{"id":144548,"date":"1960-08-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-08-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960"},"modified":"2015-05-26T12:20:53","modified_gmt":"2015-05-26T06:50:53","slug":"lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960","title":{"rendered":"Lachibai Sunderlal Agarwal And … vs State Of Bombay on 29 August, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Lachibai Sunderlal Agarwal And … vs State Of Bombay on 29 August, 1960<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1962 Bom 23, (1961) 63 BOMLR 307, ILR 1961 Bom 463<\/div>\n
Bench: Gokhale<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
(1) This  revision application raises  a  somewhat  important  point  at  to  the  interpretation  of  S.  31 of the Court-fees  Act,  1870,  which was introduced  by  the Court-fees  (Bombay  Amendment Act XII of  1954.  The  question arises in this  was  Petitioner  No. 1, Lachibai,  had  filed  a   suit  in forma  pauperis against  petitioner  No. 2,  Hiralal, and  one  Gulab,  for  a declaration  that  a certain document  dated  5th December  1956  taken by  Hiralal  with regard  to 1\/3rd  share in  certain  property  and  the  right of  defendant   to get an amount of  Rs. 20  per  mensem was  void and  not  binding  on the  plaintiff., and  for  partition  and  separate possession of  her  1\/3rd  share in certain house  property situated  in the Cantonment  at  Poona,  and  for  other reliefs.  The   application for  permission to file  the  suit  in forma  pauperis  was  presented  on 14th  December  1956  personally  by the petitioner  No. 1, lachibai,  and  that  application  was  numbered  as  Pauper  Miscellaneous  Application No.  794 of  1956.  It appears  that,  in this  application, petitioner  No.  2  was  impleaded  as   defendant  No. 1  and  Bholanath,  his brother was impleaded  as  defendant No.  2  by the  order passed on 6th April  1957,  the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior  Division), at  Poona  permitted the  applicant  to sue  as a pauper, and  ordered  registration of the application as a plaint, and  it  appears  that the  suit  came  to  be numbered  as  Special  Civil  Suit  No.  46 of 1957.  It  seems  that  defendant  No. 2, Bholanath,  died  pending  the  suit, but  his heirs  were not  brought on the  record  and  his  name was deleted.  That  order  is   dated 19th September  1957.  On the  same  day, there was a compromise  between  the plaintiff  and  Defendant  No. 1,  and the  terms  of  the  compromise may  be briefly   stated  as follows:  The  document  dated 5th December  1956  was held to  be  void.  It  was agreed that  defendant  No.  1. Hiralal, should  pay to  the  plaintiff during  her life-time  an amount  of  Rs. 45 per  mensem in respect of her  maintenance  and  the  same  was payable  from  1st September  1957, the  amount of  maintenance of  Rs. 45 in respect of    September  1957   being  made  payable  on 10th  October,  1957,  and thereafter  the maintenance  amount  for  each  month was  to  be  paid  on the  10th of  each  moth.  If the  maintenance  amount  was  not  paid it  was  to  be  recovered  from some   house  property  on which  a charge  was created,  and  it   was also  agreed  that  defendant  No.  1  was  to  be  personally  responsible for the payment  of  this amount   of  maintenance. The third   condition in the compromise  was that as  the suit  was filed  in the  forma   pauperis,  the amount  of  the court-fee stamp   that  was  payable was   to be paid  by defendant  No. 1,  and  the fourth   term created a charge  on house No.  16 in the  Ghorpadi  Bazar,  worth  about  Rs. 10,000.  The  registration   expenses  of the decree were also to  be  paid  by  defendant  No. 1  to the plaintiff. The  plaintiff  gave up  her  right  regarding  house  No. 1952 situated  in the Cantonment  of  Poona  and  it w as also  provided  that the plaintiff  should  give  a  regular  receipt of the  maintenance paid  by defendant  No.  1, and  without  such  a receipt, it would  not  be  possible  for  the defendant to contend  that  he  had paid the  amount of  maintenance.  There was  in short the terms of the compromise arrived  at between  the parties  on 19th September,  1957 (Exhibit 12). The  Court also  passed an order on  the same day on the  compromise  application,  stating  that  the plaintiff  and  defendant  No.  1  had personally   admitted  the  compromise  and  the same  was sanctioned  and  decree  in terms of the compromise  was ordered  to be  drawn  up.  