{"id":217114,"date":"1968-04-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-04-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968"},"modified":"2015-07-10T04:53:44","modified_gmt":"2015-07-09T23:23:44","slug":"dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968","title":{"rendered":"Dhanki Mahajan vs Rana Chandubha Wakhatsing & Ors on 11 April, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dhanki Mahajan vs Rana Chandubha Wakhatsing & Ors on 11 April, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 69, \t\t 1968 SCR (3) 759<\/div>\n
Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDHANKI MAHAJAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRANA CHANDUBHA WAKHATSING & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n11\/04\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1969 AIR   69\t\t  1968 SCR  (3) 759\n\n\nACT:\nSaurashtra  Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act 23 of 1954,  s.\n2(6)(i)--Debtor,  definition of--Person with liability\tover\nRs.  25,000  not a debtor--Joint  liability  of\t usufructury\nmortgagors  for\t an amount larger than\tRs.  25.000--Whether\neach of them can be regarded as liable for only his share of\ndebt and treated as debtor for purposes of Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nRespondents 1 to 3 executed in 1940 a usufructury  mortgage,\nof their land in favour of the appellant and certain others.\nThe  liability under the mortgage was a joint liability\t and\nunder  the terms of the deed each one of the mortgagors\t was\nliable\tfor  the entire debt due under\tthe  mortgage.\t The\nrespondents  claiming to be 'debtors' under  the  Saurashtra\nAgricultural  Debtors' Relief Act 1954 prayed for a  scaling\ndown  of  their debts.\tThe Debt adjustment  Board  and\t the\nappellate court held that the respondents were not 'debtors'\nunder  s.  2(6)(i) of the Act as their total  liability\t ex-\nceeded\tRs. 25,000 and therefore they were not\tentitled  to\nthe  benefit  claimed.\tA learned Single Judge of  the\tHigh\nCourt however held that in computing the debts due from\t the\nrespondents each one of them should be held liable only\t for\none-third  of the mortgage debt and in that event the  total\ndebt due from each would not exceed Rs. 25,000.\t The I Judge\nin his judgment also considered the question as to how far a\nSingle\tJudge of a High Court is bound by earlier  decisions\nof the Court.\nHELD:\t  (i)  A Single Judge of a High Court is  ordinarily\nbound  to  accept  as correct judgments\t of  courts  of\t co-\nordinate jurisdiction, of Division Benches and Full  Benches\nof his Court. [762 D]\nTribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel,\nA.I.R.<\/a> 1968 S.C. 372, reaffirmed.\n(ii) There  could be no dispute that under the\tTransfer  of\nProperty  Act  each of the respondents must be\theld  to  be\nliable\tfor the entire mortgage debt.  There was nothing  in\nthe  special  provisions of the Saurashtra Act\twhich  would\njustify\t a  departure from the said rule.   The\t High  Court\ntherefore  erred  in treating the respondents  as  'debtors'\nunder that Act. [763 A-F]\nV.   Ramaswami\tAyyangar v. T. N. V. Kailasa Thavar,<\/a>  [1951]\nS.C.R. 292, distinguished.\nAmbu Rama Mhatro V. Bhau Halya Patel, A.I.R. 1957 Bom. 6 and\nDave  Sadashiv Jayakrishna, v. Rana Govubha, (1962)  3\tGuj.\nL. R. 1007, approved.\n(iii)\t  While\t applying the provisions of  the  Saurashtra\nAct  with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act  or\nthe Contract Act in certain cases some difficulty may arise.\nAll  these  difficulties  can  be  resolved  by\t  reasonably\ninterpreting the relevant provisions of the Act. [764 C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CiVil Appeal No. 38 of 1965.
\nSuP. CI\/68-9
\n760<\/span>
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nFebruary  12,  1963  of\t the Gujarat  High  Court  in  Civil
\nRevision Application No. 477 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
I.   N. Shroff, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
J.   A. Baxi, K. L. Hathi and Atiqur Rehman, for respondents
\nNos.  1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHegde,\tJ.  This appeal by special leave arises out  of\t the
\ndecision  of  Raju,  J.\t of the Gujarat\t High  Court  in  an
\napplication  under  s. 115 of the Code of  Civil  Procedure.
