{"id":175999,"date":"1965-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965"},"modified":"2015-05-26T08:11:16","modified_gmt":"2015-05-26T02:41:16","slug":"venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965","title":{"rendered":"Venkatesh Narahar Kattl vs Haji Saheb Khadir Saheb Mulla And … on 13 October, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Venkatesh Narahar Kattl vs Haji Saheb Khadir Saheb Mulla And … on 13 October, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1085, \t\t 1966 SCR (2) 215<\/div>\n
Author: R Bachawat<\/div>\n
Bench: Bachawat, R.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nVENKATESH NARAHAR KATTl\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHAJI SAHEB KHADIR SAHEB MULLA AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n13\/10\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1085\t\t  1966 SCR  (2) 215\n\n\nACT:\nBombay\tTenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (57 of 1948),  s.\n29(2) Application unde--Starting point of limitation.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nOn 8th December 1956, the appellant served on the respondent\nthree  months' notice in writing under s. 14(1) (b)  of\t the\nBombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, terminating\nthe tenancy on the ground of default in payment of rent.  On\n24th  June 1957 the appellant filed an application under  s.\n29(2) for  possession.\tThe Tahsildar allowed he application\nand the order was confirmed on appeal.\tBut in revision, the\nRevenue Tribunal set aside the order on the ground, that the\napplication was barred by limitation, because, it was  filed\nmore than two years, after 20th May 1955, which was the date\nof default.  A petition ay the appellant under Art. 227, was\nrejected by the High Court.\n In the appeal to the Supreme Court, on the question whether\nthe  application  was filed within the two  yea&  period  of\nlimitation prescribed by s. 29 (2).\nHELD : Limitation for the application began to run from\t the\ndate  of  the termination of the tenancy and  not  from\t the\nantecedent  date of default in payment of rent and  so,\t the\napplication,  filed within two years of the  termination  of\nthe tenancy was not barred by limitation. 220 G]\nThe  legislature  could not have  intended  that  limitation\nwould  commence\t to run before the right to apply  under  s.\n29(2)  accrues.\t The right to apply accrues to the  landlord\nwhen the tenancy is terminated by notice under s.  14(1)(b).\nBut in spite of the termination of the tenancy the  landlord\nhas no right to obtain possession without an order under  s.\n29(2).\t On  the termination of the tenancy,  the  right  to\nobtain\tpossession,  though in reality not  accrued  to\t the\nlandlord, is, by a legal fiction, deemed to have accrued  to\nhim.   Consequently, the date of termination of the  tenancy\nis  also  the date when the right to  obtain  possession  is\ndeemed\t to  have  accrued  to\tthe  landlord.\t Since\t the\nlimitation for, the application under s. 29(2) commences  to\nrun  from  the date when the right to obtain  possession  is\ndeemed to have accrued to the landlord, it would follow that\nlimitation  begins to run from the date when the tenancy  is\nterminated by the notice under s. 14(1) (b). [218 A-B,\tC-D,\nF-G]\nThe  history of the legislation also shows that both  before\nand  after  the Amendment Act, 1951-which provided  the\t two\nyears'\tperiod of limitation-the date of the termination  of\nthe tenancy is the starting point of limitation. [218 H]\nRamachandra  Anant  v. Janardan, 64 Bom.   L.R.\t 637  (F.B.)\napproved.\nChimanbai  Rama v. Ganpat Jagannath, I.L.R. [1958] Dom.\t 917\n(F.B.) overruled.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 558 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
216<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nJanuary 19, 1961 of the Mysore High Court in Civil  Petition
\nNo. 654 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
S.   G. Patwardhan and K. R. Chaudhury, for the appellant.
\nA.   G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBachawat,  J. The appellant is the landlord  and  respondent
\nNo.  1\tis  the tenant of S. Nos. 180  and  182\t of  village
\nDhanyal,  taluk\t Bijapur.   Respondent No.  1  defaulted  in
\npayment of rent for the years 1951-52, 1953-54 and  1954-55.