It  was further  directed that  as the  suit w as  in forma  pauperis, a  copy  of the  decree was  sent to the Collector, and the court-fee was  to  be  recovered from  defendant  No.  1. It appears  that the decree having  been  sent  to the Collector, defendant No.  1,  Hiralal, paid  an  amount  of Rs. 916.87  nP.  As  court-fee sometime   in December,  1957,  and the Mamlatdar  wrote  to the Court  of   the  Civil  Judge (Senior Division),   at Poona,  in which the suit  was pending, informing  the  court of  the recovery of the said amount from  the   said  Hiralal,  and   further  stating  that  arrangement  may  be   made to receive  the amount  from  his  office  on  production of an  authority, and if   approved  the  remittance  would  be arranged  in form of  court-fee stamps  in the  name of  defendant  No.  2.  Now,  the    mention of  defendant  No. 2 in this letter of  the   Mamlatdar,  dated   16th December,  1957 appears  to be a mistake, because there is no dispute  that the  amount  was paid  by  Hiralal, defendant  No.1. defendant  No.  2 having  already died, he  was   not  a party to the compromise. On 9th December 1957,  before the  Mamlatdar’s  letter referred  to above  was  received  by the Court, an  application (Exhibit 15)   was made o behalf of the  defendant,  stating  that  a sum  of  Rs. 916.87 nP., was paid  by  the defendant  to the Mamlatdar  towards  the  court-fee  and  that is  evidenced by the receipt,  dated  7th  December  1957  from the  Mamlatdar.  The  application  further requested that  the   necessary  certificate  of  refund  may be   issued in favour of  defendant  inorder  to enable him to get the  refund  to which   he was  entitled in view of the   terms of the  compromise which was  arrived at  prior  to  the  filing  of the application.  This  application  was endorsed  by the pleader  for the plaintiff,  and  it  was stated that the plaintiff  had no interest  in court-fee which  was paid  in  defendant’s  name, and   had no  objection  to refund,  if  it could  be legally  granted. It  appears,  however, that  it  was  realised  that  it would  be the plaintiff  who  would  have to make  such  an application,  and  on 27th  December 1957, an application Exhibit  16,  was filed   on behalf of  the plaintiff,   in which it was  stated  that  as the court-fee  had been recovered,  the  plaintiff was entitled  to a  refund  of  Rs. 458.43 nP., and  it  was  further  stated  that  the  amount  had  been paid  to   the  Mamlatdar  by   defendant  Hiralal. This application was  endorsed  by the  pleader  on  behalf  of  defendant, stating   that  the defendant has  no  objection to the  granting of this application as  the  payment   was made for  and  on  behalf of  plaintiff  and at   her instance.  The learned  trial  Judge, considering  the  provisions  of S. 31 of the Court-fees  Act,  held  that the  defendant  had no  right under S. 31 to claim  the refund. He  also  rejected  the contention  of the defendant   that the court-fee  stamp amount  was  paid  by  defendant as agent of the plaintiff. He also  took  the view that   in  the present  case the Court-fee was not paid  before the  settlement.   He,  therefore, held  that  as the Court-fee was not  paid by the plaintiff  and  as   payment  by defendant  cannot  be  regarded as payment  on behalf of  plaintiff  as  her agent and  as payment  of court-fee  stamp  was  not  before  the  settlement, S.31 would  have no  application. He,  therefore,  rejected   both applications,  Exhibits  15 and  16  with costs.  It  is  against  this  decision  that the  present  civil  revision application  has been filed  by  petitioner  No. 1, Lachibai, original plaintiff, and petitioner No. 2,  Hiralal, original  defendant No. 1, and the  State of  Bombay has been impleaded as opponent. <\/p>\n
  (2) Section 31 of the Court-fees  Act  was inserted by  S. 10  of the Court-fees (Bombay  Amendment Act, 1954,  which received  the assent  of the President and was published in the Government  Gazettee on  11th March 1954.  It has  to be  mentioned that the Court-fees  Act as amended in 1954 has  been replaced ‘by  the  Bombay  Court-fees  Act, 1959, being  Bombay Act  36 of  1959, which came into  force on 1st August 1959, and the provision  corresponding  to  S.  31  of the Old Act is section 43 in Chapter  VII of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959,  which further  provides  for refund  of  fees  in certain circumstances  even  in  the  case of any appeal  or  cross-objection.  But so  far as the present  case is  concerned   there is  no dispute that we  are  concerned  with S. 31  of the Court-Fees  Act,  1870, as  inserted  by S.10  of  the Court-fees (Bombay Amendment) Act XII of  1954. Now,  S. 31 runs as  follows:\n<\/p>\n
