\t  as
\nmortgaeges, but as owners from 2nd March, 1937.
\nAfter these findings were returned, the revision application
\nwas  argued before the High Court; and the main point  which
\nwas  urged before the High Court at that state\twas  whether
\nthe  respondents’  right  to redeem the\t mortgage  had\tbeen
\nextinguished  by the decree passed in civil suit No. 102  of
\n1932-33.  The High
\n106<\/span>
\nCourt has differed from the District Court and has taken the
\nview  that  the decree did not\tdetermine  the\trespondents’
\nright  to  redeem the mortgage.\t In regard  to\tthe  finding
\nrecorded   by  the  courts  below  that\t  the\trespondents’
\napplication was barred by time, the High Court took the view
\nthat  the question as to whether the application  is  within
\nsixty years from the expiry of the period prescribed in\t the
\nmortgae\t deed for repayment is entirely irrelevant  inasmuch
\nas the said application is substantially for the  adjustment
\nof debt under the decree passed in suit No. 102 of  1932-33.
\nOn that view of the matter, the High Court has set aside the
\norders\tpassed\tby  the courts below and  has  remanded\t the
\nproceedings  to\t the trial Court with a direction  that\t the
\napplication  made by the respondents for adjustment  of\t the
\ndebt should be tried in accordance with law.  It is  against
\nthis  order that the appellants have come to this  Court  by
\nspecial leave.\n<\/p>\n
Before proceeding to deal with the contentions raised before
\nus in the present appeal, it would be convenient to set\t out
\nthe relevant portion of the decree in suit No. 102 of  1932-\n<\/p>\n
33.  The operative part of the decree reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The plaintiffs should pay to defendants I and
\n\t      2 Rs. 3,677-12-6 within six months from  today
\n\t      and  should  recover possession  of  the\tsuit
\n\t      property as the heirs of Gopala free from\t the
\n\t      mortgage.\t In case the plaintiff,,, do not pay
\n\t      the  amount  within the prescribed  time,\t the
\n\t      plaintiffs  shall be deemed to have  lost\t the
\n\t      right of redemption for all time”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The District Court has held that this decree is a  composite
\ndecree\tand  on the failure of the respondents\tto  pay\t the
\ndecretal  amount within the time specified. their  right  to
\nredeem the mortgage is extinguished by virtue of the express
\nterms  contained  in it.  The High Court has  construed\t the
\ndecree\tas  a preliminary decree has found that\t the  clause
\npurporting  to extinguish the equity of redemption does\t not
\naffect\tits essential character as a preliminary decree\t and
\ndoes not in law put an end to the relationship of  creditors
\nand debtors between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
The  first  question  which falls for our  decision  in\t the
\npresent\t appeal is whether the High Court was  justified  in
\ninterfering with the decision of the District Court that the
\ndecree\tin question extinguished the respondents’  right  to
\nredeem the mortgage.  Mr. Sinha for the appellants  contends
\nthat in reversing the conclusion of the District Court,\t the
\nHigh  Court ha-, exceeded its jurisdiction under S.  115  of
\nthe Code.  In our opinion’. this contention is\twell-founded
\nand must be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
 107<\/span><\/p>\n
The  provisions of s. 115 of the Code have been examined  by
\njudicial  decisions on several occasions.  While  exercising
\nits  jurisdiction under s. 115, it is not competent  to\t the
\nHigh Court to correct errors of fact however gross they may,
\nor even errors of law, unless the said errors have  relation
\nto the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute  itself.
\nAs  clauses (a), (b) and (c) of s. 115 indicate, it is\tonly
\nin  cases  where  the  subordinate  Court  has\texercised  a
\njurisdiction  not  vested  in it by law, or  has  failed  to
\nexercise  a  jurisdiction  so vested, or has  acted  in\t the
\nexercise  of  its jurisdiction illegally  or  with  material
\nirregularity  that the revisional jurisdiction of  the\tHigh
\nCourt  can  be\tproperly invoked.  It  is  conceivable\tthat
\npoints\tof  law may arise in proceedings  instituted  before
\nsubordinate  courts  which  are\t related  to  questions\t  of
\njurisdiction.  It is well-settled that a plea of  limitation
\nor  a plea of yes judicata is a plea of law  which  concerns
\nthe  Jurisdiction of the court which tries the\tproceedings.
