{"id":195980,"date":"1962-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962"},"modified":"2017-03-28T13:44:54","modified_gmt":"2017-03-28T08:14:54","slug":"the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962","title":{"rendered":"The Kalyan People&#8217;S Co-Operative &#8230; vs Dulhanbibi Aqual Aminsaheb Patil on 23 April, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Kalyan People&#8217;S Co-Operative &#8230; vs Dulhanbibi Aqual Aminsaheb Patil on 23 April, 1962<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1072, \t\t  1963 SCR  (2) 348<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K D Gupta<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nTHE KALYAN PEOPLE'S CO-OPERATIVE BANK\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDULHANBIBI AQUAL AMINSAHEB PATIL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n23\/04\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nKAPUR, J.L.\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1072\t\t  1963 SCR  (2) 348\n\n\nACT:\nCo-operative  Society-Arbitration-Tribunal, if and when\t can\nact  on evidence taken before previous\tTribunal-Party\tcon-\nsenting to such evidence-if can object later-Bombay Co-oper-\native Societies Act, 1925 (Bom.\t VII of 1925), s. 54.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  dispute between the appellant a cooperative bank and  A\nwho   had  taken  loan\tand  his  surety  was  referred\t  to\narbitration under s. 54 of the Bombay Go-operative Societies\nAct.   The Board of Arbitrators consisted of three  members;\nafter  the Board has recorded some evidence, the nominee  of\nthe   borrower\t retired.    Thereafter,   the\t Board\t was\nreconstituted.\tThis Board also recorded some evidence ; but\nafter some time, the newly appointed nominee of the borrower\nretired.   There was a fresh constitution of the Board\twith\nthe  other  two members as before and a new  member  as\t the\nnominee\t of the borrower.  Further evidence was recorded  by\nthe  Board thus constituted and finally the Board  gave\t its\naward  in the matter.  Dissatisfied with this award A  filed\nrevision   applications\t before\t the   Bombay\tCo-operative\nTribunal.    Apart  from  certain  objections  on  merit   a\npreliminary. objection was taken as regards the legality  of\nthe  award on the ground that the Board as last\t constituted\nhad  acted on evidence not recorded before it. The  Tribunal\naccepted this preliminary objection and set aside the  award\nand remanded the cases to the Assistant Registrar.   Shortly\nafter  this A died but his heirs and  legal  representatives\nmoved\tthe  Bombay  High  Court  under\t Art.  227  of\t the\nConstitution against the Tribunal's- decision.\tIt set aside\nthe  orders  passed by the Tribunal and restored  the  award\nmade  by  the  Board of Arbitrators.  The Bank\tcame  up  in\nappeal by special leave to the Supreme.\nHeld,  that  when the parties expressly or  impliedly  agree\nthat  some evidence not taken before the Tribunal should  be\ntreated\t as evidence and taken into consideration,  it\twill\nnot  be\t wrong or illegal for the Tribunal to  act  on\tsuch\nevidence not taken before it, the question of mode of  proof\nis  a question of procedure and is capable of  being  waived\nand   therefore\t evidence  taken  in  a\t previous   judicial\nproceeding of a civil nature can heir made permissible in  a\nsubsequent proceeding by consent of parties,\n349\nWhile what is not relevant under the Evidence Act cannot  in\nproceedings to which Evidence Act applies, be made  relevant\nby  consent of parties, relevant evidence can be brought  on\nthe  record for consideration of the Court or  the  Tribunal\nwithout following the regular mode, if parties agree.\nWhen a party does not only raise no objection before a Court\nor  Tribunal  to proceed on the\t evidence  already  recorded\nbefore the previous Court or Tribunal and impliedly  invites\nthe  Court  or Tribunal to act on such\tevidence  previously\nrecorded,  he  cannot be allowed later on to object  to\t the\nCourt or Tribunal having considered such evidence.\nThe  High  Court  having come to  the  conclusion  that\t the\nTribunal  was  wrong in allowing the  preliminary  objection\nraised before it, the High Court was not entitled to  ignore\nthe  fact that before the Tribunal other questions had\tbeen\nraised\twhich  had not been considered by  it.\t The  proper\norder  to  pass in such a case ordinarily would\t be  to\t set\naside the order of the Tribunal and direct it to decide\t the\napplications for revision on their merits.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 555 &amp; 556 of<br \/>\n1960.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeals by special. leave from the judgment and order  dated<br \/>\nJuly  17,  1956, of the Bombay High Court in  Special  Civil<br \/>\nApplications Nos. 580 and 581 of 1956.\n<\/p>\n<p>A.V.  Viswanatha Sastri, B. R. Nayak and Naunit Lal,  for<br \/>\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>Abdurrahman  Adam Omer, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and  P.<br \/>\nL. Vohra, for the respondents No. 1 and 3 to 6.<br \/>\n1962.  April 23.