{"id":152848,"date":"2011-11-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011"},"modified":"2018-10-20T13:13:31","modified_gmt":"2018-10-20T07:43:31","slug":"vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Vaishali Abhay Mandle vs Sakharam Vithal Mandle on 17 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Vaishali Abhay Mandle vs Sakharam Vithal Mandle on 17 November, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                        1               wp2770.11\n\n                                           \n          IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY \n                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n               WRIT PETITION NO. 2770 OF 2011\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     1.   Vaishali Abhay Mandle,\n          Age: 40 years, Occ: Household\n          and Service,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     2.   Ashutosh Abhay Mandle,\n          Age: 15 years (Minor),\n          Occ: Education, under\n          Guardianship of her mother,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n          petitioner No.1 herein, namely\n          Vaishali Abhay Mandle.\n\n     3.\n                 \n          Sangita Raosaheb Mandle (died),\n          Age: 35 years,  Occ: Household,\n                \n     4.   Rishikesh Raosaheb Mandle,\n          Age: 15 years (Minor),  \n          Occ: Education, under Guardianship\n          of petitioner No.1 herein.\n      \n\n\n     5.   Sau. Nanda Baban Mandle,\n   \n\n\n\n          Age: 31 years, Occ: Household,\n\n     6.   Rohan Baban Mandle,\n          Age: 10 years (Minor),  \n\n\n\n\n\n          Occ: Education, under Guardianship\n          of mother petitioner No.5 herein,\n          namely Sau. Nanda Baban Mandle.\n\n     7.   Kiran Baban Mandle,\n          Age: 8 years (Minor),  \n\n\n\n\n\n          Occ: Education, under Guardianship\n          of mother petitioner No.5 herein,\n          namely Sau. Nanda Baban Mandle.\n\n          All above R\/o. Kamargaon,\n          Tal. & Dist. Ahmednagar.        ...PETITIONERS \n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:55:52 :::\n                         2               wp2770.11\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n     1.   Sakharam Vithal Mandle,\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n          Age: 47 years, Occ: Labour,\n          R\/o. Kamargaon,\n          Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     2.   Abhay Vithal Mandle,\n          Age: 44 years, Occ: Labour,\n          R\/o. as above.\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     3.   Raosaheb Vithal Mandle,\n          Age: 41 years, Occ: Labour,\n          R\/o. as above.\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     4.   Baban Vithal Mandle,\n          Age: 59 years, Occ: Labour,\n                 \n          R\/o. as above.\n\n     5.   Satish Chandmal Chopda,\n                \n          Age: 48 years, Occ: Business,\n          R\/o. Ramchandra Khunt,\n          Ahmednagar.\n      \n\n     6.   Hiralal Madhav Thokal,\n          Age:  years, Occ: Agri. & Business,\n   \n\n\n\n          R\/o. Kamargaon, \n          Tal. & Dist. Ahmednagar.        ...RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n                          ...\n     Mr. Vishal S. Badakh, Advocate for petitioners.\n     Mr. Parikshit P. Dawalkar, Advocate for respondent \n     No.5.\n     Respondent Nos.1 to 4 & 6 served.\n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n\n         \n                            CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                            DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2011<\/p>\n
                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:52 :::<\/span>
\n                              3               wp2770.11<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
     .          Rule.     Rule   made   returnable   forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
     Heard finally with the consent of parties.\n<\/p>\n
     2.         Brief   facts   as   disclosed   in   the   writ <\/p>\n
     petition are as under :\n<\/p>\n
     .          Petitioner   No.   1   is   wife   and   petitioner <\/p>\n
     No.2 is son of respondent No.2. Petitioner Nos. 3 <\/p>\n
     and   4   are   wife   and   son   of   respondent   No.3.\n<\/p>\n
     Petitioner   Nos.   5   and   6   are   wife   and   son   of <\/p>\n
     respondent   No.4.     Respondent   Nos.   5   and   6   have <\/p>\n
     purchased the suit property from respondent Nos. 1 <\/p>\n
     to   4.   It   is   the   case   of   the   petitioners   that, <\/p>\n
     respondent Nos. 1 to 4 sold out the suit property <\/p>\n
     to respondent No.5, who is not agriculturist. Said <\/p>\n
     property is sold on 19-12-1995 and 15-11-1997.\n<\/p>\n
     3.         The petitioners herein instituted Special <\/p>\n
