{"id":168319,"date":"2010-03-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-07T16:13:38","modified_gmt":"2017-11-07T10:43:38","slug":"kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Kantilal Rangrao Sawant vs Chhagan Appa Sapkal on 30 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Kantilal Rangrao Sawant vs Chhagan Appa Sapkal on 30 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: R.S. Mohite<\/div>\n
                               1\n\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                 SECOND APPEAL NO.53 OF 1992\n\n\n    1   Rangrao Dhondiba Sawant,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n    2   Yuvraj Rangarao Sawant,\n        Since deceased through his L.R.\n        Smt. Suman Yuvraj Sawant.\n\n\n\n\n                            \n    3   Dattatraya Rangarao Sawant,\n\n    4\n                  \n        Kantilal Rangrao Sawant.\n                 \n                                       ..Appellants.\n\n                               Vs.\n\n    1   Chhagan Appa Sapkal,\n      \n\n\n    2   Baban Appa Sapkal,\n   \n\n\n\n    3   Sonab ai Appa Sapkal,\n\n\n\n\n\n    4   Krishnabai Dadsaheb Sawant.\n\n                                           ..Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mr. D.S.Sawant for the Appellants.\n\n\n                         CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J.\n                         DATE : Reserved on 9.2.2010\n                                 Declared on 30.3.2010\n\n    JUDGMENT :\n<\/pre>\n
                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
    1            This    appeal       has        been       filed           by        the<\/p>\n
    appellants impugning a judgment and decree passed<\/p>\n
           th
\n    by 7        Additional District Judge, Pune on 21.7.1990<\/p>\n
    in Civil Appeal No.847 of 1985. The Appellant No.2<\/p>\n
    is   daughter       in    law      of      Appellant         No.1(Original<\/p>\n
    plaintiff) where as the Appellants Nos. 3 and 4 are<\/p>\n
    his sons. Original Appellant No.2 Yuvraj( deceased)<\/p>\n
    was defendant No.5 in the suit whereas appellant<\/p>\n
    Nos. 3 and 4 were the original defendants 6 and 7<\/p>\n
    in the suit. Defendant Nos. 5 to 7 were supporting<\/p>\n
    the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
    2            Brief facts of the case are as under.\n<\/p>\n
    a)           That    in    the     year        1942        the        plaintiff<\/p>\n
    Rangarao D.Sawant wanted to purchase a land bearing<\/p>\n
    Survey       No.42\/1\/2\/3        from       Village     Udhat          from        one<\/p>\n
    Govind Deshpande. He was however, short of funds.\n<\/p>\n
    One Appa Sapkal who was resident of nearby village<\/p>\n
    was plaintiff s friend. According to the plaintiff<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
    he   and   Appa   Sapkal      entered          into      an       agreement<\/p>\n
    whereby Appa Sapkal would contribute 50% of the<\/p>\n
    purchase    price.    It    was       agreed    that        Appa        Sapkal<\/p>\n
    would recover his contribution with interest from<\/p>\n
    the sale price of the          produce from land which was<\/p>\n
    to be sold to     three specified agencies.                       Initially<\/p>\n
    by   a   registered    sale    deed      dated        22.5.1942,              the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff and      ig Appa Sapkal jointly purchased 8-\n<\/p>\n
    Acres of land from the aforesaid Govind Dehspande.\n<\/p>\n
    The owner Govind Deshpande thereafter sold 3-Acres<\/p>\n
    and 19-Gunthas of land to one Pore who in turn by a<\/p>\n
    further registered sale deed dated 23.1.1947 sold<\/p>\n
    the said land jointly to the plaintiff and Appa<\/p>\n
    Sapkal. It is an admitted position that, in so far<\/p>\n
    as   registered      sale     deeds      dated         22.5.1942              and<\/p>\n
    23.1.1947, the plaintiff and Appa Sapkal were joint<\/p>\n
    purchasers.\n<\/p>\n
    b)         It is the plaintiff s case that some time<\/p>\n
    in March, 1960 Appa Sapkal made a statement before<\/p>\n
    the Tahsildar that he had recovered his share of<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
    the    purchase price and therefore, land should be<\/p>\n
    transferred        in   the       name      of     the      plaintiff.              This<\/p>\n
    statement according to the paintiff was made in<\/p>\n
    order to effect a revenue entry in the plaintiff s<\/p>\n
    favour. However, later on, Appa Sapkal changed his<\/p>\n
    mind    and    lodged         a     protest          with          the        revenue<\/p>\n
    authorities.\n<\/p>\n
    c)          In 1964,\n                        ig        Appa Sapkal filed a suit being\n                      \n<\/pre>\n
    Special Civil Suit No.153\/1964 for a declaration<\/p>\n
    that he had half              share in the suit property. In<\/p>\n
    the said suit, present plaintiff filed a written<\/p>\n
    statement contending that Appa Sapkal had agreed to<\/p>\n
    transfer his half share to the plaintiff as he has<\/p>\n
    recovered his contriubution of the sale price. The<\/p>\n
    record indicates that the said suit was initially<\/p>\n
    dismissed on 29.4.1967. Appa Sapkal then carried<\/p>\n
