{"id":138581,"date":"2010-07-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-08-01T11:57:46","modified_gmt":"2017-08-01T06:27:46","slug":"smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate vs Smt. Kondabai Dattatrya Dumbre on 5 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate vs Smt. Kondabai Dattatrya Dumbre on 5 July, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: R. C. Chavan<\/div>\n
                                       1\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \nrpa\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 629 OF 2010\n\n\n      1)   Smt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate,      ]\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n           Age - 65 years, Occu.-Housewife.    ]\n                                               ]\n      2)   Shri.Deepak Ramkrishna Pate,        ]\n           Age - 43 years, Occu.- Agricultural ]\n           & Business,                         ]   ..  Appellants\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n           Both Residing at :                  ]    (Org. Plaintiffs)\n           Room No. 21, Ground Floor,\n                       ig                      ]\n           Gulam Mohammed Building,            ]\n           Navraji Hill, Road No.7, Dongari, ]\n                     \n           Mumbai 400 009.                     ]\n\n                       VERSUS\n\n      1)   Smt. Kondabai Dattatrya Dumbre,      ]\n        \n\n\n           Age - 60 years, Occu.-Housewife,     ]\n     \n\n\n\n           Residing at  - Narayanwadi,          ]\n           A. P., Narayangaon, Tal.-Junner,     ]\n           District-Pune, Pin No. 410 504.      ]\n                                                ]\n\n\n\n\n\n      2)   Smt. Kamal Jagannath Mule,           ]\n           Age - 58 years, Occu.-Housewife,     ]\n           R\/at. A.P., Narayangaon,             ]\n           Behind Grampanchayat Office,         ]\n           Tal-Junner, District - Pune,         ]  ..  Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n           Pin No. 410 504.                     ]    (Org. Defendants)\n                                                ]\n      3)   Smt. Leela Pandurang Temkar,         ]\n           Age - 56 years, Occu.-Housewife,     ]\n           R\/at. Shivadarshan Co-Operative      ]\n           Housing Society, 2nd Floor,          ]\n           Bhatwadi, R.B.Kadam Marg,            ]\n           Near Rupal Industrial Estate,        ]\n           Ghatkopar (west),                    ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:06:03 :::\n                                             2\n\n            Mumbai - 400 086.                   ]\n                                                ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n     4)     Shri Sayaji Ganpat Pate,            ]\n            Age - 48 years, Occu.-Agricultural, ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n            R\/at. Agaskand, Near Crusher        ]\n            Machine, Pune Nasik Highway,        ]\n            A.P., Narayangaon, Taluka-Junner, ]\n            District Pune- 410 504.             ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n                                                ]\n     5)     Smt. Sushila Haribhau Vite,         ]\n            Age - 54 years, Occu.-Housewife, ]\n            R\/at. Vite Building, Muktabai       ]\n            Mandir Road, A.P., Narayangaon, ]\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n            Taluka-Junner, Dist. Pune -410 504. ]\n                         ig                     ]\n     6)     Shri. Shivaji Maruti Wayal,         ]\n            Age - 64 years, Occu.-Agricultrual, ]\n                       \n            R\/at. Bhalgat Building,             ]\n            Near Ram Mandir, A.P.,Narayangaon]\n            Tal.-Junner, District Pune - 410 504.]\n      \n\n\n                                     ....\n   \n\n\n\n     Mr. A. V. Anturkar a\/w. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh & Mr. Vipin Kasle \n     for the Appellants.\n     Mr. R. D. Soni i\/b. M\/s. Ram & Co. for the Respondents.\n                                    ....\n\n\n\n\n\n                                       CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                       RESERVED ON      :  JUNE 24, 2010.\n                                       PRONONUNCED ON : JULY 5, 2010.\n\n\n\n\n\n     JUDGMENT :-\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                   This Appeal is directed against the order passed by the <\/p>\n
     learned   Civil   Judge,   Senior   Division,   Pune,   rejecting   appellant’s <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:06:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
     application   Exhibit   5   and   37   for   an   injunction   to   restrain <\/p>\n
