{"id":201336,"date":"1997-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-05-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997"},"modified":"2019-02-04T22:22:10","modified_gmt":"2019-02-04T16:52:10","slug":"r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997","title":{"rendered":"R.C. Patuck vs Fatima A. Kindasa & Ors on 6 May, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
R.C. Patuck vs Fatima A. Kindasa & Ors on 6 May, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: M J Rao<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Majmudar, M. Jagannadha Rao<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nR.C. PATUCK\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nFATIMA A. KINDASA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t06\/05\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
Present:\n<\/p>\n
\t     Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar
\n\t     Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagannadha Rao
\nSoli J.\t Sorabji and  J.G. Shah, Sr. Advs., M.D. Adkar, S.D.
\nSingh, R.  Sathyanarayanan and\tManoj K.  Singh, Advs.\twith
\nthem for the Petitioner
\nShivaji M. Jadhav, Adv. (NP) for the Respondent
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
\nM. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.\n<\/p>\n
     This special  leave petition  has\tbeen  filed  by\t the
\npetitioner against  the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay
\ndated 9.7.1996\tdismissing the\twrit petition (criminal) No.
\n540\/1996. The  High Court  refused to quash the order of the
\nlearned Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate.\t 4th Court,  Girgaum
\ndated 26.4.1996.  The Learned  Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
\ndismissed the  application of  the  petitioner\tfiled  under
\nSection 145  of the Code as Criminal Procedure on the ground
\nthat even  as per the case of the petitioner, she was out of
\npossession for a period more than two months before the date
\nof the\tpreliminary order  of the magistrate dated 16.3.1993
\npassed under  Section 145(1).  The Court pointed cut that as
\nper the\t case  of  the\tpetitioner,  she  had  been  out  of
\npossession from\t November 1992 and, therefore, she could not
\ntake advantage\tof the\tproviso to sub-clause (4) of Section\n<\/p>\n
145.  This   order  is\tchallenged  in\tthis  Special  leave
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
     The brief facts of the case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     The petitioner  is aged  75 years and is staying in one
\nhalf of\t a house  comprising 2500  sq. ft. in Malabar Hills.
\nBombay. She says that the first respondent approached her in
\nNovember, 1991\tfor temporary  accommodation to stay for two
\nor three  months Subsequently, the second respondent, who is
\nsaid to\t be the husband of the 1st respondent joined her and
\nboth of\t them were  not willing\t to vacate premises i.e. the
\n2500   Sq. ft. on  the ground floor of the house. Petitioner
\nis in  possession of  the remaining  2500 sq.  ft. It is the
\nspecific case  of the  petitioner that in the second week of
\nNovember, 1992\twhen the  petitioner was  out of Station for
\nsometime, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 with the help of some
\nother persons constructed a cement wall in the suit premises
\nand divided  the ground\t floor consisting of 5000 Sq ft into
\nhalf and  half and  that this amounted of illegal occupation
\nof 2500\t Sq. ft.,  i.e. One  half of  the property,  by\t the
\nrespondents Nos.  1 and 2. It is stated that on 21\/22.2.1993
\nthe  respondents   threatened  the   petitioner\t with\tdire
\nconsequences and,  therefore, petitioner gave a complaint to
\nthe Inspector  of  police,  Gamdevi,  Bombay  on  26.2.1993.
\nThereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section
\n145  of\t  the  Cr.P.C.\t on  9.5.1993\tbefore\tthe  learned
\nMetropolitan  Magistrate,   14th  Court,   Girgaum   seeking
\nrestoration of\tpossession of  the of  2500 Sq.\t ft. on\t the
\nground floor.\n<\/p>\n
     The petitioner  also refers  to the  filing of  a civil
\nsuit  for   declaration\t and  injunction,  namely,  RAD\t No.
\n346\/1992 by  the respondents  claiming tenancy rights on the
\nbasis of  alleged tenancy agreement and cheques on which the
\nsignatures of  the petitioner  were allegedly  forged. It is
\nstated that  the Court granted an interim order initially in
\nfavour of  the\trespondents  but  ultimately  the  same\t was
\nvacated and  the said  order was confirmed in appeal holding
\nthat there  was no  prima facie proof of tenancy. It is also
\nstated that  in that  case the\tdocuments relied upon by the
\nsecond\trespondent  were  held\tto  be\tprima  facie  forged
\ndocuments. The\tpetitioner also\t states that a complaint was
\nmade by\t the petitioner against the respondents for cheating
\nand a  case was\t registered and\t writ petition\tbearing\t No.
