{"id":212772,"date":"2010-08-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010"},"modified":"2015-07-08T23:57:14","modified_gmt":"2015-07-08T18:27:14","slug":"smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Tulsabai W vs 3) Mh.L.J. 521. Learned Advocate on 11 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Smt.Tulsabai W vs 3) Mh.L.J. 521. Learned Advocate on 11 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Bhangale<\/div>\n
                                                                 1\n\n\n                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                   \n                                     BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.\n\n                                      SECOND APPEAL NO.    440 \/2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n    Smt.Tulsabai  wd\/o  Ramkrishna  Avatade\n    Aged about 51 years,  occu: Cultivator\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n    R\/o Khadaki (Bu), Tah.Maregaon\n    Dist. Yavatmal.\n    ( Ori. Defendant No.10                                                    ...               ...APPELLANT\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                      v e r s u s        \n    1.                Smt. Rajani  wd\/o Rajkumar Punyani\n                                        \n                      Aged 56 years, occu: service\n                      R\/o Station Road, Yavatmal\n                      Dist. Yavatmal C\/o Office of \n                      District Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal\n                      (Ori.Plaintiff)\n       \n\n\n    2.                Gopichand  s\/o Rajkumar Punyani\n    \n\n\n\n                      Aged   about 36 years,  occu: Business\n                      R\/o Shivaji Nagar Yavatmal\n                      Dist. Yavatmal\n                      (Ori.Defendant No.2).               ..                                     ...RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n    ............................................................................................................................\n                        Mr. K.S. Narwade,  Advocate for appellant\n                        Mr. A. M. Deshmukh,   Advocate  for Respondents\n    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                            CORAM:   A.P.BHANGALE, J.\n                                                            DATED :   11th  August, 2010\n\n     JUDGMENT :   \n<\/pre>\n
                      This Second Appeal was admitted on 24th September, 2009 on <\/p>\n
    the following  substantial question of law :-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:16:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
                  “Whether  the counter-claim for specific performance of <\/p>\n
                  contract could be said to be barred by limitation?”\n<\/p>\n
    2.           This   Appeal   is     at   the   instance   of   original   defendant   no.1 <\/p>\n
    challenging the judgment and   order dated 17th  July, 2008 passed   by <\/p>\n
    learned   District   Judge-1   at   Pandharakwada     in   Regular   Civil   Appeal <\/p>\n
    No.77\/2003     which   was   dismissed.     The   said   appeal   stems     from <\/p>\n
    judgment  and decree passed on 3rd   September, 2001  by learned Joint <\/p>\n
    Civil   Judge,     Senior   Division,   Yavatmal       in   Special   Civil   Suit   No. <\/p>\n
    95\/1991.\n<\/p>\n
    3.           The plaintiff had instituted the suit for possession, damages <\/p>\n
    and costs of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner  of the <\/p>\n
    land bearing Gat No. 53 ( Old S.No. 34)  admeasuring  4H 31R situated <\/p>\n
    at  village   Khadaki,  Taluqa: Maregaon, Dist. Yavatmal.  The suit land <\/p>\n
    was originally allotted in favour of one Shri  Rajkumar Punyani, husband <\/p>\n
    of the plaintiff  some in    1967-68, by the Government.   After death of <\/p>\n
    Rajkumar  Punyani,       the  plaintiff  and her  son  (ori.  Defendant  no.2) <\/p>\n
    became  owner  of  the  suit  property    and were  cultivating    as  Class II <\/p>\n
    occupants.   The suit land could  not be  alienated or sold without prior <\/p>\n
    permission of the Government.   In 1995  first  defendant’s brother  was <\/p>\n
    assigned the work of summer season (unhalwai) on payment of charges;\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:16:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
    but he took   disadvantage     and cultivated the suit land   and inducted <\/p>\n
    name of first defendant, who took forcible possession pleading that she <\/p>\n
    has purchased under an agreement to sell   and cultivated the land on <\/p>\n
    that pretext. First defendant contended that there was an oral agreement <\/p>\n
    to   sell   the   suit   land   and   price   of   suit   was   agreed     at   Rs.   49,000\/-;\n<\/p>\n
    whereas     Rs.   36,000\/-     was   paid   by   way   of   an   earnest   money   and <\/p>\n
    possession of land  was handed over to her,  while  she agreed to pay Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    13,000\/-   at the time of sale deed pursuant to agreement to sell dated <\/p>\n
    25.5.1992.   Later on,  it was agreed on 29.4.1994 to  obtain permission <\/p>\n
    of the Collector   so  as  to execute the sale deed  as plaintiff’s husband <\/p>\n
    was Class II occupant.   The permission sought  was, however, rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    4.            The trial  Court   after  dissecting  the evidence  led before it, <\/p>\n
    found that the plaintiff and second defendant  agreed to sell the suit field <\/p>\n
    to first  defendant and that she had paid earnest money in the sum of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    36,000\/- to the     plaintiff and her son ( defendant no.2). The trial Court <\/p>\n