     respondents (defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in Special Civil Suit No. 1813 <\/p>\n
     of   2009)   from   obstructing   appellants\/plaintiffs   possession   of <\/p>\n
     Survey   Nos.   364\/1   and   364\/2   at   Narayangaon,   Taluka   Junner, <\/p>\n
     District Pune, and from creating any third party interests during <\/p>\n
     the pendency of the Suit.\n<\/p>\n
     2.           By consent of parties the Appeal was taken up for final <\/p>\n
     hearing at the admission stage.\n<\/p>\n
     3.           The facts which are material for deciding this Appeal <\/p>\n
     are as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                  The properties which are subject matter of this Appeal <\/p>\n
     were undisputedly owned and possessed by Mr. Sakharam Pate.\n<\/p>\n
     The   question   whether   the   properties   were   self   acquired   or <\/p>\n
     ancestral properties of Sakharam  Pate cannot be gone into at this <\/p>\n
     stage, since it will have to be decided after evidence is tendered.\n<\/p>\n
     Sakharam had three natural daughters who are respondent Nos. 1 <\/p>\n
     to 3 (defendant Nos. 1 to 3).   He adopted one Ramkrishna, who <\/p>\n
     was married at that time, as his son by a registered adoption deed <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:06:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
     dated 6th  June, 1966.    Sakharam died on 28th  November, 1966.\n<\/p>\n
     Sakharam’s widow Rahibai died on 6th May, 2007.  Thus far there <\/p>\n
     is no dispute.\n<\/p>\n
     4.            According   to   the   plaintiffs,   soon   before   Sakharam’s <\/p>\n
     death on 28th November, 1966, on 10th November, 1966 Sakharam <\/p>\n
     had  willed the properties to Ramkrishna.  This will was registered <\/p>\n
     on   15th  November,   1966.     This   is   not   admitted   by   defendants.\n<\/p>\n
     According   to   the   defendants,   the   properties   of   Sakharam   were <\/p>\n
     partitioned amongst Ramkrishna (adopted son), Rahibai (widow) <\/p>\n
     and three daughters (defendant Nos.  1 to 3) on 31st  December, <\/p>\n
     1978 in presence of two witnesses and a writing to that effect was <\/p>\n
     made.\n<\/p>\n
     5.            Ramkrishna  died   on  26th  April,   1985  leaving  behind <\/p>\n
     widow Laxmibai (plaintiff No.1), Son Deepak (plaintiff No.2) and <\/p>\n
     daughters   Kalpana   and   Aruna   (who   are   not   parties   to   the <\/p>\n
     proceeding).\n<\/p>\n
     6.            While plaintiffs claimed to have been in possession in <\/p>\n
     view of the will dated 10th November, 1966, defendants claim that <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:06:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
     parties were in possession of properties as per partition dated 31 st <\/p>\n
     December, 1978.  One of the properties owned by the family, F. S.\n<\/p>\n
     No. 523 was  subject   matter  of  acquisition  proceedings  and  was <\/p>\n
     released from acquisition proceedings as on application made by <\/p>\n
     plaintiff No. 2 Deepak, on his claim that in partition dated 31st <\/p>\n
     December, 1987, 7A 13G land had come to his share, 83G land <\/p>\n
     came to the share of plaintiff No.1 Laxmibai and 7A 24G each had <\/p>\n
     gone to the share of defendant Nos. 1 to 3.   This documents of <\/p>\n
     partition   seems   to   have   been   produced   before   the   Additional <\/p>\n
     Commissioner as can be seen from his order dated 26th November, <\/p>\n
     2001.   The order recites that   F. S. No. 364\/1 and 364\/2, which <\/p>\n
     were in the name of Deepak (plaintiff No.2) were not included in <\/p>\n
     command area.\n<\/p>\n
     7.           According  to plaintiffs, no such application was made <\/p>\n
     by plaintiff No.2, and, respondent’s son, advocate Pradeep Muley <\/p>\n
     was in fact looking after the proceedings.  Plaintiffs claims to have <\/p>\n
     approached Hon’ble Minister for Revenue against the order passed <\/p>\n
     by the Additional Commissioner, though the order is in favour of <\/p>\n
     plaintiff No.2, which application is stated to be still pending.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:06:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
     8.            Sakharam’s widow Rahibai and defendant No.2 Kamal <\/p>\n
     applied on 23rd  February, 2006 to Tahsildar for mutation of suit <\/p>\n
     properties in their names on the basis of partition deed dated 31st <\/p>\n
     December,   1978.     Tahsildar   rejected   the   application   on   10th <\/p>\n
     August,   2006.     Defendant   Nos.   1   to   3   applied   to     S.D.O.   who <\/p>\n
     allowed the Appeal on 23rd January, 2009 and directed that names <\/p>\n
     of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to be recorded.  Plaintiffs filed a second <\/p>\n
