{"id":206719,"date":"2006-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006"},"modified":"2018-07-06T19:18:43","modified_gmt":"2018-07-06T13:48:43","slug":"ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"Ranchhoddas Karsondas Rangwala … vs Nalinchandra Gordhandas … on 4 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Ranchhoddas Karsondas Rangwala … vs Nalinchandra Gordhandas … on 4 August, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: A Khanwilkar<\/div>\n
Bench: A Khanwilkar<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.<\/p>\n
Page 2633<\/p>\n
1. This Contempt Petition was disposed of on August 20, 1996. Against the said decision,  Petitioners carried the matter in Appeal before the  Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by order dated  July 21, 1997 has relegated the parties before this  Court with direction to examine the issues afresh  on the basis of all relevant materials on record.\n<\/p>\n
2. Briefly stated, in the Contempt Petition  as filed, the Petitioners assert that the  Respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of  this Court dated 19th October 1995 passed in Appeal  from Order No. 1140 of 1995. The said Appeal from  Order was filed against the decision of the City  Civil Court restraining the Petitioners from  interfering with the development work undertaken by  the Respondents 1 and 2\/original Plaintiffs on the plot owned and occupied by them. That relief was  granted while allowing Notice of Motion No. 1434 of  1995.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Respondents 1 and 2 had filed Suit  before City Civil Court, asserting that they were  seized and possessed of property bearing CTS No. 4B  of Village Hariyali Adishankar Chhaya, Powai,  Mumbai, as per the plans annexed to the Plaint. It  was the case of Respondents 1 and 2 in the said  Suit that Petitioners\/Defendants were causing  obstruction, interference and\/or preventing them  from carrying on development activities on the suit  property. As mentioned earlier,  Respondents\/Plaintiffs had taken out Notice of  Motion No. 1434 of 1995 for granting temporary  injunction against the Petitioners\/Defendants  during the pendency of the Suit. Besides, the said  Notice of Motion, Respondents\/Plaintiffs had also  filed Notice of Motion No. 3148 of 1995 for  appointment of D.I.L.R. to survey and demarcate  the properties in question, particularly, the plot  belonging to the Respondents\/Plaintiffs. Both the  Notices of Motion were allowed in favour of the Respondents\/Plaintiffs by the Trial Court. The  Trial Court had invited report of the Commissioner  appointed by the Court. The Court Commissioner  visited the suit property on 18th March 1995  pursuant to order dated 9th March 1995 and  submitted his report to the Trial Court dated 18th  March 1995. This report states that the Court  Commissioner was appointed to find out actual  situation at site in respect of the possession of  the properties belonging to Plaintiffs and  Defendants and existence of nallah and existence of  boundary line as claimed by the respective parties.  The Court Commissioner was also directed to verify  the claim of the Petitioners\/Defendants regarding  demolition of the wall and structure. The  Commissioner undertook detailed investigation as  recorded in his report dated 18th March 1995. The  relevant portion whereof reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
3. The plot No. 33 is to the South of  Powai Road. The entrance to the said plot  is from Powai Road. To the South of said  plot, there is a nallah and plot No. 25 is  to the South of the nallah. The entrance  to the plot No. 25 is from 50 feet wide  road. There are western side compound  walls to the plot Nos. 25 and 33  respectively. The said compound walls are Page 2634  made of rubble masonary. There is an  opening above the said nallah between the  western side compound wall of plot No. 33.  The distance between the abovementioned  compound wall is 32 feet. There is a  office and\/or watchman cabin of the  defendants to the north of gate of the  plot No. 26 and touching the western side  compound wall. The western side compound  wall of plot No. 25 is upto about 29 feet 2  inches north of the said office or  watchman cabin. The north edge of the  said compound wall is broken and not  straight from bottom to top so also the  southern side edge of the western side  compound wall of plot No. 33 is broken and  not straight from bottom to top. There is  an open drainage touching the western side  compound wall (on the road side) of plot  No.25. The said open drainage is upto  about 2 feet to 3 feet north of western  side compound wall of plot No. 25. The  depth of the said open drainage is 4 feet.  The drain water is flowing south-north.  There is a pipe underneath the 50 feet  wide road run west-east. The said pipe is  11 feet from the northern side edge of the  said pipe is approximately 1 feet 6 inches  to 2 feet. The drain water is flowing  west-side east from the said pipe. The  drain water flowing from abovementioned  open drainage mix with the water of these  called nallah and the said water flows  towards the western side, even beyond the  eastern side compound walls of plot Nos. 25  and 33.  Even though the distances between western  side compound walls of plot Nos. 25 and 33  is about 32 feet, the width of the nallah  is not 32 feet because of heaps of the  earth in the nallah. The said nallah runs  west to east. I noticed heaps of the  earth to the north side of the nallah and  touching the southern side wall of the  Plaintiffs buildings. The said heaps of the earth is from the western side  compound wall, even there is a slopping on  the plot No. 25 in the nallah. The ground  level of plot No. 25 and 33 is higher than  ground level of nallah, the depth of the  nallah from the ground level of plot No. 25  and 33 is approximately 5 to 6 feet. The  so called nallah is actually portion  between plot Nos. 25 and 33.  There is a building of the Plaintiffs in  plot No. 33. The southern side of the  building is consists of 8 galas. For the  purpose of my commission and for making  points, 1 numbered the said galas as 1 to  8 from the western side.\n<\/p>\n
4. There is no boundary to the said  nallah. Water in the said nallah is  flowing from west to east side where it  gets a way. The flow of the water near  the abovementioned pipe is 1 to 2 feet and  opposite to gala No. 2 it is 2 to 4 feet  thereafter it is 1 to 2 feet and opposite  to gala No. 5 the flow is about 5 to 6  feet. The water is constantly west to  east.\n<\/p>\n
5. Shri Dubey pointed out one iron rod  embedded in the earth opposite gala No. 1.  According to Mr. Dubey it is the southern  boundary of plot No. 33 the distance  between gala No. 1 and the said rod is  about 26 feet 9 inches at this stage  Mr. Dubey requested me to take distance  between northern edge of actual flowing of  water and gala No. 1. The distance between  this is about 22 feet 3 inches thereafter  defendant No. 2 pointed out the northern  side boundary of plot No. 25. It is made  of rubble masonary wall. The distance  between office or watchman cabin and  southern edge of said boundary is about 28  feet 4 inches. At this point water of the  said nallah is flowing north of northern  side compound wall of plot No. 25 and said  rod pointed on by Mr. Dubey.\n<\/p>\n
Page 2635<\/p>\n
Mr. Dubey pointed out another iron rod  embedded in earth opposite gala No. 4 as  southern side boundary of plot No. 33 and  distance between gala No. 4 and said iron  rod is about 28 feet 6 inches.  The defendant No. 2 pointed out northern  side boundary of plot No. 25. The distance  boundary of plot No. 25 in about 10 inches  at this point water is flowing north of  boundary of plot No. 25 and said rod.  Mr. Dubey pointed out the third rod  embedded in earth which is opposite to  gala No. 5 as southern side boundary of  plot No. 33 and the distance between the  said rod and gala No. 5 is about 29 feet.  At this point defendant No. 2 pointed out  the boundary of plot No. 25 the width of  the said boundary is about 1 feet 7 inches  and height is about 8 inches above the  water level. The said rod is 4 inches  north of northern side edge of the  boundary of plot No. 25 at this point water  is flowing north of boundary and said rod.  The southern side boundary of flat No. 25  opposite to gala Nos. 5 and 6 is broken and  water of the aid nallah is flowing oven to  the south of said boundary.\n<\/p>\n
  6. When we reached opposite gala No. 8 and west of these sanitary tank Shri Shantilal  Shah, representative of the Plaintiffs  wanted to point out the southern side  boundary of plot No. 33 and which south  west corner of sanitary tank the defendant  No.2 objected for the same. according to  defendant No. 2 the said point is in his  property. I told defendant No. 2 that both  the sides are entitled to point out their  respective boundaries. After some  discussion he allowed Shri Shah to point  out his boundary.  Shri Jayantilal Shah pointed out southern side boundary of plot No. 33 which is west  of sanitary tank and opposite of south  east corner of Plaintiffs’ building (gala  No.8) and the distance between said  boundary and south east corner of gala  No.8 of the Plaintiffs’ building is about  29 feet 6 inches. At this point there is  no marking of the boundary as shown  earlier with the help of iron rod embedded  in earth. Mr. Dubey pointed out one iron  rod lying near the boundary tank.  According to Mr. Dubey the said iron rod  was embedded where Shri Shah has pointed  out the sanitary pipes joined together and  one edge of the same is broken which is  lying where Mr. Shah pointed out the  boundary.\n<\/p>\n
