{"id":152253,"date":"1970-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970"},"modified":"2015-05-31T15:18:01","modified_gmt":"2015-05-31T09:48:01","slug":"madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970","title":{"rendered":"Madharao Rajeshwar Deshpande vs Shanker Singh &amp; Ors on 24 February, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Madharao Rajeshwar Deshpande vs Shanker Singh &amp; Ors on 24 February, 1970<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1659, \t\t  1970 SCR  (3) 809<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Grover<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Grover, A.N.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMADHARAO RAJESHWAR DESHPANDE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHANKER SINGH &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n24\/02\/1970\n\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nSHAH, J.C.\nHEGDE, K.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 1659\t\t  1970 SCR  (3) 809\n\n\nACT:\nBombay\tTenancy and Agricultural Land (Vidharbha  and  Kutch\nArea)  Act 99 of 1958 as amended by Act 2 of 1962,  ss.\t 41,\n42, 43 and 46--Scope of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant was the owner of certain land and  the  first\nrespondent was the protected lessee.  In 1963, the appellant\nfiled  a petition for possession of the land on\t the  ground\nthat  the first respondent failed to exercise his  right  of\npurchase  under\t s.  '\t41(1)  of  the\tBombay\tTenancy\t and\nAgricultural Land (Vidharbha and Kutch Area) Act, 1958.\t The\nauthorities under the Act held that the tenant had become  a\nstatutory  owner  from\tApril 1, 1961, under  s.  46(1)\t and\ndismissed  the\tpetition.  In the High Court  the  appellant\nraised\tfor  the first time, the contention  that  under  s.\n42(c) of the Act the appellant should have been left an area\nnot less than one family holding (that is about 26  -acres),\nthat  s, 46(1) was applicable only when the condition in  s.\n42(c)  was  satisfied,\tthat under  s.\t43(14A),  which\t was\nintroduced  into  the  Act  by Act  2  of  1962.  the  first\nrespondent  should  take  steps to  exercise  his  right  of\npurchase.  and since the first respondent did not do so,  he\nmust be deemed to have surrendered the land to the appellant\nunder  s.  43(14A).   The  High Court  did  not\t accept\t the\ncontention.\nIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD:\t  (1)  The appellant was not entitled to  raise\t any\ncontention  based on s. 42(c) as no foundation was laid\t for\ndoing  so  in the pleadings or at any prior state  till\t the\nmatter reached the High Court. [814 A-B]\n(2)  The  operation  of\t s. 46(1) was not  affected  by\t the\nsubsequent  insertion of sub-s. 14A in s. 43, as it did\t not\nhave  any  retrospective operation.   Therefore,  the  first\nrespondent  had become a statutory owner of the land in\t his\ntenancy under s. 46(1), on April 1, 1961, even though he did\nnot take any steps to purchase that land from the appellant.\n[814 B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  2393  of<br \/>\n1966.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated<br \/>\nMarch  1,  1966 of the Bombay High Court,  Nagpur  Bench  in<br \/>\nSpecial Civil Application No. 190 of 1965.<br \/>\nG.   L. Sanghi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.<br \/>\nD.   V. Patel, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nGrover,\t J.  This  is  an appeal by  special  leave  from  a<br \/>\njudgment  of  the Bombay High Court  dismissing\t a  petition<br \/>\nfiled by the appellant under Art. 227 of the Constitution.<br \/>\nL 10 Sup CI(NP)70-7<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">810<\/span><br \/>\nThe  dispute relates to survey No. 284 having an area of  11<br \/>\nacres and 6 gunthas in Mouza Paras, Taluk Balapur,  District<br \/>\nAkola.\t The  appellant\t is the owner of  this\tfield  while<br \/>\nrespondent  no.\t  1 is the protected lessee.   The  case  is<br \/>\ngoverned  by  the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural  Land\t Act<br \/>\n(Vidharbha  &amp;  Kutch area) Act 99 of 1958  which  came\tinto<br \/>\nforce  on December 30, 1958, hereinafter called\t &#8220;the  Act&#8221;.<br \/>\nIn,  August 1963 the appellant filed an\t application  before<br \/>\nthe  Tahsildar\tunder ss. 43(14A) and 36(2) of the  Act\t for<br \/>\npossession  of\tthe  aforesaid\tfield  on  the\tground\tthat<br \/>\nrespondent  No.