     R.T.S.   Appeal   No.   44   of   2009   against   S.D.O’s   order   which   was <\/p>\n
     dismissed   by   the   Collector   on   24th  September,   2009   and   on   6th <\/p>\n
     October, 2009 names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were recorded in <\/p>\n
     revenue record.   On 12th December, 2009, plaintiff challenged this <\/p>\n
     order by preferring revision before the Additional Commissioner, <\/p>\n
     who,  on 16th December, 2009 restrained defendants from creating <\/p>\n
     third party interest.   Plaintiffs then filed the suit on 14 th  October, <\/p>\n
     2009 from which present Appeal arises.   Application Exhibit 5 for <\/p>\n
     temporary injunction  was filed by plaintiffs on 29th October, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
     Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 transferred the property S. No. 364\/1 and <\/p>\n
     364\/2 by registered sale deed to defendant Nos. 4 to 6.  Plaintiffs <\/p>\n
     claim that thereafter their possession was sought to be disturbed.\n<\/p>\n
     The   plaintiff  therefore   filed   application   Exhibit   37   for   a   further <\/p>\n
     injunction and also added defendant Nos. 4 to 6 as parties to the <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:06:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
     suit.\n<\/p>\n
     9.         Respondents contested the application by filing reply.\n<\/p>\n
     According to respondents :-\n<\/p>\n
                (i)    The properties in question were ancestral  <\/p>\n
                and   not   self   acquired   properties   of   Sakharam,  <\/p>\n
                (and   therefore   could   not   have   been   willed   to  <\/p>\n
                Ramkrishna).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (ii)   Ramkrishna   was   already   married   at   the  <\/p>\n
                time of alleged adoption and there is no reference  <\/p>\n
                to adoptive mother Rahibai in the adoption deed  <\/p>\n
                dated 6th June, 1966.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (iii) There was a partition of properties on 31st <\/p>\n
                November, 1978.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (iv)   This partition was relied on by the plaintiff  <\/p>\n
                for   getting   property   S.   No.   523   released   from  <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:06:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
                 acquisition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (v)    Therefore   since   plaintiffs   and   defendant  <\/p>\n
                 Nos.   1   to   3   form   a   joint   family,   injunction  <\/p>\n
                 against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be claimed,  <\/p>\n
                 therefore, they prayed for dismissal of plaintiff’s  <\/p>\n
                 application.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10.         After hearing the parties, the learned Judge passed the <\/p>\n
     impugned order rejecting plaintiffs application.  Aggrieved thereby <\/p>\n
     plaintiffs are before this Court.  I have heard the learned counsel <\/p>\n
     for the parties.  Though, the order may give an impression that the <\/p>\n
     learned Judge was refusing “ad-interim injunction”, the tenor of <\/p>\n
     the order shows that it was passed after hearing the parties and <\/p>\n
     thus what was refused was “interim injunction”, after considering <\/p>\n
     merits, though observation by the learned Judge is to the contrary.\n<\/p>\n
     11.         Now,   coming   to   the   merits   of   the   matter.     The <\/p>\n
     defendants may not be able to question adoption of Ramkrishna <\/p>\n
     by Sakharam now, if they want to rely on partition deed dated 31 st <\/p>\n
     December,   1978,   which   acknowledges   Ramkrishna   as   son   of <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:06:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
     Sakharam.   The partition dated 31st  December, 1978 is however <\/p>\n
     not shown to have been acted upon or referred to by any of the <\/p>\n
     parties till 26th  November, 2001, when it was referred to in the <\/p>\n
     order passed by Additional Commissioner for exclusion of land S.\n<\/p>\n
     No. 523 from acquisition.     First  applications  for  recording  their <\/p>\n
     names   in   revenue   record   were   made   by   defendant   Nos.   1   to   3 <\/p>\n
     (and   even   their   mother   Rahibai)   only   in   2006.     Till   then   the <\/p>\n
     properties continued in the name of Ramkrishna and after him the <\/p>\n
     plaintiffs.   Even in the applications by Rahibai on 23rd  February, <\/p>\n
     2006   and   by   Kamal   dated   27th  March,   2006   to   the   Tahsildar, <\/p>\n