7. The defendant No. 2 pointed out boundary of plot No. 25 which is touching  northern side wall of sanitary tank. The  distance between the said wall and south  east corner of gala No. 8 of Plaintiffs’  building is about 21 feet 10 inches. The  western side wall of the said sanitary  tank is about 9 feet 11 inches east of the  said point, and the distance between south  east corner of plaintiff’s building and  north west corner of sanitary tank is  about 25 feet on crew files. Internal  dimensions of sanitary tank is 11 feet 9  inches x 4 feet 1 inch and the thickness  of the wall is about 11 inches. The north  east corner of said sanitary tank is  broken so also top slab or sanitary tank  is broken to the extent of 7 feet 9 inches  in length. I also noticed the pieces of  broken brick masonary walls and some iron  rods near the said tank. According to  defendant No. 2 they are the pieces of  sanitary tank. There is no water in the  said tank and flooring is muddy.\n<\/p>\n
8. There is a dug up portion between  eastern side wall of said tank and eastern  side compound wall of plot No. 25. The  width of the said dug up portion near eastern side wall of the said tank is  about 10 feet and width of the dug up  portion to the west of eastern side  compound wall is about 8 feet Page 2636 4 inches and  length is about 35 feet and depth is about  4 feet 4 inches and depth near sanitary  tank is about 4 feet 8 inches. At this  point water is flowing to the north of  boundary wall of plot No. 25 which is  touching to the said tank.\n<\/p>\n
9. There is a W.C. to the east of south  east corner of plaintiffs’ building the  distance between the same is about 20 feet  8 inches. The straight distance between  W.C. and dug up portion is about 31 feet  9 inches.\n<\/p>\n
 Mr. Dubey pointed out the iron angle near the boundary of plot No. 25 touching the  eastern side compound wall. The distance  between northern side edge of the eastern  side compound wall and the said angle is 6  feet 7 inches in other words the northern  edge of the eastern side of compound wall  is 6 feet 7 inches north of iron angle.  The distance between the south east corner  of the Plaintiffs building and the said  angle is about 60 feet as crow-flies.\n<\/p>\n
10. There is foundation of boundary wall  of plot No. 25 from sanitary tank to  eastern side of compound wall and the said  foundation of boundary wall is covered by  earth. The defendant No. 2 removed the  earth through his servants and pointed the  same. The boundary pointed out by  Mr. Dubey is to the south-east of the said  boundary of plot No. 25.\n<\/p>\n
11. After completing my inspection I  asked abovementioned persons whether they  want to inspect anything else or not  anything more and they replied in  negative. The inspection work was  concluded at about 7.30 p.m. Thereafter  alongwith abovementioned persons, I sat in the office of defendant No. 2 and checked  the notes and rough sketch in the presence  of abovementioned persons. I left the  suit premises about 8.30 p.m.<\/p>\n
4. Along with this report, rough sketch  prepared on the basis of notings made by the  Commissioner during his visit is also appended.  The Trial Court after considering the said report  and other materials on record declined to accept  the claim of the Petitioners\/Defendants that the  Plaintiffs were undertaking construction beyond the  property owned and possessed by them (Plaintiffs).  The Trial Court has noted the claim of the  Petitioners\/Defendants that they have become owner  by adverse possession in respect of certain portion  of the land beyond nallah which separates the  properties of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.  The Trial Court has also noted that both the  Plaintiffs and Defendants purchased respective  properties, Plot Nos. 33 and 25 respectively from  the same owner. The Plaintiffs had purchased Plot  No.33 admeasuring 2892.08 square meters under  registered Conveyance Deed on 30th November 1969.  Whereas, the Defendants\/Petitioners purchased plot No.25 admeasuring 2693.59 square meters in terms of  Agreement for Sale dated 12th December 1975 and  later on registered Deed of Conveyance dated 6th  December 1979. The Conveyance Deed of both the  parties clearly indicate that their property is  separated by a natural nallah. The Trial Court has  also noted that the schedule and the plan appended  to the respective Conveyance Deed describes the  property sold and delivered to the respective  party. The Trial Court has noted that it is  undisputed position that plot No. 25 of the  Defendants and Plot No. 33 of the Plaintiffs is  divided by a water nallah and Plot No. 25 is on the  Southern side of said nallah and Plot No. 33 is on  the Northern side of the said water nallah. The  Trial Court has then noted that the Defendants have  not been able to establish the circumstances in  which Page 2637 they can be said to have been put in  legitimate possession of any property beyond the  nallah. The argument of the Petitioners\/Defendants  that they were in settled position of certain  portion of the land or property beyond the nallah,  has been negatived. Suffice it to observe that on  considering the materials on record, the Trial Court recorded following conclusion:\n<\/p>\n
8. In any event and under any  circumstances, it clear appears that  whatever structure were constructed by the  defendants were within or inside the said  plot No. 25 and on the southern side of the  said water nalla and not beyond the said  water nalla and if that is so, the claim  of the defendants of being in possession  of any property beyond the nalla must be  rejected and they should not be allowed to  obstruct the plaintiffs in making and  completing the construction of their  building on the said plot No. 33 which is  on the southern side of the said water  nalla.\n<\/p>\n
9. In the circumstances, in my opinion,  the plaintiffs have made out more than  prima facie case for granting the notice  of motion No. 1434 of 1995 and dated  9.3.1995 and the same deserves to be made  absolute. It also appears that the  defendants in the guise of being in  possession of the property beyond nalla  and which claim is found to be false and  dishonest will obstruct the said  construction and, therefore, prayer (d)  for police protection also should be  granted.\n<\/p>\n
5. In Paragraph 10 of the said Judgment, the  Trial Court noted that it would be appropriate to  call upon the District Inspector of Land Records  (D.I.L.R.) and\/or City Survey Officer to carry out  survey and demarcate the boundary of the respective  plots and record the location of the nalla between the said two plots. Accordingly, both the Notice  of Motions filed by the Respondents\/Plaintiffs were allowed on the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
O R D E R <\/p>\n
Notice of Motion No. 1434 of 1995 is made  absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (d)  thereof and the defendants to pay the  costs of the said Notice of Motion to the  plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
Notice of Motion No. 3148 of 1995 is also  made absolute in terms of prayer (a)  thereof. I direct the City Survey Officer  to appoint the concerned officer of  District Inspector of Land Records to  carry out the survey and demarcate the  boundaries of the said 2 plots i.e. plot  nos.25 and plot No. 33 within 2 weeks from  the date when the certified copy of this  order reaches its office and the work of  survey and demarcation shall be carried  out after giving notice to both the  plaintiffs and the defendants. The  plaintiffs shall carry out their  development and construction work only in  the plot of land number 33.\n<\/p>\n
At this stage Mr. D.T. Gandhy for the  defendants applies for stay of operation  of my above order, as the defendants want  to file an appeal against my judgement and  order.\n<\/p>\n
 Mr. P.K. Pandit for the plaintiffs has left the matter to me.\n<\/p>\n
In the circumstances I stay the operation  of my above order for a period of 8 weeks  from today on the condition that the  defendants and\/or their advocate shall  given notice of at least 48 hours to the  advocates for the plaintiffs before moving  for any ad-interim\/interim reliefs in the  proposed appeal or any other proceedings  which may be filed against this judgment  and order.\n<\/p>\n
Page 2638<\/p>\n
6. Against the decision on Notice of Motion  No. 1434 of 1995, restraining the  Petitioners\/Defendants from interfering with the  development work undertaken by the  Respondents\/Plaintiffs on their plot, the  Petitioners had filed appeal before this Court  being Appeal from Order No. 1140 of 1995. That  Appeal, however, has been dismissed as having  become infructuous by order dated April 3, 2006  inasmuch as the main Suit filed before the Trial  Court has already been withdrawn and the appeal  from Order was directed against interlocutory order  passed in the said Suit. Insofar as order passed  on Notice of Motion No. 3148 of 1995, directing the  City Survey Office to appoint concerned Officer of  D.I.L.R. to carry out the survey and demarcate the  boundaries of the two plots, the Petitioners filed  Appeal from Order No. 1224 of 1995. It is seen from  the record that the said Appeal from Order was disposed of as not pressed in terms of order dated  December 7, 1995. What is relevant for our purpose  is to note that this Court passed ad-interim order  in the former Appeal from Order No. 1140 of 1995 on  19th October 1995. As the entire controversy in  the present proceedings is regarding breach of the  said order, I think it apposite to reproduce the  text of the entire order dated 19th October 1995  which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