\nOn December 8, 1956, the appellant served on respondent\t No.
\nI  three months’ notice in writing under s. 14(1)(b) of\t the
\nBombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay\t Act
\nNo. 57 of 1948) hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy\tAct,
\nterminating the tenancy on the ground of default in  payment
\nof  rent.   On\tJune  24,  1957,  the  appellant  filed\t  an
\napplication under s. 29(2) read with s. 14(1) of the Tenancy
\nAct  for  possession of the land.   The\t Tahsildar,  Bijapur
\nallowed the application, and directed possession of the land
\nto  be delivered to the appellant.  This order was  affirmed
\non  appeal  by\tthe  Assistant\tCommissioner,  Bijapur.\t  On
\nrevision,  the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal  set  aside
\nthe  order  of\tthe first two tribunals\t and  dismissed\t the
\napplication.  A petition by the appellant under Art. 227  of
\nthe  Constitution was summarily rejected by the Mysore\tHigh
\nCourt.\t The appellant now appeals to this Court by  special
\nleave.\n<\/p>\n
The Tribunals below concurrently found that respondent No. I
\ndefaulted  in  payment of the rent for\tthe  years  1951-52,
\n1953-54 and 1954-55, the last default took place on May\t 20,
\n1955  and  the\ttenancy\t was  properly\tterminated  by\t the
\nappellant.   The  first\t two Tribunals also  held  that\t the
\napplication was filed within the time, allowed by law.\t The
\nRevenue\t  Appellate   Tribunal,\t however,  held\t  that\t the
\napplication  being filed more than two years after  May\t 20,
\n1955  is barred by limitation.\tThe sole question before  us
\nis  whether the application was filed within the two  years’
\nperiod\tof limitation prescribed by s. 29(2) of the  Tenancy
\nAct.  The appellant contends that the application was  filed
\nwithin\tthe prescribed period of limitation because (1)\t the
\nright  of the appellant to obtain possession of the land  is
\ndeemed\tto  have accrued to him on the\ttermination  of\t the
\ntenancy by the notice given on December 8, 1956, (2) in\t any
\nevent, in computing the two years’ period of limitation, the
\nperiod\tof  the three months’ notice should be\texcluded  in
\nview of s. 15(2) read with s. 29(2) of the Indian Limitation
\nAct, 1908.  We are of the opinion that the first  contention
\nof the appellant
\n\t\t\t    217<\/span>
\nshould\tbe accepted.  In view of this conclusion, we do\t not
\nthink  it  necessary to express any opinion  on\t the  second
\ncontention advanced on behalf of the appellant.
\nSections 14(1) and 29(2) of the Tenancy Act, as they  stood-
\nat. the relevant time, are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “14. (1) Notwithstanding any law, agreement or
\n\t      usage, or the decree or order of a court,\t the
\n\t      tenancy of any land shall not be terminated-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   unless the tenant-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   has\t failed\t to  pay the  rent  for\t any
\n\t      revenue  years. before the 31st day  of  March
\n\t      thereof;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  has done any act which is destructive or
\n\t      permanently injurious to the land;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) has sub-divided, sub-let or assigned the
\n\t      land in-, contravention of section 27;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iv)  has\t failed to cultivate it\t personally;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      or\n<\/p>\n
\t      (v)   has\t used such land for a purpose  other
\n\t      than agriculture or allied pursuits; and\n<\/p>\n
(b)  unless  the landlord has given three months’ notice  in
\nwriting\t informing the tenant of his decision  to  terminate
\nthe tenancy and the ground for such termination, and, within
\nthat  period the tenant has failed to remedy the breach\t for
\nwhich the tenancy is liable to be terminated.”