\n973\/1993 dated\t27.5.1992 was  filed by\t the respondents for
\nquashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  also stated\t by the\t petitioner that  respondent
\nfiled criminal\tapplication No.\t 973\/1993 on  27.7.1993\t for
\nquashing the  section 145  criminal proceedings\t launched by
\nthe petitioner\tbut the said writ petition was dismissed. It
\nappears that at the request launched proceedings against the
\nrespondents  under   the  Maharashtra  Vexatious  Litigation
\n(Prevention) Act,  1971 and  the High Court of Bombay, after
\nnoticing that  the   respondents wore illegally and forcibly
\noccupying several  premises  and  were\tinstituting  various
\nproceedings,  came   to\t the   conclusion  that\t  the\tsaid
\nproceedings started  by the  respondents were  vexatious and
\nthat  they   should  not  be  permitted\t to  initiate  fresh
\nproceedings,  except  with  the\t sanction  cf  the  Advocate
\nGeneral.  It   is  also\t stated\t that  respondents  made  an
\napplication to\tthe Metropolitan  Magistrate for dropping of
\nSection\t 145   proceedings  and\t the  said  application\t was
\nrejected on  25.4.1995. Respondents  filed a revision before
\nthe Session  Court bearing  No. 189\/1995,  and the  same was
\ndismissed on 7.7.1995. It is said that the respondents filed
\nwrit petition  No. 1050\/1995  challenging  the\torder  dated
\n7.7.1995 and  25.4.1995 and  the same  was also dismissed by
\nthe High Court on 8.12.1995.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  at that  juncture that  the learned  Magistrate
\ntook  up   the\tSection\t 145  proceedings  launched  by\t the
\npetitioner and dismissed the same on 26.4.1996 on the ground
\nthat the  petitioner even  as per  her own  case was  out of
\npossession for more than two month before the passing of the
\npreliminary order  dated 16.3.1993  under sub-clause  (1) of
\nSection\t 145.\tAgainst\t the  order  of\t the  learned  Chief
\nMetropolitan Magistrate dated 26.4.1996 the petitioner filed
\nwrit petition  bearing No. 540\/1996 before the High Court of
\nBombay and  the same  was dismissed on 7.7.1996 holding that
\nthe petitioner\twas not\t in possession\tfor  more  than\t two
\nmonths before the date of passing of preliminary order under
\nSection 145(1) on 16.3.1992. It is against this order of the
\nHigh Court  dated 9.7.12996 that this special leave petition
\nhas been filed.\n<\/p>\n
     Notice was\t issued to  the respondents  in the  special
\nleave petition\tand notice  was served\tand at\tone time Mr.
\nS.M. Jadhav  appeared for  the\tfirst  respondent.  Separate
\nnotice was  taken to the second respondent and was served on
\n9.9.1996. The matter was finally heard on 23.4.1997. Even on
\nthat day  Mr. S.M.  Jadhav, counsel for the first respondent
\ndid not\t appear nor  was there\tany representation  for\t the
\nsecond respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned senior  counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Soli J.
