{"id":215114,"date":"1996-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996"},"modified":"2015-02-25T21:11:47","modified_gmt":"2015-02-25T15:41:47","slug":"sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996","title":{"rendered":"Sevaliram Gotiram Teli … vs Madhukar Yeshwant Patankar & Ors on 19 November, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sevaliram Gotiram Teli … vs Madhukar Yeshwant Patankar & Ors on 19 November, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: S Majmudar<\/div>\n
Bench: N.P. Singh, S.B. Majmudar<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSEVALIRAM GOTIRAM TELI (DECEASED)BY HEIRS AND LRS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMADHUKAR YESHWANT PATANKAR & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t19\/11\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nN.P. SINGH, S.B. MAJMUDAR\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     S.B. Majmudar, J.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t this\tappeal\tthe  question  that  falls  for\t our
\nconsideration is as to whether heirs of a tenant governed by
\nthe provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
\n1948 (hereinafter  referred  to\t as  `the  Act’)  can  claim
\nrestoration of possession of the land under the provision of
\nSection\t 32(1B)\t of  the  Act  when  such  proceedings\twere
\ninitiated  suo\t motu  by   the\t Mamlatdar   concerned.\t The
\nAdditional  Mamlatdar,\t the  Deputy   Collector   and\t the
\nMaharashtra Revenue  Tribunal held  in favor of the heirs of
\nthe tenant  and ordered\t restoration of\t possession  of\t the
\nlands from  the\t respondent-landlords.\tThe  High  Court  of
\nBombay by the judgment under appeal took a contrary view and
\nheld that  such proceedings  are maintainable  only for\t the
\ntenant concerned  and not  for his heirs. It is this view of
\nthe Bombay  High Court\twhich brought  in challenge  in\t the
\npresent proceedings by the heirs of the erstwhile tenant.\n<\/p>\n
     A few  relevant facts  may be  noted at the outset. One
\nSavaliram Gotiram  Teli was the tenant of three agricultural
\nlands being  Survey Nos.  88, 89  and 90 situated at Village
\nTrimbak in  Nasik Taluka  in Maharashtra  State. Respondents
\nwere the  landlords of the said lands. On the appointed day,
\nthat is, 15th June 1955 the said tenant was in occupation of
\nthese lands.  He was  dispossessed by the landlords prior to
\n1st April  1957 otherwise  than under  an appropriate  order
\nunder Section  29 of the Act. After dispossessing the tenant
\nthe respondent-landlords  remained in possession of the said
\nlands  till   31st  July   1969.  The  Additional  Mamlatdar
\ninstituted suo motu proceedings under Section 32 (1B) of the
\nAct of\tthe ground  that the tenant was in possession of the
\nlands on  the appointed day and he was dispossessed prior to
\nthe tillers  day, that\tis, 1st\t April 1957 by the landlords
\nwithout following  due procedure  of law  and the  lands  in
\nquestion were  in  possession  of  the\tlandlords  of  their
\nsuccessors-in-interest on 31st July 1969 and, therefore, the
\nrespondents were  liable to  restore the  possession of\t the
\nlands to  the heirs  of the tenant even though the tenant in
\nthe  meantime  had  died  in  1959.  As\t all  the  requisite
\ncondition for  applicability of\t Section 32(1B)\t of the\t Act
\nwere found  to have  been satisfied  the Special  Additional
\nTahsildar,  Nasik  by  his  order  dated  20th\tAugust\t1971
\ndirected the  respondent-landlords to  restore the  lands to
\nthe heirs of the tenant under Section 32 (1B) of the Act for
\npersonal cultivation.  The said\t order was challenged by the
\nlandlords  by\tfiling\tTenancy\t Appeal\t which\tcame  to  be
\ndismissed by  Leave Reserve  Deputy Collector, Nasik on 10th
\nJanuary 1972.  Respondent-landlords carried  the  matter  in
\nrevision  before  the  Maharashtra  Revenue  Tribunal  under
\nSection 70\tof the\tAct. That  Revision Application\t was
\nalso dismissed.\t It is\tthereafter,  that  the\trespondents,
\naggrieved by  the order\t of the\t Revenue Tribunal  dated 2nd
\nMarch 1973,  carried the  matter in appeal under Article 227
\nof the\tConstitution of\t India to  the High Court of Bombay.