\nA finding on these pleas in favour of the party raising them
\nwould  oust  the  jurisdiction\tof the\tcourt,\tand  so,  an
\nerroneous  decision  on\t these\tpleas  can  be\tsaid  to  be
\nconcerned  with questions of jurisdicdon which\tfall  within
\nthe  purview  of  s.  115 of the  Code.\t  But  an  erroneous
\ndecision  on  a question of law reached by  the\t subordinate
\ncourt which has no relation to questions of jurisdiction  of
\nthat court, cannot be corrected by the High Court under 115.
\nThe  history of recent legislation in India shows that\twhen
\nLegislatures  pass Acts dealing with socioeconomic  matters,
\nor  make  pro-visions  for  the levy  of  sales-tax,  it  is
\nrealized  that the operative provisions of such\t legislation
\npresent\t  difficult  problems  of  construction;   and\t so,
\nsometimes,  the\t Act in question provides for  a  revisional
\napplication to the High Court in respect of such matters  or
\nauthorises a reference to be made to it.  In such cases, the
\nHigh Court will undoubtedly deal with the problems raised by
\nthe  construction of the relevant provisions  in  accordance
\nwith  the extent of the jurisdiction conferred on it by\t the
\nmaterial   provisions  contained  in  the  statute   itself.
\nSometimes, however, no such specific provision is made,\t and
\nthe  questions raised in regard to the construction  of\t the
\nprovisions of such a statute reach the High Court under\t its
\ngeneral\t revisional jurisdiction under s. 115 of  the  Code.
\nIn  this class of cases, the revisional jurisdiction of\t the
\nHigh Court has to be exercised in accordance with the limits
\nprescribed by the said section.\t It is true that in order to
\nafford guidance to subordinate courts and to avoid confusion
\nin  the\t administration\t of the specific  law  in  question,
\nimportant  questions  relating to the  construction  of\t the
\noperative provisions contained,
\n5Sup.\/65-8
\n108<\/span>
\nin such an Act must be finally determined by the High Court;
\nbut  in\t doing\tso, the High Court must\t enquire  whether  a
\ncomplaint made against the decision of the subordinate court
\non  the\t ground\t that  it  has\tmisconstrued  the   relevant
\nprovisions  of\tthe statute, attracts the provisions  of  s.\n<\/p>\n
115.   Does  the alleged misconstruction ,of  the  statutory
\nprovision  have\t relation  to the  erroneous  assumption  of
\njurisdiction, or the erroneous failure to exercise jurisdic-
\ntion,  or  the exercise of jurisdiction\t illegally  or\twith
\nmaterial  irregularity by the subordinate court ? These\t are
\nthe  tests laid down by s. 115 of the Code and they have  to
\nbe  borne in mind before the High Court decides to  exercise
\nits revisional jurisdiction under it.\n<\/p>\n
This question has been recently considered by this Court  in
\nManindra  Land\tand Building Corporation Ltd.,\tv.  Bhutnath
\nBanerjee  and  Others<\/a>(1); and Vora Abbasbhai  Alimahomed  v.
\nHaji  Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai<\/a>(2).  The effect of  these\t two
\ndecisions  clearly  is\tthat a\tdistinction  must  be  drawn
\nbetween\t the  errors  committed\t by  subordinate  courts  in
\ndeciding  questions  of law which have relation to,  or\t are
\nconcerned with, questions of jurisdiction of the said court,
\nand errors of law which have no such relation or connection.
