{"id":144902,"date":"1998-07-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-07-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998"},"modified":"2017-04-02T01:57:48","modified_gmt":"2017-04-01T20:27:48","slug":"chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998","title":{"rendered":"Chandrabhagabai & Ors vs Ramakrishna & Ors on 29 July, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chandrabhagabai & Ors vs Ramakrishna & Ors on 29 July, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Majmudar<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Majmudar, M. Jjagannadha Rao<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHANDRABHAGABAI & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAMAKRISHNA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t29\/07\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JJAGANNADHA RAO\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nS.B. Majmudar, J
\n     In this  Appeal by\t way of\t special leave, the heirs of
\noriginal Plaintiff  No. 1  and the remaining Plaintiff Nos.2
\nto 8,  have brought  in challenge  the\tjudgment  and  order
\nrendered by the High Court of Bombay dismissing their Second
\nAppeal and  confirming the decree of is missal of their suit
\nby the\tTrial Court  and as confirmed by the First Appellate
\nCourt.\tIn   order  to\t highlight  the\t grievances  of\t the
\nappellants in  the present proceedings, it will be necessary
\nto note a few relevant introductory facts.\n<\/p>\n
BACKGROUND FACTS:\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  refer to the appellants as Plaintiffs and the
\nrespondents as Defendants for the sake of convenience in the
\nlater part  of this judgment. The Plaintiffs filed a Regular
\nCivil Suit  No. 246  of 1970  in the  Court of the 4th Joint
\nCivil Judge,  Junior Division,\tNagpur for possession of the
\nsuit property,\twhich, according to them, consisted of three
\nrooms in their house situated at Circle No. 13\/19, Tandapeth
\nin nagpur  city. Their\tcase was that for brother along with
\nRamkrishna,  s\/o   Suryabhan  and  one\tShankar,  s\/o.\tSoma
\nmortgaged the  house including the suit three rooms with one
\nMaroti Laxman  and Narayan  Vithobaji, who  formed  a  joint
\nHindu  family\talong  with   other  members.  The  original
\nmortgagees  filed   a  Civil  Suit  No.\t 19-A  of  1935\t for
\nrecovering the\tmortgage debt  by sale of suit house and for
\nfinal decree  for sale. The plaintiffs’ further case is that
\non 4th\tApril, 1938 the mortgaged house was auctioned and it
\nwas purchased  by Narayan,  one of  the decree\tholders.  On
\nconfirmation of\t the sale,  a sale-certificate (Exh. 32) was
\nissued in  favour of Narayan. The sale-certificate dated 6th
\nJuly, 1938  (Exh. 32)  is at  page 49  of  the\tpaper  book.
\nNarayan is stated to have taken possession of the suit house
\nthrough Court  on 22nd\tDecember, 1938.\t It is\tthen alleged
\nthat Narayan  had rented  out a portion of the said house to
\nSuryabhan in  1939 on a monthly rent of Rs.9\/- . The portion
\nof the\thouse which  was stated\t to have  been rented out to
\nSuryabhan, however, was not described in the schedule to the
\nplaint, though\tit was\tstated\tto  be\tdescribed  as  such.