     Civil  Suit  No.97  of 2008  before  the  Civil  Judge, <\/p>\n
     Senior   Division,   Ahmednagar   against   the <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:52 :::<\/span>
\n                               4                wp2770.11<\/p>\n
     respondents for partition, separate possession and <\/p>\n
     declaration   that   the   sale   deeds   dated   19-12-1995 <\/p>\n
     and 15-11-1997 executed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 <\/p>\n
     in   favour   of     respondent   Nos.   5   and   6   are   null, <\/p>\n
     void   and   not   binding   upon   the   share   of   the <\/p>\n
     plaintiffs-petitioners   with   further   relief   of <\/p>\n
     injunction against respondent Nos. 5 and 6.\n<\/p>\n
     .          In   response   to   the   suit   summons, <\/p>\n
     defendants   appeared   in   the   matter   and   filed <\/p>\n
     Written Statement denying claim\/contentions of the <\/p>\n
     plaintiffs-petitioners   and   accordingly,   issues <\/p>\n
     came to be framed at Exhibit-22.\n<\/p>\n
     4.         On   08-12-2010   the   petitioners   herein <\/p>\n
     filed application at Exhibit-47 praying therein to <\/p>\n
     refer the matter to competent authority to decide <\/p>\n
     the   issue   as   to   “whether   respondent   No.5   is <\/p>\n
     agriculturist  or not?’ contending  that respondent <\/p>\n
     No.5 is not agriculturist in view of Section 63 of <\/p>\n
     the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 <\/p>\n
     (for   short,   “said   Act”)   and   respondent   No.   5 <\/span><\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:52 :::<\/span>
\n                               5                wp2770.11<\/p>\n
     cannot   purchase   the   agricultural   land   and <\/p>\n
     therefore under Section 85A of the said Act, issue <\/p>\n
     has  to be referred  to the  competent  authority  to <\/p>\n
     decide the same.\n<\/p>\n
     .             Respondent   No.   5   filed   his   Say   to   the <\/p>\n
     said   application.     On   14-12-2010   learned   Civil <\/p>\n
     Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar was pleased to <\/p>\n
     reject   the   said   application.     Hence   this   writ <\/p>\n
     petition.\n<\/p>\n
     5.          Learned   Counsel   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
     petitioners invited my attention to the provisions <\/p>\n
     of Section 63 and also Section 85A of the Bombay <\/p>\n
     Tenancy   and   Agricultural   Lands   Act,   1948   and <\/p>\n
     submitted   that,   in   the   light   of   averments   in <\/p>\n
     para-5   of   the   plaint,   it   was   incumbent   upon   the <\/p>\n
     concerned   Court   to   frame   issue   with   respect   to <\/p>\n
     “whether   respondent   No.5   is   an   agriculturist   or <\/p>\n
     not?” and further to refer the said issue to the <\/p>\n
     Revenue   Authority   i.e.   Tahsildar   for   inquiry.\n<\/p>\n
     However,   the   mandate   of   provisions   of   Section   63 <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:52 :::<\/span>
\n                             6               wp2770.11<\/p>\n
     and 85A of the said Act has not been followed by <\/p>\n
     the   concerned   Court.   Therefore,   the   Counsel   for <\/p>\n
     petitioners would submit that, this writ petition <\/p>\n
     may be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     6.        On   the   other   hand,   learned   Counsel <\/p>\n
     appearing   for   the   respondents   submits   that,   the <\/p>\n
     proviso to Section 63 of the said Act enables the <\/p>\n
     purchaser   to   seek   permission   from   the   competent <\/p>\n
     officer   and   then   enter   into   the   transaction.\n<\/p>\n
     However,   the   Counsel   for   the   respondents   is   not <\/p>\n
     able   to   inform   this   Court   that   whether   such <\/p>\n
     permission   has   been   obtained   by   respondent   No.5 <\/p>\n
     before entering into transaction.  Learned Counsel <\/p>\n
     further submits that, this Court may not interfere <\/p>\n
     in the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
     7.        I   have   given   due   consideration   to   the <\/p>\n
     rival   submissions.     At   the   outset,   it   would   be <\/p>\n
     relevant  to reproduce  herein-below the provisions <\/p>\n
     of Section 63 and 85A of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:52 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                         7                wp2770.11<\/p>\n
     “63.   Transfers   to   non-agriculturists
\n     barred.–(1)   Save   as   provided   in   this  <\/p>\n
     Act-\n<\/p>\n
     (a) no sale (including sales in execution
\n     of   a   decree   of   a   Civil   Court   or   for
\n     recovery   of   arrears   of   land   revenue   or  <\/p>\n
     for   sums   recoverable   as   arrears   of   land