\t 1  had\t failed to  exercise  his  right  of<br \/>\npurchase  in respect of that field under the  provisions  of<br \/>\nthe Act.  He must, therefore, be deemed to have\t surrendered<br \/>\nthe  same  to the appellant.  The  Tahsildar  sustained\t the<br \/>\ndefence\t of respondent No. I that he had become an owner  of<br \/>\nthe  said field on April 1, 1961 under s. 46 of the Act\t and<br \/>\ndismissed  the application.  The order of the Tahsildar\t was<br \/>\nconfirmed by the Deputy Collector (Tenancy Appeals) and\t the<br \/>\nMaharashtra Revenue Tribunal t0 whom the matter was taken in<br \/>\nappeal and revision respectively.  It may be mentioned\tthat<br \/>\noriginally  the\t appellant had. filed  applications  against<br \/>\nthree  of  his\ttenants including respondent  No.    and  the<br \/>\ntribunal  dismissed  by\t one order all\tthe  three  revision<br \/>\npetition  preferred  against the orders made  in  the  three<br \/>\ncases.\tThe appellant, however, filed a petition under\tArt.<br \/>\n227  of the Constitution challenging the order made  in\t the<br \/>\ncase of respondent No.\talone.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  Act as originally enacted was amended by Act 2 of\t1962<br \/>\nwhich came into force on March 1, 1962.\t Chapter III related<br \/>\nto termination of tenancies by landlords and special  rights<br \/>\nof  tenants.   Sections\t 38,  39  and  39A  gave  rights  to<br \/>\ndifferent categories of landlords to terminate the tenancies<br \/>\nof  their  tenants for bona fide  personal  cultivation.   A<br \/>\nceiling\t was  fixed  with  regard  to  the  area  of   which<br \/>\npossession could be claimed as also the minimum area of land<br \/>\nwhich must be left with the tenant.  The tenants were  given<br \/>\nthe  right  to purchase land in the second part\t of  Chapter<br \/>\nIII.  Section 41 (1) provided that subject to the provisions<br \/>\nof  ss.\t 42 to 44 a tenant other than  an  occupancy  tenant<br \/>\nwould  be  entitled to purchase from the landlord  the\tland<br \/>\nheld  by him as a tenant and cultivated by  him\t personally.<br \/>\nIn  case  of  a\t landlord  who\twas-  under  some  kind\t  of<br \/>\ndisability,  namely, if the landlord was a minor or a  widow<br \/>\nor a serving member of the armed forces or a person  subject<br \/>\nto physical or mental disability the right to purchase\tland<br \/>\nof  such landlord accrued to the tenant after the expiry  of<br \/>\ntwo  years  from  a  date prescribed in\t the  case  of\teach<br \/>\ncategory of such landlord.  Section 42 as it stood on  April<br \/>\n1, 1961 was as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Extent  of  land which  tenant  may  purchase<br \/>\n\t      under section 41.-The right of a tenant  under<br \/>\n\t      s. 41 to purchase<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      811<\/span><br \/>\n\t      from  his landlord the land held by him  as  a<br \/>\n\t      tenant  shall  be\t subject  to  the  following<br \/>\n\t      conditions, namely\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a)   if\t the  tenant  does  not\t  hold\t and<br \/>\n\t      cultivate personally any\tland, as  a  tenure-<br \/>\n\t      holder, the purchase of the<br \/>\n\t      land by\t him shall be limited to the  extent<br \/>\n\t      of three family<br \/>\n\t      holdings;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b)   if\tthe  tenant  holds  and\t  cultivates<br \/>\n\t      personally any<br \/>\n\t      land as\t a tenure-holder the purchase of the<br \/>\n\t      land by him<br \/>\n\t      shall be\t limited  to  such area as  will  be<br \/>\n\t      sufficient to make<br \/>\n\t      up  the  area  of the land held by  him  as  a<br \/>\n\t      tenure  holder to the extent of  three  family<br \/>\n\t      holdings;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (c)   the\t extent of the land  remaining\twith<br \/>\n\t      the landlord after the purchase of the land by<br \/>\n\t      the  tenant whether to cultivate\tpersonal  or<br \/>\n\t      otherwise\t shall not be less than\t one  family<br \/>\n\t      holding&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Clause\t(c)  was deleted by Act 2 of 1962  which  came\tinto<br \/>\nforce on March 1, 1962.\t Section 43 prescribes the procedure<br \/>\nwhich  was  to.\t be followed by a tenant in  the  matter  of<br \/>\npurchase  of the holding.  