\nThe only  question argued  before  the\tHigh  Court  by\t the
\nrespondents was\t as to whether the proceedings under Section
\n32 (1B)\t of the\t Act for  the benefit  of the  heirs of\t the
\noriginal tenant\t could be  maintained.\tThe  learned  Single
\nJudge of  the High  Court by  his order dated 1st March 1978
\npersuaded himself  to hold  that such  proceedings were\t not
\nmaintainable for  the heirs of the erstwhile tenant and only
\nthe tenant  could have\tinitiated such\tproceeding and as he
\nhad died  in 1959 and as during his lifetime he had taken no
\nsteps to  get restoration  of possession of the lands within
\ntwo years  from the  date of dispossession as per Section 29
\nof the Act his tenancy rights had got extinguished and could
\nnot be inherited by the appellant-heirs and consequently the
\nproceedings under  Section 32 (1B) of the Act were liable to
\nthe quashed on that ground. It is the aforesaid order of the
\nlearned Single\tJudge of  the High Court which is brought in
\nchallenge in the present proceedings as noted earlier.\n<\/p>\n
     At the  time when\tthis appeal was finally heard before
\nus it  was brought  to out notice by learned counsel for the
\nappellants that the aforesaid decision of the learned Single
\nJudge which  was reported  in AIR  1979 Bombay\t117 has been
\noverruled by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in
\nthe case  of Pandharinath  Sakharam Chavan  v. Bhagwan\tRamu
\nKate & Ors. AIR 1 Bombay 203 and it has been held by the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court that such proceedings under
\nSection 32  (1B) of  the Act  were maintainable\t even at the
\ninstance of the heirs of the original deceased tenant if the
\nstatutory conditions  for applicability\t of the Section were
\ncomplied with.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel\t for  the  respondents\ton  the\t other\thand
\nsubmitted that\tthough the  Division Bench of the High Court
\nhas overruled  this judgment so far as these proceedings are
\nconcerned this\tCourt may  uphold the  view of\tthe  learned
\nSingle Judge  as the same is well sustained on the scheme of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Having given  our anxious\tconsideration to  the  rival
\ncontentions we\tfind that on the express language of Section
\n32 (1B)\t of the\t Act the  view taken  by the  learned Single
\nJudge of  the High  Court in the impugned Judgment cannot be
\nsustained. Section 32 (1B) of the Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “32 (1B). Where a tenant who was in
\n     possession on the appointed day and
\n     who  on   account\tof   his   being
\n     dispossessed before  the 1st day of
\n     April 1957\t otherwise than\t in  the
\n     manner  and  by  an  order\t of  the
\n     Tahsildar as  provided  in\t section
\n     29, is  not in  possession\t of  the
\n     land on  the said date and the land
\n     is\t in   the  possession\tof   the
\n     landlord\tor   his   successor-in-
\n     interest on  the 31st  day of  July
\n     1969 and  the land\t is not put to a
\n     non-agriculture use  on  or  before
\n     the last  mentioned date, then, the
\n     Tahsildar\tshall,\t notwithstanding
\n     anything  contained   in  the  said
\n     section 29,  either suo  motu or on
\n     the application of the tenant, hold
\n     an inquiry\t and  direct  that  such
\n     land  shall   be  taken   from  the
\n     possession of  the landlord  or, as
\n     the case  may be, his successor-in-
\n     interest, and  shall be restored to
\n     the  tenant;  and\tthereafter,  the
\n     provisions\t of   this  section  and
\n     sections\t32-A\tt   32-R   (both
\n     inclusive) shall, in so far as they
\n     may be  applicable, apply\tthereto,
\n     subject to\t the  modification  that
\n     the tenant\t shall be deemed to have
\n     purchased the  land on  the date on
\n     which the land is restored to him:
\n     Provided that,  the tenant shall be
\n     entitled to restoration of the land
\n     under this\t sub-section only  if he
\n     undertakes to  cultivate  the  land
\n     personally and  of so  much thereof
\n     as together  with\tthe  other  land
\n     held by  him  as  owner  or  tenant
\n     shall not exceed the ceiling area.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Explanation.- In  this  sub-section
\n     “successor-in-interest”   means   a
\n     person who acquires the interest by
\n     testamentary     disposition     or
\n     devolution on death.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A mere  look at  the  said\t provision  shows  that\t for
\napplicability of the said provision the following conditions
\nmust be satisfied:\n<\/p>\n
(1)  The tenant governed by the Act must be in possession on
\n     the appointed day, that is, 15th June 1955.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  He should\thave been  dispossessed before\tthe  tillers
\n     day, that\tis, 1st\t April 1957  otherwise than  in\t the
\n     manner and\t by an order of the Tahsildar as provided in
\n     Section 29.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  The said  land must be in possession of the landlord or
\n     his successor-in-interest on 31st day of July 1969.
