{"id":191603,"date":"2010-07-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-16T09:27:15","modified_gmt":"2018-09-16T03:57:15","slug":"smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand vs District Court on 13 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand vs District Court on 13 July, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Bhangale<\/div>\n
                                                                1\n\n\n                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                 \n                                    BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n                                      FIRST APPEAL NO.  1549    \/2008\n\n    Smt. Sarita  Gopalkumar Chand\n    Aged about   40 years,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n    occu: Household,\n    R\/o Bhutda Chambers \n    Grain market, Itwari, Nagpur.                                            ...               ...APPELLANT\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                      v e r s u s\n\n    1)\n                                        \n                      Madgu   s\/o Sitaram Ramteke\n                      Aged about 53 years\n                      occu: Business\n                                       \n    2)                Gopichand  s\/o Sitaram Ramteke\n                      Aged about  50 years\n                      occu:   Business\n       \n\n\n    3)                Bhimrao s\/o Sitaram Ramteke\n                      Aged about 43 years\n    \n\n\n\n                      All R\/o Jagjivan Nagar,\n                      Behind Popular Com.Plot No.253,\n                      Ambedkar Chowk,  Garoba Maidan\n\n\n\n\n\n                      Nagpur.     .                   ...                                      ...RESPONDENTS\n\n    ...........................................................................................................................\n\n                      Mr.  A Shelat,  Advocate  for   appellant\n                      Mr.  S.V.Sirpurkar, Adv. for  Respondents \n\n\n\n\n\n    ...........................................................................................................................\n\n\n                                                           CORAM:   A.P.BHANGALE, J.\n                                                           DATED :   13th   July, 2010\n\n     JUDGMENT :   \n<\/pre>\n
                                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:08:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
    1.           This       Appeal     at   the     instance   of     original     plaintiff   is <\/p>\n
    directed   against   the   judgment   and   order   dated     25.9.2008   passed   by <\/p>\n
    learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge S.D.,  Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 575 \/<\/p>\n
    2006     whereby   the suit for ejectment   and vacant possession filed by <\/p>\n
    her, was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    2.           Facts   briefly   are  :     Suit   plot No.253   in CRS   III Scheme <\/p>\n
    NIT Middle   Precinct,   Ward   No.24,     District Nagpur,   admeasuring <\/p>\n
    1500 sq.ft.       was   allotted on renewable   leasehold rights to   Tulsabai <\/p>\n
    Mahagu   Khobragade     and     Dattatraya       Mahagu   Khobgrade,   on <\/p>\n
    24.5.1996     by   Nagpur   Improvement   Trust.     Mahagu       expired   on <\/p>\n
    13.3.1975 leaving his legal heirs – wife Tulsabai       and son Dattatraya.\n<\/p>\n
    Tulsabai   expired on 12.7.1998  leaving behind her   sole heir Dattatraya <\/p>\n
    Mahagu   Khobragade   to   inherit   all     the   rights     in   suit   property.     The <\/p>\n
    plaintiff   purchased the suit property       for a sum of Rs.2,75,000\/- on <\/p>\n
    17.9.1998     after   Dattatraya   obtained   consent       from     Nagpur <\/p>\n
    Improvement   Trust   (   in   short   ”   NIT”)   for   transfer   in   favour   of   the <\/p>\n
    plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
    3.           During       life   time   of     Mahagu,   he   had   permitted   Sitaram <\/p>\n
    Khobragade       to   use     and   occupy       temporary   structure     3000   st.ft.\n<\/p>\n
    without any occupation charges.   In 1997,   Regular Civil Suit No. 902  \/<\/p>\n
    1997    was filed by Mahagu and two others vs. Dattatraya   and two  <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:08:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
    others   which was dismissed  with cost.   The dismissal was challenged <\/p>\n
    in Regular Civil Appeal No. 482  of 1998    which is pending before the <\/p>\n
    District Court, Nagpur.       Said Sitaram Khobragade or   his legal heirs <\/p>\n
    i.e.   defendants     have   no  right\/share     in   suit   property.   They   failed  to <\/p>\n
    vacate   despite notice  served on 22.4.2006.    According to defendants, <\/p>\n
    sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is void   as hit   by doctrine of ‘lis <\/p>\n
    pendense’.   The   trial   Court     found   favour   with   the     defendant     and <\/p>\n
    recorded finding  that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff  was hit by <\/p>\n
    doctrine   of   ‘lis   pendense’    while   disbelieving     the   plaintiff’s   case, <\/p>\n
    dismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n
    4.           Learned Advocate   for appellant submitted that   as   on the <\/p>\n
    date of Special Civil Suit No. 575\/2006   filed in the Court of Civil Judge, <\/p>\n
    Senior Division,   Nagpur,  RCS No. 902\/1997     as well as appeal  being <\/p>\n
    RCA No.     482 \/1998    therefrom  were not pending.   RCS  No. 902\/ <\/p>\n
    1997   was dismissed  and RCA No. 482\/1998   was also dismissed.  The <\/p>\n
    claim  of   adverse possession set up  by the respondent  was negatived <\/p>\n
    and, therefore, there was no impediment   for  transfer in favour of the <\/p>\n
    plaintiff-appellant as no lis  was pending. Therefore, trial Court  ought to <\/p>\n
    have   decreed the Special Civil Suit   No. 575\/2006. Learned Advocate <\/p>\n
    further submitted the trial Court ought to have understood   the     legal <\/p>\n
    effect of the transfer pendente lite, that it would be subject to decree in <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:08:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
    pending     legal   proceedings   and,   as   such,     as   on         25.9.2008   when <\/p>\n
    Special  Civil  Suit   No. No. 575      of   2006  was   decided  nothing     was <\/p>\n
    pending    as RCS No. 902\/ 1997 and RCA No.  482\/1998    preferred <\/p>\n
    therefrom,  were also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           According   to   learned   Advocate   for   respondents-seller <\/p>\n
    Mahagu’s wife     had instituted Special Civil Suit  No.343\/  2009    to set <\/p>\n
    aside the sale. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    6.<\/p>\n
                 Learned     counsel   for   the   plaintiff   in-reply,   submitted     that <\/p>\n
    subsequently     instituted suit may be as a   result of collusion between <\/p>\n