    the matter to the High Court by filing First Appeal<\/p>\n
    No.195\/1968 and the said first appeal came to be<\/p>\n
    allowed by this court on                     14.12.1976. The finding<\/p>\n
    of    the   High    Court         was       that    there         could         be      no<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
    transfer of the share by Appa Sapkal in favour of<\/p>\n
    the     plaintiff     unless      there         was        a       registered<\/p>\n
    document and therefore, Appa Sapkal continued to be<\/p>\n
    a     half   share    holder      in    respect             of      the        suit<\/p>\n
    proiperty. It appears that matter was carried upto<\/p>\n
    the Apex Court and the SLP was disposed off by ther<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court on 18.9.1978 with some modification.\n<\/p>\n
    The<\/p>\n
    finding
\n           Supreme<\/p>\n
                 of<\/p>\n
                       Court<\/p>\n
                         the
\n                               however,<\/p>\n
                               High
\n                                              did<\/p>\n
                                          Court
\n                                                         not<\/p>\n
                                                      that
\n                                                                   up<\/p>\n
                                                                   Appa
\n                                                                           set<\/p>\n
                                                                               Sapkal
\n                                                                                     the<\/p>\n
    continued to be the owner of the half portion of<\/p>\n
    the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
    3            After this litigation was over, plaintiff<\/p>\n
    filed a suit          on 27.4.1979 against the heirs of<\/p>\n
    Appa     Sapkal,     who   had     expired            pending            earlier<\/p>\n
    litigation, for a direction to execute a sale deed<\/p>\n
    in respect of the half share of the suit land as<\/p>\n
    aforesaid. This suit was decreed by the trial court<\/p>\n
    on    20.4.1985      but   by   the     impugned            judgment             and<\/p>\n
    order, the first Appellate court allowed the appeal<\/p>\n
    and in such circumstances, this second appeal                                  came<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
    to be filed.\n<\/p>\n
    4       Substantial questions of law on the basis<\/p>\n
    of which this appeal was admitted are                      as under.\n<\/p>\n
            a)            Whether     the      plaintiff s               suit        is<\/p>\n
            hit by principles of res judicata when the<\/p>\n
            issues   ig   in    earlier     Suit<\/p>\n
            filed by the father of defendants herein
\n                                                        No.153           of      1964<\/p>\n
            are     not    directly       in    issue         in     this        suit<\/p>\n
            though        the    present       suit      is      between           the<\/p>\n
            same parties?\n<\/p>\n
            b)            Whether plaintiff is estopped from<\/p>\n
            claiming           any   relief       in       this         suit         in<\/p>\n
            respect of suit land in view of decision<\/p>\n
            in     Suit    No.153     of    1964       when        the       relief<\/p>\n
            granted to defendants                   father in earlier<\/p>\n
            suit     were        different        from          the        reliefs<\/p>\n
            claimed by plaintiff in this suit?\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
    5          As regards the first substantial question<\/p>\n
    of law, in my view no error can be found with the<\/p>\n
    finding of the Appellate Court that the present<\/p>\n
    suit was hit by the principles of res judicata. It<\/p>\n
    is clear from the record that                   in 1964 a suit<\/p>\n
    bearing No.153 of 1964 was filed by Appa Sapkal for<\/p>\n
    declaration that he had a half share in the suit<\/p>\n
    property. In the said suit, it was open for the<\/p>\n
    present    plaintiff to file a counter claim for the<\/p>\n
    relief which he has sought in the present suit.\n<\/p>\n
    This he did not do. This litigation was decided<\/p>\n
    upto the High Court and            Appa Sakpal held to have<\/p>\n
    continued to hold half share in the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
    The present suit was filed by the plaintiff against<\/p>\n
    the heirs of Appa Sapkal for a relief which could<\/p>\n
    have been claimed by him by way of counter claim in<\/p>\n
    the earlier suit. The relevant part of section 11<\/p>\n
    of   the   Code   of   Civil       Procedure        1908         and       the<\/p>\n
    relevant explanation which is Explanation IV is as<\/p>\n
    under .\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
                    11. Resjudicata- No court shall try
\n               any suit or issue in which the matter<\/p>\n