\nAccording to  the plaintiffs’, Narayan’s name was mutated in
\nthe municipal records and it was he who was paying the taxes
\nand exercising\tall the\t rights of ownership. It was alleged
\nthat Suryabhan\tfailed to  pay the  rent and  hence, Narayan
\nobtained  permission   of  the\t House\tRent  Controller  on
\n20.7.1959 (Rev.\t Case No.  688\/A-71 (2)\t of 58-59  under the
\nprovisions of  the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of
\nLetting of  Accommodation Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to
\nas ‘the\t Act’) read with Central Provinces and Berar Letting
\nof Housing and Rent Control Order, 1949. it may be stated at
\nthis juncture  that earlier  though the Rent Controller took
\nthe view  that Suryabhan  was tenant of Narayan, application
\nfor permission\tto evict  him  was  rejected  in  the  first
\ninstance. However,  the Addl.  Collector, Nagpur  in  appeal
\nwhile agreeing\twith the  view of  the Rent  Controller that
\nthere was  a relationship  of landlord\tand  tenant  between
\nNarayan\t and  Suryabhan,  allowed  the\tappeal\tand  granted
\npermission to  Narayan to terminate the tenancy of Suryabhan
\nby his\tdecision dated\t29th April, 1960. This can be called
\nthe first  set of proceedings. On the basis of the aforesaid
\npermission, Narayan  issued notice of termination of tenancy
\nand filed a Civil Suit No. 120 of 1966 for possession of the
\nsuit property  consisting of  three rooms. The filing of the
\nsaid suit may be treated as second set of proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  second set of proceedings, though initially the
\nTrial Court  decreed the  suit, in Civil Appeal 162 of 1967,
\nthe suit  was dismissed\t on the\t ground that  there  was  no
\nrelationship of\t landlord and  tenant  between\tNarayan\t and
\nSuryabhan. The\tsaid appellate\tdecision was rendered by the
\n4th Extra  Assistant Judge on 16th August, 1969. Thereafter,
\nthe plaintiffs\thave filed  the Suit  No. 246  of 1970\tfrom
\nwhich the present proceedings arise on the strength of title
\nfor possession, accepting the finding of the Appellate Court
\nrendered in  Civil Appeal  No. 162  of 1967  on 16th August,
\n1969, as  aforesaid. This  suit of  1970 can  be treated  as
\nthird set of proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t the   present\tsuit,\ttwo   questions\t  fell\t for
\nconsideration of the Trial Court:\n<\/p>\n
     i)\t Whether   the\tplaintiffs   had
\n     proved  their  title  to  the  suit
\n     rooms;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ii) If  yes, whether the defendants
\n     were in  adverse possession  of the
\n     suit property.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     After  permitting\t the  contesting   parties  to\tlead
\nevidence in  support of\t their respective  cases, the  Trial
\nCourt came  to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs had failed
\nto  establish\ttheir  title   to  the\t suit  property.  An
\nalternative finding  was also  rendered on evidence that the
\ndefendants  had\t  proved  adverse  possession  in  the\tsuit
\nproperty. Consequently, the suit was dismissed on 30.3.1970.
\nThe  appellants,  unsuccessfully  contested  the  matter  in
\nappeal which  came to  e  dismissed  by\t the  learned  Extra
\nSession\t Judge\ton  6th\t September,  1973.  Thereafter,\t the
\nplaintiffs approached  the High Court in Second Appeal 68 of
\n1974. The  said second\tappeal was  dismissed on 28th April,
\n1987. That is how the appellants plaintiffs are before us by
\nway of this appeal on special leave.\n<\/p>\n
RIVAL CONTENTIONS:\n<\/p>\n
     Shri U.  U. Lalit,\t learned counsel for the appellants,
\nvehemently  contended  before  us  that\t the  courts  below,
\nincluding the  Trial Court,  had committed a patent error in
\nnot suing  the plaintiffs on the ground that they had failed
\nto prove  ownership of\tthe suit property. He submitted that
\nthe sale certificate (Exh. 32) clearly mentioned the name of
\nthe place  where the  property is  situated along  with\t its
\ncertificate number.  Not only  that, even  the boundaries of
\nthe  suit   property  were   also  mentioned   in  the\tsale
\ncertificate issued  by the  competent authority in execution
\nof the\tcourt decree  wherein the  plaintiffs’\tpredecessor,
\nNarayan was  held  to  be  the\tauction\t purchaser  of\tthis