\n29(2)  No landlord shall obtain possession of any  land,  or
\ndwelling house held by a tenant except under an order of the
\nMamlatdar.   For  obtaining  such order\t he  shall  make  an
\napplication  in the prescribed form and within a  period  of
\ntwo  years  from  the  date on which  the  right  to  obtain
\npossession  of the land or dwelling house, as the  case\t may
\nbe, is deemed to. have accrued to him.”\n<\/p>\n
At  first  sight,  it  may appear  that\t the  Act  gives  no
\nindication  of the time when the right to obtain  possession
\nof  the land or dwelling house is deemed to have accrued  to
\nthe  landlord as contemplated by s. 29(2).  But on  a  close
\nscrutiny  of the Act we are satisfied’ that this right\tmust
\nbe  deemed  to\thave  accrued to him  on  the  date  of\t the
\ntermination of the tenancy.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tto be noticed that limitation  for  the\t application
\nunder s.  29  (2)  commences to run from the date  when\t the
\nright to obtain
\n\t\t\t    218<\/span>
\npossession  of the land or dwelling house is deemed to\thave
\naccrued\t to the landlord.  ‘Now, the legislature  could\t not
\nhave intended that,, limitation would commence to run before
\nthe right to apply accrues.  It is reasonable to think\tthat
\nthe right to apply also accrues to the ,landlord on the date
\nwhen limitation for the application begins to run.  But\t the
\nright to apply under S. 29(2) read with S. 14(1) accrues  to
\nthe  landlord when the tenancy is terminated by\t the  notice
\nunder S. 14 (1 ) (b).  In Raja Ram Mahadev Paranjype v.\t Aba
\nMaruti Mali<\/a>(1), this Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The   statute   having\tprovided   for\t the
\n\t      termination of the tenancy would by  necessary
\n\t      implication create a right in the landlord  to
\n\t      recover  possession.  The\t statute  recognises
\n\t      this  right by providing by S. 29(2)  for\t its
\n\t      enforcement   by\t an   application   to\t the
\n\t      Mamlatdar.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It would follow that limitation for the application under s.
\n29(2)  read with S. 14(1) begins to run from the  date\twhen
\nthe tenancy is terminated, by the notice under S.  14(1)(b).
\nConsequently, the date of the termination of the tenancy  is
\nalso the date when the right to obtain possession is  deemed
\nto  have accrued to the landlord.  But it is argued that  on
\nthe  date  of the termination of the tenancy, the  right  to
\nobtain\tpossession  of\tthe land actually  accrues  ‘to\t the
\nlandlord,  and,\t therefore, the legislature could  not\thave
\nintended that on that date this right is deemed to accrue to
\nhim.  This ,argument must be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
In spite of the termination of the tenancy, the landlord has
\nno  right to obtain possession of the land without an  order
\nof  the Mamlatdar under s. 29(2).  Between the date  of\t the
\ntermination  of\t the tenancy and the date of the  order\t for
\npossession  under  S. 29(2), the tenant continues to  be  in
\nlawful possession of the land and is liable to pay rent\t and
\nnot  mesne  profits, see Ramchandra  Avant  v.\tJanardan(2).
\nThus, on the termination of the tenancy, the right to obtain
\npossession of the land, though in reality not accrued to the
\nlandlord, is, by a legal fiction, deemed to have accrued  to
\nhim  so that he may immediately apply under S. 29(2) for  an
\norder for possession.\n<\/p>\n
This  conclusion is reinforced if we look at the history  of
\nthe  legislation.  The Tenancy Act, as originally passed  in
\n1948, did not provide for a special period of limitation for
\nthe  application to the Mamlatdar under s. 29.\tBut  it\t was
\nthought\t that s. 72 of the Tenancy Act attracted the  period
\nof limitation prescribed
\n(1) [1961] 1 Supp.  S.C.R.730,747.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 64 Bom.  L.R. 635 (F.D.) 637, 641.\n<\/p>\n
219<\/span><\/p>\n
by  sub-ss.  (3) and (4) of s. 5 of the\t Mamlatdars’  Courts
\nAct, 1906 (Bombay Act No. 2 of 1906), which are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “5(3).   No  suit shall be  entertained  by  a
\n\t      Mamlatdar’s Court unless it is ‘brought within
\n\t      six months from the date on which the cause of
\n\t      action arose.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5 (4).  The cause of action shall be deemed to
\n\t      have   arisen  on\t the  date  on\t which\t the
\n\t      impediment  to  the natural  flow\t of  surface
\n\t      water  or\t the dispossession,  deprivation  or
\n\t      determination,  of  tenancy  or  other   right
\n\t      occurred,\t  or   on  which   the\t impediment,
\n\t      disturbance  or obstruction, or the  attempted
\n\t      impediment  or  disturbance  or\tobstruction,
\n\t      first commenced.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  Bombay  Revenue  Tribunal,\t therefore,  ruled  that  an
\napplication  under s. 29(2) must be made within\t six  months
\nfrom  the date when the cause of action accrues, see  A.  S.