\nThat  application  was\tfiled by respondents  Nos.  1  to  3
\nherein.\t As they are the only contesting respondents in this
\nappeal,\t they  will  hereinafter  be  referred\tto  as\t the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
The respondents are Bhayats and Girasdars of Dhanki  village
\nin  Lakhtar Taluka of the Saurashtra region of the,  Gujarat
\nState.\t,on  December 19, 1940, the respondents\t executed  a
\njoint  usufractury  mortgage in favour of  Thakker  Jethalal
\nDosabha\t (the third appellant herein) and another for a\t sum
\nof  Rs. 17,725.\t The liability incurred under  the  mortgage
\nwas  a joint liability and under the terms of the deed\teach
\nof  the mortgagers was liable for the entire debt due  under
\nthe  mortgage.\tTill January 25, 1950, Dhanki village was  a
\npart  of  the former State of Bombay.  As from\tJanuary\t 26,
\n1950, that village became a part of the State of  Saurashtra
\nin  view  of  the provisions in\t the  Provinces\t and  States
\n(Absorption  of Enclaves) Order, 1950.\tPrior to that  date,
\nthe  Bombay Agricultural Debtors’ Relief Act, 1939,  (Bombay
\nAct  No.  XXVIII of 1939), hereinafter referred\t to  as\t the
\nBombay Act, was in force in Dhanki village.  As long back as
\n1945,  respondent No. 2 had filed an application before\t the
\nCivil Judge (Junior Division) Viramgam both on his behalf as
\nwell as on behalf of his minor cousin, the third respondent,
\nfor adjustment of their debts.\tAt the same time, respondent
\nNo. 1 had also filed an application under the Bombay Act for
\nadjustment   of\t  his\tdebts’\t These\t applications\twere
\nconsolidated for the purpose of trial.\tUltimately they were
\ndismissed  as the debts due from each of those persons\twere
\nheld  to exceed Rs. 15,000 and that being so they could\t not
\nbe considered as “debtors” under the Bombay Act.  In  those,
\nproceedings  it was further held that the debt due from\t the
\nrespondents under the mortgage is a joint debt and each\t one
\nof  them was liable for the entire No appeal  was  preferred
\nagainst that decision.\tAt the time of the merger of  Dhanki
\nvillage\t in Saurashtra, in that State there was\t no  statute
\nsimilar\t to  the Bombay Act.   The  Saurashtra\tAgricultural
\nDebtors’  Relief  Act  (Act No. XXIII of 1954)\tcame  to  be
\nenacted\t in 1954.  This Act will hereinafter be referred  to
\nas “the Act”.  By and
\n\t\t\t    761<\/span>
\nlarge the provisions of the Act are similar to those of\t the
\nBombay\t Act.\t In  1955,  the\t  respondents\tagain\tmade
\napplications  before the Debt Adjustment Board\tfor  scaling
\ndown  their  debts  under the provisions of  the  Act.\t The
\nappellants  resisted those applications principally  on\t two
\ngrounds, viz. :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   The respondents cannot be considered  as
\n\t      “debtors” under the Act as the total debts due
\n\t      from  each  of them exceeded  Rs.\t 25,000\t the
\n\t      limit fixed, under the Act, and
\n\t      (2)   their  applications\t are barred  by\t the
\n\t      principles  of  res judicata in  view  of\t the
\n\t      decision given earlier under the Bombay Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Both  the  Board as well as the appellate court\t upheld\t the
\ncontentions of the appellants that the respondents were\t not
\n‘debtors”  as  defined\tin the Act and\tthat  their  present
\napplications were barred by the principles of res  judicata,
\nin  view of the earlier decision rendered under\t the  Bombay
\nAct.   They held that the debt due under the mortgage  is  a
\njoint  debt  and each of the mortgagers is  liable  for\t the
\nentire debt.  They repelled the plea of the respondents that
\nthe  debt  in question is liable to be split  up  under\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe Act.  But the High\tCourt  reversed\t the
\nabove  findings.  It hold that in computing the total  debts
\ndue  from the respondents each one of the mortgagers  should
