{"id":15314,"date":"2004-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004"},"modified":"2016-09-02T23:01:54","modified_gmt":"2016-09-02T17:31:54","slug":"vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"Vasantiben P. Nayak &amp; Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak &amp; Ors on 9 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vasantiben P. Nayak &amp; Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak &amp; Ors on 9 March, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Kapadia<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ashok Bhan, S.H. Kapadia<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6432 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nVasantiben P. Nayak &amp; Ors.\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSomnath M. Nayak &amp; Ors. \t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/03\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nASHOK BHAN &amp; S.H. KAPADIA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>KAPADIA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAppellants (Plaintiffs) filed a suit bearing no.116 of<br \/>\n1968 in the court of Civil Judge, Narol for a declaration<br \/>\nthat they were owners of ancestral house site land<br \/>\nbearing G.P. No.497 in Sarkhej, district Ahmedabad and<br \/>\nfor recovery of possession thereof from the respondents<br \/>\n(defendants) and also for permanent injunction restraining<br \/>\nrespondents from interfering with their possession over<br \/>\nthe disputed land.  According to the appellants, the suit<br \/>\nland was ancestral property belonging to father-in-law of<br \/>\nVasantiben (appellant no.1) and after his death the<br \/>\nproperty came in possession of her husband.  According<br \/>\nto the appellants, in the lifetime of the husband of<br \/>\nappellant no.1, the respondents used to tell the husband<br \/>\nof appellant no.1 to allow them to make construction on<br \/>\nthe land.  According to appellant no.1, her husband did<br \/>\nnot permit the respondents to make construction till his<br \/>\ndeath, i.e. six years prior to the institution of the suit.  That<br \/>\neven before his demise, the respondents used to tell<br \/>\nappellant no.1 to donate the land to the community which<br \/>\nshe refused and soon thereafter the respondents started<br \/>\nconstructing a compound wall without her permission.  In<br \/>\nthe circumstances, she filed a suit on 25th March, 1968 to<br \/>\nprevent the respondents from disturbing her possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe respondents inter alia denied in the suit that the<br \/>\nhusband of appellant no.1 was in possession of the suit<br \/>\nland till he died or that after his demise, the appellants<br \/>\nwere in possession of the suit land.  In the suit, they<br \/>\ncontended that they were in possession of the suit land<br \/>\nfor more than twelve years and that they were owners by<br \/>\nadverse possession.  They also contended that the suit<br \/>\nwas barred by limitation.  In the suit, there was a dispute<br \/>\nregarding the identity of the land.  In the suit, there was a<br \/>\ndispute regarding title of the appellants over the suit land.<br \/>\nBy the judgment and order dated 10th November, 1975,<br \/>\nthe trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the<br \/>\nappellants have failed to prove their title over the suit<br \/>\nland.  Being aggrieved, the appellants went by way of civil<br \/>\nappeal no.133 of 1976 to the District Court, Ahmedabad<br \/>\nwhich came to the conclusion that the appellants had<br \/>\nidentified the suit land.  Further, the District Court came to<br \/>\nthe conclusion that the appellants had proved their title to<br \/>\nthe suit land.  Consequently, the appeal was allowed vide<br \/>\njudgment and order dated 27th March, 1978.\n<\/p>\n<p>Being aggrieved, the respondents herein went by<br \/>\nway of second appeal under section 100 CPC to the High<br \/>\nCourt being appeal no.360 of 1978.  By judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 22nd January, 1997, the High Court came to<br \/>\nthe conclusion that the lower appellate court could not<br \/>\nhave passed the decree for possession in favour of the<br \/>\nappellants without deciding the issue of limitation and<br \/>\nadverse possession.  Consequently, keeping the Second<br \/>\nAppeal pending before it, the High Court called for the<br \/>\nfindings on the above two issues from the District Court,<br \/>\nAhmedabad.  On remand of the above issues, the District<br \/>\nCourt found that the respondents were in possession<br \/>\nsince 1934 as indicated by the books of accounts and<br \/>\nrevenue receipts for payments made to its revenue<br \/>\nassessment.  The District Court further found that the<br \/>\nrespondents have been paying land revenue from 1940.<br \/>\nThe District Court further found that the gram panchayat<br \/>\nhad even permitted the respondents to construct the<br \/>\ncompound wall vide a resolution (Ex.132).  In the<br \/>\ncircumstances, the District Court came to the conclusion<br \/>\nthat the respondent had acquired title by way of adverse<br \/>\npossession.  