1. Mr. Jahagirdar for the appellants makes  a statement that the appellants have no  claim over any portion of the property  beyond the nalla on the north side.  Similarly, Mr. Rane for the respondents  makes a statement that the respondents  have no claim over any portion of the  property beyond the nalla on the southern  side. Statements made by both the learned  counsel are accepted.\n<\/p>\n
2. Both the learned Counsel agree not to put up any construction in the nalla portion or pending admission of this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
3. The District Inspector of Land Records  is scheduled to visit the site on Friday,  the 3rd November 1995 at 10-00 a.m. to  measure both the properties in dispute, as  directed by the City Civil Court. Both  sides are directed to remain present at  the site, at about 10-00 A.M. on 3rd  November 1995. The D.I.L.R. is directed  to complete the work of measurement on 3rd  November itself and submit his report to  this Court by 9th November 1995 and copies  thereof be furnished to both sides.\n<\/p>\n
4. In view of the above, no further  ad-interim order is required in the C.A.  The ad-interim order granted on 29th  September 1995 is, therefore, vacated.  Adjourned to 13th November, 1995.\n<\/p>\n
5. Certified Copy expedited.\n<\/p>\n
7. From the averments in the Contempt Petition, it can be noticed that the Petitioners  are alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated  19th October 1995 on the allegation that inspite of  the order of the Court on 15th January 1996, the  Respondents came on the suit property and  demolished the wall on the north and partly  demolished the septic tank, removed cover of second  sanitary tank and also demolished pipe line. It is  stated that on account of such damage, entire  sewerage (drainage) line became chocked, which is  dangerous to the health and thereby the  Respondents\/contemnors have flouted the order of  the Court. Even on liberal reading of the  averments in the Contempt Petition, the only other  allegation which according to the Petitioners Page 2639  constitutes contempt is that the Petitioner  apprehend that the contemnors\/Respondents 1 to 7  were likely to carry on construction in the nallah  portion. On these allegations, the present  Contempt Petition came to be filed on 1st March  1996.\n<\/p>\n
8. The case of the contemnors on the other  hand is that they did not indulge in any act which  would constitute wilful disobedience of the order  of the Court. It is their case that the  construction activity on the suit site particularly  of erecting the boundary wall was undertaken by  them only after the D.I.L.R. had visited the site  and submitted report demarcating the respective  boundaries. The D.I.L.R. was required to visit  the site in terms of order of this Court to  undertake measurement and demarcation of the  boundaries of the respective plots. It is the case  of the contemnors that the order passed by this  Court directing D.I.L.R. to undertake measurement  and demarcation of the boundaries has not been  challenged and has been allowed to become final.  In fact, the Appeal from Order in which said  direction was subject matter of challenge being  Appeal from Order No. 1224 of 1995 came to be  disposed of as not pressed by the Petitioners on  December 7, 1995, notwithstanding the objection  taken by the Petitioners to the report submitted by  the D.I.L.R. dated November 8, 1995. The said  report of the D.I.L.R. records that the  Petitioners did not cooperate for the purpose of  completing the survey work. The D.I.L.R. however  proceeded with the survey work in terms of the  Court’s order and made following observations in  his report which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
However, after having been completed the  survey work, the defendant left from the site and while leaving he stated that he would return at 4.00 p.m. at the time of showing the boundaries. But he did not turn up even upto 4.30 p.m. At 4.30 p.m.  when the plaintiff has requested to show  the two mark of boundaries of the southern  side of the disputed land bearing survey  No.4B\/2, I showed two marks of boundaries  on the southern side of the land bearing  S.No.4B\/2.\n<\/p>\n
The site of nala in between the land  bearing plot No. 33 and 25 belong to  plaintiff and the defendants has been  shown in the survey plan as per the  sanctioned lay out dt. 26\/11\/71 and the  detailed explanatory required notes have  been given on the survey plan. True copy of the said survey plan is  annexed with this letter and the same is  respectfully submitted to Your Honour for  further appropriate action.\n<\/p>\n
Yours faithfully,  <\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
Illegible City Survey Officer No. 7  <\/span><\/p>\n
Bombay Suburban, Bombay.\n<\/p>\n
A relevant copy of the plan prepared from  the Survey Reg. No. 495\/95 maintained at  City Survey Village Hariyali in pursuance  of the application of the applicant  Shri Ramesh H. Shah, made on the date  9\/11\/1995.\n<\/p>\n
Purpose of the Survey : Plan of the  survey carried out on the date 3\/11\/95 as  per the application of Shri V.D. Jain  authorised by N.G. Soparkar, in the matter  of suit No. 1576\/95 filed in the City Civil  Court in connection with the land bearing  City Survey No. 4B\/1, 4B\/2 and 4 part and  7\/8 part of City Survey Hariyali.  City Survey Officer Hariyali,  Seal Taluka Kurla, Dist-Bombay  Suburban S.R. No. 405\/95 9\/10\/95 (Sketch of Plan)<\/p>\n
Page 2640<\/p>\n
Explanatory Notes.\n<\/p>\n
This denotes the boundaries of the City  Survey as per original sheet.  This denotes the (Brockeage) wall on the  site.\n<\/p>\n
This denotes the boundaries of the  Plaintiffs land bearing City Survey  no.4B\/1, and 4B\/2 (i.e. to say of the  land bearing 4B) as per S.R. No. 334\/94.  This denotes southern side boundaries shown to the plaintiff in connection with  the land bearing City Survey No. 4B\/2.  This denotes the Northern side boundary of  the defendants, lands bearing City Survey  No.4 part and 7\/8 part i.e. Plot No. 25  and the same is shown as per the  sanctioned layout dated 26\/11\/71 and the  southern side boundaries have been shown  as per “Vahivat” (administration). This  denotes Nala falling between the land  bearing City Survey No. 4B\/1, 2, and 4 part  and 7\/8 part i.e. Plot No. 25 shown as per  the sanctioned layout dated 26\/11\/71.  This denotes the construction on the site.  This denotes the barbed wire compound on  the site.\n<\/p>\n
9. Along with this report, D.I.L.R.  submitted map which graphically explains the  location of the respective properties and the water  nala which flows between the two properties. Be  that as it may, the case of the contemnors is that  they resumed construction of boundary wall on their  plot in the last week of January 1996 after the  D.I.L.R. submitted his report regarding  demarcation of the properties dated 8th November  1995 strictly in conformity with the description of  the property given in the D.I.L.R’s. report and  the permissions granted by the Municipal  Authorities. In the wake of controversy raised in the Contempt Petition which was filed on 1st March 1996, this Court appointed Commissioner to visit  the site and submit his report as to the distance  between the tin-sheet wall and the rubble portion  marked in blue throughout appearing in the property  and also the distance between the tin-wall and line  marked in red\/purple in terms of order dated March  15, 1996. The Commissioner appointed in terms of  order dated 15th March 1996, visited the site on  20th March 1996. Even during visit of the Court  Commissioner, neither the Petitioners nor their  Advocate remained present as noted by the  Commissioner in his report dated 21st March 1996.  Accordingly, the Commissioner proceeded to  undertake the survey and prepare final report which  was submitted before this Court dated 21st March  1996. The relevant portion of the said report  reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
We waited for Advocate for the Petitioner and the Petitioner for about 15 minutes more i.e. upto 9.15 a.m. but no one came to the site.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter I requested the Advocate for  the Respondents and the Respondents (who  were present) to show the suit site. Shri D’Mello, Advocate for the Respondents  Nos.1 to 5 and other respondents takes me  to the site.\n<\/p>\n
According to them (Respondents & Advocate  for Respondents who were present) the  property is situated at Adi Shankaracharya  Marg, C.T.S. No. 4-B, Pawai, Vikhroli (W),  Bombay – 83. The tin sheet wall as shown  in the photograph (marked ‘A’) is on the  southern side of the property i.e. (back  side the building). The distance between  the tin sheet wall and the rubble portion  marked in blue shown in the photographs is  a wall of rubble (small black stones) and  its length is 196′ from East & West. Page 2641 The  total distance between the tin sheet wall  and the rubble portion wall is 6′ -7″  from the tin sheet wall and its length is  210′. The height of this wall is not the  same everywhere.\n<\/p>\n
The total distance between the tin swell and line marked in red purple is 8′ – 7″.\n<\/p>\n
There is a ‘NALA’ between tin sheet wall  and stone wall. I found no any other  construction on the site. The Nala pipe  shown in the photographs is out side the  tin sheet which is one the South West  side.\n<\/p>\n
The above measurements were taken in the  presence of the Respondents and their  Advocate Shri D’Mello.\n<\/p>\n
I concluded my commission work at 10.45 a.m. <\/p>\n
The sketch plan of the suit site is put up herewith for ready reference.\n<\/p>\n