\nproperty. In  this connection, in support of his submission,
\nthe learned  counsel also  sought to rely upon the reasoning
\nadopted by  the Rent  Controller as well as by the appellate
\nauthority under\t the Rent  Control  Order  for\tshowing\t the
\ndefendants’  predecessor-in-title.   Suryabhan\thad  clearly
\nadmitted  in   the   assessment\t  proceedings\tbefore\t the
\nmunicipality that  he was  a tenant  of\t Narayan  and  hence
\nlandlord-tenant relationship  was held\tproved and  the said
\nfinding was  binding on\t the Civil  Court which subsequently
\nentertained the\t plaintiffs’ suit  No. 120  of 1966.  As the
\nAppellate Court\t in Civil Appeal No. 120 of 1966 went behind
\nthe said findings and held that there was no relationship of
\nlandlord and  tenant  between  Narayan\tand  Suryabhan,\t its
\ndecision on  this point\t was without  jurisdiction and could
\nnot  act   as  res  judicata.  On  the\tbasis  of  the\tsaid
\ncontention, it\twas further  submitted that hence it must be
\nheld that  Narayan  was\t the  owner  of\t the  suit  property
\noccupied by  Suryabhan and  equally the\t claim of  Suryabhan
\nthat he was in adverse possession of the property would also
\nnot survive  as even  assuming that  Suryabhan had  put up a
\nhostile title  at the  earliest\t in  1959  in  rent  control
\nlitigation, as\tthe first  suit was filed on the strength of
\nthe title  in 1970,  12 years of hostile possession prior to
\nthis suit  was not  established. Consequently, the plaintiff
\nwas  entitled  to  succeed  also  on  the  ground  that\t the
\ndefendant’s  predecessor   Suryabhan  had   not\t established
\nadverse possession of 12 years and more prior to the date of
\nthe suit.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  counsel, appearing  for the  respondents –
\nShri A.\t K.   Sanghi, submitted\t that all  the\tcourts\thave
\nconcurrently held  that the plaintiffs have not been able to
\nshow that  the suit  premises were  purchased by  them in  a
\nCourt auction  and that\t they formed the sale property which
\nwas covered by the sale certificate (Exh. 32), Consequently,
\nthe plaintiffs’\t suit on  title was rightly dismissed by the
\nCourts below.  He further  submitted that the question about
\nlandlord  and\ttenant\trelationship   between\tnarayan\t and
\nSuryabhan stood\t finally concluded  against Narayan  by\t the
\ndecision of  the Appellate Authority in Civil Appeal No. 162
\nof 1967.  That the  question of\t jurisdiction of  the  Civil
\nCourt to  decide this  question do novo despite the contrary
\ndecision of  the Rent  Control Authorities  was also decided
\nagainst Narayan\t in Civil  Appeal No.  162 of  1967 and that
\ndecision had  become final.  Consequently, right  or  wrong,
\nthat decision  operated\t against  narayan.  It\twas  further
\nsubmitted that\tthere was  no question\tof any\tadmission of
\nSuryabhan in  favour of\t Narayan in  assessment\t proceedings
\nbefore the  municipal authorities  as Suryabhan’s’ statement
\nwas not\t legally proved\t on the\t record of the present case.
\nTherefore, the\tonly document  which remained for supporting
\nthe plaintiffs’\t case was auction sale certificate (Exh. 32)
\nwhich did  not connect\tNarayan’s title to the suit premises
\nand consequently both on title as well as on the question of
\nthe adverse  possession, the  finding reached  by the courts
\nbelow and as confirmed by the High Court, have remained well
\nsustained  on  record.\tIt  has\t been  found  on  fact\tthat
\nSuryabhan remained  in possession  as owner of this property
\nsince last  more than  30 years\t prior to  the filing of the
\nsuit in\t 1970 and  consequently, the  plaintiffs’  suit\t was
\nrequired to  be dismissed  and was  rightly dismissed by the
\nTrial Court  and that  decree of  dismissal was\t rightly not
\ninterfered by  the First  Appellate Court  as well as by the
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t view\tof  the\t aforesaid  rival  contentions,\t the
\nfollowing points arise for our consideration:\n<\/p>\n
     (1) Whether  the  plaintiffs’  have
\n     been able\tto prove  their title to
\n     the suit premises;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2) Whether the finding of the Rent
\n     Control Authorities  was binding on
\n     the Civil\tCourt in  Civil Suit No.