  “31.  (1) When any suit  in a Court is settled by  agreement  of parties before issues  have  been settled  or any evidence  recorded, half  the  amount of  the fee  paid  by the plaintiff on the plaint shall be repaid to him by the Court:\n<\/p>\n
  Provided that no  such  fee shall  be repaid it  the  amount of  fee  on the plaint does  not  exceed five rupees  or  the claim for repayment  is not made within one year  from the  date on which   the suit was  settled  by agreement.\n<\/p>\n
  (2) The  State  Government  may, from time  to time,  by order, provide  for repayment  to the plaintiffs  of  any part of  the  fee paid on ‘plaints  by them in suits   disposed of  under  such circumstances and  subject to such  conditions  as  may be specified in the order.\n<\/p>\n
 We  are concerned  in  this case only with the interpretation of sub-section (1) of  S.  31,  and  the contention  on behalf of the State is that the  trial  Court’s view in this  matter is correct as the  amount  of  court-fee  was not payable by the plaintiff and was not paid  before the   settlement  of issues  and was not in fact paid on  the plaint,  and therefore,  S. 31  would  have no  application.  As against  this, it is contended on behalf of  the petitioners   by  Mr. Gandhi that  in  fact the amount of  the  court-fee was  paid  by  the defendant  on behalf of the  plaintiff  as  provided  in the  compromise,  and that, as soon as  it  was paid  to the Mamlatdar, it  would  be  an amount  paid  on the plaint   and  therefore,  S. 31  would   apply,  and petitioner No.  1 would  be  entitled  to recover  half  the  amount.  As regard  the  question  as to who is ultimately to  take that amount,  it  is contented  that that is  a matter which the petitioners  might  settle  amongst  themselves, and,  as I  have already  pointed  out, in the  application,  Exhibit 16,  made on  behalf of   the plaintiff,  the  defendant has clearly  stated that  he had no  objection  to the  grant  of the application.\n<\/p>\n
  (3) Now, in  order to examine  the  correctness of  these rival arguments,  it is necessary  to consider the  provisions of  Order  XXXIII of the Civil Procedure Code. Order  XXXIII deals  with the subject of suits  by paupers,  and Rule 8  of that Order provides  that where a  pauper application  is  granted,  it shall  be numbered  and  registered, and shall  be deemed  the  plaint   in the suit, and the  suit  shall proceed  in all  other  respects  as a suit instituted in the  ordinary  manner, except  that the plaintiff  shall  not  be liable to  pay  any  court-fee  (other  than  fees  payable  for  service of process) in  respect of  any petition, appointment  of  a pleader  or other   proceeding   connected with the suit. It  will be noticed that  under this  rule, as soon as the application by the  pauper  for  permission  to sue in forma  pauperis  is granted, the application is to  be deemed  as a plaint  in the  suit, and  the plaintiff, will not, therefore, have  to pay  any  Court-fee in respect of  any proceeding connected  with this  suit.  But this  rule  does not  provide  for  the ultimate payment of the  court-fee on the plaint. As  I have already  indicated, in the present  case  the application  of  petitioner  No. 1 to be permitted to  sue  as a pauper,  was granted  on  6th April 1957, and  the suit came to be numbered  as Special  Civil  Suit  No. 46  of  1957.  Rule 9 of  Order  XXXIII provides  for  dispaupering, but  we are  not concerned  with this rule. Under Rule  10, it  is provided  that  where the plaintiff  succeeds  in the suit, the Court shall calculate  the amount of  court-fees which  would   have  been paid  by  the  plaintiff  if  he had  not been permitted to sue as  a pauper; such   amount  shall  be recoverable by the  State  Government from any  party ordered  by the decree to  pay  the  same  and   shall be  a first charge on the  subject-matter  of  the suit.  Rule 11 provides for  procedure  where the  papuer  fails,  and it stated that  there where plaintiff  fails  in the  suit  or  is  dispaupered,   or where the suit is  withdrawn or  dismissed on the  grounds   mentioned in clauses (a)  and (b),   the Court  shall  order the plaintiff, or  any  person added  as a  co-plaintiff  to the suit to pay the  court-fees which would  have been paid  by the  plaintiff   if  he had not  been permitted to  sue as  a  pauper.  