10. After this report was submitted when the Contempt Petition came up for further hearing on  20th August 1996, learned Single Judge of this  Court was pleased to dispose of the same on the  following terms:\n<\/p>\n
 Seen Commissioner’s Report dt. 21.3.96  pursuant to the order dated 15.3.96 passed  by this Court. It shows that no  construction is made. No case for  Contempt made out. Rejected.\n<\/p>\n
11. As mentioned earlier, against this  decision, matter was taken up before the Supreme  Court by way of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 6536 of 1997.  the Supreme Court allowed the said Appeal and  remanded the Contempt Petition for being tried  afresh, in view of the observations made therein.  The said order reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following <\/p>\n
The impugned order of the High Court is  merely based upon the Commissioner’s  Report of 21.3.96 or does not take into  account the earlier report of the  Commissioner dated 18.3.95 pursuant to the  order passed by the City Civil Court nor  has the Court examined the boundary  demarcation done by the District Inspector  of Land Records dated 8th of November,  1995 as also other relevant material on  record in order to determine whether any construction has been made on the Nallah  portion which is the subject matter of the  Contempt Petition. Hence the impugned  order is set aside and the matter is  remanded back to the high Court for the  examination of the question of Contempt on  merits on the basis of all relevant  material on record. The Special Leave  Petition is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
12. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition has  been restored to the file of this Court and is  being proceeded further in terms of the remand  order. The matter was heard on 8th October 1999,  when the Court passed the following order:\n<\/p>\n
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
2. The question involved in the contempt  petition is whether in breach of the order  passed by this Court on 19.10.1995, which  was allowed to operate during the pendency  of the appeal by order dated 7.12.1995,  the contemnors raised any construction on  the nallah or not. Earlier the contempt  petition was rejected by this Court on  20.8.1996 and upon the matter being taken  to the Apex Court, the matter has been  remanded back to this Court for  examination of the question of contempt on  merits.\n<\/p>\n
Page 2642<\/p>\n
3. The crucial question is whether the  contemnors have raised any construction on  nallah after the order was passed by this  Court on 19.10.1995 or not. On perusal of  the two Commissioner’s reports dated  18.3.1995 and 21.3.1996 and also the  boundary demarcation done by the District  Inspector of Land Records on 8.12.1995,  and the other materials available on record, I find that the said question cannot be decided in the absence of the oral evidence.\n<\/p>\n
4. Accordingly in my view, it would be  proper that the City Civil Court is  directed to hold an enquiry into the  matter and after recording the oral  evidence, submit its report on the actual  position of the nallah and whether any  construction has been raised thereof by  the contemnors.\n<\/p>\n
5. Hence the following order:\n<\/p>\n
(i) The City Civil Court is  directed to hold an enquiry  into the matter and after  recording necessary oral  evidence submit its report to  this Court about the actual  position of nallah between plot  Nos.25 and 33 and also whether  any construction has been  raised thereon by the  contemnors. The City Civil  Court is expected to submit its  report expeditiously and  preferably within four months  from the date of receipt of the  paper book of this contempt  petition from the registry of  this Court.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Office is directed to  prepare and remit one paper  book comprising of copy of the  entire record of this contempt  petition to the City Civil  Court immediately. The parties  are directed to appear before  the City Civil Court on o  15.11.1999.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Office to post the  contempt petition for hearing  and final disposal after receipt of the report from the City Civil Court.\n<\/p>\n
13. In terms of the order dated 8th October  1999, matter went before the Judge of the City  Civil Court. It is seen from the record that the  Petitioners did not cooperate before the City Civil  Court, on account of which, the concerned Judge of  the City Civil Court submitted his report dated 7th  February 2000. The final report reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
FINAL REPORT <\/p>\n
(i) Since the defendants did not remain present and parties did not lead any oral evidence, nor argued this matter,  therefore, it is not possible to find out actual position of Nallah between plot No. 25 and 33;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Similarly it is not possible to find  out, whether any construction has been  raised on the Nallah by the Contemnors,  especially in absence of any evidence,  when burden to prove the same was heavily  upon the Contemnors;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) This report is submitted within four  months time granted by His Lordship  Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha in his order dated  8.10.1999.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) As far as conducting enquiry in this  matter is concerned, I feel that in view  of directions given by the Honourable  Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 6536 of 1997 dated 21st July 1997, the Honourable  High Court is directed to look into other  reports for deciding Contempt Petition  No. 100 of 1996 filed in the Honourable  High Court and, therefore, it will not be  proper for this Court to go into the same.  The Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side  is requested to submit the said report  before His Page 2643 Lordship taking contempt for  hearing and final disposal after the  receipt of this report, as per the  directions given by His Lordship  Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha in his order dated  8.10.1999.\n<\/p>\n
Report is submitted accordingly.  The Registrar, City Civil Court, is  directed to forward this report to the  Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, as  early as possible.\n<\/p>\n
14. This report was placed before this Court  when the matter was heard on 5th July 2002. The  Court noted that the parties did not produce any  evidence before the Judge of the City Civil Court  as was expected. Indeed, the Petitioners offered  explanation before this Court as to what prevented  them from producing evidence to substantiate their  claim that the Respondents had carried on  construction on the nallah portion in breach of the  order of this Court. The Court, however, did not  accept that explanation as can be discerned from the observation in Paragraph 6 of the order dated  5th July 2002. The Court, thereafter, went on to  accept the submission made by the amicus curiae  that the City Civil Court be directed to hold an  enquiry and record its findings on the factual  position of nallah as well as whether the  Respondents have made any construction on the  nallah portion. This Court has already noted that  this Court cannot be expected to undertake the  enquiry to resolve the disputed questions and for  which purpose, it was necessary to invite fact  finding report from the City Civil Court. In  Paragraph 8 of that order, this Court has adverted  to the contentions of the contemnors that T.I.L.R.  should be appointed to demarcate the boundaries of  the plot of the parties and also to find out  whether any construction is made in the nallah  which will bring quietus to the entire controversy.  This submission was, however, opposed by the  Petitioners on the ground that the City Survey  Officer has already visited the site and drawn a  map showing the existing situation. The Court  noted that as no Commissioner or Architect or  Surveyor was appointed after the filing of the Contempt Petition, it was necessary to have on  record the existing position after the commission  of the alleged contempt by the Respondents. The  Court therefore issued direction for appointment of  T.I.L.R. In Paragraph 9 of the order, the Court  clearly observed that there was no question of  directing the City Civil Court to ask the parties  to lead evidence as they had failed to do so  inspite of opportunity granted to them on the  earlier occasion. The Court accordingly confined  the enquiry before the City Civil Court in the  following terms:\n<\/p>\n
9. …Therefore, the  enquiry before the city civil court will  be made on the basis of the relevant  material on record and the report of  T.I.L.R. In view of the above position, I  pass the following order:\n<\/p>\n
10. The matter of enquiry is remanded  back to the City Civil Court with a  direction that the concerned Judge of the  City civil Court shall appoint the  T.I.L.R. as Court Commissioner to visit  plots Nos. 25 and 33 and draw the maps,.  demarcating the existing position of the  nallah as also construction, if any, made  in the nallah. the T.I.L.R. shall draw  two maps of the two plots. In the first  map, he will demarcate the position of the  nallah as it existed previously and in the  second map, he will demarcate the position  of the nallah as it exists now. Needless  to say that T.I.L.R. will give notices to  the parties before visiting the site. the  expenses of the Page 2644 Commissioner shall be  equally shared by the petitioner and  contemnors Nos. 1 to 7 in two sets. The  learned Judge while conducting the enquiry  need not record oral evidence of the  parties or of any witnesses. He shall  take into consideration, the relevant  documentary material on record and hear  the parties together with the report of  the T.I.L.R. which will be sent to him  and thereafter, submit his report to this  court on the questions indicated above.  The report will be submitted within a  period of three months from today.\n<\/p>\n