\n     120 of  1966  which  was  filed  by
\n     Narayan pursuant  to the permission
\n     obtained  by   him\t from  the  rent
\n     control appellate authority;
\n     (3)  Whether   Suryabhan\twas   in
\n     adverse  possession   of  the  suit
\n     property.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We\t shall deal with these points seriatim.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Point No. 1<\/span><\/p>\n
—————\n<\/p>\n
     So far as the question of plaintiffs’ title to the suit
\nproperty is  concerned, it  has to  be kept in view that the
\nonly evidence  on which\t plaintiffs  could  rely  was  slae-
\ncertificate (Exh. 32). When we turn to the said certificate,
\nwe find\t that the  property which  was the subject matter of
\nthe sale certificate is described as the House More Division
\nNo. 3 Serial  No. 13\/19, Landa Peth Tah, District Nagpur. It
\nwas sold  to  Narayan  in  court  auction.  Of\tcourse,\t the
\nboundaries of  the said\t property were also mentioned in the
\ncertificate but\t the exact  number of  the property  is\t not
\nmentioned therein.  The location  of the house purchased  by
\nNarayan is indicated to be one in Division No. 3 Serial\t No.
\n13\/19 in locality of Landa Peth Tah in Nagpur town. However,
\nthe question is whether this is the same house in which suit
\nproperty is  situated as  the plaintiffs  have staked  their
\nclaim  for  these  three  rooms\t on  the  strength  of\tthis
\ncertificate. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court,
\non facts  have found  that the auction certificate (Exh. 32)
\ndoes not  clearly connect  the property\t covered by the said
\ncertificate (Exh.  32) with the suit rooms. Reliance is also
\nplaced on  one feature\tof the\tcase namely, that the plaint
\nhas recited that in the schedule attached to the plaint, the
\ndescription of the suit property is given. But that schedule
\nis conspicuously  absent and not traceable on the record. It
\nis also\t found that  the so called statement of predecessor-
\nin-interest  in\t  title\t of   present  defendants’   namely,
\nSuryabhan before  the  municipal  authorities  is  also\t not
\nproved on record. Consequently, the only evidence to support
\nthe case of the plaintiffs is furnished by sale- certificate
\n(Exh. 32)  and when  that document  does not clearly connect
\nproperty covered by the certificate with the suit rooms, the
\nfinding reached\t by the\t Trial Court and as confirmed by the
\nAppellate Court as a final court of fact that the plaintiffs
\nfailed to establish their title to the suit premises, cannot
\nbe said\t to be\tin any way illegal. It remained a finding of
\nfact based  on\trelevant  evidence  which  was\trightly\t not
\ninterfered with by the High court on Second Appeal. It must,
\ntherefore, be held that in this third set of proceedings the
\nplaintiffs failed  to establish\t their\ttitle  to  the\tsuit
\nrooms. This point for determination will have to be answered
\nagainst\t the  appellants  accordingly.\tOnce  the  aforesaid
\ndecision is  reached on\t point no.  1, nothing further would
\nsurvive in this appeal. However, the learned counsel for the
\nappellant had  raised further  contentions  covered  by\t the
\nremaining two points. In fairness to him, therefore, we deem
\nit fit to deal with them on merits.\n<\/p>\n
Point No. 2<\/span><\/p>\n
     It is  true that  in the  first set  of proceedings the
\nRent Controller as well as the appellate authority under the
\nAct have  held that  there was\trelationship of landlord and
\ntenant between\tNarayan and  Suryabhan. There  was also some
\nforce in  the contention  of the  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants that\t once the Rent Control Authorities held that
\nthere was  relationship of  landlord and  tenant between the
\ncontesting parties, the title of Narayan can be said to have
\nbeen impliedly\taccepted and  held in  his favour  by  these
\nauthorities. However,  the real\t question is whether despite
\nsuch a\tfinding reached\t by the rent control authorities, in
\nthe consequential  suit filed by the plaintiff Narayan after
\nterminating the\t tenancy of the defendants under Section 106
\nof the\tTransfer of  property Act,  i.e. the  second set  of
\nproceedings, the  Civil\t Court\tcould  go  beyond  the\tsaid
\nfinding and  could reach  the contrary finding to the effect
\nthat there  was\t no  relationship  of  landlord\t and  tenant