\nIt is, we think, undesirable and inexpedient to lay down any
\ngeneral\t rule  in regard to this position.   An\t attempt  to
\ndefine\tthis  position\twith precision or to  deal  with  it
\nexhaustively  may  create unnecessary difficulties.   It  is
\nclear that in actual practice, it would not be difficult  to
\ndistinguish  between  cases where errors of law\t affect,  or
\nhave  relation to, the jurisdiction of the court  concerned,
\nand where they do not have such a relation.\n<\/p>\n
Considering  the point raised by Mr. Sinha in the  light  of
\nthis  position,\t it seems to us that the High Court  was  in
\nerror in assuming jurisdiction to correct what it thought to
\nbe  the misconstruction of the decree passed in\t civil\tsuit
\nNo. 102 of 1932-33.  As we have already seen, in the present
\ndebt  adjustment proceedings, one of the points which  arose
\nfor decision was whether the mortgage debt was subsisting at
\nthe  time when the respondents made their  application,\t and
\nthe District Court had found that the respondents’ equity of
\nredemption had been extinguished.  This finding was based on
\nthe construction of the said decree.  It is difficult to see
\nhow  the High Court was justified in reversing this  finding
\nunder s. 115 of the Code.  The construction of a decree like
\nthe construction of a document of title is no doubt a  point
\nof law.\t Even so, it cannot be held to justify the  exercise
\nof the
\n(1) A-I.R. 1964 S.C. 1336.\n<\/p>\n
(2) A.I.R.  1964 S.C. 1341.\n<\/p>\n
109<\/span><\/p>\n
High  Court’s  revisional jurisdiction under s. 115  of\t the
\nCode  because it has no relation to the jurisdiction of\t the
\nCourt.\t Like other matters which are relevant and  material
\nin determining the question of the adjustment of debts,\t the
\nquestion  about the existence of the debt has been  left  to
\nthe  determination of the court.-, which are  authorised  to
\nadminister the provisions of the Act; and even if in dealing
\nwith  such questions, the trial court or the District  Court
\ncommits\t an  error of law, it cannot be said  that  such  an
\nerror  of law would necessarily involve the question of\t the
\nsaid  courts’ jurisdiction within the meaning of s.  115  of
\nthe Code.  We are, therefore, satisfied that on the facts of
\nthis  case,  the  High Court exceeded  its  jurisdiction  in
\ninterfering  with the conclusion of the District Court\tthat
\nthe  decree  in question had extinguished  the\trespondents’
\nequity of redemption.\n<\/p>\n
This conclusion is enough to dispose of the present  appeal,
\nbecause the main ground on which the High Court has reversed
\nthe  concurrent decision of the courts below dismissing\t the
\nrespondents’  application  for adjustment of  the  debt,  is
\nfurnished by its finding that the decree in question did not
\nextinguish   the  equity  of  redemption  vesting   in\t the
\n:,respondents.\tIn fact, it was as a result of this decision
\nthat the High Court reversed the finding of the courts below
\nthat  the  respondents’\t application  was  barred  by  time.
\nHaving\tregard to the fact that we are inclined to take\t the
\nview  that  the\t High Court  exceeded  its  jurisdiction  in
\nreversing the finding of the District Court as to the effect
\nof  the decree in question, we do not think it is  necessary
\nto  consider  the further question as to  whether  the\tHigh
\nCourt was right in holding that the decree in question was a
\npreliminary  decree  and  the  clause  which  purported\t  to
\nextinguish  the\t equity of redemption  was  inoperative\t and
\ninvalid\t and  as  much,\t it did\t not  affect  the  essential
\ncharacter of the decree as a preliminary decree.
\nThe  result, is, the appeal is allowed, the order passed  by
\nthe  High Court is set aside and that of the District  Court
\nrestored.  There would be no order as to costs.
\nAppeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
110<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 153, 1966 SCR (1) 102 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Shah, J.C., Mudholkar, J.R., Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: PANDURANG DHONI CHOUGULE Vs. RESPONDENT: MARUTI HARI JADHAV DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/04\/1965 BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13544","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965 - 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\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965\" \/>\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=\"1965-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-13T14:59:05+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-13T14:59:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965\"},\"wordCount\":2743,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965\",\"name\":\"Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-13T14:59:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965\"}]},{\"@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":"Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965 - 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\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-13T14:59:05+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965","datePublished":"1965-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-13T14:59:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965"},"wordCount":2743,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965","name":"Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-13T14:59:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-dhoni-chougule-vs-maruti-hari-jadhav-on-26-april-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965"}]},{"@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\/13544","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=13544"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13544\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13544"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13544"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13544"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}