15. On the basis of the above directions, the  D.I.L.R. appointed to inspect the site and submit  report, visited the suit properties and submitted  his report. On receipt of the said report and the  plan regarding the location of the suit properties,  the Judge of the City Civil Court proceeded to  analyse the material on record and was of the view  that the plan submitted by the D.I.L.R. was of no  assistance. Accordingly, the Judge decided to  inspect the site himself. The City Civil Judge  accordingly visited the site on 21st December 2002  and made notings about his impressions regarding  the location of the suit property, which reads  thus:\n<\/p>\n
Memorandum of local inspection of the suit property:\n<\/p>\n
1. The suit property was visited by me on  21st December 2002 at about 11.30 a.m.  The C.A. of the plaintiff was present.  Defendant No. 2 was also present. Advocate  Mr. Raulo and City Survey Officer  Mrs. Phansalkar with her Maintenance  Surveyor Mr. Jadhav and Mr. Ghag were also  present. I had inspected the suit  property particularly Nallah which is  major cause of the dispute and also had  seen the compound wall constructed by the  plaintiffs. The said wall has been fully  constructed but it appeared that the  extreme western end of the wall has been  left incomplete. There was no broken wall  (old retaining wall) which has been  referred to by the parties in the  proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
2. Rough inspection notes were prepared  on the spot. Same are being enclosed with  the proceedings. One copy each of this  memorandum be supplied to the plaintiffs  and the defendant No. 2 free of cost.\n<\/p>\n
16. The concerned Judge then submitted his  report to this Court dated 3rd March 2003. The  relevant portion of the said report needs to be  reproduced to consider the issues raised in the  present Petition which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
16. In the first place, it may be  mentioned that the question is not whether  the plaintiffs have constructed the  building as per the map prepared by the City Survey Officer. The prime question  which needs to be decided is whether the  plaintiffs have put up any construction in  the nallah portion as it existed on 19th  October, 1995, after passing the order by  His Lordship Justice Shri A.V. Sawant on  that day.\n<\/p>\n
17. As already stated, the maps prepared  by City Survey Officer which are M-I &  M-II do not help the Court in any manner  to decide the issue in question. My  impression at the site was that the City  Survey Officer was trying to confuse the  whole issue instead of helping the Court  to come to the correct conclusion.  Therefore, I have decided to consider the  earlier map of 1995 prepared by City  Survey Officer. A certified true copy of  English translation of the said map  prepared by the Chief Translator of the  Hon’ble High Court is on record and I have  considered Page 2645 that copy. Zerox copy of the  said map is enclosed herewith for perusal  of Their Lordships. If one considers the  earlier map along with two present maps  prepared by the City Survey Officer, it  would be abundantly clear that the  construction has been done in the nallah  portion. In this regard, it may be noted here that in the earlier map dated 3.11.95 dotted red line denotes the broken wall at the site. The said wall is not there at the site at present. It is also necessary to be noted here that the said broken wall is shown beyond (yellow colour) nallah in the said map. In the present two maps yellow colour denotes nallah which was approved by the Municipal Standing Committee on 26th November, 1971 and green colour denotes the actual nallah on the site. It is not known as to why there is vast difference between the two maps prepared by the City Survey Officer. One dated 3.11.95 and the other dated 23.9.02 (M-I and M-II). However, one thing is absolutely clear that red dotted line which denotes the broken wall is not shown in both the maps i.e. M-I & M-II. For that there is no explanation at all in report of City Survey Officer nor she had explained the same when I was visited the site. Therefore, in my opinion, Map M-I does represent the earlier position.\n<\/p>\n
18. It is pertinent to note that the  Order was passed by the Hon’ble High Court  on 19th October, 1995. It is further  necessary to be recorded here that till  that time the stay was in operation and  therefore there could not have been any  construction in nallah portion from the  date of passing of ad-interim Order by  this Court on 9th Mach, 1995 till  19.10.95. Further, the Order dated  19.10.95 is in operation till today. If the map dated 9th March, 1995 is placed above the map (M-II) dated 25th September 2002 it will be clearly indicated that the construction has been put up in the nallah portion. It appears that the City Survey  Officer has purposefully created a green  portion (actual nallah) in the two recent  maps. The actual nallah portion and the  nallah approved by Municipal Standing  Committee have not been shown separately  in the map dated 3.11.95. As already  stated by me the said broken wall is not  there on the site and therefore the only  conclusion one can draw is that the  construction is done by demolishing the  said wall. This conclusion gets support from photographs produced by the plaintiffs themselves on 12th July, 1995. The bare look at the photographs and the present position of the site would clearly indicate that the nallah portion is covered by the present construction. The photograph dated 12th July, 1995 which is being enclosed herewith for perusal of Their Lordships clearly shows that debris is lying in nallah. however, the present position of site is that there is a big parking area between the back side of  galas of the building of plaintiffs and compound wall of the plaintiffs. In the photographs one can see the back side of the galas touching the nallah. It is  therefore obvious that the open space  behind the galas upto the compound wall of  the plaintiff is created by putting up  construction in nallah portion.\n<\/p>\n
19. I have therefore come to the  conclusion that the construction is put up  in nallah portion after Order dated 19th  October, 1995.\n<\/p>\n
Page 2646<\/p>\n
17. After this report was submitted, the  Contempt Petition was placed for further hearing on  25th April 2005. It appears that after considering  the arguments of the respective parties for quite  sometime, my predecessor was of the view that for  resolving the controversy raised in the present  Petition, it will be appropriate for the parties to  produce the property card, respective sale deeds or  any other revenue record pertaining to period prior  to 1971. Accordingly, hearing of the Contempt  Petition was deferred, to be heard with Appeal from  Order No. 1140 of 1995. Both Appeal from Order and  the Contempt Petition were listed before me on 18th  March 2006. On that date, I adjourned the matter  recording the fact that none appeared for the  Petitioners. Indeed, the amicus curiae had  appeared on that date, but as it was noticed that  the matter was intensely contested by the  Petitioner No. 2 who was appearing in-person, I  thought it appropriate to defer the hearing with  direction to the Office to intimate the Petitioners  about the next date of hearing. The Contempt  Petition as well as the Appeal from Order No. 1140  of 1995 were accordingly listed on April 3, 2006.  On that date, the Appeal from Order came to be  disposed of as having become infructuous after  noting that the Suit which was filed before the  lower Court itself stood withdrawn. As the Appeal  from Order was directed against the interlocutory  order passed in the said suit, nothing survived for  consideration in the said Appeal, which challenged  the order of injunction passed by the Trial Court  restraining the Petitioners\/Defendants from  obstructing the Respondents\/Plaintiffs from  carrying out construction on the property owned and  possessed by them.\n<\/p>\n
18. Insofar as the present Contempt Petition  is concerned, after hearing the parties, separate  order was passed in which it was noted that the  parties had failed to comply with the direction  contained in order dated 25th April 2005 passed by  my predecessor. Accordingly, hearing of the  Contempt Petition was deferred giving further time  to the parties to place on record relevant  documents. Unfortunately, the Petitioner No. 2 who  appears in-person misconstrued the purport of the  order dated April 3, 2006, proceeded to file the  affidavit dated 25th April 2006 making unwarranted  allegations against my predecessor as well as  myself in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
I shocked and surprised when ( on 15th  day of APRIL, 2006 SATURDAY I got  authenticated copy from the Office of High  Court, BOMBAY ) I went through it which I  had never expected from His Lordship  Justice Shri A.M. Khanwilkar. It could not  be understand WHY and WHAT FOR His  Lordship Justice Shri A.M. Khanwilkar had  observed total silent about 1st to 4th  paragraphs of An Arbitrary Order passed by  presiding Justice Shri B.H. Marlapalle on  25th  of APRIL, 2005 ?\n<\/p>\n