\nbe held to be liable only for one-third of the mortgage debt
\nand in that event the total debt due from each of them\tdoes
\nnot exceed Rs. 25,000.\tIt may be noted that under the\tAct,
\na   person  whose  debts  exceeded  Rs.\t 25,000\t cannot\t  be
\nconsidered  as a “debtor’.  It is admitted that if  each  of
\nthe respondents is held liable for the entire mortgage debt,
\nthe debts due from each of them would exceed Rs. 25,000\t and
\nin that event, they are not entitled to any relief under the
\nAct.   But  it is equally true that if each one of  them  is
\nliable\tonly  for one-third of the mortgage debt,  then\t the
\ntotal  debts due from each of them do not exceed Rs.  25,000
\nand  in that event their debts are liable to be scaled\tdown
\nand  adjusted under the provisions of the  Act.\t  Therefore,
\nthe  main question for decision is whether each one  of\t the
\nrespondents can be held liable for the entire debt due under
\nthe  mortgage.\t If  the answer is in  the  affirmative,  as
\nopined by the Board as well as the appellate court, then the
\ndecision  of the High Court is incorrect.  But on the  other
\nhand,  if  we  agree with the High Court that  each  of\t the
\nrespondents  is\t only liable for one-third of  the  mortgage
\ndebt  then  the respondents’ applications should  have\tbeen
\nentertained  by the Board and dealt with according  to\tlaw.
\nAs,  in\t our opinion, the decision of the Board and  of\t the
\nappellate  court that each of the respondents is liable\t for
\nthe  entire  mortgage  debt is correct in  law,\t it  is\t not
\nnecessary for us to consider the other question whether\t the
\napplications from which this appeal arises
\n762<\/span>
\nare barred by the principles of res judicata.  For the\tsame
\nreason\twe are also not going into the question\t whether  on
\nthe  facts of this case it was competent for the High  Court
\nto  reverse  the decision of the appellate court  by  having
\nrecourse  to  its powers under s. 115 of the Code  of  Civil
\nProcedure.\n<\/p>\n
Before going into the question whether the respondents can
\nbe considered as “debtors” under the Act, it is necessary to
\ndispose\t of a subsidiary controversy which appears  to\thave
\ntroubled  Raju,\t J.  unnecessarily.  Major  portion  of\t his
\njudgment was devoted to the question whether a Single  Judge
\nof  a High Court is bound by an earlier decision of  another
\nJudge  of that High Court and whether the opinion  expressed
\nby  a Full Bench of that Court is binding on  Single  Judges
\nand  Division Benches of that court.  We think that  matters
\nso obvious as, those should not have troubled any Judge of a
\nHigh  Court.  His conclusions on those questions are  rather
\nstartling.  But there is no need to go into them in view  of
\nthe  decision  of this Court in\t Tribhovandas  Purshottamdas
\nThakkar\t v. Ratilal Motilal Patel.<\/a>(1) That case\t also  arose
\nfrom  one of the decisions of Raju, J. wherein\tthe  learned
\nJudge  had reached conclusions similar to those\t reached  by
\nhim  in\t the  present case.   This  Court  over-ruled  those
\nconclusions and held that a Single Judge of a High Court  is
\nordinarily bound to accept as correct judgments of courts of
\nco-ordinate  jurisdiction,  of\tDivision  Benches  and\tFull
\nBenches of his Court.\n<\/p>\n
Reverting back to the principal point in issue, i.e. whether
\neach  of the respondents is liable for the  entire  mortgage
\ndebt, it may be noted that the term “debt’ is defined in  s.
\n2(5)  of the Act as meaning any liability in cash  or  kind,
\nwhether-secured\t or  unsecured, due from a  debtor,  whether
\npayable\t under\ta  decree or order of  any  civil  court  or
\notherwise, and includes mortgage money the payment of  which
\nis  secured  by the usufractury mortgage, or by\t an  amalous
\nmortgage in the nature of pura chhoot of immovable property,
\nbut does not include arrears of wages payable in respect  of
\nagricultural  or manual labour.\t “Debtoe’ is defined  in  s.