    present occupier  and legal representative of ex-lease  holder. He made a <\/p>\n
    reference to Amit Kumar  Shaw  & another    vs.    Farida Khatoon:\n<\/p>\n
    ( 2005 ) 11 SCC 403,       to argue that the  Apex Court has explained <\/p>\n
    the nature,   scope and applicability of the doctrine of  lis pendense. The <\/p>\n
    requirements are :\n<\/p>\n
                 (i)           There must be suit   or proceeding pending \n                 in  a court of competent  jurisdiction;\n\n\n\n\n\n                 (ii)          The suit must not be collusive;\n                 (iii)         The litigation must be one  in which right to \n                 immovable property   is   directly   and specifically     in \n                 question;\n                 (iv)          Transfer       of suit property by a party to a \n                 suit;\n\n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:08:38 :::<\/span>\n                                                    5<\/span>\n\n\n                   (vi)          Such   transfer   must     affect   the   rights   of \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                           \n<\/pre>\n
                   other party that  may  ultimately accrue under decree.\n<\/p>\n
    6.            Section   52 of the Transfer of Property Act,   1882 embodies <\/p>\n
    a doctrine that any transfer of the suit property pending the hearing and <\/p>\n
    disposal of the suit would be subject to the decree\/judgment   that may <\/p>\n
    be   passed   in   the   suit.   Thus,     any   suit   property     while   suit     (not     a <\/p>\n
    collusive suit ) is pending  in a Court of law cannot be  transferred unless <\/p>\n
    the court  concerned has permitted the  transfer pendente lite. The Court <\/p>\n
    while granting   permission may authorize transfer pending the suit upon <\/p>\n
    such terms as it may deem just.\n<\/p>\n
    7.            Looking   into submissions   at the Bar and   legal position,   I <\/p>\n
    think     that   submissions   on   behalf   of   the   plaintiff\/appellant         are <\/p>\n
    convincing   as she claimed   title under a registered sale deed ( which <\/p>\n
    was though subject to decree in pending suit ) cannot be  considered as <\/p>\n
    altogether void.  Rights  of the transferee would depend upon result of <\/p>\n
    pending legal proceedings \/or suit  in respect of the suit property.  In the <\/p>\n
    present case when Special Civil Suit No.575  \/2006 was decided by the <\/p>\n
    trial   Court,   no   legal   proceedings   in   respect   of   the   suit   property   was <\/p>\n
    pending. The trial Court  also failed to notice that the claim of  adverse <\/p>\n
    possession in a pending proceeding on the date  of the institution of the <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:08:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
    suit was based upon  permissive possession  which can never be termed <\/p>\n
    as  adverse possession. Even otherwise, the effect  of lis pendense is not to <\/p>\n
    annul the conveyance    but only to make it subservient to rights of the <\/p>\n
    parties to litigation. The     evidence  of the plaintiff and her witnesses in <\/p>\n
    the trial Court went unchallenged as the suit had  proceeded further ex-\n<\/p>\n
    parte   against the  defendants. Under these  circumstanaces, possession <\/p>\n
    ought to have followed the title which vested in the plaintiff under     the <\/p>\n
    registered sale deed dated 17.8.1998 and her name was also entered in <\/p>\n
    the record of NIT Nagpur   as owner of suit plot pursuant thereto. The <\/p>\n
    trial Court,  therefore, was in error  in  not passing  decree in favour of <\/p>\n
    the plaintiff. In the result, therefore, the plaintiff has satisfactorily proved <\/p>\n
    her title to the suit plot and  is entitled to recovery  of possession thereof <\/p>\n
    from   the   respondents.   Hence   the   Appeal   is   allowed.     The   impugned <\/p>\n
    judgment and order   dated 25.9.2008 passed in Special Civil Suit No. <\/p>\n
    575 \/2006 by the  learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge S.D. Nagpur  is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    There shall be inquiry  into mesne profits  from the  date of the suit till <\/p>\n
    the plaintiff recovers actual physical possession of the suit plot.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                          JUDGE<\/p>\n
    sahare<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:08:38 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Smt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand vs District Court on 13 July, 2010 Bench: A.P. Bhangale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR. FIRST APPEAL NO. 1549 \/2008 Smt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand Aged about 40 years, occu: Household, R\/o Bhutda Chambers Grain market, Itwari, Nagpur. … …APPELLANT v […]<\/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-191603","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand vs District Court on 13 July, 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\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand vs District Court on 13 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-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=\"2010-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-16T03:57:15+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand vs District Court on 13 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-16T03:57:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":981,\"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\\\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand vs District Court on 13 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-16T03:57:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand vs District Court on 13 July, 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":"Smt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand vs District Court on 13 July, 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\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand vs District Court on 13 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-16T03:57:15+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand vs District Court on 13 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-16T03:57:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010"},"wordCount":981,"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\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010","name":"Smt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand vs District Court on 13 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-16T03:57:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-gopalkumar-chand-vs-district-court-on-13-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand vs District Court on 13 July, 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\/191603","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=191603"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191603\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191603"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191603"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191603"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}