{"id":216764,"date":"2008-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008"},"modified":"2018-11-26T22:07:58","modified_gmt":"2018-11-26T16:37:58","slug":"chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"Chandrakant Shankarrao Machale vs Parubai Bhairu Mohite on 13 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Chandrakant Shankarrao Machale vs Parubai Bhairu Mohite on 13 March, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B. Sinha, V.S. Sirpurkar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1957 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nChandrakant Shankarrao Machale\n\nRESPONDENT:\nParubai Bhairu Mohite\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/03\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha &amp; V.S. Sirpurkar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1957 OF 2008<br \/>\n(Arising out of SLP (C) No.2491 of 2007)<\/p>\n<p>S.B. Sinha, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tAppellant was the owner of a house property situated in Taluka<br \/>\nGandhinglaj, District Kolhapur.  On 28.2.1983, Bhairu Rama Mohite and<br \/>\nKrishna Rama Mohite (the predecessor of the first respondent herein)<br \/>\nexecuted a registered deed of mortgage in favour of the appellant.  The<br \/>\npossession of the said property was delivered in favour of the mortgagee.<br \/>\nThe period prescribed in the said Deed of Mortgage was seven years.  The<br \/>\namount of mortgage was Rs.20,000\/-. It was agreed that upon expiry of the<br \/>\nsaid period, the property would revert back to the mortgagor.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tAllegedly, an unregistered agreement was entered into by and<br \/>\nbetween the parties herein, stating :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;This agreement in writing executed by us in<br \/>\nrespect of land C.S. No.1943 admeasuring 252 Sq.<br \/>\nmeters situated Mouje Gadhinglj which includes<br \/>\nhouse and open space belongs to us absolutely.<br \/>\nEarlier the house admeasuring East West 39 feet<br \/>\ni.e. 11 meters 89 centimeters and South-North 49<br \/>\nfeet i.e. 14 meters 94 centimeters, totally<br \/>\nadm.177.63 59 meters house as also the open space<br \/>\nin front of the house East West 21.89 meters and<br \/>\nSouth-North 6.10 meters totally adm.72.52 sq.<br \/>\nmeters from out of which house and the open<br \/>\nspace on the Western side admeasuring 36.26<br \/>\nmeters was given to you by way of mortgage by<br \/>\nconditional sale for Rs.20,000\/- under registered<br \/>\ndocument No.229 dated 1.3.1983 and the same is<br \/>\nrecorded in your name.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSome other terms and conditions were also laid down therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tRespondents, being the predecessors in interest of the mortgagor filed<br \/>\na suit for redemption of the mortgage.  Krishna died during the pendency of<br \/>\nthe suit.  As the period specified in the said Deed of Mortgage was to expire<br \/>\non 28.2.1990, the plaintiff served with a notice dated 17.2.1990 for<br \/>\nredeeming the suit property.  As the same was not acted upon, a suit for<br \/>\nredemption of mortgage was filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tContention of the appellant, inter alia, was that he has been put in<br \/>\npossession of the said property as a tenant.  It was urged that by reason of<br \/>\nthe said mortgage, his right to occupy the premises as a tenant was not<br \/>\nextinguished.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the aforementioned rival contentions of the parties, the<br \/>\nlearned Trial Judge framed the following issues :<br \/>\n&#8220;1.\tDo the plaintiff prove that Bhairu Rama<br \/>\nMohite and the defendant No.10 Mortgaged<br \/>\nthe suit property to the defendant by<br \/>\nconditional sale on 1.3.1983?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tDoes the defendant prove that he is in<br \/>\npossession of the suit property as a monthly<br \/>\ntenant?\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tAre the plaintiffs entitled to redeem the<br \/>\nmortgage by obtaining reconveyance of the<br \/>\nsuit property from the defendant?\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tAre they entitled to possession of the suit<br \/>\nproperty?\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tWhat order and decree?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tOn issue No.1, learned Trial Court opined :<br \/>\n&#8220;Now we have to see what was intended by the<br \/>\nparties to these three documents. It may be noted<br \/>\nthat parties to these documents are the same.  The<br \/>\ndefendant claims tenancy rights by virtue of<br \/>\nagreement dated 24.2.1983 (Exh.52).  On the other<br \/>\nhand according to the plaintiff the property<br \/>\ncomprising this agreement is not the subject matter<br \/>\nof the mortgage the controversy has to be solved<br \/>\nby going through the contents of the document.<br \/>\nFrom the recitals it appears that the Municipal<br \/>\nHouse No.1440 was agreed to be let for the period<br \/>\nof 7 years on lease by accepting Rs.20,000\/-.  It<br \/>\nalso appears from the recitals that the plaintiff<br \/>\nreceived Rs.1,000\/- on the day of agreement.  I do<br \/>\nnot come across recitals of the defendant having<br \/>\nbeen put in possession of the property.  On the<br \/>\ncontrary, the recitals do show that the agreement<br \/>\nwas executor (sic) in nature and the intended<br \/>\ntransaction was to be completed within15 days.<br \/>\nTherefore, I do not subscribe to the submission of<br \/>\nthe defendant that the lease was created by Exh.52<br \/>\non 24.2.1983.  It is true that if we peruse the<br \/>\ndescription of the property given in the mortgage<br \/>\ndeed Exh.62, it does not correspond with the<br \/>\ndescription given in Exh.52.  