\n2(6) (i) and that definition to the extent material for this
\ncase says-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “6. ‘Debtor means an agriculturist-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (i)  whose debts do not exceed Rs. 25,000  on
\n\t      the date of filing an application to the Board
\n\t      under section 4; and
\n\t       …………………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  definition of “debt” takes in debts  under\t usufractury
\nmortgages  as well.  As mentioned earlier,  the\t usufractury
\nmortgage  in  question was executed by all  the\t respondents
\njointly.  The debt
\n(1)  A. 1. R. 1968 S. C. 372.\n<\/p>\n
763<\/span><\/p>\n
borrowed  under\t it  was  a joint  debt;  each\tone  of\t the
\nmortgagors  was\t jointly liable for the entire\tdebt.\tThat
\nbeing  so, under the provisions of the Transfer of  Property
\nAct,  each of the respondents must be held to be liable\t for
\nthe  entire mortgage debt.  This position is  not  disputed.
\nTherefore,  we have to see whether there are any  provisions
\nin  the\t Act  which  alter the position\t in  law.   As\tseen
\nearlier, neither the definition of “debt” nor of “debtor” is
\nof  any\t assistance  to the respondents in  support  of\t the
\ncontention that each of them is liable, for one-third of the
\nmortgage  debt.\t  The learned counsel  for  the\t respondents
\ninvited\t our  attention\t to ss. 7(1),  16,  19,\t 20(1)\t(a),
\n20(1)(c),  20(3), 21 and 29.  Section 7(1) provides that  if
\nthe payment of debt due by a debtor is guaranteed by  surety
\nor if a debtor is otherwise jointly and severally liable for
\nany debt along with other person, and if the surety or\tsuch
\nother  person  is  not\ta debtor, the  debtor  may  make  an
\napplication  under s. 4 for relief in respect of  such\tdebt
\nand   the  Board  after\t consideration\tof  the\t facts\t and
\ncircumstances  of  the case proceed with the  adjustment  of
\ndebts  under  the  Act\tin  so\tfar  as\t such  applicant  is
\nconcerned.   We\t do  not think\tthat  this  provision  lends
\nsupport\t to the contention of the respondents that  a  joint
\nmortgage debt gets split up.  It is not necessary for us  in
\nthis  case  to consider as to what would happen in  a  case,
\nwhere some of the co-mortgagors are “debtors” and the others
\nnot “debtors”.\tIn the present case, all the respondents are
\nheld  to be not “debtors’.  Section 16 merely provides\tthat
\nthe question whether an applicant is debtor or not should be
\ndecided as a preliminary issue.\t Section 19 provides for the
\nexamination of creditor and debtor.  Section 20 provides for
\ntaking\taccounts.   Section 21 prescribes  that\t in  certain
\ncases  rent may be charged in lieu of profits.\t Section  29
\nprovides  for scaling down debts of debtors.  None of  these
\nprovisions lends any support to the contention that the debt
\ndue  from the respondents under the mortage is liable to  be
\nsplit up under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
It was next urged by Shri Baxi, learned counsel for the res-
\npondents,  that\t s. 7 of the Act permits one  of  the  joint
\ndebtors\t to apply for adjustment of his debts, and if he  so
\ndoes,  the Board is bound to scale down his debts so far  as
\nhe is concerned.  That being so unless we hold that for\t the
\npurpose\t of the Act joint debts are liable to be  split\t up,
\ncomplications  would  arise.  He gave an illustration  of  a
\ndebt  owned  by\t three\tjoint debtors, each  of\t whom  is  a
\n“debtor”  within the meaning of the Act.  According to\thim,
\nin view of the provisions of the Act, if the total debt\t due
\nfrom  them  is Rs. 30,000; the same may be, scaled  down  in
\nrespect\t of one debtor to Rs. 18,000 another to\t Rs.  17,000
\nand  the  third to Rs. 16,000.\tAs the\tawards\tagainst\t the
\nseveral debtors are independent awards, each of those awards
\ncan be executed against the concerned debtor; in that  event
\nthe creditor will be entitled
\n764<\/span>
\nto  realise, instead of Rs. 30,000 due to him,\tRs.  51,000.