\n(4)  The land  should not  have been put to non-agricultural
\n     use by  the landlord  on or before the 31st day of July
\n     1969.\n<\/p>\n
     Once the  aforesaid four  conditions  are\tsatisfied  a
\nstatutory duty\tis cast\t on  the  Tahsildar  notwithstanding
\nanything contained  in Section\t29 either  suo\tmotu  or  on
\napplication of the tenant to hold an inquiry and direct that
\nsuch land shall be taken from the possession of the landlord
\nor his\tsuccessor-in-interest and  shall be  restored to the
\ntenant. Once  that happens the provisions of Section 32-A to
\n32-R of\t the Act will get attracted and the concerned tenant
\nwould be declared deemed purchaser of the land on the day on
\nwhich the  land is  restored to him. However the restoration
\norder will  be subject\tto the\tundertaking of the tenant to
\ncultivate the  land personally.\t There is  no dispute in the
\npresent case that all the aforesaid conditions are satisfied
\nby the\tappellants. The\t High Court  also has  not  taken  a
\ncontrary view  on the  applicability  of  these\t conditions,
\nnamely, that  the original tenant Savaliram Gotiram Teli was
\nin possession  of the lands of 15th June 1955, the appointed
\nday. That  he was  dispossessed before 1st April 1957 by the
\nrespondent-landlords  without  following  the  procedure  of
\nSection 29. That thereafter the lands remained in possession
\nof the\trespondents upto 31st July 1969 and they did not put
\nthe lands  to non-agricultural\tuse. Once  these  conditions
\nwere satisfied\tin suo\tmotu proceedings  taken out  by\t the
\nTahsildar it  was the  statutory obligation of the Tahsildar
\nto restore  the lands  to the  tenant. Unfortunately  by the
\ntime these  proceedings could  be initiated  and Section  32
\n(1B) could  operate the\t tenant had died in 1959. It is only
\non this\t ground that  the High\tCourt took the view that the
\ntenant’s heirs\tcannot get the benefit of Section 32 (1B) of
\nthe Act.  The learned  Single Judge in order to come to this
\nconclusion placed  reliance on\ttwo circumstances,  (i)\t the
\ntenant in  his lifetime\t after dispossession  had not  taken
\nsteps to  get restoration  of possession under Section 29 of
\nthe Act\t within two  years of  dispossession; and  (ii)\t the
\nSection nowhere\t expressly contemplated\t that the land could
\nbe restored  to successor-in-interest of the tenant when the
\nSection itself provided that the land could be in possession
\nof landlord  or his  successor-in-interest  meaning  thereby
\nproceedings could  be initiated\t even against the successor-
\nin-interest of the landlord but the Section nowhere provided
\na similar  right in  favour of\tthe successor-in-interest of
\nthe tenant.  In our view with respect both these grounds are
\nunsustainable for  non-suiting the appellants. So far as the
\nfirst ground  is concerned  it has  to be  kept in view that
\nSection 32  (1B) of  the Act  itself operates on its own and
\nincludes within\t it the\t non obstante clause meaning thereby
\noverriding the\tprovision of  Section 29  of the  Act.\tThis
\nclearly means that whether the erstwhile tenant had followed
\nthe provisions\tof Section 29 or not for getting restoration
\nof possession of the land from the landlord within two years
\nunder  Section\t 29  was   irrelevant  as  a  further  locus
\npenitential is given to such tenants by the express language
\nof Section  32 (1B)  of the  Act and  the said Section would
\noperate\t independently\t of  and   de\thors   section\t 29.
