{"id":223586,"date":"2011-03-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011"},"modified":"2016-12-05T19:21:36","modified_gmt":"2016-12-05T13:51:36","slug":"dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Dhana Mohan Talele vs Nabab Saraj Tadvi on 11 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Dhana Mohan Talele vs Nabab Saraj Tadvi on 11 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                        1                wp2642.92\n\n                                           \n          IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY \n                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                WRIT PETITION NO.2642 OF 1992\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     1.   Dhana Mohan Talele,\n\n     2.   Smt. Radhabai w\/o Dhana Narkhede,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     3.   Pandurang s\/o   Ramu   Waghudade,\n\n     4.   Nimba Shrawan Ingale,\n\n\n\n\n                              \n          (Since deceased through his legal\n           heirs : Chindhu Nimba Ingale),\n                 \n           All Residing at and Post Nhavi,\n           Taluka Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.   ...PETITIONERS \n                \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1.   Nabab Saraj Tadvi,\n      \n\n     2.   Sitru Bahadur Tadvi-since\n          deceased through his legal\n   \n\n\n\n          heirs :\n\n     a)   Navsabai Sitru Tadvi,\n          Residing at and Post Humbardi,\n\n\n\n\n\n          Taluka Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.\n\n     b)   Deobai w\/o Usman Tadvi,\n          Residing at and Post Borkhede,\n          Taluka Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.\n\n\n\n\n\n     c)   Nurjabai w\/o Nurkha Tadvi,\n          since deceased no heirs.\n\n     3.   Sherkha Dalpat Tadvi (deceased),\n\n     4.   Vajirkha Rahimkha Tadvi,\n          (Since deceased through his\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:05:21 :::\n                           2             wp2642.92\n\n          legal heirs :\n\n     i)   Najir Vajir Tadvi,\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n          Residing at Marul, \n          Tal. Yawal, Dist.Jalgaon.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     ii) Bismilla Vajir Tadvi,\n         Residing at Pal, Tal. Raver,\n         District Jalgaon.\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     5.   Supadu Sahadur Tadvi,\n\n     6.   Dagadu Shahadu Tadvi,\n\n     7.   Ughadu Sardar Tadvi (deceased).\n\n\n\n\n                             \n     8.   Alimat Imam Tadvi (Since deceased)\n                 \n          through his legal heirs :\n\n          Bhikabai Alimat Tadvi,\n                \n          Nos.1,5,6  and 8 all residing at\n          and post Humbardi, Taluka Yawal,\n          District Jalgaon.\n      \n\n\n     9.   Fauskha Mithu Tadvi (since deceased)\n   \n\n\n\n          through his legal heirs :\n\n     a)   Chandkha Maru Tadvi (deceased),\n     b)   Kulsam w\/o Ismail (deceased),\n\n\n\n\n\n     c)   Mayaram w\/o Nashirkha (deceased).\n\n     10. The State of Maharashtra.\n\n     11. The Scrutiny Committee,\n         Director of Tribal Research\n\n\n\n\n\n         and Training Institute, Pune.\n\n     12. Tahasildar, Yawal,\n         District Jalgaon.\n\n     13. Circle Officer, Faijpur,\n         Tal. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.      ...RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:05:21 :::\n                             3               wp2642.92\n\n\n                          ...\n     Mr. V.T. Choudhari, Advocate for  petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n     Mr. D.R. Kale,  A.G.P. for respondents.       \n                          ...\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n                           CORAM:  S.S. SHINDE, J.\n\n                    RESERVED ON :  09-03-2011\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n                    PRONOUNCED ON: 11-03-2011 \n\n     JUDGMENT :\n<\/pre>\n
                This Writ Petition takes exception to the <\/p>\n
     judgment and order dated 05-06-1992 passed by the <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra   Revenue   Tribunal   in   Appeal   No. <\/p>\n
     REV.TRB.82   of   1985   at   Exhibit-B   to   the   petition <\/p>\n
     and   also   to   the   judgment   and   order   dated <\/p>\n
     13-04-1978   passed   by   the   Assistant   Collector, <\/p>\n
     Jalgaon, Division Jalgaon, in Adivasi Case No. 179 <\/p>\n