However, the<br \/>\nplaintiff has failed to prove that on the day of<br \/>\nexecution of the mortgage deed there were two<br \/>\nMunicipal House numbers viz., 1440 and 1440-A.<br \/>\nHowever, since I have already observed document<br \/>\nExh.52 to be an agreement of the lease to be<br \/>\ncreated within 15 days, I do not wish to rely<br \/>\nstrongly on that document since the fate of the suit<br \/>\nis rest on subsequent document Exh.53 and<br \/>\nExh.62.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe suit, however, was dismissed opining that the plaintiff has leased<br \/>\nthe suit property in favour of the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tAn appeal preferred thereagainst by the plaintiff was allowed by the<br \/>\nCourt of Appeal, holding :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;After going through terms and conditions of deed<br \/>\nof lease styled as Kararpatra (Exh.53) it reveals<br \/>\nthat it is not fresh contract of lease but, under that<br \/>\ndocument, the right created by plaintiffs, in favour<br \/>\nof the defendant in the immovable property for<br \/>\nRs.20,000\/- as a mortgagee, has been extinguished.<br \/>\nBy the terms and conditions of this agreement,<br \/>\nparties, intended to change the right created in<br \/>\nfavour of defendant, under registered deed of<br \/>\nmortgage, which was admittedly executed for the<br \/>\nmortgage amount of Rs.20,000\/-.  Therefore, U\/s.<br \/>\n17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act, this second<br \/>\nagreement dated 1.3.1983 (Exh.53) requires<br \/>\nregistration.  Admittedly, this document is not<br \/>\nregistered document.  Therefore, under this second<br \/>\nagreement (Exh.53) the relations created in<br \/>\nbetween the plaintiffs and defendant as mortgagor<br \/>\nand mortgagee, cannot be extinguished.  I hold<br \/>\nthat, the Kararpatra (Exh.53) cannot extinguish the<br \/>\nright created in favour of the defendant as<br \/>\nmortgagee in the suit property.  So also when<br \/>\nunder deed of mortgaged deed (Exh.62) in lieu of<br \/>\namount of Rs.20,000\/- interest has been created in<br \/>\nfavour of the defendant, after execution of this<br \/>\ndeed of mortgage, plaintiffs had no right to lease<br \/>\nout the same property to the defendant by<br \/>\ncanceling this registered deed of mortgage under<br \/>\nunregistered agreement of lease (Exh.53) I hold<br \/>\nthat, the learned trial court, totally ignored the<br \/>\nlegal position that, by unregistered agreement<br \/>\n(Exh.53) the contract of mortgage (Exh.62) cannot<br \/>\nbe extinguished or cancelled.  Therefore, the<br \/>\nagreement (Exh.53) is of no help to the defendant<br \/>\nto prove that under that document he acquired<br \/>\ninterest in the suit property as a tenant of the<br \/>\nplaintiff.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tAs regards the contention that the appellant became a tenant under the<br \/>\nplaintiffs, the Court of First Appeal held that the relationship between the<br \/>\nparties were that of a mortgagor and mortgagee and the defendant-appellant<br \/>\nhad failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit property as a tenant.<br \/>\nThe appeal was, thus, allowed and the suit was decreed.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tA second appeal preferred by the appellant herein has been dismissed<br \/>\nby the High Court opining that no substantial question of law arose for its<br \/>\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tMr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,<br \/>\nwould, in support of the appeal, contend that the transactions of mortgage<br \/>\nand the lease were separate and independent transactions.<br \/>\nThe Court of First Appeal as also the High Court, thus, committed a<br \/>\nserious error in passing the impugned judgment.  The learned counsel<br \/>\nfurthermore urged that although a decree for redemption could be granted<br \/>\nbut in execution of the said decree, only symbolical possession could be<br \/>\ndirected to be issued.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tThe Deed of Mortgage dated 28.2.1983 was a registered document.<br \/>\nThe terms of a registered document could be varied or altered only by<br \/>\nanother registered document.  A finding of fact has been arrived at that the<br \/>\nappellant could not prove his possession as a tenant.  We have noticed<br \/>\nhereinbefore that the appellant was put in possession as a mortgagee.  It was,<br \/>\ntherefore, in our opinion, impermissible in law to change his status from a<br \/>\nmortgagee to that of a lessee by reason of an unregistered deed of lease<br \/>\n(even if we assume that the same had been executed).<br \/>\nThe learned Court of Appeal may not be entirely correct in taking<br \/>\nrecourse to Section 92 of the Indian Contract Act or holding that the deed of<br \/>\nlease required registration even for the purpose of month to month tenancy,<br \/>\nbut, as indicated hereinbefore, we have considered the question from a<br \/>\ndifferent angle.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tFurthermore, the only question of law which was pressed before the<br \/>\nHigh Court was :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The lower appellate court ought to have held that<br \/>\nthe respondents and appellant executed an<br \/>\nagreement dated 28.2.1983 i.e. Exh.62 and<br \/>\nimmediately on the next day, i.e., on 1.3.1983<br \/>\nexecuted the agreement for tenancy which is a<br \/>\nsubsequent agreement.  Hence it ought to have<br \/>\nbeen held that the parties have by their conduct<br \/>\nagreed to treat the transaction as a lease and hence<br \/>\nsuit filed by respondents for redemption of<br \/>\nmortgage is not maintainable in law and ought to<br \/>\nhave been dismissed with costs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tNo substantial question of law, thus, had been raised.