\n     revenue), gift, exchange or lease of any
\n     land or interest therein, or<\/p>\n
     (b) no mortgage of any land or  interest
\n     therein,   in   which   the   possession   of   the  <\/p>\n
     mortgaged   property   is   delivered   to   the
\n     mortgagee,<\/p>\n
        shall be valid in favour of person who
\n     is not an agriculturist (or who being an <\/p>\n
     agriculturist   (will   after   such   sale,
\n     gift,   exchange,lease   or   mortgage,   hold  <\/p>\n
     land   [exceeding   the   ceiling   area0
\n     determined   under   the   Maharashtra
\n     Agricultural   Lands   (Ceiling   on   Holdings)
\n     Act,   1961   9such   permission   shall   not   be  <\/p>\n
     granted,   where   land   is   being   sold   to   a
\n     person   who   is   not   an   agriculturist     for
\n     agricultural   purposes,   if   the   annual
\n     income of such person from other sources
\n     is   Rs.12,000   or   more)   or   who   is   not   an  <\/p>\n
                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:52 :::<\/span>
\n                         8                wp2770.11<\/p>\n
     agricultural labourer;\n<\/p>\n
            Provided   that   the   Collector   or   an
\n     officer   authorised   by   the   (State)  <\/p>\n
     Government   in   this   behalf   may   grant
\n     permission for such sale, gift, exchange,
\n     lease or mortgage, on such conditions as <\/p>\n
     may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
            (Explanation.-   For   the   purpose   of <\/p>\n
     this        sub-section       the         expression  <\/p>\n
     “agriculturist”   includes   any   person   who
\n     as   a   result   of   the   acquisition   of   his  <\/p>\n
     land   for   any   public   purpose   has   been
\n     rendered   landless   for   a   period   not
\n     exceeding   ten   years   from   the   date   of  <\/p>\n
     possession of his land is taken for such
\n     acquisition).\n<\/p>\n
            [(1A) Where any condition subject to  <\/p>\n
     which  permission   to  transfer   was  granted
\n     is   contravened   then   the   land   in   respect
\n     of   which   such   permission   was   granted
\n     shall   be   liable   to   be   forfeited   in  <\/p>\n
     accordance with the provisions of section
\n     84 CC.\n<\/p>\n
            (1B) Where   permission   is   granted   to
\n     any   transfer   to   land   under   sub-section  <\/p>\n
                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:52 :::<\/span>
\n                        9                wp2770.11<\/p>\n
     (1) any subsequent transfer of such land
\n     shall   also   be   subject   to   the   provisions  <\/p>\n
     of sub-section (1)]<\/p>\n
          (2) Nothing in this section shall be
\n     deemed   to   prohibit   the   sale,   gift,
\n     exchange or lease of a dwelling house or <\/p>\n
     the site thereof or any land appurtenant
\n     to   it   in   favour   of   an   agricultural
\n     labourer   or   an   artisan   [or   a   person  <\/p>\n
     carrying on any allied pursuit.]<\/p>\n
          [(3) Nothing   in   this   section   shall  <\/p>\n
     apply or be deemed to have supplied to a
\n     mortgage of any land or interest therein
\n     effected   in   favour   of   a   co-operative  <\/p>\n
     society as security for the loan advanced
\n     by   such   society   [   or   any   transfer  <\/p>\n
     declared   to   be   a   mortgage   by   a   Court
\n     under   section   24   of   the   Bombay  <\/p>\n
     Agricultural Debtors’ Relief Act, 1947.]]<\/p>\n
          [(4)   Nothing   in   section   63A   shall
\n     apply to any sale made under sub-section  <\/p>\n
     (1).]”\n<\/p>\n
     “85A.      Suits   involving   issues   required
\n     to be decided under this Act.- (1) If any  <\/p>\n
                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:52 :::<\/span>
\n                             10                 wp2770.11<\/p>\n
          suit   instituted   in   any   Civil   Court
\n          involves any issues which are required to  <\/p>\n
          be   settled,   decided   or   dealt   with   by   any
\n          authority   competent   to   settle,   decide   or  <\/p>\n
          deal   with   such   issues   under   this   Act
\n          (hereinafter referred to as the “competent
\n          authority”) the Civil Court shall stay the  <\/p>\n
          suit   and   refer   such   issues   to   such
\n          competent authority for determination.\n<\/p>\n
               (2) On receipt of such reference from  <\/p>\n
          the   Civil   Court,   the   competent   authority
\n          shall   deal   with   an   decide   such   issue   in  <\/p>\n
          accordance with the provisions of this Act
\n          and shall communicate its decision to the
\n          Civil Court and such Court shall thereupon  <\/p>\n
          dispose of the suit in accordance with the