     partition deed dated 31st December, 1978 was not refereed to and <\/p>\n
     there is no claim by the sisters that their name should be mutated <\/p>\n
     in record of S. Nos. 364\/1 and 364\/2 which had allegedly come to <\/p>\n
     their share in the partition.   The prayer was for recording their <\/p>\n
     names in  revenue records of all fields.   It is also not referred to in <\/p>\n
     Memo of Appeal     to the  S.D.O.,  though in his  order  dated  23rd <\/p>\n
     January, 2009, the partition deed is referred to.  Though the initial <\/p>\n
     prayer  of  defendant   Nos.   1   to   3   was   to   include   their  names   in <\/p>\n
     record of right of all fields left behind by Sakharam, the S.D.O. in <\/p>\n
     appeal ordered exclusion of five fields from  mutation entry 19623 <\/p>\n
     and 23893 and record them in the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:06:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                              10<\/span><\/p>\n
     While doing so, the S.D.O. too observed that plaintiffs had relied <\/p>\n
     on partition deed dated 31st December, 1978 for exclusion of their <\/p>\n
     land from acquisition.\n<\/p>\n
     12.            The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   pointed   out <\/p>\n
     that appellants had  not referred to any partition deed dated 31st <\/p>\n
     December, 1978 in their application for exclusion of land S. No. <\/p>\n
     523   from   acquisition.     Reason   for   seeking   exclusion   was   not <\/p>\n
     partition between plaintiffs on one side and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 <\/p>\n
     on   the   other.     Partition   referred   to   in   application   dated   11 th <\/p>\n
     January, 2000 was between plaintiffs interse.  The applicants have <\/p>\n
     already   approached   the   Revenue   Minister   against   observations <\/p>\n
     about   partition   dated   31st  December,   1978   in   Commissioner’s <\/p>\n
     order dated 26th November, 2001.\n<\/p>\n
     13.            The   learned   counsel   for   respondents   submitted   that <\/p>\n
     after having been benefited by the said order passed on account of <\/p>\n
     partition, plaintiffs cannot be allowed to turn around.\n<\/p>\n
     14.            The only reason that seems to have prevailed upon the <\/p>\n
     learned  trial   Judge   in   relying   to   the   partition   is   the   impression <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:06:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
     gathered by him that the appellants took advantage of the said <\/p>\n
     partition   in   order   to   get   the   land,   Survey   No.   523,   released <\/p>\n
     from acquisition.  A look at the order passed by the Commissioner <\/p>\n
     would show that the reason for exclusion of Survey Nos. 364\/1 <\/p>\n
     and 364\/2 from the holding of the appellants was not that they <\/p>\n
     had gone to the respondents in partition, but that they were not in <\/p>\n
     the command area.  The learned judge should have also seen that <\/p>\n
     in the application made before the Commissioner, the appellants <\/p>\n
     had not set up the case that their lands were liable to be excluded <\/p>\n
     because   of   reduction   in   their   holding   on   account   of   partition.\n<\/p>\n
     He   should   have   seen   that   it   was   probable   that   the   appellant’s <\/p>\n
     cousin,   who   was   an   advocate   and   who   is   son   of   one   of   the <\/p>\n
     respondent’s and who was looking after the litigation, could have <\/p>\n
     raised   the   partition   theory   in   the   order   of   the   Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus,   the   case   of   the   appellants   that   the   appellants   were   in <\/p>\n
     possession   of   the   property   could   have   been   accepted   by   the <\/p>\n
     learned trial Judge.  He should have seen that the alleged partition <\/p>\n
     of the year 1978 did not at all surface for at least 22 years.  There <\/p>\n
     is   nothing   on   record   to   show   that   the   respondents   had,   at   any <\/p>\n
     point of time, sought  entry  of  their  names  in  the  record  of the <\/p>\n
     property, on the basis of partition.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:06:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                             12<\/span><\/p>\n
     15.           In view of this, the learned Judge should have seen <\/p>\n
     that the appellant’s claim of the possession of the fields in question <\/p>\n
     was   at   least,  prima   facie,  indefeasible.     In   the   light     of   the <\/p>\n
     foregoing, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge correctly <\/p>\n