Now,   the  present  obviously is  a case which is not governed  by  Rule  11 of  Order  XXXIII.  In  this  case,  the  plaintiff   has  in fact obtained  a partial relief  claimed by  her in  fact obtained  a  partial relief claimed  by  her in the  suit, and, in  my view,  it  would be the  provisions  of  Order  XXXIII,  Rule  10,  that  would  be applicable.  Now  in a suit   which  is  allowed to  be  filed in forma  pauperis  as soon  as the  application is granted, the application  itself  becomes a  plaint  in the suit,  but  the plaintiff does  not cease to  be liable  to  pay  the  court-fee on the  plaint,   though  he has not to pay  the court-fee initially in order to be able to  prosecute  the suit.   Where  he succeeds, provision  is  made as regards  the  payment  of  court-fees under Rule 10 and where the pauper  fails, the  procedure under Rule 11 of  Order XXXIII  is to  be followed.  Under  Rule  11-A,  where the  suit  abates  by  reason of the  death of  the plaintiff  or of any  person added as  a co-plaintiff the  Court shall order that  the amount of  court-fee which would have been paid  by the plaintiff  it  be  had not  been permitted to sue as a  pauper  shall  be  recoverable by the  State  Government from the estate of the deceased plaintiff.   Rule  12 provides  that the  State  Government shall have the  right   at  any time to apply  to the Court   to make  an order  for  the  payment of  court-fees  under Rule  10. Rule  11  or  Rule 11-A. Rule  13 provides   that  all   matters  arising  between  the  State  Government  and any party  to  the suit under Rule  10, Rule  11,  Rule 11-A or Rule  12  shall  be deemed to  be questions  arising  between  the parties  to the  suit  within the  meaning  of S. 47.  Under Rule  14,  where  an order  is made under Rule  10, Rule  11 or  Rule 11-A, then  Court  shall  forthwith cause  a copy  of the  decree or  order to  be  forwarded  to the  Collector, who  may   without  prejudice  to any other mode of  recovery,   recover the amount of  court-fees  specified   therein   from the  person or  property   liable  for the payment  as if  it were  an arrear  of land  revenue.\n<\/p>\n
  (4)  Now, the argument  on behalf  of  the  State of  Bombay, in the  first instance, is  that in the   present  case, the  amount of  court-fees  has been made recoverable  under the   decree from  defendant No. 1, and it was defendant No.  1  who paid  the  amount  and since  it was not a payment  by  the  plaintiff,  S.  31 would   not  be applicable.  It  is not disputed   that  the   present suit  has  been  settled  by an  agreement  of  parties  before  the  settlement  of issues. But  it  is  urged   that  the  payment being   not made by the plaintiff, she would not  be entitled  to half  the  amount of  fees  as  contemplated  by  section 31. Mr. Dalvi,  learned honorary  Assistant  Government  Pleader,   further  contended  that in the  present case, there was an order by   the  Court  that the court-fee  should be recovered from defendant No. 1,  and  therefore  it  could  not be  a  payment made on behalf  of   the plaintiff.  I  am not   impressed  by this argument. The decree is a  decree in terms  of  the  compromise and under the  provisions  of   Order XXXIII, the  ultimate  responsibility for payment  of  court-fees  is on the plaintiff.  In  the present  case,  it  was  stated  in term  No.3  of the  compromise decree that as  the suit  was filed  by the plaintiff in formal pauperis,  whatever  court-fee  was payable the same  should  be paid  by  defendant  No. 1. It would be clear,  therefore, that  under  the terms  of  the compromise   decree,  the  defendant  was   to satisfy the liability  of the plaintiff   in respect of the  court-fees  and  the decree ordered  to  be  drawn up  in terms  of  the compromise, and that is  why  the  Court  directed that the Court-fee  should be recovered from defendant No.1.in Exhibit  16, which is the  application filed on behalf of  the plaintiff,  on 27th  December  1957, on behalf  of   the  defendant  it  has  been  stated  that  the  court-fee  was paid  for and  on behalf  of the plaintiff.  This  has  obviously  reference to the  terms  of the compromise.  In view of  the  wording  of  the compromise  it cannot  be said that  the  payment  of the  court-fee  was not  made by  defendant on behalf  of  the plaintiff. The  learned  Judge’s  view  on this  point, therefore,  does  not appear  to  be  correct.\n<\/p>\n