\nUnfortunately the  effect in  this non\tobstante  clause  is
\nmissed by  the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the
\nimpugned  judgment.  The  Division  Bench  in  the  case  of
\nPandharinath (supra)  has rightly  pointed out the said flaw
\nin the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Once Section 32
\n(1B) operates  on its  own independently  of  provisions  of
\nSection 29 of the Act the result becomes obvious, Section 40
\nof the\tAct then  squarely gets\t attracted. Section 40 reads
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
     “S.40. (1)\t Where a  tenant  (other
\n     than a  permanent tenant) dies, the
\n     landlord shall  be deemed\tto  have
\n     continued the  tenancy on\tthe same
\n     terms and\tconditions on which such
\n     tenant was\t holding it  at the time
\n     of his death, to such heir or heirs
\n     of the  deceased tenant  as maya be
\n     willing to continue the tenancy.
\n     (2) Where\tthe tenancy is inherited
\n     by heirs  other than  the widow  of
\n     the  deceased  tenant,  such  widow
\n     shall have a charge for maintenance
\n     on the profits of such land.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The said Section provides for a deemed fiction about
\ntransmission of\t existing tenancy  rights in  favour of\t the
\nheirs. Thus,  by the  time the\ttenant died  in 1959, as his
\ntenancy rights\thad not\t got extinguished  by an appropriate
\nproceedings  under   Section  29  at  the  instance  of\t the
\nlandlord,  those   tenancy  rights  survived  and  could  be
\ntransmitted under  the statutory provisions of Section 40 in
\nfavour of  the\theirs  of  the\terstwhile  tenant  who\twere
\nobviously willing  to continue\tas tenants. Consequently the
\nappellants  themselves\t got  clothed  with  the  rights  of
\nstatutory tenants by operation of Section 40 of the Act. The
\nresult was  that when  Section 32  (1B) operated  they fully
\nsatisfied the  requirement of being statutory tenants of the
\nland in\t question having  the same  terms and  conditions of
\ntenancy qua  the respondent  landlords and hence could claim
\ntheir right  of restoration  of possession  of the  tenanted
\nlands against  the respondent-landlords\t on satisfaction  of
\nthe required conditions of Section 32 (1B) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The second\t ground which appealed to the learned Single
\nJudge is  also unsustainable  for  the\tsimple\treason\tthat
\nSection 32  (1B) of  the  Act  was  required  to  include  a
\nprovision  regarding   restoration  of\t possession  by\t the
\nsuccessor-in-interest of  landlords for\t the  simple  reason
\nthat the  landlord might  have died  in the meantime and his
\ninterest in  the land  might  have  been  inherited  by\t his
\nsuccessor-in-interest by  way of  testamentary succession or
\nintestate  succession\tand  it\t  could\t be   urged  by\t the
\nsuccessors-in-interest that  they were not the landlords who
\nhad illegally  dispossessed the\t tenant. In  order to  avoid
\nsuch a\tcontingency  and  to  rope  in\tsuch  successors-in-
\ninterest who  were claiming  through the  erstwhile landlord
\nand who\t were in  possession of\t land only  because  of\t the
\nillegal dispossession of the tenant by their predecessor-in-
\ninterest, the  Explanation had\tto be  enacted to  make\t his
\nsuccessor-in-interest answerable  to the  claim of erstwhile
\ntenant under  the said\tSection. Such is not the requirement
\nso far\tas the\ttenant’s heirs\tare concerned  as the tenant
\nbeing  the   aggrieved\tparty\tcan  himself   support\t the
\nproceedings for\t restoration of\t possession or if he dies in
\nthe meantime  and his  tenancy rights get transmitted to his
\nheirs under  Section 40\t of the\t Act, his heirs in their own
\nright would  become statutory  tenants and  can\t invoke\t the
\nprovisions of  the  Section  against  the  landlord  or\t his
\nsuccessor-in-interest.\tAs   there  was\t no  provision\tlike
\nSection 40  for transmission  of  landlord’s  right  on\t his
\ndeath, Explanation  to Section\t32 (1B)\t was required  to be
\nenacted for  making the\t said provision\t fully operative  in
\nsuch contingencies.  The learned  Single Judge took the view
\nthat Section  40 was out of picture as the tenancy rights of
\nthe erstwhile tenant had got extinguished on account of non-
\ncompliance of  Section 29  of the  Act. Once  that reasoning
\ngets displaced\tby the\texpress provision  of  non  obstante
\nclause in  the Section excluding the operation of Section 29
\nfor the\t applicability of  Section 32  (1B), Section 40 gets
\nattracted. Hence the non-mentioning of successor-in-interest
\nof the\ttenant in  the Section\tpales into insignificance as
\nseen above.  In our  view with\trespect the  learned  Single
\nJudge was  patently In\terror when  he held that application
\nunder Section  32 (1B)\tmoved by  the heirs of the erstwhile
\ntenant could not be maintained even though all the statutory
\nconditions for\tapplicability of the Section were satisfied.