    disbelieved   the   case   of   the   first   defendant     that   she     was     put   in <\/p>\n
    possession of the suit land  pursuant to  an agreement to sell.   The trial <\/p>\n
    Court   also   negatived   the   case   of   the   first     defendant   for     specific <\/p>\n
    performance and alternate case for refund of Rs. 36,000\/- and decreed <\/p>\n
    suit of the plaintiff for possession of suit land  and also directed inquiry <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:16:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
    into  mesne  profits.     The trial Court rejected the counter-claim   of first <\/p>\n
    defendant.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           The Appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code filed <\/p>\n
    by first defendant being Regular Civil Appeal No. 77\/2003     was also <\/p>\n
    dismissed   as   lower   Appellate   Court   recorded     concurrent   findings   of <\/p>\n
    facts.\n<\/p>\n
    6.           I have heard submissions at the Bar from rival  Advocates.\n<\/p>\n
    7.           Mr. K S Narwade, learned  Advocate for appellant ( Ori. first <\/p>\n
    defendant ) submitted that the Second Appeal   can be heard     on the <\/p>\n
    basis of substantial question of law   stated   in the     memorandum of <\/p>\n
    appeal although the Court may have   failed to formulate it, once the <\/p>\n
    Court is satisfied that the  case involved substantial question of law. He <\/p>\n
    relied   upon     single   Judge   Bench   ruling   reported   in  Bapu   Khanu  <\/p>\n
    Dhangar  & others  vs. Gundu Santu Dhangar<\/a> { Through LRs}  : 2001 <\/p>\n
    (3) Mh.L.J.   521.   Learned Advocate, further, argued that the counter-\n<\/p>\n
    claim    by the  first defendant ought to have been allowed for specific <\/p>\n
    performance   of the agreement   as the first defendant   was       put in <\/p>\n
    possession of the suit property pursuant to an agreement to sell and it <\/p>\n
    was for the vendor to obtain prior permission of the Collector  to transfer <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:16:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
    the suit land to the first   defendant.     He   further made reference     to <\/p>\n
    following   rulings :-\n<\/p>\n
                 (i)           Nathulal vs. Phoolchand<\/a>:\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n                               AIR 1970 SC 546\n                 (ii)         Rojasara Ramjibhai Dahyabhai  vs. Jani \n                              Narottamdas<\/a> {Through LRs }: AIR 1986  SC 1912;\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n                 (iii)        M.A. Jabbar  & another vs. Life Insurance \n<\/pre>\n
                              Corporation  Housing  Building Employees Society:\n<\/p>\n
                              2000 AIHC   2761 (AP).\n<\/p>\n
                 Learned  Advocate Shri Narwade,  argued that in a contract if <\/p>\n
    specific date for performance is fixed,   Art. 113 of the Limitation Act <\/p>\n
    1963, (hereinafter  referred to as the “Act of 1963”) would be attracted <\/p>\n
    and not Art. 54   of the Act of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
    8.           Per   contra,     Mr   Deshmukh,   learned   Advocate   for   the <\/p>\n
    respondents    opposed  with vim and  vigour   the submissions on behalf <\/p>\n
    of the appellant on the ground the alleged agreement to sell was entered <\/p>\n
    into   on  25.5.1992 on the pretext    that the plaintiff had agreed to sell <\/p>\n
    suit land to first defendant.  The counter -claim filed on 18.10.1999   in <\/p>\n
    the suit to claim specific performance of the agreement was hopelessly <\/p>\n
    barred by Art. 113 of the Act of 1963  as sale deed  was to be  executed <\/p>\n
    in  the  year     1993        and  possession  was   to    be     given  earlier.    The <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:16:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
    possession was never given by the plaintiff in 1991   and therefore, for <\/p>\n
    the first   defendant,   there was no question of claiming benefit   of the <\/p>\n
    doctrine of possession given in   part performance of the agreement to <\/p>\n
    sell. Learned Advocate for the respondents contended that in the facts <\/p>\n
    and     circumstances   of   the   present   case,   the     rulings   relied   upon   by <\/p>\n
    learned   Advocate   for   the   appellants     are   not   at   all   attracted,   for   the <\/p>\n
    simple  reason that the  counter-claim was barred under Art. 113   of the <\/p>\n
    Act of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
    9.            It   appears,     in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   present <\/p>\n
    present  case, that  there  was no permission from the Collector to enable <\/p>\n
    Class II   occupant – allottee from the Government land  to transfer the <\/p>\n
    land, therefore,   no sale   deed could   have been executed.   Under Art.\n<\/p>\n
    113   of the Act of  1963 residuary  article clearly provides for period of <\/p>\n
    limitation of the years from the time  when  the   right to sue  accrued.\n<\/p>\n
    In   the     present   case,   the   Collector   of   Yavatmal   had   refused   to   grant <\/p>\n
    permission on 30.1.1999.   Predecessor-in-title  of the plaintiff was late <\/p>\n
    Rajkumar  Tekchand Punyani,  who was allotted  the suit land in  1967-\n<\/p>\n
    68 for cultivating it as Class II occupant.   The alleged agreement to sell <\/p>\n
    was   entered   into   between   the   plaintiff   and   the   first     defendant   on <\/p>\n
    25.5.1992 for earnest money  of Rs. 36,000\/-  and  the balance of  Rs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:16:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