               directly and substantially in issue has
\n               been directly and substantially in issue in
\n               a former suit between the same parties, or
\n               between parties under whom they or any of<\/p>\n
               them claim, litigating under the same
\n               title, in a court competent to try such
\n               subsequent suit or the suit in which such
\n               issue has been subsequently raiseSd, and<\/p>\n
               has been heard and finally decided by such
\n               court.\n<\/p>\n
                   Explanation-IV-Any matter which might
\n               and ought to have been made ground of<\/p>\n
               defence    or attach in such former suit
\n               shall be deemed to have been a matter
\n               directly    and substantially in issue in
\n               such suit .\n<\/p>\n
    6          In my view, the cause of action for both<\/p>\n
    the   suits   were      essentially     events         which         occured<\/p>\n
    prior   to    the    filing    of   the     first          suit        i.      e.\n<\/p>\n
    purchase     of   the   land   by   a   registered             sale        deed<\/p>\n
    dated 22.5.1942 and purchase of the remaining suit<\/p>\n
    land by a registered sale deed dated 21.9.1947. In<\/p>\n
    this view of the matter, it is clear that if at all<\/p>\n
    the present plaintiff wanted to obtain this relief<\/p>\n
    he ought to have taken the ground taken by him                                 in<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
    the earlier suit and ought to have filed a counter<\/p>\n
    claim seeking the relief which he has sought in the<\/p>\n
    present suit. This has not been done. He cannot be<\/p>\n
    permitted to have a second round of litigation on<\/p>\n
    the same issue pertaining to his right in the suit<\/p>\n
    property. The first substantial question of law                           as<\/p>\n
    raised is therefore, without any substance.\n<\/p>\n
    7<\/span><\/p>\n
               Once it is held that the plaintiff s                       suit<\/p>\n
    is hit by principles of res-judicata, the                         second<\/p>\n
    question      whether the plaintiff is estopped from<\/p>\n
    claiming any relief in the suit, does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
    8.         There   is   therefore,   no   substance             in      the<\/p>\n
    second appeal and the same is dismissed,<\/p>\n
                                  ( R.S.MOHITE, J.)<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:46:28 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Kantilal Rangrao Sawant vs Chhagan Appa Sapkal on 30 March, 2010 Bench: R.S. Mohite 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.53 OF 1992 1 Rangrao Dhondiba Sawant, 2 Yuvraj Rangarao Sawant, Since deceased through his L.R. Smt. Suman Yuvraj Sawant. 3 Dattatraya Rangarao Sawant, […]<\/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-168319","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKantilal Rangrao Sawant vs Chhagan Appa Sapkal on 30 March, 2010 - 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\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kantilal Rangrao Sawant vs Chhagan Appa Sapkal on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-07T10:43:38+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kantilal Rangrao Sawant vs Chhagan Appa Sapkal on 30 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-07T10:43:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1250,\"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\\\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Kantilal Rangrao Sawant vs Chhagan Appa Sapkal on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-07T10:43:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kantilal Rangrao Sawant vs Chhagan Appa Sapkal on 30 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Kantilal Rangrao Sawant vs Chhagan Appa Sapkal on 30 March, 2010 - 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\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kantilal Rangrao Sawant vs Chhagan Appa Sapkal on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-07T10:43:38+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kantilal Rangrao Sawant vs Chhagan Appa Sapkal on 30 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-07T10:43:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010"},"wordCount":1250,"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\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010","name":"Kantilal Rangrao Sawant vs Chhagan Appa Sapkal on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-07T10:43:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantilal-rangrao-sawant-vs-chhagan-appa-sapkal-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kantilal Rangrao Sawant vs Chhagan Appa Sapkal on 30 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/168319","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=168319"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168319\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168319"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168319"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168319"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}