\nbetween Narayan\t and Suryabhan. However, we are not required
\nto examine  the said  contention which\tseeks to rely on the
\ndecision of  this Court\t rendered in  the  case\t of  Pralhad
\nLanchad Chavan\tvs.  Iqbal  Hussain  Inayat  Hussain  Badri,<\/a>
\n1996(5) SCC,  428, wherein  it was  held that  once the Rent
\nController grants  permission to  the landlord\tto determine
\nthe lease  by giving  notice under Section 106 on the ground
\nspecifying therein,  in the subsequent proceeding before the
\nCivil Court  the decision  of the  Rent Controller about the
\nground on which such permission is granted could not be gone
\nbehind. However,  on the  peculiar facts of this case, it is
\nnot necessary  for us  to consider  this contention  in\t the
\npresent third  set of proceedings for the simple reason that
\nin appeal  against the\tdecision of  the Trial\tCourt in the
\nsecond set  of proceedings  being Civil\t Appeal No.  162  of
\n1967, this  very contention was unsuccessfully canvassed for
\nconsideration of  the Civil  Court which  framed point no. 1
\nfor determination as under:\n<\/p>\n
     (1)   is it open for the appellants
\n     to\t contend   that\t they\tare  not
\n     tenants of the plaintiffs, in spite
\n     of the decision against them by the
\n     appellate\tauthority  of  the  Rent
\n     Control Court?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Learned appellate\tJudge, after  hearing  the  parties,
\ncame to\t the conclusion that despite the finding of the Rent
\nControl Authorities  that there was relationship of landlord
\nand tenant  between Narayan  and Suryabhan, the Civil Court,
\nin proceeding  pursuant to  the notice\tissued under Section
\n106   of the  Transfer of  Property Act could reconsider the
\nquestion  and\tit  was\t  still\t open\tfor  the  appellants
\n(predecessor-in-interest  of  the  present  respondents)  to
\nraise the  contention that  they  are  not  tenants  of\t the
\nplaintiffs in  the suit\t premises and  that decision  of the
\nRent  Controller   was\tnot  binding  on  the  Civil  Court.
\nUnfortunately  for  the\t appellants  the  aforesaid  adverse
\ndecision rendered  about jurisdiction  of the civil court in
\nCivil appeal No.  162 of 1967 has remained final between the
\nparties as  the plaintiffs did not think it fit to challenge
\nthe same  higher up.  On the contrary, the said decision was
\naccepted and  on that  basis and in the light of the finding
\nreached in  Civil appeal  No.  162 of 1967 that there was no
\nlandlord and  tenant relation between Narayan and Suryabhan,
\nthe present  suit which\t is third  set of  proceedings,\t was
\nfiled by Narayan and other plaintiffs treating Suryabhan and
\nothers as  persons remaining  in unauthorised  occupation of
\nthe suit  rooms. In  other words, plaintiffs themselves gave
\nago by\tto their  case about  tenancy of  the defendants and
\ntried to rely only upon their title to the suit property and
\nsought eviction\t on the\t strength  of  their  title  in\t the
\npresent proceedings.  Consequently, on\tpoint no. 2, it must
\nbe held\t on the\t facts of  this case that the finding of the
\n4th Extra  Asst. Judge\tin Civil  appeal No.  162 of 1967 to
\nthe  effect   that  there   was\t no   landlord\tand   tenant
\nrelationship between  Narayan  and  Suryabhan  has  remained
\nbinding between the parties and being res judicata cannot be
\nreopened in the present proceedings. Point No. 2 is answered
\nin the negative as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
Point No. 3:\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as\t the  plea  of\tadverse\t possession  of\t the
\ndefendants is  concerned, it  has been\tfound by  the  Trial
\nCourt as  well as  the first  Appellate Court that Suryabhan
\nwas not\t a tenant  of the  suit\t house\tand  as\t he  was  in
\ncontinuous possession  of the  suit premises for a period of
\n30 years  and more  prior to  the date\tof the\tsuit. He had
\noccupied the  same in his own right and consequently, he had
\nbecome the  owner of  this property  by\t adverse  possession
\nagainst the  plaintiffs, especially,  Narayan.\tEfforts made
\nby learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs to show that
\nSuryabhan had admitted that Narayan was the landlord both in
\n1942 when Narayan sought to insert his name in the municipal
\nrecords as  owner and also in 1958 when Suryabhan is alleged
\nto have made an endorsement on the application of Narayan to
