{"id":162971,"date":"2009-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-12-08T09:20:58","modified_gmt":"2018-12-08T03:50:58","slug":"dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Dharma Soma Tare & Ors vs Harischandra Gangaram Tare on 11 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Dharma Soma Tare & Ors vs Harischandra Gangaram Tare on 11 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: Nishita Mhatre<\/div>\n
                                              :1:\n\n    vss\n\n                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                       \n                            SECOND APPEAL NO.615 OF 1992\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n    Dharma Soma Tare & Ors.                         ... Appellants\n\n    V\/s.\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n    Harischandra Gangaram Tare                      ... Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n    Mr.K.Y. Mandlik for Appellants\n\n    None for Respondent\n                                 \n                                                CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.\n                                \n                      JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON: 26TH AUGUST, 2009\n                    JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2009\n             \n\n\n    JUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    1.     This Second Appeal challenges the orders of both the trial Court as well as<\/p>\n
    the lower appellate Court by which the appellant’s suit has been dismissed. When<\/p>\n
    the appeal was admitted, the following substantial questions were raised:\n<\/p>\n
           “Whether the plaintiffs i.e. the appellants are entitled to exemption of the
\n           Limitation Act in view of the provisions of the Order 7 Rule 6 of the CPC?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           “Whether the deed of 16.1.1967 is a mortgage deed and the plaintiffs were
\n           entitled to redeem the mortgage at any time since the mortgage deed was not
\n           registered under the Registration Act, 1908?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2.     The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
    One Sitaram Tare was the owner of the suit land bearing Survey No.13\/1 and Survey<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:00:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                               :2:<\/span><\/p>\n
    No.17, Hissa No.12 in Wadvali Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. Sitaram mortgaged<\/p>\n
    these lands with Respondent No.1 on 16.1.1967 for an amount of Rs.1500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
    Sitaram required the money for his son’s marriage and it was agreed between the<\/p>\n
    parties that the mortgage could be redeemed within 5 years.               Admittedly, the<\/p>\n
    mortgage deed has not been registered under the Registration Act. Sitaram expired<\/p>\n
    in 1975.\n<\/p>\n
    3.     On 8.3.1982, the appellants, who are the heirs and legal representatives of<\/p>\n
    Sitaram, called upon the respondents not to obstruct their possession of the suit<\/p>\n
    lands. The respondents by his letter of 17.3.1982 informed them that Sitaram had<\/p>\n
    mortgaged the suit lands with him and therefore, they had no right over those lands<\/p>\n
    since Sitaram had failed to redeem the lands within five years as agreed.                 On<\/p>\n
    26.5.1982, the appellants called upon the respondents to accept Rs.1,500\/- and to<\/p>\n
    hand over possession of the suit lands. The respondent refused to comply with the<\/p>\n
    request of the appellants and therefore, the appellants instituted RCS No.535 of 1982<\/p>\n
    before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan on 29.1.1982. This suit was filed<\/p>\n
    for redeeming the land on repayment of Rs.1500\/- to the defendant i.e. the<\/p>\n
    respondent herein.\n<\/p>\n
    4.     In his written statement, the respondent denied that the plaintiffs were entitled<\/p>\n
    to possession of the suit lands. He contended that the mortgage could not be<\/p>\n
    redeemed after so many years when the parties had agreed that it could be<\/p>\n
    redeemed only within five years.\n<\/p>\n
    5.     The trial Court held after the evidence was recorded that the plaintiffs i.e. the<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:00:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                               :3:<\/span><\/p>\n
    appellants herein had proved that they were the heirs of Sitaram. They had also<\/p>\n
    proved that Sitaram had mortgaged the property for Rs.1500\/- to the respondent and<\/p>\n
    that he had parted with possession of the suit property. However, the trial Court<\/p>\n
    denied the plaintiffs the relief of redemption of the mortgage since the suit had not<\/p>\n
    been filed within the period of limitation. The trial Court also construed the deed of<\/p>\n
    16.1.1967 as a mortgage by conditional sale.\n<\/p>\n
    6.     Mr.Mandlik, the learned advocate for the appellants, submits that a suit for<\/p>\n
    redemption of a mortgage is required to be filed within 30 years from the date fixed<\/p>\n