\nIt has\tto be  kept in view that the tillers day legislation
\nis based  on the legislative in  that all the tillers of
\nthe soil, namely, the tenants would become deemed purchasers
\nof the\tlands on  1st April  19. Only  in  circumstances
\nwhere the erstwhile tenants got illegally dispossessed prior
\nto 1st\tApril 1957,  a question would arise as to what is to
\nbe done\t about them  and that  is the reason why Legislature
\ngave a\tlocus penitential to such displaced tenants to apply
\nfor  restoration   of  possession   from  the  landlords  on
\nsatisfying the\tconditions laid down in the Section and once
\nthose conditions  are satisfied\t the estate  of\t the  tenant
\nwould get  enlarged  into  full\t ownership  so\tfar  as\t the
\ntenanted lands\tare concerned. Thus it was a statutory right
\ninhering  in  the  estate  of  the  erstwhile  tenant  which
\nobviously could be pressed in service not only by the tenant
\nhimself but  by his heirs and legal representatives who also
\ncan claim  the statutory right to purchase these lands being
\na right inherited by them from the erstwhile tenant having a
\ndirect nexus  with the\tproprietory rights  in the land. For
\nall these reasons, therefore, the judgment under appeal must
\nbe held\t to be\terroneous in  law and  the said judgment was
\nrightly overruled by the Division Bench of the High Court in
\nthe case of Pandharinath (supra).\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
\njudgment and  order of\tthe learned Single Judge of the High
\nCourt are quashed and set aside and instead the judgment and
\norder  rendered\t by  the  Maharashtra  Revenue\tTribunal  as
\nconfirming the\torders of  the Special\tAdditional Tahsildar
\ndated 20th  August 1971\t and that  of Leave  Reserve  Deputy
\nCollector, Nasik  dated 10th  January 1972  are restored. In
\nthe facts  and circumstances of the case will be re order as
\nto costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sevaliram Gotiram Teli … vs Madhukar Yeshwant Patankar & Ors on 19 November, 1996 Author: S Majmudar Bench: N.P. Singh, S.B. Majmudar PETITIONER: SEVALIRAM GOTIRAM TELI (DECEASED)BY HEIRS AND LRS Vs. RESPONDENT: MADHUKAR YESHWANT PATANKAR & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/11\/1996 BENCH: N.P. SINGH, S.B. MAJMUDAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-215114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSevaliram Gotiram Teli ... vs Madhukar Yeshwant Patankar & Ors on 19 November, 1996 - 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\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sevaliram Gotiram Teli ... vs Madhukar Yeshwant Patankar & Ors on 19 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-25T15:41:47+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sevaliram Gotiram Teli … vs Madhukar Yeshwant Patankar & Ors on 19 November, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-25T15:41:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2819,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996\",\"name\":\"Sevaliram Gotiram Teli ... vs Madhukar Yeshwant Patankar & Ors on 19 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-25T15:41:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sevaliram Gotiram Teli … vs Madhukar Yeshwant Patankar & Ors on 19 November, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Sevaliram Gotiram Teli ... vs Madhukar Yeshwant Patankar & Ors on 19 November, 1996 - 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\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sevaliram Gotiram Teli ... vs Madhukar Yeshwant Patankar & Ors on 19 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-25T15:41:47+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sevaliram Gotiram Teli … vs Madhukar Yeshwant Patankar & Ors on 19 November, 1996","datePublished":"1996-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-25T15:41:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996"},"wordCount":2819,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996","name":"Sevaliram Gotiram Teli ... vs Madhukar Yeshwant Patankar & Ors on 19 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-25T15:41:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sevaliram-gotiram-teli-vs-madhukar-yeshwant-patankar-ors-on-19-november-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sevaliram Gotiram Teli … vs Madhukar Yeshwant Patankar & Ors on 19 November, 1996"}]},{"@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\/215114","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=215114"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215114\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215114"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215114"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}