  (5)  Then it was contended that  section  31 would not  apply because  the court-fee  was not paid before the  issues were settled. It is only  after the decree  was  passed  that  defendant No. 1    has paid the amount of  court-fees  to the Mamlatdar.  Now,  to stretch  this argument  to its  logical conclusion.  Section 31 would have  to  be  construed  as   being  not applicable to pauper  suits  at all,  because,  in suits  filed  in forma  pauperis  once the  application  of  the plaintiff is  granted, he would  not  be liable  to pay  the court-fees during  the proceedings of the suit. I  do not  think  it was the intention of   the Legislature   to exclude   pauper  suits  from the  operation of  section 31,  which appears to  me to  have  been  inserted  by  Act XII  of  1954,  to encourage  the  litigants  to compromise  the  suits  at an  early stage  of  the  proceedings, that is  to  say, before  the  settlement of issues, or before any  evidence  is  recorded.  The  wording  of  section  31   is  that  the settlement  between the parties in any   suit  must  be  before  the  settlement of issues  or  before  any evidence  is recorded, entitling  the  plaintiff  to get  the refund of half   the  amount paid  by him.  It is not  necessary under  section 31  that the court-fee should  be  paid before  the  settlement  of  issues  or before  the  recording  of  evidence.  On this pint.  Mr.  Gandhi  contended  that once the  court-fees  are paid, it must be deemed to have  been paid when  the suit  was instituted, and  in support of  this  argument, he has  relied  on the  provisions of   section 149 of the Civil Procedure  Code. Now, section 149  empowers  the Court  at any stage  to allow  any person   by  whom court-fee is  payable  to  pay  the whole or part , as the  case  may be, of such court-fee;  and  upon such  payment  the  document  in respect of which such   fee is   payable, shall have the  same  force and  effect  as if such  fee had  been paid  in the first instance.  I do   not think  that  section  149  can  apply  to the  facts  of the present  case.  This is  a case of  a suit allowed  to be filed  in forma  pauperis. By  reason of  Order  XXXIII,  Rule 8, as soon as the plaintiff  was permitted to sue  as a pauper,  the  plaint  came to  be  registered as a suit.  It cannot be said that   the Court  had, in  the present case,  any  discretion to allow  the plaintiff  to  pay  court-fee later  on. But  though  section 149 would  not  be applicable in terms,  in my  view, the principle  of that  section would be applicable.  It  appears  that the  amount   which is paid to the Collector  is  to  be remitted to  the Court. But, unfortunately  neither  Mr. Dalvi  nor  Mr.  Gandhi   has  been able  to draw  my  attention  to any rules in this  behalf. But  the Mamlatdar’s   letter,  dated   16th December  1957,  shows  that  the  Mamlatdar  having  received the  amount  of  Rs. 916.87  nP  from  defendant No. 1,  the  Court  was asked  to arrange  to  take  it  away from the  office of the Mamlatdar,  and the  letter  also  proceeds  to state  that after the authority  was approved  the  remittance  will be  made in the form of court-fee stamps in the  name  of  defendant No. 2  which  should have been really  defendant  No. 1.   It,  therefore,  appears  that  the  amount  which is  credited with the  Collector  in such  a case  has  to  be ultimately  utilised  for  the purpose of  affixing   the  necessary  court-fee stamp  on the  plaint.   If  that is so, as  soon as  the  amount is  recovered  either from the  pauper  or  from any  person on  his behalf,  as  directed in the decree,  the  court-fee  will be deemed to  have been  paid  as  from the  date of  the institution  of the suit.  Moreover,  it  appears  from the  Mamlatdar’s  letter the hat the  amount  is recovered for  affixing   the requisite  court-fee  stamps on the plaint.  It must be held  therefore, that the court-fee is paid ultimately on the  plaint  itself. In my view,   in case of suits   allowed  to be filed in  forma  pauperis,  it is not  necessary for  the application  of  section 31 of the  Court-fees  Act  that  the court-fee  should  be  paid before the   settlement  of  issues  or recording  of  any  evidence  but  that it  should  be recovered from the  plaintiff  or from any  person who  has  agreed to  pay  on behalf of  the plaintiff  in accordance with the  terms of the compromise  arrived at between  the  parties.  If the suit itself is  settled  by  agreement  of parties   before issues are  settled  or  any evidence  recorded half  the amount of the  court-fees  subsequently  recovered  from the  pauper  or  any  person  on his  behalf is liable to  be  refunded to him.\n<\/p>\n