    for redemption of the mortgage. He submits that since the deed of mortgage is not<\/p>\n
    registered in accordance with The Registration Act, 1908 it can be enforced at any<\/p>\n
    point in time and the appellants were entitled to the exemption from the law of<\/p>\n
    limitation under Order 7 Rule 6. The learned advocate then submits that the Plaintiff<\/p>\n
    is entitled to recover possession of the suit land as the defendant has no title or<\/p>\n
    interest of any nature in the suit land and, therefore, is not entitled to remain in<\/p>\n
    possession of the same. The learned advocate then relies on the judgment of the<\/p>\n
    learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Devidas Krishna Salunke vs.<\/p>\n
    Tanubai w\/o. Vasudeo Ghogare, 1999(1) Mh.L.J. 616 in support of his submission<\/p>\n
    that since the plaintiffs’ claim for possession was based on title and not on the ground<\/p>\n
    of dispossession, the suit was governed by the limitation prescribed under Article 65<\/p>\n
    of the Limitation Act. The learned advocate further submits that since no claim for<\/p>\n
    adverse possession had been made by the defendant in respect of the suit property,<\/p>\n
    the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the suit property being the owners of the<\/p>\n
    suit land. He also points out that the judgment in the case of Virendra Nath v\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    Mohd. Jamil & Ors., (2004) 6 SCC 140 in support of his submission that when the<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:00:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                                :4:<\/span><\/p>\n
    nature of the possession of the defendant was as a mortgagee and the plaintiffs were<\/p>\n
    ready and willing to pay the amount to redeem the mortgage, it ought to have been<\/p>\n
    held by both the Courts below that the defendant was in permissive possession of<\/p>\n
    the suit land.\n<\/p>\n
    7.     The question therefore is, whether the suit has been filed within the period of<\/p>\n
    limitation. The suit as framed is one for redemption of the mortgage which was<\/p>\n
    created in 1967 in favour of the defendant.         The parties had agreed that the<\/p>\n
    defendant would be put in possession of the suit land in return for a loan of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    1,500\/- which Sitaram required for his son’s marriage. This amount was to be repaid<\/p>\n
    within five years, failing which Sitaram agreed to sell the land to the defendant by<\/p>\n
    accepting an additional amount from the defendant. Thus, the document though not<\/p>\n
    registered is obviously one of a mortgage by conditional sale. The parties have<\/p>\n
    proceeded in Court on the basis that this is a mortgage by conditional sale. The<\/p>\n
    limitation prescribed for filing such a suit to redeem or recover possession of<\/p>\n
    immovable property which has been mortgaged is 30 years under Article 61 of the<\/p>\n
    Limitation Act. Admittedly, the document has not been registered and, therefore, both<\/p>\n
    the Courts below have held that the title does not pass to the defendant on the basis<\/p>\n
    of the mortgage deed. Therefore, the period of limitation which has to be considered<\/p>\n
    is with respect to the possession of the immovable property on the basis of title. The<\/p>\n
    limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act for such a suit is three years. Therefore,<\/p>\n
    in my opinion, the suit which has been filed in 1982 is barred by limitation. The view<\/p>\n
    of the both the Courts below regarding the issue of limitation must be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
    8.     In the case of Devidas Krishna Salunke (supra), a suit was filed for restoration<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:00:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                               :5:<\/span><\/p>\n
    of the possession of a property on the ground that it belonged to the plaintiff and that<\/p>\n
    the defendant was in permissive possession thereof. The plaintiff’s claim that he<\/p>\n
    owned the property was neither disputed by the defendant nor was any plea of<\/p>\n
    adverse possession raised by the defendant. From the material on record and on the<\/p>\n
    analysis of the evidence the Court held that the suit was not based merely on the<\/p>\n
    claim of dispossession for it to be governed by Article 64 of the Limitation Act. The<\/p>\n
    Court held that the claim for possession was based on title of the plaintiff to the suit<\/p>\n
    property. The Court therefore held that the applicability of Article 64 does not arise<\/p>\n
    and instead the limitation prescribed under Article 65 was accepted as the correct<\/p>\n
    period of limitation in the facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, this<\/p>\n
    judgment is not relevant in the facts of the present case and therefore, it does not<\/p>\n
    take the appellant’s case any further. The deed on which the plaintiff relies is dated<\/p>\n
    16.1.1967 and therefore viewing the situation from any angle, the suit is barred by<\/p>\n