     concluded that the appellants had not made out a prima facie case.\n<\/p>\n
     In view of this, he ought to have restrained the respondents from <\/p>\n
     disturbing   the   appellant’s   possession   in   respect   of   fields,   survey <\/p>\n
     Nos. 364\/1 and 364\/2.\n<\/p>\n
     16.           As   far   as   creating   third   party   interest   is   concerned, <\/p>\n
     provisions   of   Section   52   of   the   Transfer   of   Property   Act   are <\/p>\n
     sufficient   to   take   care   of   apprehension   of   the   appellants.     The <\/p>\n
     appellants have not shown as to why, in addition to the statutory <\/p>\n
     protection afforded by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, <\/p>\n
     the appellants need a further injunction from the Civil Court to <\/p>\n
     restrain the respondents from creating any further interest in the <\/p>\n
     property.  Appellants could, if they so desire, register the lis  so as <\/p>\n
     to put third parties, to the notice that the property is the subject <\/p>\n
     matter of a dispute before a Civil Court.  It has to be noted that a <\/p>\n
     Civil Court should ordinarily not put any restrictions on enjoyment <\/p>\n
     of property by any one till the  lis  is finally decided or during the <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:06:03 :::<\/span>
\n                                               13<\/span><\/p>\n
     pendency of the lis, unless it is shown that the litigation could be <\/p>\n
     rendered infructuous, if a preventive order is not passed.\n<\/p>\n
     17.         In   view   of   this,   the   Appeal   is   partly   allowed,   the <\/p>\n
     impugned order is set aside, and the respondents are restrained <\/p>\n
     from disturbing the appellant’s possession over the fields, survey <\/p>\n
     No. 364\/1 and 364\/2, till the disposal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   [ R. C. CHAVAN, J. ]<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:06:03 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Smt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate vs Smt. Kondabai Dattatrya Dumbre on 5 July, 2010 Bench: R. C. Chavan 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 629 OF 2010 1) Smt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate, ] Age – 65 years, Occu.-Housewife. ] ] 2) Shri.Deepak […]<\/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-138581","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate vs Smt. Kondabai Dattatrya Dumbre on 5 July, 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\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate vs Smt. Kondabai Dattatrya Dumbre on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-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=\"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-01T06:27:46+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate vs Smt. Kondabai Dattatrya Dumbre on 5 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-01T06:27:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1909,\"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\\\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate vs Smt. Kondabai Dattatrya Dumbre on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-01T06:27:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate vs Smt. Kondabai Dattatrya Dumbre on 5 July, 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":"Smt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate vs Smt. Kondabai Dattatrya Dumbre on 5 July, 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\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate vs Smt. Kondabai Dattatrya Dumbre on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-01T06:27:46+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate vs Smt. Kondabai Dattatrya Dumbre on 5 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-01T06:27:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010"},"wordCount":1909,"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\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010","name":"Smt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate vs Smt. Kondabai Dattatrya Dumbre on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-01T06:27:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-laxmibai-ramkrishna-pate-vs-smt-kondabai-dattatrya-dumbre-on-5-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate vs Smt. Kondabai Dattatrya Dumbre on 5 July, 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\/138581","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=138581"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138581\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138581"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138581"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138581"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}