\nDesai’s\t Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands\tAct,  Second
\nEdn.,  pp.  137-38, 287-88; and in view of s.  5(4)  of\t the
\nMamlatdars’  Courts  Act,  1906, this cause  of\t action\t was
\ndeemed\tto accrue on the determination of the tenancy.\t The
\nsix  months’ period of limitation led to hardship,  and\t the
\nlegislature  decided to extend the period of limitation\t and
\nenacted\t the  Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural  Lands  (Third
\nAmendment)  Act,  1951 (Bombay Act No. 45  of  1951),  which
\namended\t s.  29\t by  providing\tfor  two  years’  period  of
\nlimitation  and also s. 72 by inserting the words  “save  as
\nprovided  in section 29”.  Thus, the Amending  Act  extended
\nthe  period of limitation from six months to two years,\t but
\nboth  before  and after the Amending Act, the  date  of\t the
\ntermination of the tenancy is the starting point of  limita-
\ntion; formerly because the right to apply was then deemed to
\naccrue\tto the landlord and now because the right to  obtain
\npossession is then deemed to have accrued to him.
\nThe  Tenancy  Act  was\tamended\t from  time  to\t time.\t The
\nrequirement of a notice for terminating the tenancy under s.
\n14(1)  was introduced by Bombay Act No. 33 of 1952,  and  is
\nrepeated  in  the  new s. 14 substituted  for  the  original
\nsection\t by Bombay Act No. 13 of 1956.\tBefore\tthe  tenancy
\ncan  be\t terminated under the new s. 14(1),  two  conditions
\nmust  be fulfilled.  Firstly, the tenant must be  guilty  of
\none  of the breaches mentioned in s.  14(1)(a).\t  Secondly,’
\nthe landlord must give three months’ notice in writing under
\ns.  14(1)(b)  and within that period the  tenant  must\thave
\nfailed to remedy the breach.  The tenancy is not  terminated
\nunless both these conditions are fulfilled.  Neither failure
\nto pay rent nor sub-letting nor any
\nC.I.\/66-15
\n220<\/span>
\nother breach is sufficient.  The breach must be followed  by
\nthe requisite notice terminating the tenancy.  It is on\t the
\ntermination of the tenancy and not earlier that the right to
\nobtain\tpossession  of the land is deemed to accrue  to\t the
\nlandlord  and limitation for the application under s.  29(2)
\nread with s. 14(1) begins to run.\n<\/p>\n
In  Chimanbai Rama v. Ganpat Jagannath(1), a Full  Bench  of
\nthe  Bombay  High Court held that the period  of  limitation
\nunder s. 29(2) for applying to the Mamlatdar for  possession
\nof  the land on the ground that the tenant had\tsub-let\t it,
\nbegan  from  the date of sub-letting, and  that\t though\t the
\nright to obtain possession actually accrues to the  landlord
\non  the date when he terminates the tenancy, under S.  29(2)
\nit  is\tfictionally deemed to accrue as from  an  antecedent
\npoint  of  time, viz., the date of  the\t sub-letting.\tWith
\nrespect, we are unable to agree with this judgment.  On\t the
\ntermination of the tenancy by the notice under S. 14 (1) (b)
\nand  before  the order for possession under  s.\t 29(2),\t the
\nlandlord  has  no right to obtain possession  of  the  land;
\nnevertheless, this right is then deemed to accrue to him, so
\nthat  he may apply immediately for an order  for  possession
\nunder  s. 29(2).  The sub-letting alone does not  give\thim’
\nthis  right to apply under s. 29(2).  He may, if  he  likes,
\nignore\tthe breach.  But where the breach is followed  by  a
\nnotice\tterminating  the tenancy he acquires  the  right  to
\napply  under  s. 29(2).\t It is difficult to  impute  to\t the
\nlegislature the intention that limitation would begin to run
\nagainst the landlord immediately on the sub-letting,  though
\nhe  is\tnot  aware  of the breach and  takes  no  steps\t for
\nterminating  the tenancy in consequence of the\tbreach.\t  In
\nour opinion, limitation, for the application under s.  29(2)
\nbegins\tto  run\t from the date of  the\ttermination  of\t the
\ntenancy and not from the date of the sub-letting or    the
\ndate of default in payment of rent.\n<\/p>\n
