{"id":176014,"date":"1980-07-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-07-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980"},"modified":"2017-12-02T01:11:17","modified_gmt":"2017-12-01T19:41:17","slug":"shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980","title":{"rendered":"Shrishailagouda And Others Etc vs Gurusangappa Ramasomappa Desai … on 29 July, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shrishailagouda And Others Etc vs Gurusangappa Ramasomappa Desai … on 29 July, 1980<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1759, \t\t 1981 SCR (1) 116<\/div>\n
Author: A Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Gupta, A.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHRISHAILAGOUDA AND OTHERS ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGURUSANGAPPA RAMASOMAPPA DESAI AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/07\/1980\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nSHINGAL, P.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR 1759\t\t  1981 SCR  (1) 116\n\n\nACT:\n     Bombay Pargana  and Kulkarni  Watans  (Abolition)\tAct,\n1950, Section  4, scope\t of-Regrant  of\t watan\tlands  under\nsection 4  of the  1950 Act has no nexus to the rejection of\nan application\tunder section  10 Bombay  Hereditary Offices\nAct (Act  III of  1874)-Grant was of the soil and not of the\nroyal share of the revenue.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The respondent's  ancestors  continuously\tenjoyed\t the\nwatan property through the years since the 17th century when\nit was granted and performed the duties of the office of the\nwatandar in spite of political changes in the country. After\nthe death  of the  then holder\tof the\twatan  in  1851,  an\nenquiry into the rights of his son Bhimrao was started under\nthe Bombay  Rent Free  Estates Act, 1852 and later in 1863 a\nsettlement known  as  \"Gordon  Settlement\"  was\t made  under\nsection 15 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, (Act III of\n1874), whereby\ta sanad was issued by the British Government\nto the\trespondent's ancestor  Bhimrao in 1872. The Sanad is\nin the\tstandard form  of a  Gordan Sanad  and says that the\nlands and  cash allowances  shall  be  continued  in  lineal\nsuccession from\t generation to\tgeneration on condition that\nthe persons  in enjoyment  and their heirs shall be obedient\nto the\tBritish Government  and act  faithfully and honestly\nand shall  go on paying to Government permanently every year\nthe amount mentioned in the Sanad.\n     In 1874  some of these watan lands were auction-sold in\nexecution of  a money  decree obtained\tby  the\t appellants'\nancestors and as a result of a compromise decree obtained in\n1912, the  ancestors of the appellant, being decree holders,\nwere allowed  to be  in possession of these lands during the\nlife time  of  Bhimrao\tand  his  adopted  son\tRamasomappa.\nBhimrao died  in 1918  and Ramasomappa in 1944. Section 5 of\nthe Bombay  Hereditary Offices\tAct, 1874 forbids a watandar\nto alienate  the watan\tproperty beyond\t his lifetime to any\nperson not a watandar of the same watan. After Ramasomappa's\ndeath therefore\t the appellants\t ceased to have any right to\ncontinue in possession of the lands. Respondent Gurusangappa\nis Ramasomappa's son.\n     Consequent on  the coming\tinto  force  of\t the  Bombay\nPargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 abolishing\nthe watans,  the watan\tlands were  resumed  and  were\tmade\nsubject to  the payment\t of  land  revenue  subject  to\t the\nprovisions of  section 4.  Respondent Gurusangappa  and also\nthe appellants\tapplied\t to  the  prescribed  authority\t for\nregrant of  the aforesaid watan lands under section 4 of the\nAct. Earlier  to this  an application  made in\t1947 made on\nbehalf of  respondent Gurusangappa  under section  10 of the\nBombay Hereditary  Offices Act, 1874 when he was a minor was\nrejected.\n     The appellants  lost before  all authorities  under the\nAct who held that the respondent was the holder of the watan\nand was\t as such entitled to an order of regrant. The Mysore\nRevenue Appellant Tribunal, Belgaum however\n117\nset aside  in revision the order of regrant in favour of the\nrespondent. The\t High Court allowed the writ petition of the\nrespondent challenging the order of the Revenue Tribunal and\nrestored the order of regrant in his favour.