    limitation.\n<\/p>\n
    9.      In the case of Virendra Nath (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that a<\/p>\n
    mortgagor has no right to eject a mortgagee unless the mortgage is redeemed. Even<\/p>\n
    though the mortgage has not been effected by a registered instrument if the entry of<\/p>\n
    the person is on the land as a mortgagee, the nature of his possession would<\/p>\n
    continue to be that of a mortgagee. This would be so unless there is evidence to<\/p>\n
    show at any point of time that he asserted his adverse title by representing his<\/p>\n
    possession as a mortgagee and continued in adverse possession for the prescribed<\/p>\n
    period of more than 12 years to the knowledge of the mortgagor. The Court also held<\/p>\n
    that there was no need for a substantial plea on the part of the original owner to<\/p>\n
    indicate that the other person was to be in permissive possession.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:00:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 :6:<\/span><\/p>\n
    10.      In my opinion, this judgment would not be applicable to the facts and<\/p>\n
    circumstances in the present case as the Supreme Court was dealing with the UP<\/p>\n
    Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 and the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land<\/p>\n
    Reforms Act, 1950.       In the present case, a mortgage by conditional sale was<\/p>\n
    executed. The Defendant was in possession of the suit land, pursuant to this deed.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, it was not necessary for the Defendant to claim title by adverse<\/p>\n
    possession.\n<\/p>\n
    11.<\/p>\n
            The trial Court and the appellate Court have rightly held that since the<\/p>\n
    document on the basis of which the suit was filed for redemption of the suit land was<\/p>\n
    not registered the limitation prescribed under Article 61 (a) or (b) would not be<\/p>\n
    applicable. These articles would be applicable in case of a registered mortgage deed.\n<\/p>\n
    It is for this reasons that the trial Court and the appellant Court held that the limitation<\/p>\n
    prescribed under Article 61(a) and (b) would not be applicable. Therefore, the suit for<\/p>\n
    possession of the suit land would be on the basis of title. The limitation prescribed for<\/p>\n
    such a suit being 3 years, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
    12.      In the circumstances, the Appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:00:08 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Dharma Soma Tare & Ors vs Harischandra Gangaram Tare on 11 September, 2009 Bench: Nishita Mhatre :1: vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.615 OF 1992 Dharma Soma Tare & Ors. … Appellants V\/s. Harischandra Gangaram Tare … Respondent Mr.K.Y. Mandlik for Appellants None […]<\/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-162971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDharma Soma Tare & Ors vs Harischandra Gangaram Tare on 11 September, 2009 - 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\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dharma Soma Tare & Ors vs Harischandra Gangaram Tare on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-08T03:50:58+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\\\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dharma Soma Tare & Ors vs Harischandra Gangaram Tare on 11 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-08T03:50:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1615,\"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\\\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Dharma Soma Tare & Ors vs Harischandra Gangaram Tare on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-08T03:50:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dharma Soma Tare & Ors vs Harischandra Gangaram Tare on 11 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Dharma Soma Tare & Ors vs Harischandra Gangaram Tare on 11 September, 2009 - 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\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dharma Soma Tare & Ors vs Harischandra Gangaram Tare on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-08T03:50:58+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\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dharma Soma Tare & Ors vs Harischandra Gangaram Tare on 11 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-08T03:50:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009"},"wordCount":1615,"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\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009","name":"Dharma Soma Tare & Ors vs Harischandra Gangaram Tare on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-08T03:50:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharma-soma-tare-ors-vs-harischandra-gangaram-tare-on-11-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dharma Soma Tare & Ors vs Harischandra Gangaram Tare on 11 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/162971","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=162971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162971\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}