It is absolutely true and correct that the  Order passed by the presiding Justice Shri  B.H. Marlapalle on 25th of APRIL, 2005 does  not consonance with the elaborately  prepared Report by His Honour Judge Shri  M.L. Tahaliyani of Subordinate Court as per  the directions of then His Lordship  Justice Shri J.A. Patil Dated 05th day of  JULY, 2002 in presence of  CONTEMNORS\/Respondents, their Advocate  Shri Kamdeo Raulo, City Survey Officer  Smt. Subha Fansalkar who was appointed as  COURT COMMISSIONER, Her 2 Maintenance  Surveyors Shri Shrimant Jadhav, Shri Ghag,  Petitioner herein and His Architect Shri  Mahipal Gupta on behalf of Architects  Messers DEOLE BROS. Page 2647  The Order passed by presiding Justice Shri  B.H. Marlapalle Dated 25th of APRIL, 2005  is an Arbitrary Order to save the skin of  CONTEMNORS who have wilfully violated the  Order of 19th OCTOBER, 1995 with Impunity  and to delay or deny justice. I have  brought these facts to the knowledge of  HON’BLE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR SABARWAL,  HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, SUPREME  COURT, NEW DELHI and to HON’BLE SHRI  A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM, HON’BLE PRESIDENT OF  INDIA, RASTRAPATI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI by way  of Affidavits with Exhibits stating that  it is a TRUISM of Corruption, Malpractices  and Abuses of Powers vested in presiding  Justice Shri B.H. Marlapalle; the result  in awaited I say that even during the life  time my deceased father Shri Ranchhoddas  K. Rangwala has made submission to the then  -HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA Shri  Jagdish Saran Verma vide Dated 24th  OCTOBER, 1997 but he could not get justice  since he became victim of the  circumstances and hence He could not get  justice during his life time and  Contemnors succeeded in managing the show  and as it’s result only till this day the  HON’BLE HIGH COURT, BOMBAY could not  decide the Contempt Petition  I have never expected from His Lordship  Justice Shri A.M. Khanwilkar that he will  choose wrong path instead of following  direction given by HON’BLE SUPREME COURT  OF INDIA Dated 21st day of JULY, 1997 by  directing me being Petitioner and  contemnors to walk on the path choosen by  presiding Justice Shri B.H. Marlapalle vide  paragraph 5th of His Arbitrary Order Dated  25th APRIL, 2005 which in any way and  under any circumstances not going to give  any output pertaining to this Contempt  Petition.\n<\/p>\n
19. The contents of this affidavit were  brought to my notice when the Petition was taken up  for further hearing on July 26, 2006. The matter  remained overnight part-heard on that date.  Incidentally, it may be mentioned that presumably  the Petitioner No. 2 has forwarded copy of this  affidavit to Chief Justice of Bombay High Court,  Chief Justice of India, Minister for Law and  Judiciary, Prime Minister of India, President of  India, Chairman, National Human Rights Commission  and the President of the Indian National Congress  with a note that the same is being sent to the said  dignitaries in the interest of natural justice.  This aspect is only highlighted to note that the  Petitioner No. 2, inspite of fair opportunity given  to him at every stage of this proceedings, has made  reckless, unwarranted and unsubstantiated  allegations including against the Judges of this  Court.\n<\/p>\n
20. Be that as it may, the Petitioner No. 2 who  appears in-person was apprised about the  seriousness of the allegations and was told to  consider whether he would like to retain the said  allegations on record. When the matter was taken  up for hearing on the next date as overnight  part-heard, on July 27, 2006, the Petitioner No. 2  who appeared in-person was called upon to state the  stand which he would like to take. In turn, the  Petitioner No. 2, after some deliberations, took  informed decision and made statement before the  Court that he was unconditionally withdrawing the  said allegations. On that statement, the above  said portion in his affidavit dated 24th April 2006  was directed to be effaced from the record. The  hearing of the matter proceeded further.\n<\/p>\n
21. After hearing the amicus curiae, the  Counsel for the Respondents and the Petitioner No. 2  who is appearing in-person, the arguments continued Page 2648  even after Court hours and concluded. The matter  was directed to be placed for pronouncement of  Judgment on 31st July 2006 at 11.00 a.m. The  matter was accordingly notified. When the matter  was called out, none appeared for the Petitioners.  As I wanted this Judgment to be dictated in the  presence of Petitioner No. 2, who appears in-person,  I thought it appropriate to keep the matter for  pronouncement of Judgment on 4th August 2006 at  11.00 a.m. Accordingly, the matter was notified  today for pronouncement of Judgment at 11.00 a.m.  As the Petitioner No. 2 did not appear in-person  even today at 11.00 a.m. when the matter was  called out, I kept the matter back to be taken up  after lunch break at 3.00 p.m. for pronouncement  of Judgment. Even after the lunch break, the  Petitioner No. 2 has not appeared. Instead, my  attention has been drawn to the telegram sent by  the Petitioner No. 2, wherein, he has requested that  if the Petition was to be dismissed, parties be  directed to maintain status-quo for a period of  twelve weeks. As it was certain that the  Petitioner No. 2 was not interested in remaining  present when the Judgment was to be pronounced, I  proceeded to pronounce the Judgment in the absence  of Petitioner No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
22. For deciding the controversy in this Contempt Petition, I shall straight away revert to  the order of the Apex Court for remanding this  Petition for rehearing. The Apex Court has noted  that the earlier order passed by this Court failed  to consider the report of the Court Commissioner  dated 18th March 1995 and the report of D.I.L.R.  dated 8th November 1995 as also other relevant  materials on record in order to determine whether  any construction has been made on the nallah  portion, which is the subject matter of the  Contempt Petition. At the outset, it needs to be  mentioned that the Contempt Petition as has been  filed on 1st March 1996 merely asserts demolition  and damage caused to the property belonging to the  Petitioners\/Defendants. Besides, apprehension is  expressed by the Petitioners that the  Respondents\/Plaintiffs were likely to carry out  construction on the nallah inspite of the order  dated 19th October 1995. However, the arguments in  this Contempt Petition were confined to the latter  allegation. In other words, the case made out in  the Contempt Petition about damage or demolition  caused by the Respondents\/Plaintiffs to certain  portion of the property belonging to the Petitioners\/Defendants is not argued at all before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
23. Accordingly, the only question that will  have to be considered in this Judgement is:  whether any construction has been made on the  nallah portion? To address this question, it is  necessary to ascertain the fact situation which  obtained when the order was passed on 9th October  1995. The existence of nallah which divides the  two plots was not in dispute at all. The situation  which obtained prior to October 1995, can be  ascertained from the Court Commissioner’s report  which is accompanied by the sketch plan, dated 18th  March 1995. The position as obtained then, will  have to be juxtaposed with the position which is  found on the site at the time of institution of the  Contempt Petition and even later. The Judge of the  City Civil Court has noted that the boundary wall  (broken wall) which existed earlier on the site was  not there at the time of his visit. This is the  main basis on which the report of the Judge  proceeds. In the first place, the said report  mentions that the said boundary wall was clearly  beyond the nallah Page 2649 in the portion of the property of  the Petitioners (Defendants). It is described as  “boundary of Defendants”. The fact that the said  wall was now (December 2002 when inspection was  made by the Judge) not seen, by itself, does not  establish the fact that any construction has been  put up on the nallah as such. The Judge has then  adverted to the two maps submitted by the D.I.L.R.  and opined that the same were of no assistance.  The Judge has therefore relied upon his own noting  made during the inspection of the site. The  learned Judge has also adverted to the photographs  produced by the Plaintiffs themselves which  according to him indicated that nallah portion was  covered by debris lying in nallah. The Judge has  then noted that the present position of the site is  that there is a big parking area on back side of  galas of the building of the Plaintiffs and  compound wall of the Plaintiffs whereas, in the  photographs, the galas were touching the nallah.  On this basis, opinion has been recorded that the  construction has been put up in nallah portion  after order dated 19th October 1995.\n<\/p>\n