-The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nDAS GUPTA, J.-Disputes having arisen between the  appellant,<br \/>\na Co-operative Bank and one Amin Saheb Patil, who had  taken<br \/>\nloans  from the Bank and Kutubuddin Mohamad Ajim  Kazi,\t who<br \/>\nhad stood surety in respect of the loans they were<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">350<\/span><br \/>\nreferred to arbitration in two references under s.54 of\t the<br \/>\nBombay\tCo-operative  Societies\t Act, 1925.   The  Board  of<br \/>\nArbitrators  originally consisted of Mr.- L. V. Phadke,\t Mr.<br \/>\nC.  K.\tPhadke\tand Mr. Trilokekar.   After  the  Board\t had<br \/>\nseveral meetings and recorded some evidence Mr.\t Trilokeker,<br \/>\nwho  was the nominee of the borrower, Amin  Saheb,  retired.<br \/>\nThereafter  the Board was re-constituted with Mr. Kotwal  as<br \/>\nthe  new nominee of the borrower.  This Board also  recorded<br \/>\nsome  evidence but after sometime Mr. Kotwal  also  retired.<br \/>\nThere  was a fresh constitution of the Board with the  other<br \/>\ntwo members as before and Mr. M. D. Thakur as the nominee of<br \/>\nthe,  borrower.\t Further evidence was recorded by the  Board<br \/>\nthus constituted and finally the Board gave its award in the<br \/>\nmatters on March 14, 1955.\n<\/p>\n<p>Dissatisfied with these awards amin Saheb filed two revision<br \/>\napplications before the Bombay Co-operative Tribunal.  Apart<br \/>\nfrom  certain  objections  on the merits  of  the  awards  a<br \/>\npreliminary  objection\twas  taken before  the\tTribunal  as<br \/>\nregards\t the legality of the awards on the ground  that\t the<br \/>\nBoard  as  last\t constituted  had  acted  on,  evidence\t not<br \/>\nrecorded before it.  The Tribunal accepted this\t preliminary<br \/>\nobjection,  set aside the awards and remanded the  cases  to<br \/>\nthe Assistant Registrar for a rehearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shortly\t after this Amin Saheb died but his heirs and  legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives\t made  two applications to the\tBombay\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  under  Art.  227 of  the\t Constitution  against\tthe,<br \/>\nTribunal&#8217;s decision.  The High Court held that the  Tribunal<br \/>\nhad  erred  in thinking that the Board\tof  Arbitrators\t had<br \/>\nacted  illegally in seting on the evidence recorded  by\t the<br \/>\nprevious  Boards when this was done with the full  knowledge<br \/>\nof  the\t parties and without any objection on  either  side.<br \/>\nAccordingly,  they  set\t aside\tthe  orders  passed  by\t the<br \/>\nTribunal and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 351<\/span><br \/>\nrestored the awards made by the Board of Arbitrators.<br \/>\nThe  Bank has now appealed against the decision of the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt after obtaining special leave from this Court.<br \/>\nThree points are raised before us in support of the  appeal.<br \/>\nThe  first  is that the Tribunal had not made any  error  in<br \/>\nholding\t that the Board had acted illegally in\tacting\tupon<br \/>\nthe evidence recorded by the previous Boards.  &#8216;Secondly, it<br \/>\nis urged that even if the Board had erred it was not such an<br \/>\nerror  as  would entitle the High Court to  interfere  under<br \/>\nArt. 227 of the Constitution.  Lastly, it was contended that<br \/>\nin  any\t case, the High Court was not justified\t in  setting<br \/>\naside  the  awards&#8217; when the Tribunal had  disposed  of\t the<br \/>\napplication   only  on\tpreliminary  points  and   had\t not<br \/>\nconsidered  it\ton  merits.  In. our  opinion  there  is  no<br \/>\nsubstance  in the first two contentions.  As the High  Court<br \/>\nhas pointed out normally it would have been wrong and indeed<br \/>\nillegal\t for  the-  Tribunal to act on\tevidence  not  taken<br \/>\nbefore\tit.   The  position is however\tdifferent  when\t the<br \/>\nparties expressly or impliedly agree that some evidence\t not<br \/>\ntaken before the Tribunal should be treated as evidence\t and<br \/>\ntaken  into consideration.  It is settled law that  question<br \/>\nof  mode of proof is a question of procedure and is  capable<br \/>\nof  being waived and therefore evidence taken in a  previous<br \/>\njudicial  proceeding can be made admissible in a  subsequent<br \/>\nproceeding   by\t consent  of  parties.\t This\tapplies\t  to<br \/>\nproceedings  of a civil nature.\t While what is not  relevant<br \/>\nunder  the  Evidence  Act cannot  in  proceedings  to  which<br \/>\nEvidence  Act applies, made relevant by consent of  parties,<br \/>\nrelevant   evidence  can  be  brought  on  the\trecord\t for<br \/>\nconsideration of Court or the Tribunal without following the<br \/>\nregular mode, if parties agree.\t The reason behind this rule<br \/>\nis<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">352<\/span><br \/>\nthat  it  would\t be  unfair to ask  any\t party\tto  prove  a<br \/>\nparticular  fact when the other party has  already  admitted<br \/>\nthat  the  way\tit has been brought  before  the  Court\t has<br \/>\nsufficiently proved it.