    13,000\/- was payable     by     7.4.1993. Under these circumstances, the <\/p>\n
    counter-claim was rightly rejected in view of Art. 113  of the Act of  1963 <\/p>\n
    as barred by limitation prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
    10.          Both the Courts below   have recorded   concurrent findings <\/p>\n
    in respect of bar of limitation. Counter-claim is  treated   as  separate suit <\/p>\n
    and is deemed to have been instituted on the date on which  it is  made <\/p>\n
    in the Court.       In  Dudh Nath Pandey     {Through LRs}   vs. Suresh <\/p>\n
    Chandra {Through LRs}: AIR   1986 SC 1509,    it is held that  finding <\/p>\n
    on  limitation  is  finding  of   fact   and    cannot  be      interfered with  in <\/p>\n
    Second Appeal by the High Court in   exercise of powers under section <\/p>\n
    100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
    11.          In the facts and circumstances of the present  case,  on merits, <\/p>\n
    the trial Court has found upon evidence led, that the plaintiff and second <\/p>\n
    defendant had agreed to   sell the suit land to the first defendant   and <\/p>\n
    accepted   earnest   money   in   the   sum   of   Rs.   36,000\/-     from   the   first <\/p>\n
    defendant.   In  view of this finding recorded by the trial Court, although <\/p>\n
    the   agreement to sell became  void  on account of subsequent   refusal <\/p>\n
    of permission from the Collector, Yavatmal, the  agreement turned out to <\/p>\n
    be   void   or   impossible   of   performance,   but   the   plaintiffs   and   original <\/p>\n
    defendant no.2,   in view of the Section 65   of the India Contract Act, <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:16:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
    are   liable to restore  back   the  advantage received from the appellant <\/p>\n
    or to make compensation for it  to the first defendant (appellant) from <\/p>\n
    whom they had received it.  An useful reference may be   made to ruling <\/p>\n
    in Chandan Mulji    Nishar vs. Union of India<\/a> : 2008(1) Mh.L.J.  703, <\/p>\n
    to find support to the  above proposition. As  a  result  of this discussion, <\/p>\n
    this   Court   must     conclude   that   the   counter-claim       was   barred   by <\/p>\n
    limitation and no interference is   required with concurrent findings of <\/p>\n
    facts recorded by the Courts below. The Appeal has to be dismissed on <\/p>\n
    this count.   The plaintiff  and original defendant no.2  are,  however, in <\/p>\n
    view of Section 65  of the Indian Contract Act,  are liable to refund the <\/p>\n
    amount received in the sum of   Rs. 36,000 \/- as earnest money to the <\/p>\n
    appellant ( first defendant ), along with interest  at the rate of  6 % per  <\/p>\n
    annum,  from the date of counter-claim   till realisation thereof. As the <\/p>\n
    parties  are  required to be  restored back to their position as prior to the <\/p>\n
    suit     agreement,   there   shall   be   modification   to   this   extent   in   decree <\/p>\n
    passed by the trial Court. The Appeal is partly  allowed accordingly. No <\/p>\n
    order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                               JUDGE<\/p>\n
    sahare<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:16:22 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Smt.Tulsabai W vs 3) Mh.L.J. 521. Learned Advocate on 11 August, 2010 Bench: A.P. Bhangale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO. 440 \/2008 Smt.Tulsabai wd\/o Ramkrishna Avatade Aged about 51 years, occu: Cultivator R\/o Khadaki (Bu), Tah.Maregaon Dist. Yavatmal. ( Ori. Defendant […]<\/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-212772","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.Tulsabai W vs 3) Mh.L.J. 521. Learned Advocate on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Tulsabai W vs 3) Mh.L.J. 521. Learned Advocate on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-08T18:27:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Tulsabai W vs 3) Mh.L.J. 521. Learned Advocate on 11 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-08T18:27:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1471,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt.Tulsabai W vs 3) Mh.L.J. 521. Learned Advocate on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-08T18:27:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Tulsabai W vs 3) Mh.L.J. 521. Learned Advocate on 11 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt.Tulsabai W vs 3) Mh.L.J. 521. Learned Advocate on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Tulsabai W vs 3) Mh.L.J. 521. Learned Advocate on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-08T18:27:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Tulsabai W vs 3) Mh.L.J. 521. Learned Advocate on 11 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-08T18:27:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010"},"wordCount":1471,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010","name":"Smt.Tulsabai W vs 3) Mh.L.J. 521. Learned Advocate on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-08T18:27:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-tulsabai-w-vs-3-mh-l-j-521-learned-advocate-on-11-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Tulsabai W vs 3) Mh.L.J. 521. Learned Advocate on 11 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212772","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=212772"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212772\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212772"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212772"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212772"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}