\n     Dismissing the appeal from the order of the High Court,\nthe Court,\n^\n     HELD :  (1) On the facts found by the authorities under\nthe 1950  Act except  the Revenue  Tribunal  the  respondent\nwould be clearly entitled to the Watan lands being regranted\nto him\tunder section  4 of  the Act.  All  the\t authorities\nincluding  the\t Revenue  Tribunal   having  held  that\t the\nappellants were strangers to the watan and, therefore, could\nnot ask for an order under section 4 in their favour and the\nappellants not\thaving challenged this finding it has become\nfinal. [120E-F]\n     Collector of  South Satara and another v. Laxman Madhay\nDeshpande and others [1964] 2 SCR 48, followed.\n     (2) The  Sanad granted  to Bhimrao\t in 1872  was on the\nbasis that there was a watan and that Bhimrao was the holder\nof the\twatan. The  Sanad of  1872 granted only the right to\nhold the  watan lands free from full assessment. The Revenue\nTribunal was  wrong in\tthinking that  the Sanad granted the\nroyal share of the revenue. [120G-H]\n     Ramasomappa Bhimrao Desai v. The Secretary of State for\nIndia in  Council, 39  Bom. L.\tR. 851,\t explained and\theld\ninapplicable.\n     (3) Section  10 of\t the Bombay  Hereditary Offices Act,\n1874 empowered\tthe Collector  to issue a certificate on the\nbasis of  which the respondent could bring an action against\nthe appellants\tfor recovery of possession of the lands. The\nrejection of  the application under section 10 of the Act is\nnot a matter relevant to the issue whether the respondent is\nentitled to  a regrant of the watan lands under section 4 of\nthe 1950 Act. [122A-B, C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 345 to
\n348 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  20-7-1967  of\t the
\nMysore High  Court in  Writ Petition  Nos. 1016\t to 1018 and
\n1031\/64.\n<\/p>\n
     R. B. Datar for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     S.\t S.  Javali,  Mukul  Mudgal  and  Vineer  Kumar\t for
\nRespondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     GUPTA,  J.\t  These\t four  appeals\tby  certificate\t are
\ndirected against  an order  dated July\t20, 1967 of the High
\nCourt of  Mysore at  Bangalore allowing\t four writ petitions
\nmade by\t the first  respondent before us (hereinafter called
\nthe respondent).  By  the  impugned  order  the\t High  Court
\nreversed  the  decision\t of  the  Mysore  Revenue  Appellate
\nTribunal and  restored the  order passed  by  the  Assistant
\nCommissioner under  section 4  of  the\tBombay\tPargana\t and
\nKulkarni Watans\t (Abolition) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred
\nto as the 1950 Act). The
\n118<\/span>
\nAssistant Commissioner’s  order directing regrant of a watan
\nland to\t the respondent\t had  been  affirmed  by  the  other
\nauthorities under  the 1950  Act before the Revenue Tribunal
\nset it\taside. The  four writ  petitions relate to different
\nparcels of the said watan land.\n<\/p>\n
     The relevant  facts which\thave been  found or admitted
\nare as\tfollows. The  lands in\tquestion are  paragana watan
\nlands. “Paragana  watan” has been defined in section 2(e) of
\nthe 150 Act to mean “a watan appertaining to the office of a
\nhereditary District (Paragana) Officer in respect of which a
\ncommutation settlement\thas been effected……..” The watan
\nin question  was originally  acquired in the 17th century by
\nan ancestor  of the  respondent\t during\t the  reign  of\t the
\nAdilshahi Kings\t of Bijapur  in recognition  of the services
\nrendered by  him. Except  the Revenue  Tribunal,  the  other
\nauthorities  under  the\t 1950  Act,  namely,  the  Assistant
\nCommissioner, the  Deputy Commissioner\tand  the  Divisional
\nCommissioner found that the grant was of the soil and not of
\nthe royal  share of  the revenue.  The respondent’s ancestor
\ncontinued to  enjoy the watan property through the years and
\nperform the  duties of\tthe office  of watandar\t in spite of
\npolitical changes  in the  country. After  the death  of the
\nthen holder  of the Watan in 1851, Government challenged the
\nright of  his son Bhimrao to the privileges of the Watan. An
\ninquiry into  the rights  of Bhimrao  was started  under the
\nBombay Rent  Free Estates  Act, 1852  (known as\t Inam  Act).