24. Insofar as the fact noted by the Judge of  the City Civil Court on the basis of his own noting  made during the inspection of the site, Counsel for  the Respondents\/Contemnors has rightly placed  reliance on the decision of our High Court in the  case of Raghuvir Harischandra Salgaonkar v. Smt.  Saraswati Pundalik Salgaonkar . In this decision, it is held that the  Court has power to inspect the site by virtue of  Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but that  does not mean that the noting of such inspection  can be treated as evidence or relied to discard  other evidence on record. It is further held that  memorandum or the notes of inspection based on the  observations of the Judge cannot be treated as  evidence in the Suit or proceeding and cannot be on  par with any evidence because in that case, the  Judge himself would be a witness and the party,  against whom, the memorandum of notes go, would  have no opportunity of cross-examining the Judge.  Applying the principle expounded in this decision,  the opinion recorded by the lower Court Judge on  the factum of construction put up on the nallah  portion primarily on the basis of noting made by  him during inspection of the site will have to be  discarded. In that case, edifice of the opinion  noted by the Judge in his report dated 3rd March  2003 will have to be discarded in its entirety, as  it is not possible to sever the conclusion reached  by the Judge on that basis. There is yet another  reason to doubt the approach of the City Civil  Judge. For, the order of this Court dated July 5,  2002 directed the Judge to appoint T.I.L.R. as  Court Commissioner for submitting the desired  report. There was no direction to the Judge to  himself undertake investigation into the disputed  facts.\n<\/p>\n
25. Be that as it may, it is well established  position that the allegations in contempt action  have to be established by the Petitioner. In the  present case, the Petitioners have not adduced any  oral evidence inspite of the opportunity given by  this Court under order dated October 8, 1999.  Whereas, the Judge of the City Civil Court was  required to return the enquiry expressing inability  to record any positive finding, for want of  evidence. In this backdrop, this Court was  required to send back the matter to the City Civil  Court to appoint D.I.L.R. as Page 2650 Commissioner to visit  Plot Nos. 25 and 33 and draw the maps, demarcating  the existing position of the nallah as also  construction, if any, made on the nallah. Pursuant  to that order, D.I.L.R. visited the site and  submitted his report as well as map regarding the  location and the status of the suit properties and  the nallah as it exists at present. This document,  however, was discarded by the Judge of the City  Civil Court being of no assistance. Indeed, the  position that emerges on perusal of this document  is that there is no qualitative change brought  about to the location of the nallah in question.  This opinion will have to be reached on fair  analysis of the Commissioner’s report dated 18th  March 1995. The Commissioner’s report dated 18th  March 1995 which is on record, as is rightly  contended by the Respondents\/Contemnors, was not to  find out the location of the nallah at the relevant  time but generally to identify the actual situation  at site in respect of distance between the  properties and existence of nallah and existence of  boundary line, as claimed by the parties. The report is accompanied by the rough sketch submitted  by the Court Commissioner. The rough sketch does  indicate that the nallah is outside the boundary of  the plot of the Petitioners\/Defendants except the  deviation at one place. However, on fair reading  of the said report, the relevant portion whereof is  already reproduced in the earlier part of this  Judgment, it is seen that the emphasis placed by  the Court Commissioner was on noting the distances  from different locations between the existing  (constructed) building and the boundary. The  location of boundary of plots have been noted. As  the contemnors (Plaintiffs) wanted the position to  be clearly stated by the statutory Authority, the  contemnors had taken out Notice of Motion before  the Trial Court being Notice of Motion No. 3148 of  1995. The said Notice of Motion was allowed by the  Trial Court directing appointment of D.I.L.R. to  survey and demarcate the plots and nallah, to bring  quietus to the entire controversy. It must be  remembered that the original Suit is filed by the  Respondents\/Contemnors on the assertion that the  Petitioners\/Defendants were interfering and\/or  obstructing their construction activity on the plot  owned and possessed by them.\n<\/p>\n
26. By this Contempt Petition, however, the  Petitioners\/Defendants are inviting opinion of this  Court on the fact as to whether the area already  covered by the Respondents\/Contemnors by erecting  boundary wall on the portion of the plot which has  been demarcated by the D.I.L.R. to be owned and  possessed by them, is an encroachment on the plot  owned and possessed by the Petitioners\/Defendants.  Perhaps, in this backdrop, my predecessor thought  it appropriate to direct the parties to produce  registered Conveyance Deeds and property records or  other such materials to identify the area of the  plots owned and possessed by the respective  parties. There is no dispute that natural nallah  existed on the site which divided the plots of both  the parties. The D.I.L.R. in his report submitted  before the Court dated 8th November 1995, has  already demarcated the boundaries. Demarcation so  done by the D.I.L.R. who is the statutory  Authority, has not been challenged by the  Petitioners; rather the Petitioners proceeded to  withdraw the Appeal from Order No. 1224 of 1995 which took exception to the order passed by the  Trial Court appointing D.I.L.R. to undertake  survey and demarcation of plots. As a consequence  of withdrawal of that appeal, it is not open to the  Petitioners to question either the appointment of Page 2651  or the finding noted in the D.I.L.R’s. report,  which is the subtle attempt of the Petitioners.  Going by the report submitted by the D.I.L.R.  after his visit made at the site, and which report  has attained finality, there is no room for doubt  to proceed to decide the matter in issue on the  basis of such report. The report clearly indicates  that the boundary wall constructed by the  Respondents\/contemnors is clearly on the property  owned and possessed by them. The water nallah  flows along the said boundary wall. The location  of the boundary wall has been noted in the report  dated 8th November 1995 as well as the map appended  to the report. This report dated 8th November 1995  prepared by the D.I.L.R. will have to be therefore  taken as the basis for deciding the matter in issue as to whether the contemnors have put up any  construction on the nallah portion. The position  which has been noted in the report dated 8th November 1995 about “location of the boundary of  the respective plots” and the existence of nallah  has remained unaltered. This can be compared with  the D.I.L.R’s report submitted in terms of order  dated 5th July 2002 passed by this Court. As the  position remains unchanged in both these reports  with regard to the boundary of the respective  parties and the Petitioners having failed to adduce  any positive evidence to counter the said reports  and maps submitted by D.I.L.R., it is unfathomable  that the Petitioners can persuade this Court to  continue with the contempt action against the  Respondents\/Contemnors. Between the two reports of  the D.I.L.R., there is one more report which was  invited by this Court in the present Contempt  Petition in terms of order dated 15th March 1996.  It has come on record that the Petitioners did not  cooperate the Court Commissioner who had visited  the site on 20th March 1996 for inspection. This  report indicates that the nallah is flowing along  with the tin-sheet wall put up by the contemnors on  the boundary of the property owned and possessed by  them. It will not be appropriate for this Court to  consider the challenge to the D.I.L.R’s. report in the present proceedings. If the Petitioners were  not satisfied with that report, they had statutory  remedy before the superior Authority. The  Petitioners have not resorted to that remedy. In  fact, the petitioners withdrew the Appeal from  Order No. 1224 of 1995 filed before this Court,  notwithstanding the objection raised by the  Petitioners to the said D.I.L.R’s. report.\n<\/p>\n
27. Be that as it may, on perusing the report  of the D.I.L.R. dated 8th November 1995 and if  juxtaposed with the recent D I.L.R’s. report  received in terms of order dated 5th July 2002 or  the report submitted by the Court Commissioner  dated 20th March 1996 which was drawn immediately  after the construction activity had commenced and  was in progress on the site, leaves no manner of  doubt that the boundary wall constructed by the  contemnors clearly falls within the area of plot  owned and possessed by the contemnors. It will  have to be remembered that the construction  undertaken by the contemnors was as per the  permission granted by the Corporation and  consistent with the demarcation of plots done by the D.I.L.R. The original water nallah was a  natural nallah water course which existed for quite  some time. As per the Corporation layout plan, the  nallah has been notified. There is nothing to  indicate from the record that the boundary wall  constructed by the contemnors on their plot, in any  manner, encroaches upon the nallah or the proposed  nallah provided in the layout plan. Indeed,  Petitioner No. 2 had argued that the nallah provided  in the layout plan is unacceptable. According to  the Petitioners, there was already Page 2652 existing  building on the neighbouring plot. In such a  situation, there was no question of providing  nallah which would cut across the said building.  It is not necessary for this Court to enter upon  the said controversy. Going back to the opinion  recorded by the Judge of the City Civil Court, it  proceeds on the basis of the fact that the boundary  wall of the Petitioners was not noticed during the  inspection undertaken by him in December 2002. He  has also noted that the maps M-I and M-II make no  mention of the red dotted line denoting the broken  wall (boundary of Petitioners). That there was  vast difference between the two maps. He has then relied on old photographs produced by the  Plaintiffs (contemnors). It is also noted that  there is big parking area between the back side of  galas of the building of Respondents (Plaintiffs),  which is inconsistent with the position occurring  from the photograph. As in the photograph, it is  seen that the gala was touching the nallah.  