\t We are therefore of opinion that in<br \/>\nthe  facts of these cases when the appellant Bank  not\tonly<br \/>\nraised\tno  objection  to  the\tBoard  as  last\t constituted<br \/>\nproceeding  on\tthe  evidence already  recorded\t before\t the<br \/>\nprevious  Boards,  but indeed appears to  have\tinvited\t the<br \/>\nBoard  to  act\ton such evidence  previously  recorded,\t the<br \/>\nappellant cannot be allowed later on to object to the  Board<br \/>\nhaving\tconsidered the evidence-merely because the  decision<br \/>\nhas  goes  against it.\tThe Tribunal was  clearly  wrong  in<br \/>\nthinking otherwise and the error cannot but be considered to<br \/>\nbe  an error apparent on the face of the record and as\tsuch<br \/>\nthe High Court had not only the power but duty to  interfere<br \/>\nwith the Tribunal&#8217;s order.\n<\/p>\n<p>It appears to us however that having come to the  conclusion<br \/>\nthat  the  Tribunal was wrong in  allowing  the\t preliminary<br \/>\nobjection  raised before it the High Court was not  entitled<br \/>\nto ignore the fact that before the Tribunal other  questions<br \/>\nhad  been raised which had not been considered by  it.\t The<br \/>\nproper\torder to pass in such a case, in our opinion,  would<br \/>\nbe  to set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct it  to<br \/>\ndecide the applications for revision on their merits.<br \/>\nWe  therefore  allow  the appeals in  part,  and  order,  in<br \/>\nmodification  of the order made by the High Court, that\t the<br \/>\nTribunal&#8217;s  order  remanding  the  cases  to  the  Assistant<br \/>\nRegistrar  be set aside but the Tribunal should now  proceed<br \/>\nto  hear the revision applications on their merits.  In\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances  of the case, we order that the  parties\twill<br \/>\nbear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeals allowed in part.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\"> 353<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India The Kalyan People&#8217;S Co-Operative &#8230; vs Dulhanbibi Aqual Aminsaheb Patil on 23 April, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1072, 1963 SCR (2) 348 Author: K D Gupta Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das PETITIONER: THE KALYAN PEOPLE&#8217;S CO-OPERATIVE BANK Vs. RESPONDENT: DULHANBIBI AQUAL AMINSAHEB PATIL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/04\/1962 BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS [&hellip;]<\/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-195980","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Kalyan People&#039;S Co-Operative ... vs Dulhanbibi Aqual Aminsaheb Patil on 23 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Kalyan People&#039;S Co-Operative ... vs Dulhanbibi Aqual Aminsaheb Patil on 23 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-28T08:14:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Kalyan People&#8217;S Co-Operative &#8230; vs Dulhanbibi Aqual Aminsaheb Patil on 23 April, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-28T08:14:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962\"},\"wordCount\":1061,\"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\\\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962\",\"name\":\"The Kalyan People'S Co-Operative ... vs Dulhanbibi Aqual Aminsaheb Patil on 23 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-28T08:14:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Kalyan People&#8217;S Co-Operative &#8230; vs Dulhanbibi Aqual Aminsaheb Patil on 23 April, 1962\"}]},{\"@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":"The Kalyan People'S Co-Operative ... vs Dulhanbibi Aqual Aminsaheb Patil on 23 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Kalyan People'S Co-Operative ... vs Dulhanbibi Aqual Aminsaheb Patil on 23 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-28T08:14:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Kalyan People&#8217;S Co-Operative &#8230; vs Dulhanbibi Aqual Aminsaheb Patil on 23 April, 1962","datePublished":"1962-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-28T08:14:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962"},"wordCount":1061,"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\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962","name":"The Kalyan People'S Co-Operative ... vs Dulhanbibi Aqual Aminsaheb Patil on 23 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-28T08:14:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-kalyan-peoples-co-operative-vs-dulhanbibi-aqual-aminsaheb-patil-on-23-april-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Kalyan People&#8217;S Co-Operative &#8230; vs Dulhanbibi Aqual Aminsaheb Patil on 23 April, 1962"}]},{"@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\/195980","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=195980"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195980\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195980"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195980"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195980"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}