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tThe deed of mortgage was a registered one.  It fulfilled the conditions<br \/>\nof a valid mortgage.  Its terms could not have been varied or altered by<br \/>\nreason of an unregistered document so as to change the status of the parties<br \/>\nfrom mortgagee to a lessee.  [See S. Saktivel (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.<br \/>\nVenugopal Pillai &amp; Ors. [AIR 2000 SC 2633 para 67]\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tOur attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court in Gopalan<br \/>\nKrishnakutty v.Kunjamma Pillai Sarojini Amma &amp; Ors. [(1996) 3 SCC 424]<br \/>\nwherein upon taking into consideration some of its earlier decisions, this<br \/>\nCourt held :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The High Court, in the present case, proceeded on<br \/>\nthe erroneous assumption in law that surrender of<br \/>\nthe lease by the lessee (defendant) must be implied<br \/>\nfrom the fact of execution of the usufrucuary<br \/>\nmortgage in his favour by the lessor (plaintiff).  As<br \/>\nindicated, this is an erroneous assumption in law.<br \/>\nThis question has to be decided on the contents of<br \/>\nthe deed since there is no other evidence of<br \/>\nsurrender of the lease by the defendant on<br \/>\nexecution of the mortgage. We find nothing in the<br \/>\nmortgage deed (Annexure A-1) dated 18.7.1974<br \/>\nread with the release deed of the same date to<br \/>\nprove either an express or an implied surrender of<br \/>\nthe lease by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff<br \/>\non execution of the mortgage deed.  Since there is<br \/>\nno automatic merger of the interest of a lessee with<br \/>\nthat of a mortgagee when the same person is the<br \/>\nlessee as well as the mortgagee, in absence of<br \/>\nproof of surrender of the lease by the defendant, on<br \/>\nredemption of the mortgage, the plaintiff is not<br \/>\nentitled automatically to recover possession of the<br \/>\nleased premises.  The defendant&#8217;s right to continue<br \/>\nin possession as a lessee, therefore, continues to<br \/>\nsubsist.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>15. \tWe are concerned here with a converse case.  The case as to whether<br \/>\nthe interest of a lessee merged with the interest of a mortgagee would<br \/>\ndepend upon facts and circumstances of each case, as indicated in Gopalan<br \/>\nKrishna Murti.  There cannot be any hard and fast rule for arriving at only<br \/>\none decision as the decision thereupon will depend upon the terms of the<br \/>\ndocument.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.\tFor the aforementioned reasons, there is no merit in the appeal. The<br \/>\nsame is dismissed accordingly.  In the facts of the case, there shall, however,<br \/>\nbe no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Chandrakant Shankarrao Machale vs Parubai Bhairu Mohite on 13 March, 2008 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, V.S. Sirpurkar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1957 of 2008 PETITIONER: Chandrakant Shankarrao Machale RESPONDENT: Parubai Bhairu Mohite DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/03\/2008 BENCH: S.B. Sinha &amp; V.S. Sirpurkar JUDGMENT: J U D G M E [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-216764","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Chandrakant Shankarrao Machale vs Parubai Bhairu Mohite on 13 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandrakant Shankarrao Machale vs Parubai Bhairu Mohite on 13 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-26T16:37:58+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandrakant Shankarrao Machale vs Parubai Bhairu Mohite on 13 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-26T16:37:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1885,\"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\\\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008\",\"name\":\"Chandrakant Shankarrao Machale vs Parubai Bhairu Mohite on 13 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-26T16:37:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandrakant Shankarrao Machale vs Parubai Bhairu Mohite on 13 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Chandrakant Shankarrao Machale vs Parubai Bhairu Mohite on 13 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandrakant Shankarrao Machale vs Parubai Bhairu Mohite on 13 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-26T16:37:58+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandrakant Shankarrao Machale vs Parubai Bhairu Mohite on 13 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-26T16:37:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008"},"wordCount":1885,"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\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008","name":"Chandrakant Shankarrao Machale vs Parubai Bhairu Mohite on 13 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-26T16:37:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-shankarrao-machale-vs-parubai-bhairu-mohite-on-13-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandrakant Shankarrao Machale vs Parubai Bhairu Mohite on 13 March, 2008"}]},{"@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\/216764","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=216764"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216764\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216764"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216764"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216764"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}