\nWe   do\t not  think  that  there  is  any  basis  for\tthis
\napprehension.\tIt is not necessary for our present  purpose
\nto  find  out the true scope of s. 7 or what  would  be\t the
\neffect\tof scaling down a joint debt  on the application  of
\none  of the debtors.  One possibility is that the debt as  a
\nwhole  may be scaled down and the creditor not\tentitled  to
\ncollect\t more  than  the scaled down debt from\tAny  of\t the
\ndebtors.   Another possibility is that though  the  creditor
\ncannot collect more than what is due to him jointly from all
\ndebtors, his right to proceed against art individual  debtor
\nand  his property has to be determined on the basis  of\t the
\nprovisions  of the Act.\t We do not think that there  is\t any
\nneed to go into these complications in the present case.  It
\nis  likely  that while applying the provisions\tof  the\t Act
\nalong with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or
\nthe  Contract Act, in certain cases, some  difficulties\t may
\narise.\tAll these difficulties will be solved by  reasonably
\ninterpreting  the relevant provisions of the Act.   For\t our
\npresent purposes, all that we have to see is whether on\t the
\nbasis\tof  the\t provisions  of\t the  Act,  there   is\t any
\njustification  for departing from the ordinary rule that  in
\nthe case of a joint debt, each one of the debtors is ‘liable
\nfor the entire debt.  We see, no such justification.
\nThe  learned  Judge in support of his  conclusion  that\t the
\nmortgage  debt\tin this case is liable to be  split  up\t has
\nplaced\treliance  on  the  decision  of\t this  Court  in  V.
\nRamaswami Ayyangar v. T. N. V. Kailasa Thavar.<\/a>(1) That was a
\ncase  arising under the Madras Agriculturists’\tRelief\tAct,
\nNo.  IV of 1938.  The facts of that case were these :  In  a
\nsuit  to enforce a mortgage executed by defendent No.  1  on
\nhis own behalf and on behalf of defendants Nos. 2 to 7,\t the
\ndefendant  No. 1 remained ex parte and the others  contested
\nthe suit.  A decree for Rs. 1,08.098 was passed by the trial
\ncourt.\t The  Madras Agriculturists’ Relief Act\t was  passed
\nduring\tthe pendency of an appeal and cross appeal,  and  on
\nthe  application of defendants, Nos. 2 to 7 under  the\tsaid
\nAct  the amount of the decree was scaled down to Rs.  49,255
\nso far as defendants Nos. 2 to 7 were concerned.  So far  as
\ndefendant  No.\t1  was concerned, the decree  for  the\tfull
\namount remained as it was. defendant No. 1 thereupon applied
\nfor   scaling  down,  but  his\tapplication  was   rejected.
\nDefendants  Nos.  2 to 7 deposited certain amounts  and\t got
\ntheir  properties released.  Defendant No. 1  deposited\t the
\nbalance of the amount that remained due under the decree  as
\nscaled down on the application of defendants Nos. 2 to 7 and
\nprayed that full satisfaction of the decree may be recorded.
\nThe Subordinate Judge rejected this application and the High
\nCourt, on appeal, held that defendant No. 1 was entitled  to
\nthe benefit of the scaling down in favour of defendants Nos.
\n2  to  7 as the mortgage debt was one and  indivisible.\t  On
\nfurther
\n(1)  [1951] S. C. R. 292.\n<\/p>\n
765<\/span><\/p>\n
appeal,\t this Court reversed the judgment of the High  Court
\nand  restored that of the Subordinate Judge.  Mukherjea,  J.