On the point of limitation, the District Court<br \/>\nfound that the respondents were in possession from 1935<br \/>\nor in any event from 1941 whereas the suit has been filed<br \/>\nonly on 25th March, 1968 for possession and<br \/>\nconsequently the suit was barred by law of limitation.<br \/>\nTherefore, both the issues were decided in favour of the<br \/>\nrespondents herein by the District Court vide judgment<br \/>\ndated 30th April, 1997. The High Court which was seized<br \/>\nof the second appeal no.360 of 1978 after hearing the<br \/>\nparties confirmed the findings of the District Court on<br \/>\nabove two issues and accordingly disposed of the second<br \/>\nappeal vide impugned judgment dated 28th April, 1998.<br \/>\nHence, the original plaintiffs have come by way of civil<br \/>\nappeal to this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tShri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel appearing on<br \/>\nbehalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants<br \/>\nbecame owners of the suit land as reversioners under<br \/>\nregistered deed of partition dated 29th November, 1965<br \/>\nand consequently the suit filed by the appellants was<br \/>\nneither barred by limitation nor by adverse possession.<br \/>\nHe contended that the High Court had erred in holding<br \/>\nthat adverse possession in respect of suit land begin to<br \/>\nrun against the appellants prior to 29th November, 1965.<br \/>\nIn this connection, he has placed reliance on explanation\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) to Article 65 of the Limitation Act (hereinafter referred<br \/>\nto as &#8220;the said Act&#8221;).   In support of his above argument,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for  the  appellants has also placed<br \/>\nreliance  on  the  judgment  of this Court in the case of<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/998380\/\">Ram Kisto Mandal &amp; Anr. v. Dhankisto Mandal<\/a><br \/>\nreported in [(1969) 1 SCR 342].\n<\/p>\n<p>We do not find merit in the above argument<br \/>\nadvanced on behalf of the appellants.  In the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/998380\/\">Ram<br \/>\nKisto Mandal &amp; Anr. v. Dhankisto Mandal<\/a> (supra), it<br \/>\nhas been held by this Court that the right of the<br \/>\nreversioner to recover possession of the property within<br \/>\ntwelve years from the death of the widow is not only<br \/>\nbased on provisions of the limitation act but on the<br \/>\nprinciples of Hindu Law and the general principles that the<br \/>\nright of a reversioner is in the nature of spes successionis<br \/>\n(estate in expectancy) and such reversioner does not<br \/>\ntrace his title through the widow.  Under the common law,<br \/>\nthere are two types of estates namely, estates in<br \/>\npossession and estates in expectancy.  Estates in<br \/>\nremainder\/reversion are estates in expectancy as<br \/>\nopposed to estates in possession.  Consequently,<br \/>\nadverse possession against a life-tenant will not bar the<br \/>\nreversioner\/remainder from succeeding to the estate on<br \/>\nthe demise of the life-tenant.  This is the reason for<br \/>\nenacting explanation (a) to Article 65 of the said Act,<br \/>\nwhich has no application to the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAt this stage, it is important to bear in mind that<br \/>\npartition is really a process by which a joint enjoyment of<br \/>\nthe property is transformed into an enjoyment severally.<br \/>\nIn the case of partition, each co-sharer has an antecedent<br \/>\ntitle and, therefore, there is no conferment of a new title.<br \/>\n(See Transfer of Property Act by Mulla 9th Edition Page\n<\/p>\n<p>77).  In the circumstances, the appellants cannot be<br \/>\nheard to say that they became the owners of the property<br \/>\nonly when the partition deed was executed on 29th<br \/>\nNovember, 1965.  Lastly, the facts above-mentioned<br \/>\nshow that the appellants had asserted not only their own<br \/>\npossession, they had also asserted the possession of<br \/>\nPrahladji (husband of appellant no.1 and father of<br \/>\nremaining appellants) prior to his death.  In the case of<br \/>\nHanamgowda v. Irgowda reported in [AIR 1925 Bom. 9],<br \/>\nit has been held that in cases of adverse possession, the<br \/>\nstarting point of limitation does not commence from the<br \/>\ndate when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but<br \/>\nit commences from the date when the defendants&#8217;<br \/>\npossession became adverse.  Therefore, in the present<br \/>\ncase, the starting point of limitation for adverse<br \/>\npossession cannot be taken as 29th November, 1965 and<br \/>\none has to take the date when the respondents&#8217;<br \/>\npossession became adverse.  For all the above reasons,<br \/>\nthere is no merit in the above arguments advanced on<br \/>\nbehalf of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel appearing on<br \/>\nbehalf of the appellants next contended that in the<br \/>\npresent case the respondents have failed to prove the<br \/>\nouster along with other three circumstances, namely,<br \/>\nhostile intention; long and uninterrupted possession; and<br \/>\nexercise of the right of exclusive ownership openly and to<br \/>\nthe knowledge of the owner.  