\nSorabjee, contended  that the  orders passed  by  the  Chief
\nMetropolitan Magistrate\t dated\t26.4.1996  and\tthe  further
\norders passed  by the  High Court on 9.7.1996 were liable to
\nbe set\taside as  the possession  of the  respondents was  a
\ncontinuing wrong.  He also  contended that  this was  a hard
\ncase in\t which an  old lady  aged about\t 75 years  was being
\nvictimised by  the respondents\twho were  in  the  habit  of
\nillegally occupying  various premises  in Bombay and that in
\nexercise of  the powers\t of this  Court under Article 842 of
\nthe Constitution  of India. This Court could grant relief in
\nspite of  the fact  that the  dispossession was\t more than 2
\nmonths next  before  the  preliminary  order  under  Section
\n145(1).\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the  first submission  of learned counsel is
\nconcerned, it  may be  stated that  as found  by the learned
\nChief Metropolitan  Magistrate in  his order dated 26.4.1996
\nthere was  an earlier  complaint lodged\t by  the  petitioner
\nbefore the  concerned police  authorities at  Bombay wherein
\nshe admitted  that  the\t first\trespondent  was\t in  illegal
\noccupation even\t from 17.3.1992. In any event the subsequent
\ncomplaint  filed   by  the   petitioner\t before\t the  police
\nauthorities on\t26.2.1993 showed  that the  respondents\t had
\nconstructed a  temporary wall.\tEven earlier  the petitioner
\nhad made  a complaint to the Bombay Municipal corporation on
\n12.11.1992  in\t regard\t to  the  same,\t and  therefore\t the
\ndispossession, at  any rate, was there by 12.11.1992. it is,
\ntherefore, clear  that prima  facie the alleged unauthorised
\noccupation or  construction of\tthe wall  was there  atleast
\nfrom November, 1992. It is, therefor, clear that prima facie
\nthe alleged  unauthorised occupation  or construction of the
\nwall was  there atleast from November, 1992. if not earlier.
\nIf that\t be so,\t the said occupation is clearly for a period
\nin  excess   of\t 2  months  next  before  the  date  of\t the
\npreliminary order dated 16.31993 passed under Section 145(1)
\nof the\tCr. P.C. In this connection it is necessary to refer
\nto the\tprovisions of sub-clauses (1) to (4) of Section 145,
\nCr. P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     “145.   Procedure\t where\t dispute
\n     concerning land  or water is likely
\n     to\t cause\tbreach\tof  peace.-  (1)
\n     Whenever an Executive Magistrate is
\n     satisfied from a report of a police
\n     officer or\t upon other  information
\n     that a  dispute likely  to cause  a
\n     breach   of    the\t  peace\t  exists
\n     concerning any land or water or the
\n     boundaries\t thereof,   within   his
\n     local jurisdiction,  he shall  make
\n     an order  in writing,  stating  the
\n     grounds of\t his being so satisfied.
\n     and requiring the parties concerned
\n     in such dispute to attend his Court
\n     in\t person\t or  by\t pleader,  on  a
\n     specified date and time, and to put
\n     in\t written   statements  of  their
\n     respective claims\tas respects  the
\n     fact of  actual possession\t of  the
\n     subject of dispute.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  For\tthe  purposes\tof  this
\n     Section  the  expression  `land  or
\n     water’ includes buildings, markets,
\n     fisheries, crops  or other\t produce
\n     of land.  and the\trents or profits
\n     of any such property.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3) A  copy of  the order\tshall be
\n     served in\tmanner provided\t by this
\n     Code for  the service  of a summons
\n     upon such\tperson or persons as the
\n     Magistrate may direct. and at least
\n     one  copy\tshall  be  published  by
\n     being affixed  to some  conspicuous
\n     place at  or near\tthe  subject  of
\n     dispute.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4)  The\tMagistrate  shall  then,
\n     without reference\tto the merits or
\n     the claims of any of the parties to
\n     a right  to possess  the subject of
\n     dispute. peruse  the statements  so
\n     put in,  hear the\tparties. receive
\n     all  such\t evidence  as\tmay   be
\n     produced by them, take such further
\n     evidence,\tif  any,  as  he  thinks
\n     necessary, and, if possible, decide
\n     whether  any   and\t which\t of  the
\n     parties was,  at the  date\t of  the
\n     order made by him under Sub-section
\n     (1), in  possession of  the subject
\n     of dispute.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It will  be seen  from the\t facts stated above that the
\norder  under  Section  145(1)  was  passed  by\tthe  learned
\nMagistrate  on\t 16.3.1993.  The  question  is\twhether\t the