\n(as  he then was), speaking for the Court, observed  in\t the
\ncourse\tof judgment,.”The learned Judges (of the High  Court
\nappear\tto have overlooked the fact that they  were  sitting
\nonly as an executing court and their duty was to give effect
\nto  the\t terms\tof the decree that was\talready\t passed\t and
\nbeyond\twhich they could not go.  It is true that they\twere
\nto   interpret\t the   decree  but  under   the\t  guise\t  of
\ninterpretation\tthey  could not make a new  decree  for\t the
\nparties.”  From this observation, it is clear that the\tmain
\nconsideration  which  influenced this Court to\treverse\t the
\ndecree of the High Court was that whether the decree  passed
\nin  the suit was correct or not, the executing\tcourt  could
\nnot  have  gone\t behind it.  This  Court  also\tnoticed\t yet
\nanother reason for departing from the normal rule that\teach
\none  of\t the joint debtors is liable for  the  entire  joint
\ndebt.  Section 14 of the Madras Agriculturists’\t Relief\t Act
\nprovides  for separation of debt incurred by a\tjoint  Hindu
\nfamily,\t some  of the members of  which\t are  agriculturists
\nwhile  others are not.\tOur attention has not been drawn  to
\nany  such  provision in the Act, nor is it the case  of\t the
\nrespondents that they belong to a joint Hindu family.  Hence
\nthe ratio of the decision in V. Ramaswami Ayyangar’s case(1)
\nis inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
\n The   provisions   of\tthe  Bombay  Act   in\tmaterial
\nparticulars  are  similar  to the  provisions  of  the\tAct.
\nInterpreting  the provisions of the Bombay Act in Ambu\tRama
\nMhatro\tv.  Bhau  Halya patel(1),  the\tBombay\tHigh  Court,
\nspeaking  through  Shah, J.. (as he then was) held  that  it
\ncannot\tbe disputed that when a mortgage is created  jointly
\non property in which several persons are interested each  of
\nthe mortgagors is liable in the absence of a contract to the
\ncontrary  to  pay the entire debt, and the  liability  of  a
\nmortgagor is not proportionate to the extent of his interest
\nin the mortgaged property; and that position is not  altered
\nunder  the provisions of the Bombay Act. This  decision\t was
\nfollowed  by  Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) of\tthe  Gujarat
\nHigh Court in Dave Sadashiv Jayakrishna v. Rana\t Govubha(3).
\nWe are in agreement with that conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
For  the reasons mentioned above, we allow the\tappeal,
\nset  aside the order of the High Court and restore  that  of
\nthe appellate court with costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\t\t\t  Appeal allowed.\n(1)  [1951] S.C. R. 292.\n(2)  A. 1. R. (1957) Bom. 6.\n(3)  (1962) 3 Guj.  L.R. 1007.\n766<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dhanki Mahajan vs Rana Chandubha Wakhatsing & Ors on 11 April, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 69, 1968 SCR (3) 759 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: DHANKI MAHAJAN Vs. RESPONDENT: RANA CHANDUBHA WAKHATSING & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/04\/1968 BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BACHAWAT, R.S. CITATION: 1969 […]<\/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-217114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDhanki Mahajan vs Rana Chandubha Wakhatsing & Ors on 11 April, 1968 - 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\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dhanki Mahajan vs Rana Chandubha Wakhatsing & Ors on 11 April, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968\" \/>\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=\"1968-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-09T23:23:44+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dhanki Mahajan vs Rana Chandubha Wakhatsing & Ors on 11 April, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-09T23:23:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968\"},\"wordCount\":2915,\"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\\\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968\",\"name\":\"Dhanki Mahajan vs Rana Chandubha Wakhatsing & Ors on 11 April, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-09T23:23:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dhanki Mahajan vs Rana Chandubha Wakhatsing & Ors on 11 April, 1968\"}]},{\"@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":"Dhanki Mahajan vs Rana Chandubha Wakhatsing & Ors on 11 April, 1968 - 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\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dhanki Mahajan vs Rana Chandubha Wakhatsing & Ors on 11 April, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-09T23:23:44+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dhanki Mahajan vs Rana Chandubha Wakhatsing & Ors on 11 April, 1968","datePublished":"1968-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-09T23:23:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968"},"wordCount":2915,"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\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968","name":"Dhanki Mahajan vs Rana Chandubha Wakhatsing & Ors on 11 April, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-09T23:23:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhanki-mahajan-vs-rana-chandubha-wakhatsing-ors-on-11-april-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dhanki Mahajan vs Rana Chandubha Wakhatsing & Ors on 11 April, 1968"}]},{"@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\/217114","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=217114"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217114\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217114"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217114"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}