\n          procedure applicable thereto.\n<\/p>\n
               Explanation.- For the purpose of this  <\/p>\n
          section   a   Civil   Court   shall   include   a
\n          Mamlatdar’s   Court   constituted   under   the
\n          Mamlatdar’s Courts Act,1906.]”\n<\/p>\n
     8.        A bare perusal of Section 63 of the said <\/p>\n
     Act   would   make   it   abundantly   clear   that,   buyer <\/p>\n
     should   be   an   agriculturist.     Therefore,   in   the <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:52 :::<\/span>
\n                             11                wp2770.11<\/p>\n
     light of averments in Para-5 of the plaint, in all <\/p>\n
     fairness,   the   application   of   the   petitioners <\/p>\n
     should   have been  allowed   by the trial  Court.   The <\/p>\n
     point  raised   by the petitioners  goes  to the root <\/p>\n
     of   the   matter   and   therefore,   such   issue   become <\/p>\n
     important   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   this <\/p>\n
     case.\n<\/p>\n
     9.         In   the   light   of   what   is   stated <\/p>\n
     hereinabove, Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     Accordingly,   impugned   order   is   set   aside.   2nd <\/p>\n
     Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar is <\/p>\n
     directed to frame the issue in respect of “whether <\/p>\n
     respondent   No.5   is   an   agriculturist   or   not?”   and <\/p>\n
     after   hearing   the   respondents   will   consider   the <\/p>\n
     prayer   of   the   petitioners   to   refer   it   to   the <\/p>\n
     Tahsildar   for   inquiry   as   provided   under <\/p>\n
     Section   85A   of   the   said   Act.   Writ   Petition   is <\/p>\n
     allowed   to   the   above   extent   and   stands   disposed <\/p>\n
     of.  Rule made absolute as indicated above.\n<\/p>\n
                                          sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                      [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
\n     sut\/NOV11                      <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:52 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Vaishali Abhay Mandle vs Sakharam Vithal Mandle on 17 November, 2011 Bench: S. S. Shinde 1 wp2770.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2770 OF 2011 1. Vaishali Abhay Mandle, Age: 40 years, Occ: Household and Service, 2. Ashutosh Abhay Mandle, Age: 15 years […]<\/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-152848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVaishali Abhay Mandle vs Sakharam Vithal Mandle on 17 November, 2011 - 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\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vaishali Abhay Mandle vs Sakharam Vithal Mandle on 17 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-20T07:43:31+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vaishali Abhay Mandle vs Sakharam Vithal Mandle on 17 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-20T07:43:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1344,\"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\\\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Vaishali Abhay Mandle vs Sakharam Vithal Mandle on 17 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-20T07:43:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vaishali Abhay Mandle vs Sakharam Vithal Mandle on 17 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Vaishali Abhay Mandle vs Sakharam Vithal Mandle on 17 November, 2011 - 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\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vaishali Abhay Mandle vs Sakharam Vithal Mandle on 17 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-20T07:43:31+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vaishali Abhay Mandle vs Sakharam Vithal Mandle on 17 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-20T07:43:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011"},"wordCount":1344,"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\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011","name":"Vaishali Abhay Mandle vs Sakharam Vithal Mandle on 17 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-20T07:43:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-abhay-mandle-vs-sakharam-vithal-mandle-on-17-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vaishali Abhay Mandle vs Sakharam Vithal Mandle on 17 November, 2011"}]},{"@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\/152848","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=152848"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152848\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152848"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152848"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152848"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}