\nmagistrate could  have passed  any order  in favour  of\t the
\npetitioner under  Sub-section (4)  of Section  145. Going by
\nthe main  sub-clause (4) of Section 145 it is clear that the
\nMagistrate could  initially decide  who was in possession as
\non the\tdate when  the order under Section 145(1) was passed
\non 16.3.1993.  In cases\t where the  proviso to the said sub-
\nclause\t(4)   applied,\tthat  is,  if  it  appeared  to\t the
\nMagistrate that\t any party  had been forcibly end wrongfully
\ndispossessed, within  two months  next before  the  date  on
\nwhich the  report of  a police\tofficer or other information
\nwas received  by the  Magistrate, or  after  that  date\t and
\nbefore the  date of  his order\tunder sub-section  (1),\t the
\nMagistrate might  treat the  party so dispossessed as if the
\nsaid party  had been  in possession on the date of his order
\nunder sub  section (1).\t In other  words, if  the conditions
\nmentioned in  the proviso to sub-section (4) were satisfied,
\nthe Magistrate\tcould deem a person to be in , possession as
\non  the\t  date\tof   the  order\t  under\t Section      145(1)
\nnotwithstanding\t the   fact  that   he\twas  not  infact  in
\npossession on that date. but lost possession earlier, Within
\ntwo months next before the order. In this case unfortunately
\nthere is  no material  to show\tthat any  report of a police
\noffice or  other information  was received by the Magistrate
\nwithin the period  contemplated by the proviso. On the other
\nhand, petitioner’s admissions show that she lost possession
\nmuch before the period mentioned in the said proviso.\n<\/p>\n
     We are,  therefore, of  the view  that both the learned
\nChief Metropolitan  Magistrate and the High Court were right
\nin coming to the conclusion that no order for restoration of
\npossession could be passed in favour of the petitioner under
\nSection 145  of the  Cr. P.C.  A contention  was then raised
\nthat as\t the dispossession of the petitioner was continuing,
\nand it\tamounted to  a continuing  wrong and,  therefor, the
\nproviso to sub-clause (4) must be deemed to be satisfied. We
\nare afraid  that such  a contention  based on continuance of
\ndispossession. cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  question is  whether the\t petitioner is to be
\ngranted relief in exercise of the powers of this Court under
\nArticle 142  of the  Constitution of  India. Learned counsel
\nfor the petitioner strongly relied upon the judgment of this
\nCourt in  Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India<\/a> (1991
\n(4)  SCC  584)\tfor  submitting\t that  the  prohibitions  or
\nlimitations contained  in ordinary  laws cannot, ipso facto,
\nact as\tprohibitions or\t limitations on\t the  constitutional
\npowers of  this\t Court\tunder  Article\t142.  The  following
\npassage in the said judgment was referred to :\n<\/p>\n
     “The power\t under Article 142 is at
\n     an entirely  different level and of
\n     a different  quality.  Prohibitions
\n     or\t  limitations\t or   provisions
\n     contained in  ordinary laws cannot,
\n     ipso facto,  act as prohibitions or
\n     limitations on  the  constitutional
\n     powers  under   Article  142.  Such
\n     Prohibitions or  limitations in the
\n     statutes might  embody and\t reflect
\n     the scheme\t of  a\tparticular  law.
\n     taking into  account the nature and
\n     status  of\t the  authority\t or  the
\n     court  on\t which\t conferment   of
\n     powers- limited in some appropriate
\n     way   –\tis   contemplated.   The
\n     limitations  may\tnot  necessarily
\n     reflect,  or   be\tbased\ton   any
\n     fundamental    considerations    of
\n     public   policy.\t Sri   Sorabjee,
\n     learned Attorney General, referring
\n     to Garg  case, said that limitation
\n     on the  powers  under  Article  142
\n     arising  from  “inconsistency  with
\n     express  statutory\t  provisions  of
\n     substantive law”  must really  mean
\n     and be  understood as  some express
\n     prohibition   contained\tin   any
\n     substantive   statutory   law.   He
\n     suggested that  if\t the  expression
\n     ‘prohibition’ is  read in\tplace of
\n     `provision’  that\t would\t perhaps
\n     convey the\t  appropriate  idea. But
\n     we\t think\t that  such  prohibition
\n     should also be shown to be based on
\n     some  underlying\tfundamental  and
\n     general issues of public policy art
\n     not   merely    incidental\t  to   a
\n     particular\t statutory   scheme   or
\n     pattern. It  will again  be  wholly
\n     incorrect to  say that powers under
\n     Article 142  are subject\tto  such
\n     express   statutory   prohibitions.