Section 46(1) made a\t categorical<br \/>\nprovision  that notwithstanding anything in Chapter  III  or<br \/>\nany  law for the time being in force or any  custom,  usage,<br \/>\ndecree,\t contract or grant to the contrary the ownership  of<br \/>\nall  lands  held  by tenants which  they  were\tentitled  to<br \/>\npurchase from their landlord under any of the provisions  of<br \/>\nChapter\t III  was to stand transferred to and vest  in\tsuch<br \/>\ntenants\t with effect from April 1, 1961 and from  such\tdate<br \/>\nthe tenants were to be deemed to be the full -owners of\t the<br \/>\nlands.\t The first proviso contained provisions relating  to<br \/>\nthe  tenants  who  were under a disability  and\t the  second<br \/>\nproviso\t laid down that where any proceeding under  ss.\t 19,<br \/>\n20, 21, 36 or 38 was pending on the date specified in sub-s.<br \/>\n(1) in respect of any land the transfer of ownership of such<br \/>\nland was to take effect on the date on which the  proceeding<br \/>\nwas finally decided and if the tenant retained possession of<br \/>\nthe   land   in\t accordance  with  the\tdecision   in\tsuch<br \/>\nproceedings.   Under sub-s. (2) the tenant continued  to  be<br \/>\nliable\tt0  pay\t to the landlord the rent of  the  land\t the<br \/>\nownership of which stood transferred to him until the amount<br \/>\nof  the\t purchase price payable by him to the  landlord\t had<br \/>\nbeen determined under s. 48.\n<\/p>\n<p>Certain\t amendments which were made by Act 2 of 1962 may  be<br \/>\nnoticed.  Sub-section 14A was inserted in S. 43 which was in<br \/>\nthese terms :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;If  a tenant fails to exercise his  right  of<br \/>\n\t      purchase\tunder section 41 in respect  of\t any<br \/>\n\t      land  or\tthe  purchase of  any  land  becomes<br \/>\n\t      ineffective, the land shall be deemed to\thave<br \/>\n\t      been   surrendered   to  the   landlord,\t and<br \/>\n\t\t\t    thereupon  the provisions of  sub-sect<br \/>\nions  (1)<br \/>\n\t      and (2) of section 21<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      812<\/span><br \/>\n\t      and Chapter VII shall apply to such land as if<br \/>\n\t      the  land was surrendered by the tenant  under<br \/>\n\t      section 20&#8243;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Section\t 49A provided for transfer of ownership of lands  to<br \/>\nthe tenants with effect from first day of April. 1963  where<br \/>\nthe land had already not been transferred by operation of S.<br \/>\n46  or where the tenant had not purchased it under S. 41  or<br \/>\nS. 50.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before\tthe Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal the position  taken<br \/>\nup  on\tbehalf\t of the appellant was that  the\t tenant\t had<br \/>\nfailed to ,exercise his right of purchase in respect of\t the<br \/>\nfield in his possession and therefore he should be deemed to<br \/>\nhave surrendered the same to the appellant by virtue of\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  of S. 43 (14A) of, the Act.\t The  tribunal\twent<br \/>\ninto  the scheme of the Act and also considered the  Ceiling<br \/>\non  Holdings Act which was in force in the Vidarbha  Region.<br \/>\nAfter referring to the relevant provisions of the Act it was<br \/>\nobserved  that the final stage for transfer of ownership  of<br \/>\nland  to  the tenant was provided by ss. 46  and  49A.\t The<br \/>\neffect\t of  the  Tenancy  Act\tand  the  Ceiling   on\t the<br \/>\nHoldings&#8217;Act, according to the &#8216;Tribunal, was that no person<br \/>\nwas  entitled  to  hold an area in excess  of  three  family<br \/>\nholdings.   Under  the Act the maximum area which  he  could<br \/>\nhave resumed would have been three family holdings and\tthat<br \/>\nalso  if  he could prove that he bona fide required  it\t for<br \/>\npersonal cultivation and was mainly dependent on the  income<br \/>\nof that land for his maintenance.  The tenant was given\t the<br \/>\nright to purchase the land in his tenancy from the  landlord<br \/>\nin  accordance\twith S. 43.  If he did not  take  step.&amp;  to<br \/>\nacquire\t the same he still became a statutory owner of\tthat<br \/>\nland  by  virtue of S. 46 with effect from  April  1,  1961.<br \/>\nTherefore  even if the tenant did not apply for purchase  of<br \/>\nland  held by him he became an owner with effect from  April<br \/>\n1, 1961 subject to any other conditions as were laid down in<br \/>\nthe provisions of the Act.  This vesting of ownership in the<br \/>\ntenant\twas not affected by subsequent enactment  of  sub-s.