In  the instant case, three months’ notice in writing  under
\ns.   14(1)(b) terminating the tenancy was given on  December
\n8, 1956.  The application under s. 29(2) read with s.  14(1)
\nbeing  filed  on  June\t24, 1957 within\t two  years  of\t the
\ntermination of the tenancy is not barred by limitation.
\nIn  the result, the appeal is allowed with costs, the  order
\nof  the\t Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal,  Belgaum  Branch
\ndated  July 27, 1960 is set aside and the orders  passed  by
\nthe  Tahsildar,\t Bijapur  and  the  Assistant  Commissioner,
\nBijapur are restored.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  I.L.R. 1958 Bom. 917.\n<\/p>\n
221<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Venkatesh Narahar Kattl vs Haji Saheb Khadir Saheb Mulla And … on 13 October, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1085, 1966 SCR (2) 215 Author: R Bachawat Bench: Bachawat, R.S. PETITIONER: VENKATESH NARAHAR KATTl Vs. RESPONDENT: HAJI SAHEB KHADIR SAHEB MULLA AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/10\/1965 BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: […]<\/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-175999","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nVenkatesh Narahar Kattl vs Haji Saheb Khadir Saheb Mulla And ... on 13 October, 1965 - 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\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Venkatesh Narahar Kattl vs Haji Saheb Khadir Saheb Mulla And ... on 13 October, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965\" \/>\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=\"1965-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-26T02:41:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Venkatesh Narahar Kattl vs Haji Saheb Khadir Saheb Mulla And … on 13 October, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-26T02:41:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965\"},\"wordCount\":2075,\"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\\\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965\",\"name\":\"Venkatesh Narahar Kattl vs Haji Saheb Khadir Saheb Mulla And ... on 13 October, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-26T02:41:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Venkatesh Narahar Kattl vs Haji Saheb Khadir Saheb Mulla And … on 13 October, 1965\"}]},{\"@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":"Venkatesh Narahar Kattl vs Haji Saheb Khadir Saheb Mulla And ... on 13 October, 1965 - 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\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Venkatesh Narahar Kattl vs Haji Saheb Khadir Saheb Mulla And ... on 13 October, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-26T02:41:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Venkatesh Narahar Kattl vs Haji Saheb Khadir Saheb Mulla And … on 13 October, 1965","datePublished":"1965-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-26T02:41:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965"},"wordCount":2075,"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\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965","name":"Venkatesh Narahar Kattl vs Haji Saheb Khadir Saheb Mulla And ... on 13 October, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-26T02:41:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatesh-narahar-kattl-vs-haji-saheb-khadir-saheb-mulla-and-on-13-october-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Venkatesh Narahar Kattl vs Haji Saheb Khadir Saheb Mulla And … on 13 October, 1965"}]},{"@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\/175999","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=175999"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175999\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175999"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175999"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175999"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}