\n     That would\t convey\t the  idea  that
\n     statutory\t provisions  override  a
\n     constitutional provisions. Perhaps,
\n     the proper\t way of\t expressing  the
\n     idea is that in exercising the idea
\n     is that  in exercising powers under
\n     Article 142  and in  assessing  the
\n     needs of  “complete justice”  of  a
\n     cause or  matter,\tthe  apex  Court
\n     will  take\t  note\tof  the\t express
\n     prohibitions  in\tany  substantive
\n     statutory provision  based on  some
\n     fundamental  principles  of  public
\n     policy and regulate the exercise of
\n     its    power     and     discretion
\n     accordingly. The  proposition  does
\n     not relate\t but only  to what is or
\n     is not   `complete\t justice’  of  a
\n     cause or matter and in the ultimate
\n     analysis of  the propriety\t of  the
\n     exercise of  the power. No question
\n     of\t lack\tof  jurisdiction  or  of
\n     nullity can arise.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Relying upon  the\taforesaid  passage,  learned  senior
\ncounsel contended  at the  limitation of  two months  in the
\nproviso to  Sub-clause (4)  of Section 145 would not come in
\nthe way for this Court while exercising powers under Article
\n142 far\t granting possession  to the  petitioner even though
\nthe dispossession  of the  petitioner was  for a  period  in
\nexcess of two months next before the date of the preliminary
\norder passed  under Section  145 (1).  It will\tbe seen that
\neven according\tto the\tpetitioner. she\t permitted the first
\nrespondent in December. 1991 temporarily occupy 2500 sq. ft.
\nin the\tground floor of the promises. Subsequently the first
\nrespondent did\tnot vacate  and on  the other  hand, the 1st
\nrespondent allowed  the\t second\t respondent  to\t occupy\t the
\nproperty claiming  that he  was her  husband and  thereafter
\nthey constructed  a wall  dividing the said portion from the
\nother portion  occupied by the petitioner. On these facts we
\ndo not\tfind any  social circumstances\twhich are  different
\nfrom ordinary  cases where  a person permits a licensee or a
\ntenant to  occupy the  premises and  upon termination of the
\nlicensee or  the lease,\t the licensee  or the tenant, as the
\ncase may  be, does  not vacate\tthe premises  or makes\tsome
\nconstriction on\t the property. No doubt the petitioner is an
\nold lady of 75 years and there is some material to show that
\nthe respondents\t 1 and\t2 have\tbeen  indulging\t in  similar
\nlitigations in\tBombay. But  that  in  our  opinion  is\t not
\nsufficient to  pursuade us  to exercise powers under Article
\n142  of\t the  Constitution  of\tIndia.\tThe  petitioner\t has
\nadequate remedies  under the law for recovery of possession.
\nFor the\t aforesaid reasons  this special  leave petition  is
\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India R.C. Patuck vs Fatima A. Kindasa & Ors on 6 May, 1997 Author: M J Rao Bench: S.B. Majmudar, M. Jagannadha Rao PETITIONER: R.C. PATUCK Vs. RESPONDENT: FATIMA A. KINDASA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/05\/1997 BENCH: S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: Present: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar […]<\/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-201336","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nR.C. Patuck vs Fatima A. Kindasa & Ors on 6 May, 1997 - 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\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.C. Patuck vs Fatima A. Kindasa & Ors on 6 May, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-04T16:52:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.C. Patuck vs Fatima A. Kindasa & Ors on 6 May, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-04T16:52:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997\"},\"wordCount\":2684,\"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\\\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997\",\"name\":\"R.C. Patuck vs Fatima A. Kindasa & Ors on 6 May, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-04T16:52:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.C. Patuck vs Fatima A. Kindasa & Ors on 6 May, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"R.C. Patuck vs Fatima A. Kindasa & Ors on 6 May, 1997 - 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\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.C. Patuck vs Fatima A. Kindasa & Ors on 6 May, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-04T16:52:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.C. Patuck vs Fatima A. Kindasa & Ors on 6 May, 1997","datePublished":"1997-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-04T16:52:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997"},"wordCount":2684,"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\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997","name":"R.C. Patuck vs Fatima A. Kindasa & Ors on 6 May, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-04T16:52:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-patuck-vs-fatima-a-kindasa-ors-on-6-may-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.C. Patuck vs Fatima A. Kindasa & Ors on 6 May, 1997"}]},{"@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\/201336","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=201336"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201336\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201336"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201336"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201336"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}