\nUltimately, in\t1863 a\tsettlement was\treached between\t the
\nBritish Government  and Bhimrao. The terms of the settlement
\nwas similar  to those  of the  other settlements  arrived at
\nbetween the  British Government\t and various other watandars
\nunder which the British Government relieved the watandars of
\nthe liability  to perform  the services\t attached  to  their
\noffices in  consideration of a fixed annual sum charged upon
\nthe watan  lands. This\tis  commonly  known  as\t the  Gordon
\nSettlement because  it was  entered into  by a\tcommittee of
\nwhich Mr. Gordon as Collector was Chairman, acting on behalf
\nof the\tGovernment. The settlement was apparently made under
\nsection 15  of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act (Act III of
\n1974), commonly known as the Watan Act. The relevant part of
\nsection 15 of this Act is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The Collector may, with the consent of the holder
\n     of a watan, given in writing, relieve him and his heirs
\n     and successors  in perpetuity  of\ttheir  liability  to
\n     perform   service\t upon\tsuch   conditions,   whether
\n     consistent with  the provisions  of this Act or not, as
\n     may be agreed upon by the Collector and such holder.
\n\t  Every settlement  made  or  confirmed\t under\tthis
\n     section shall  be binding\tupon both Government and the
\n     holder of the watan and his heirs and successors.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
119<\/span><\/p>\n
Following the  settlement, a Sanad was issued by the British
\nGovernment to  respondent’s ancestor  Bhimrao in  1972.\t The
\nSanad is  in the  standard form\t of a  Gordon Sanad and says
\nthat the  lands and  cash allowances  shall be\tcontinued in
\nlineal succession from generation to generation on condition
\nthat the  persons in  enjoyment and  their  heirs  shall  be
\nobedient to  the British  Government and  act faithfully and
\nhonestly and  shall go\ton paying  to Government permanently
\nevery year the amount as mentioned in the Sanad.\n<\/p>\n
     The effect\t of commutation of service on watan property
\nhas been  considered by this Court in The Collector of South
\nSatara\tand   another  v.   Laxman  Mahadev   Deshpande\t and
\nothers.(1) After  referring to\tthe  definitions  of  “watan
\nproperty” and “hereditary offices” in section 3 of the Watan
\nAct this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It is  clear that the watan property, if any, the
\n     hereditary\t office,   and\tthe  rights  and  privileges
\n     attached  thereto,\t together  constitute  a  watan\t and
\n     hereditary office\tdoes not  lose its  character merely
\n     because the  service  originally  appertaining  to\t the
\n     office  has  ceased  to  be  demanded.  Computation  of
\n     service does  not, therefore,  in\tthe  absence  of  an
\n     express agreement\tto that\t effect after  the tenure of
\n     the land  held as\twatan. By  agreement the  State, for
\n     consideration, may\t agree to  relieve the holder of the
\n     office and\t his successors of the duties to perform the
\n     service for  purposes of  which the grant was made, but
\n     the office and the grant continue, subject to the terms
\n     of the  settlement\t under\tsection\t 15  of\t the  Bombay
\n     Hereditary Offices Act, 1874.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  necessary to state a few more facts touching the
\nwatan lands  in question.  In 1874  some of these lands were
\nauction-sold in\t execution of a money decree obtained by the
\nancestors  of\tthe  appellants\t  against  the\trespondent’s
\nancestors. Ultimately in 1912 a compromise decree was passed
\nconcluding the dispute between the parties in terms of which
\nthe decree holders were allowed to be in possession of these
\nlands during  the life\ttime of\t Bhimrao and his adopted son
\nRamasomappa. The  present respondent  is Ramasomappa’s\tson.