<br \/>\n(14-A)\tby  Act 2 of 1962 which did not\t have  retrospective<br \/>\noperation.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus,  according to the tribunal, even if respondent  No.  1<br \/>\ndid  not apply under the relevant provisions of the Act\t for<br \/>\npurchasing  the\t land comprising his tenancy  he  became  an<br \/>\nowner thereof by virtue of the provisions of S. 46(1) and no<br \/>\ntenancy rights were left which could be deemed to have\tbeen<br \/>\nsurrendered  under s. 14A -which came into  existence  after<br \/>\nApril 1, 1961.\tAlthough the provisions of S. 42(c), as they<br \/>\nstood  before the amendment effected by Act 2 of 1962,\twere<br \/>\nnot  pressed  at  any prior stage a  contention\t was  raised<br \/>\nbefore the High, Court that in accordance therewith the\t ap-<br \/>\npellant\t should\t have been left an area not  less  than\t one<br \/>\nfamily\tholding on independent calculation with\t respect  to<br \/>\nthe land held by -each tenant.\tThe High Court repelled this<br \/>\ncontention by saying that it was not possible to accept such<br \/>\na construction of S. 42(c).\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">813<\/span><\/p>\n<p>As  there was no proceeding pending for termination  of\t the<br \/>\ntenancy\t of respondent No. 1 the conclusion of the  tribunal<br \/>\nthat respondent No, I had become a statutory owner on  April<br \/>\n1, 1961 was upheld.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before us an attempt was made on behalf of the appellant  to<br \/>\nreiterate the contention based on the provisions of s. 42(c)<br \/>\nas  it existed before the amendment made by Act 2  of  1962.<br \/>\nIt  was urged that one of the most important  conditions  of<br \/>\nthe  right  to\tpurchase was that the  extent  of  the\tland<br \/>\nremaining with the landlord after the purchase by the tenant<br \/>\n(whether to cultivate personally or otherwise) shall not  be<br \/>\nless  than  one family holding.\t On December  30,  1958\t the<br \/>\nappellant  had no land whatever with him in his\t possession.<br \/>\nHe was, therefore, entitled to retain an area to the  extent<br \/>\nof one family holding which came to 26 acres.  By virtue  of<br \/>\nthe  provisions\t of  s.\t -42(c) respondent  No.\t I  was\t not<br \/>\nentitled to purchase the entire land comprising his  tenancy<br \/>\nas under s. 46(1) the ownership of land stood transferred to<br \/>\nthe  tenant  only if he was entitled to\t purchase  from\t the<br \/>\nlandlord such land.  As this condition was not fulfilled  in<br \/>\nthe  present  case owing to the provisions of  S.  42(c)  it<br \/>\nfollowed that on April 1, 1961 the ownership of the land  in<br \/>\nquestion  was not transferred to respondent No. I  under  s.<br \/>\n46(1).\tThis situation continued upto March 1, 1962 when the<br \/>\namending  Act came into force.\tSub-section (14-A) of s.  43<br \/>\nwas one of the new provisions inserted by the Amending\tAct.<br \/>\nRespondent  No. 1, could, therefore, exercise his  right  of<br \/>\npurchase  only\tunder s. 41 read with s.  43(14-A).   As  he<br \/>\nfailed\tto  exercise his right under  those  provisions\t the<br \/>\nentire\tland  in  his tenancy must be deemed  to  have\tbeen<br \/>\nsurrendered  to the landlord, namely, the  appellant  before<br \/>\nApril 1, 1963 which was the relevant date for the purpose of<br \/>\nthe operation of s. 49-A.\n<\/p>\n<p> We  are unable to accept any of the contentions  raised  on<br \/>\nbehalf of the appellant.  So far as the effect of s.  42(c),<br \/>\nas  it\tstood  before its deletion by the  amending  Act  is<br \/>\nconcerned, it was neither referred to nor relied upon before<br \/>\nany  of\t the revenue authorities including  the\t Maharashtra<br \/>\nRevenue\t Tribunal.  The application which was filed  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant was not founded on any facts or pleas relevant  to<br \/>\ns.  42 (c).  The contention as raised leads to\tunusual\t and<br \/>\nstrange\t results.  If the appellant was entitled to an\tarea<br \/>\nof 26 acres it is difficult to see how he could choose\tonly<br \/>\nrespondent  No.\t I and leave out the other tenants  for\t the<br \/>\npurpose of retaining land not less than one family  holding.<br \/>\nIt is significant that the appellant had filed\tapplications<br \/>\non similar lines against two other tenants also.  After\t the<br \/>\ndecision  of the tribunal had been given he did\t not  pursue<br \/>\nthe  matter further which means-that he abandoned his  claim<br \/>\nwith regard to the lands in their tenancies.  