We do not find any merit in<br \/>\nthis argument.  It is correct to say that the defendants<br \/>\nhave to prove three elements mentioned above to<br \/>\nestablish ouster in cases involving claim of adverse<br \/>\npossession.  However, in the present case, there is a<br \/>\nconcurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below to<br \/>\nthe effect that the respondents are in possession of the<br \/>\nsuit land from 1935 or in any event from 1941; that they<br \/>\nhave paid revenue cess from 1940; that they have paid<br \/>\nproperty taxes; that their names were recorded in the<br \/>\nrevenue records and they were granted permission by the<br \/>\npanchayat to construct compound wall.  Moreover, in her<br \/>\ndeposition before the trial Court, appellant no.1 had<br \/>\ndeposed that her husband had died six years prior to the<br \/>\ninstitution of suit; that the suit land was in possession of<br \/>\nher father-in-law and after his death it came in possession<br \/>\nof Prahlad (husband); that during the life time of Prahlad,<br \/>\nthe defendants had told Prahlad to allow them to<br \/>\nconstruct a building on the land which he refused and that<br \/>\nthe respondents constructed the compound wall without<br \/>\ntheir permission. In view of the above concurrent findings<br \/>\nof fact recorded by the courts below on the issue of<br \/>\nadverse possession, we do not see any reason to<br \/>\ninterfere in the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor the aforestated reasons, civil appeal stands<br \/>\ndismissed, with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>25941<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Vasantiben P. Nayak &amp; Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak &amp; Ors on 9 March, 2004 Author: Kapadia Bench: Ashok Bhan, S.H. Kapadia CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6432 of 1998 PETITIONER: Vasantiben P. Nayak &amp; Ors. RESPONDENT: Somnath M. Nayak &amp; Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/03\/2004 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN &amp; S.H. KAPADIA [&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-15314","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>Vasantiben P. Nayak &amp; Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak &amp; Ors on 9 March, 2004 - 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\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vasantiben P. Nayak &amp; Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak &amp; Ors on 9 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-02T17:31:54+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\\\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vasantiben P. Nayak &amp; Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak &amp; Ors on 9 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-02T17:31:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1576,\"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\\\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004\",\"name\":\"Vasantiben P. Nayak &amp; Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak &amp; Ors on 9 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-02T17:31:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vasantiben P. Nayak &amp; Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak &amp; Ors on 9 March, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Vasantiben P. Nayak &amp; Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak &amp; Ors on 9 March, 2004 - 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\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vasantiben P. Nayak &amp; Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak &amp; Ors on 9 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-02T17:31:54+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\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vasantiben P. Nayak &amp; Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak &amp; Ors on 9 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-02T17:31:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004"},"wordCount":1576,"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\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004","name":"Vasantiben P. Nayak &amp; Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak &amp; Ors on 9 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-02T17:31:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasantiben-p-nayak-ors-vs-somnath-m-nayak-ors-on-9-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vasantiben P. Nayak &amp; Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak &amp; Ors on 9 March, 2004"}]},{"@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\/15314","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=15314"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15314\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}