\nBhimrao\t died\tin  1918  and  Ramasomappa  in\t1944.  After
\nRamasomappa’s death  the appellants ceased to have any right
\nto continue  in possession  of the  lands. Section  5 of the
\nBombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 (Watan Act) also forbids
\na  watandar  to\t alienate  his\twatan  property\t beyond\t his
\nlifetime to any person not a watandar of the same watan.\n<\/p>\n
     The 1950 Act abolished the paragana and Kulkarni watans
\nfrom the date the Act came into force. Under section 3(3) of
\nthis Act
\n120<\/span>
\nall watan  land was  resumed and  was made  subject  to\t the
\npayment of land revenue subject to the provisions of section\n<\/p>\n
4. Section 4(1) provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “A watan land resumed under the provisions of this
\n     Act shall…………..  be regranted  to the holder of
\n     the watan\tto which  it appertained,  on payment of the
\n     occupancy price  equal to twelve times of the amount of
\n     full assessment  of such  land……………. and\t the
\n     holder shall  be deemed  to be  an occupant  within the
\n     meaning of the Code [Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879] in
\n     respect of\t such land  and shall primarily be liable to
\n     pay land revenue State Government………… “.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The appellants\tand  the  respondent  both  applied  to\t the
\nprescribed authority  for regrant  of  the  aforesaid  watan
\nlands to  them under  section 4\t of the\t Act. The  Assistant
\nCommissioner, Jamkhandi,  held that  the respondent  was the
\nholder of  the watan and as such was entitled to an order of
\nregrant. On  appeal preferred  by the  appellants the Deputy
\nCommissioner, Bijapur,\taffirmed the  order of the Assistant
\nCommissioner.\tThe    Divisional   Commissioner,   Belgaum,
\ndismissed  the\tappeal\tagainst\t the  order  of\t the  Deputy
\nCommissioner filed  by the  appellants. The  Mysore  Revenue
\nAppellate Tribunal.  Belgaum   Bench, allowed  the  revision
\napplication made  by the  appellants setting aside the order
\nof regrant  in favour  of the  respondent. The High Court of
\nMysore at  Bangalore allowed  the writ petitions made by the
\nrespondent challenging the order of the Revenue Tribunal and
\nrestored the order of regrant in his favour.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  facts found  by the  authorities under the 1950
\nAct except  the Revenue\t Tribunal, the\trespondent would  be
\nclearly entitled  to the  watan lands being regranted to him
\nunder section  4 of  the Act.  All the authorities including
\nthe Revenue Tribunal held that the appellants were strangers
\nto the\twatan and therefore could not ask for an order under
\nsection\t 4  in\ttheir  favour;\tthe  appellants\t not  having
\nchallenged this\t finding it  has become\t final. The  Revenue
\nTribunal however was of the view that under the Sanad issued
\nin favour  of the respondent’s ancestor what was granted was
\nonly the  royal share  of the revenue, it was not a grant of
\nthe soil,  and that  as such the lands in question could not
\nbe regranted  to the  respondent under\tsection 4. The facts
\nstated earlier\tmake it\t clear that the Sanad was granted on
\nthe basis  that there  was a watan and that the respondent’s
\nancestor Bhimrao  to whom  the Sanad  was  granted  was\t the
\nholder of  the watan.  The Sanad  of 1872  granted only\t the
\nright to hold the watan lands free from full assessment. The
\nview taken  by the Revenue Tribunal appears to be based on a
\njudgment
\n121<\/span>
\nof the\tBombay High  Court, Ramasomappa Bhimrao Desai v. The
\nSecretary of  State for India in Council.(1) disposing of an
\nappeal that  arose from\t a suit\t instituted in\t1929 by\t the
\nrespondent’s father  Ramasomappa against  the  Secretary  of
\nState  for  India  in-Council  in  1929.  According  to\t the
\nTribunal the  Bombay High  Court had  held in that case that
\nthe grant  to the  respondent’s ancestor did not include the
\nright to  the soil.  It may be necessary here to state a few
\nfacts upon  which Ramasomappa’s suit was instituted. Bhimrao
\nto whom\t the Sanad  was given  adopted Ramasomappa  in 1909.
\nAfter  Bhimrao’s   death  in  1918.  Government\t refused  to
\nrecognise  Ramasomappa’s   adoption.  He   then\t applied  to
\nGovernment for\tthe grant  of ex  post facto sanction to his
\nadoption by  Bhimrao and, alternatively, prayed that in case
\nthe sanction  was not given, then the watan might be resumed
\nby the\tlevy of\t full assessment  on the lands and he should
\nnot be\tevicted therefrom.  Both these\trequests were turned
\ndown  and   the\t Government   passed  orders   for  resuming
\npossession of  the lands.  Ramasomappa then brought the suit
\nagainst the   Secretary\t of State for a declaration that the
\norders passed  by Government for resumption of possession of
\nthe  watan  lands  were\t illegal.  The\ttrial  court  having
\ndismissed the  suit Ramasomappa\t came up  in appeal  to\t the
\nBombay High  Court. The\t question whether the original grant
\nto the\trespondent’s ancestor was of the soil or it was only
\na right\t to the royal share of the revenue did not arise for
\nconsideration in  Ramasomappa v. Secretary of State (supra).