\nthe municipality  that he  was a tenant of the suit property
\nsince  250   years  cannot  be\tof  any\t assistance  to\t the
\nappellants  for\t  the  simple  reason  that  none  of  these
\ndocuments stand\t proved on the record of the present case as
\nSuryabhan since\t deceased who  is said\tto have given such a
\nstatement on  endorsement before  municipal authorities\t was
\nnot available for being confronted with the same for proving
\nit and\tthat statement\twas even  otherwise not\t tried to be
\nproved by  the plaintiffs  under Section  32 of\t the  Indian
\nEvidence Act. The so called statement was not legally proved
\nin the\tpresent case.  The  courts  below  were,  therefore,
\njustified in taking the view that the plaintiffs cannot base
\ntheir  case   on  the  so  called  statement  of  Suryabhan.
\nConsequently, it has to be held that Suryabhan had perfected
\nhis title  to the  suit rooms  by staying  for more  than 30
\nyears prior  to the  suit as  owners thereof  and  being  in
\nadverse possession  against Narayan. This finding reached by
\nthe courts  below and  as confirmed  by the  High Court also
\nremains well sustained on the record of this case. This fact
\ntherefore, is  answered in  the affirmative in favour of the
\nrespondents and against the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     As the  result of\tour  conclusions  on  the  aforesaid
\npoints,\t the  result  is  that\tthis  appeal  fails  and  is
\ndismissed. In  the facts  and circumstances.  of  the  case,
\nthere will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chandrabhagabai & Ors vs Ramakrishna & Ors on 29 July, 1998 Author: S.B. Majmudar Bench: S.B. Majmudar, M. Jjagannadha Rao PETITIONER: CHANDRABHAGABAI & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: RAMAKRISHNA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/07\/1998 BENCH: S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JJAGANNADHA RAO ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T S.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-144902","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChandrabhagabai & Ors vs Ramakrishna & Ors on 29 July, 1998 - 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\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandrabhagabai & Ors vs Ramakrishna & Ors on 29 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-01T20:27:48+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandrabhagabai & Ors vs Ramakrishna & Ors on 29 July, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-01T20:27:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998\"},\"wordCount\":3169,\"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\\\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998\",\"name\":\"Chandrabhagabai & Ors vs Ramakrishna & Ors on 29 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-01T20:27:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandrabhagabai & Ors vs Ramakrishna & Ors on 29 July, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Chandrabhagabai & Ors vs Ramakrishna & Ors on 29 July, 1998 - 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\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandrabhagabai & Ors vs Ramakrishna & Ors on 29 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-01T20:27:48+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandrabhagabai & Ors vs Ramakrishna & Ors on 29 July, 1998","datePublished":"1998-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-01T20:27:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998"},"wordCount":3169,"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\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998","name":"Chandrabhagabai & Ors vs Ramakrishna & Ors on 29 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-01T20:27:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrabhagabai-ors-vs-ramakrishna-ors-on-29-july-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandrabhagabai & Ors vs Ramakrishna & Ors on 29 July, 1998"}]},{"@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\/144902","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=144902"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144902\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144902"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144902"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144902"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}