Respondent No.<br \/>\n, I has a holding with an area of little over 11 acres.\t  It<br \/>\nis incomprehensible how the appellant could seek to  satisfy<br \/>\nthe requirements of s.\n<\/p>\n<p>8 14<br \/>\n42(c)  by  demanding the entire area from respondent  No.  I<br \/>\nalone.\t We,  however,\tdo not wish  to\t express  any  final<br \/>\nopinion\t on the scope and ambit of s. 42(c) because  we\t are<br \/>\nsatisfied  that the appellant was not entitled to raise\t any<br \/>\nContention based on the aforesaid provision as no foundation<br \/>\nwas laid for doing so in the pleadings or at any prior stage<br \/>\nexcept before the High Court.  We concur in the view of\t the<br \/>\ntribunal  that respondent No. I became a statutory owner  of<br \/>\nthe  land  in his tenancy by Virtue of s. 46(1) of  the\t Act<br \/>\nwith  effect from April 1, 1961 even though he did not\ttake<br \/>\nsteps to purchase that land from the appellant under s.\t 43.<br \/>\nThe  -operation\t of S. 46(1) could not be  affected  by\t the<br \/>\nsubsequent insertion of sub-s. (14-A) in s. 43 Which did not<br \/>\nhave retrospective operation.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal therefore fails and it is dismissed.\t But in\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances there will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\ndismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">815<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Madharao Rajeshwar Deshpande vs Shanker Singh &amp; Ors on 24 February, 1970 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1659, 1970 SCR (3) 809 Author: A Grover Bench: Grover, A.N. PETITIONER: MADHARAO RAJESHWAR DESHPANDE Vs. RESPONDENT: SHANKER SINGH &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/02\/1970 BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. SHAH, J.C. HEGDE, K.S. [&hellip;]<\/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-152253","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Madharao Rajeshwar Deshpande vs Shanker Singh &amp; Ors on 24 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madharao Rajeshwar Deshpande vs Shanker Singh &amp; Ors on 24 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1970-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-31T09:48:01+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madharao Rajeshwar Deshpande vs Shanker Singh &amp; Ors on 24 February, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-31T09:48:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970\"},\"wordCount\":2236,\"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\\\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970\",\"name\":\"Madharao Rajeshwar Deshpande vs Shanker Singh &amp; Ors on 24 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-31T09:48:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madharao Rajeshwar Deshpande vs Shanker Singh &amp; Ors on 24 February, 1970\"}]},{\"@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":"Madharao Rajeshwar Deshpande vs Shanker Singh &amp; Ors on 24 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madharao Rajeshwar Deshpande vs Shanker Singh &amp; Ors on 24 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-31T09:48:01+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madharao Rajeshwar Deshpande vs Shanker Singh &amp; Ors on 24 February, 1970","datePublished":"1970-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-31T09:48:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970"},"wordCount":2236,"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\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970","name":"Madharao Rajeshwar Deshpande vs Shanker Singh &amp; Ors on 24 February, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-31T09:48:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madharao-rajeshwar-deshpande-vs-shanker-singh-ors-on-24-february-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madharao Rajeshwar Deshpande vs Shanker Singh &amp; Ors on 24 February, 1970"}]},{"@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\/152253","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=152253"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152253\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152253"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152253"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152253"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}