Suffice it to observe that the approach of the  concerned Judge is not proper. It would have been  a different matter if the Judge was to record the  distance between different locations and note that  the distances so given in the map appended to the  Court Commissioner’s report dated 18th March 1995  have undergone any change with reference to the  boundary of the plot of the Respondents  (Contemnors) as such. I have compared the two maps  M-I and M-II. I have not noticed any change in the  location of the building constructed by the  Respondents from the demarcated boundary of plot  owned and possessed by the Respondents. The  Petitioners have not been able to establish the  fact that the boundary wall constructed by the  Respondents is beyond the portion of plot owned and  possessed by them as has been demarcated by the  D.I.L.R. Nor it is the case of the Petitioners  that on account of construction of the boundary  wall by the Respondents, the plot owned and  possessed by the Petitioners have reduced in size  to less that 2693.59 square meters which has been  conveyed to them in terms of registered Sale Deed  in their favour dated December 6, 1979 or for that  matter, the area of plot owned and possessed by the  Respondents has increased exceeding 2892.08 square  meters conveyed to them as per registered Sale Deed  dated November 30, 1969.\n<\/p>\n
28. Be that as it may, the limited controversy  that needs to be examined in the present  proceedings is: whether the contemnors have put up  any construction on the nallah as existed on 19th  October 1995? As has been found earlier, the  reports available on record clearly establish the  position that the contemnors have put up boundary  wall within the area of plot owned and possessed by  the Petitioners. The demarcation of plots has been  done by D.I.L.R. The Contemnors proceeded with the  construction activity only after the demarcation  was done by D.I.L.R. in terms of his report dated 8th November 1995. The Petitioners have accepted  the said D.I.L.R’s. report, as they have allowed  the same to attain finality. For, have withdrawn  the Appeal from Order No. 1224 of 1994,  notwithstanding the objections filed to the  D.I.L.R. report and the plan prepared by him.  Assuming that some portion of original nallah was  affected, while putting up the boundary wall by the  contemnors on their plot, however, as the boundary  wall has been put up by the contemnors in the area  of plot demarcated by the D.I.L.R. as owned and  possessed by them, after seeking necessary  approvals from the Municipal Authorities,  therefore, it is not possible to accept the  grievance that such construction has been done in  utter defiance of the order of the Court so as to  constitute civil contempt.\n<\/p>\n
Page 2653<\/p>\n
29. I am conscious of the fact that in the  first Commissioner’s report dated 18th March 1995,  it is noticed that most of the natural nallah has  been noted as falling outside the boundary wall on  the portion of the plot of the Petitioners except,  at one place. However, I am in agreement with the  stand taken by the Respondents that the said report  was not for the purpose of identifying the location  of the nallah as it existed earlier, but was  intended to identify the distance of the boundary  from the building constructed by the contemnors on  their plot.\n<\/p>\n
30. Taking overall view of the matter, I have  no hesitation in concluding that in the first  place, the Petitioners have failed to produce  tangible evidence before the Court to substantiate  the allegation that the contemnors have put up  construction on the nallah portion. It is relevant  to notice that whenever Commissioner was appointed  to inspect the site, the Petitioners have failed to  cooperate during the preparation of report as noted  by the Commissioners themselves. Besides, the  reports which are on record for the relevant  period, do not persuade me to hold that the  contemnors have put up any construction on the  nallah portion, much less, in utter defiance of the  order of the Court. If such is the factual matrix  of the case, the inevitable conclusion is that this  Petition is devoid of merits. I may, however, clarify that the opinion or finding recorded in  this Judgment is for the limited purpose of  examining as to whether the Respondents have put up  any construction in defiance of the order of the  Court. It will be open to the Petitioners to  pursue such other remedy as may be permissible by  law to establish their claim with regard to any  portion of the property as may be advised. Those  proceedings will have to be decided on its own  merits in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
31. While parting, I have to express word of  gratitude for Mr. I.M. Khairadi who appeared as  amicus curiae to espouse the cause of the  Petitioners. It may not be out of place to mention  that at one stage, even Mr. Khairadi wanted to  disassociate himself from this matter, but on my  request, he continued to appear in the matter and  gave able assistance.\n<\/p>\n
32. It is brought to my notice by the Counsel  for the Respondents that the Petitioner No. 2,  although gave oral assurance that he was  withdrawing the allegations contained in his affidavit dated 24th April 2006 (bracketed portion)  and was expected to file a formal affidavit to  place on record that fact by 28th July 2006,  however, the Petitioner No. 2 has not bothered to  file that affidavit till today. The Petitioner  No.2 who was appearing in-person throughout, in  fact, has not appeared at the time of pronouncement  of the Judgment as noted earlier. The manner in  which Petitioner No. 2 conducted himself in having  made reckless allegations against the sitting Judge  of this Court in his affidavit, itself should be a  ground to non-suit the Petitioners and for  initiating appropriate action against the  Petitioner No. 2. However, as the Petitioner No. 2  was appearing in-person and on persuading him to  withdraw the offending portion in his affidavit, he  agreed to do so, for which reason, I thought it  appropriate not to precipitate the matter.\n<\/p>\n
33. Accordingly, this Petition is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Ranchhoddas Karsondas Rangwala … vs Nalinchandra Gordhandas … on 4 August, 2006 Author: A Khanwilkar Bench: A Khanwilkar JUDGMENT A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Page 2633 1. This Contempt Petition was disposed of on August 20, 1996. Against the said decision, Petitioners carried the matter in Appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court […]<\/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-206719","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRanchhoddas Karsondas Rangwala ... vs Nalinchandra Gordhandas ... on 4 August, 2006 - 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\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ranchhoddas Karsondas Rangwala ... vs Nalinchandra Gordhandas ... on 4 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-06T13:48:43+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=\"60 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ranchhoddas Karsondas Rangwala … vs Nalinchandra Gordhandas … on 4 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-06T13:48:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":12074,\"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\\\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006\",\"name\":\"Ranchhoddas Karsondas Rangwala ... vs Nalinchandra Gordhandas ... on 4 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-06T13:48:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ranchhoddas Karsondas Rangwala … vs Nalinchandra Gordhandas … on 4 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Ranchhoddas Karsondas Rangwala ... vs Nalinchandra Gordhandas ... on 4 August, 2006 - 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\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ranchhoddas Karsondas Rangwala ... vs Nalinchandra Gordhandas ... on 4 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-06T13:48:43+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":"60 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ranchhoddas Karsondas Rangwala … vs Nalinchandra Gordhandas … on 4 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-06T13:48:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006"},"wordCount":12074,"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\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006","name":"Ranchhoddas Karsondas Rangwala ... vs Nalinchandra Gordhandas ... on 4 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-06T13:48:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranchhoddas-karsondas-rangwala-vs-nalinchandra-gordhandas-on-4-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ranchhoddas Karsondas Rangwala … vs Nalinchandra Gordhandas … on 4 August, 2006"}]},{"@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\/206719","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=206719"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206719\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=206719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=206719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=206719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}