  (6) It is  apparent, however, that under section 31,  it would  be only the plaintiff  who  will  be  entitled to a refund of the amount,  and  the learned  Judge was, therefore,  right in so far as he rejected  the  application.  Exhibit  15, preferred on  behalf of the  defendant.  The learned Judge was,  however, in error in rejecting   the  application, Exhibit 16,  made on behalf of the plaintiff which was  supported  on behalf of    the defendant. \n\n \n\n  (7) The result is that this  revision  application  will have to be  allowed, and  the order of  the trial  Court  in  so far as it rejects the application Exhibit  16 filed  on behalf of the plaintiff  will be  set  aside.  That application will  be  granted  and it  will  be  directed that  the  plaintiff   would be entitled  to a  refund  certificate  for the amount of Rs. 458.43 nP. In the  circumstances of  this  case, there will be  no order  as to costs. \n\n                        \n\n (8) Revision allowed.\n \n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Lachibai Sunderlal Agarwal And … vs State Of Bombay on 29 August, 1960 Equivalent citations: AIR 1962 Bom 23, (1961) 63 BOMLR 307, ILR 1961 Bom 463 Bench: Gokhale ORDER (1) This revision application raises a somewhat important point at to the interpretation of S. 31 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, which […]<\/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-144548","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nLachibai Sunderlal Agarwal And ... vs State Of Bombay on 29 August, 1960 - 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\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lachibai Sunderlal Agarwal And ... vs State Of Bombay on 29 August, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960\" \/>\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=\"1960-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-26T06:50:53+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lachibai Sunderlal Agarwal And … vs State Of Bombay on 29 August, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-26T06:50:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960\"},\"wordCount\":3596,\"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\\\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960\",\"name\":\"Lachibai Sunderlal Agarwal And ... vs State Of Bombay on 29 August, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-26T06:50:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lachibai Sunderlal Agarwal And … vs State Of Bombay on 29 August, 1960\"}]},{\"@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":"Lachibai Sunderlal Agarwal And ... vs State Of Bombay on 29 August, 1960 - 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\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lachibai Sunderlal Agarwal And ... vs State Of Bombay on 29 August, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-26T06:50:53+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lachibai Sunderlal Agarwal And … vs State Of Bombay on 29 August, 1960","datePublished":"1960-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-26T06:50:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960"},"wordCount":3596,"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\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960","name":"Lachibai Sunderlal Agarwal And ... vs State Of Bombay on 29 August, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-26T06:50:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachibai-sunderlal-agarwal-and-vs-state-of-bombay-on-29-august-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lachibai Sunderlal Agarwal And … vs State Of Bombay on 29 August, 1960"}]},{"@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\/144548","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=144548"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144548\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144548"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144548"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144548"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}