\nThe Bombay  High Court\tallowed Ramasomappa’s appeal holding
\nthat the  Sanad of 1872 did not purport to be a grant of the
\nright to occupy the soil, it had only reference to and was a
\ngrant of  the  right  to  hold\tthe  lands  free  from\tfull
\nassessment, and\t that if any of the conditions of the grant,
\nnamely the  condition of remaining faithful to Government or
\nthe condition  of paying  a  fixed  duty  was  broken,\tthen
\nGovernment was only entitled to claim full assessment on the
\nlands but  any right  of occupation  which the holder of the
\nwatan possessed apart from the Sanad would remain untouched.
\nThe Tribunal’s reading of the judgment in Ramasomappa’s case
\ndoes not  therefore seem  to be\t correct. The judgment under
\nappeal before us points out that the decision in Ramasomappa
\nv. Secretary  of State\t(supra) has  no bearing on the issue
\ninvolved in the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
     Counsel for  the appellants also relied on the decision
\nin 39  Bombay Law Reporter 851 in support of the appeal but,
\nfor the\t reasons stated above, we do not think Ramasomappa’s
\ncase at\t all helps him. The only other ground urged was that
\nan application
\n122<\/span>
\nmade on\t behalf of  the respondent  in 1947  (when he  was a
\nminor) under section 10 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act
\n(Act III  of 1874)  having been\t rejected, the\trespondent’s
\nright to  a regrant  of the  watan lands  was  extinguished.
\nSection 10 empowered the Collector to issue a certificate on
\nthe basis  of which  the respondent  could bring  an  action
\nagainst the  appellants for  recovery of  possession of\t the
\nlands. The  point was  argued before the Deputy Commissioner
\nin the\tpresent proceedings  who held  that the rejection of
\nthe application\t did not take away the right of the watandar
\nto ask\tfor a  regrant of the watan lands under section 4 of
\nthe 1950  Act. From  the judgment  of the High Court it does
\nnot appear  the point  was argued  there, and  normally\t the
\nappellants should  not be  allowed to take the point in this
\nCourt. In  any case  it seems to us clear that the rejection
\nof the application under section 10 of the Bombay Hereditary
\nOffices Act,  1874 is  not a  matter relevant  to the  issue
\nwhether the respondent is entitled to a regrant of the watan
\nlands under section 4 of the 1950 Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeals are dismissed with costs; one hearing fee.\n<\/p>\n
V.D.K.\t\t\t\t\t Appeals dismissed.\n123<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shrishailagouda And Others Etc vs Gurusangappa Ramasomappa Desai … on 29 July, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1759, 1981 SCR (1) 116 Author: A Gupta Bench: Gupta, A.C. PETITIONER: SHRISHAILAGOUDA AND OTHERS ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: GURUSANGAPPA RAMASOMAPPA DESAI AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/07\/1980 BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. SHINGAL, P.N. […]<\/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-176014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShrishailagouda And Others Etc vs Gurusangappa Ramasomappa Desai ... on 29 July, 1980 - 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\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shrishailagouda And Others Etc vs Gurusangappa Ramasomappa Desai ... on 29 July, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980\" \/>\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=\"1980-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-01T19:41:17+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shrishailagouda And Others Etc vs Gurusangappa Ramasomappa Desai … on 29 July, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-01T19:41:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980\"},\"wordCount\":2142,\"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\\\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980\",\"name\":\"Shrishailagouda And Others Etc vs Gurusangappa Ramasomappa Desai ... on 29 July, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-01T19:41:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shrishailagouda And Others Etc vs Gurusangappa Ramasomappa Desai … on 29 July, 1980\"}]},{\"@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":"Shrishailagouda And Others Etc vs Gurusangappa Ramasomappa Desai ... on 29 July, 1980 - 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\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shrishailagouda And Others Etc vs Gurusangappa Ramasomappa Desai ... on 29 July, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-01T19:41:17+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shrishailagouda And Others Etc vs Gurusangappa Ramasomappa Desai … on 29 July, 1980","datePublished":"1980-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-01T19:41:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980"},"wordCount":2142,"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\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980","name":"Shrishailagouda And Others Etc vs Gurusangappa Ramasomappa Desai ... on 29 July, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-01T19:41:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrishailagouda-and-others-etc-vs-gurusangappa-ramasomappa-desai-on-29-july-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shrishailagouda And Others Etc vs Gurusangappa Ramasomappa Desai … on 29 July, 1980"}]},{"@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\/176014","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=176014"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176014\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}