     of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     2.         Learned   Counsel   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
     petitioners   submitted   that,   the   Member   of   the <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra   Revenue   Tribunal   has   failed   to <\/p>\n
     consider  the  ratio  laid down  by the  Hon’ble  High <\/p>\n
     Court,   in   many   case,   that   if   there   is   dispute <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:21 :::<\/span>
\n                              4               wp2642.92<\/p>\n
     about the status of the persons, who are claiming <\/p>\n
     themselves   to   be   tribals   then   in   that   case,   the <\/p>\n
     issue   whether   the   persons   claiming   themselves   to <\/p>\n
     be   tribals   or   not,   has   to   be   decided   by   the <\/p>\n
     scrutiny   authority.   Learned   Counsel   further <\/p>\n
     submitted   that   the   learned   Member   of   the <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra   Revenue   Tribunal   failed   to   see   that, <\/p>\n
     the   respondents   belong   to   Muslim   Pathan   Tadvi <\/p>\n
     communities,   which   is   not   recognised   as   a   Tribal <\/p>\n
     community under Section 38 of the Maharashtra Land <\/p>\n
     Revenue   Code.   Counsel   further   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
     authorities   below,   failed   to   see   that,   the <\/p>\n
     respondents have embraced Islam Religion and that <\/p>\n
     being   position,   the   advantage   under   this   Act   are <\/p>\n
     not  available  to them,  as due  to this  conversion <\/p>\n
     to Muslim Religion.  They can not claim themselves <\/p>\n
     as Tribals, and the said position is very clear by <\/p>\n
     a   Government   Resolution   Adivasi   Vikas   Vibhag   at <\/p>\n
     Survey No. 5(13).\n<\/p>\n
                Learned   Counsel   also   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
     Government   Resolution   No.   CBC-1680\/43669\/D-V, <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:21 :::<\/span>
\n                              5                  wp2642.92<\/p>\n
     dated        28-10-1980         then         Circular                 No. <\/p>\n
     Vati\/0\/482\/KA-4,   dated   08-02-1988   and   order <\/p>\n
     No.CBC-1684\/309\/No.11,  dated  24th April,  1985 are <\/p>\n
     totally   ignored,   while   issuing   certificate   and <\/p>\n
     hence, the caste certificates are illegal and bad <\/p>\n
     in law and should be ignored completely.   Learned <\/p>\n
     Counsel   also   submitted   that   the   respondents   have <\/p>\n
     not   given   undertaking   as   required   under <\/p>\n
     Section   3(3),   that   they   will   cultivate   the   suit <\/p>\n
     land personally and that they will pay the amount, <\/p>\n
     as   will   be   decided   under   Section   3,   sub   section <\/p>\n
     (3),   under   these   circumstances   the   suit   land <\/p>\n
     cannot be restored to the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     3.          On the other hand, learned A.G.P. for the <\/p>\n
     respondents submitted that possible view has been <\/p>\n
     taken   by   the   Maharashtra   Revenue   Tribunal   and <\/p>\n
     therefore,   this   Court   may   not   interfere   in   the <\/p>\n
     impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
     4.          Upon hearing Counsel for the petitioner, <\/p>\n
     none  of the  argument   advanced  by  the Counsel   for <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:21 :::<\/span>
\n                              6               wp2642.92<\/p>\n
     the petitioner is convincing so as to interfere in <\/p>\n
     the   impugned   judgment   and   order.     However,   the <\/p>\n
     contention   of   the   petitioner   that   caste\/tribe <\/p>\n
     claim   of   respondent   Nos.1   to   9   should   have   been <\/p>\n
     referred   to   the   Caste   Scrutiny   Committee   for <\/p>\n
     verification\/scrutiny,  is required  to be accepted <\/p>\n
     in   view   of   the   various   pronouncements   of   this <\/p>\n
     Court.     The   petitioners   have   specifically   stated <\/p>\n
     that respondent Nos.1 to 9 are not Tadvis but they <\/p>\n
     are Muslims.   They have further stated that caste <\/p>\n
     certificates   produced   by   the   respondents   are <\/p>\n
     false.     It   is   further   contended   that   their <\/p>\n
     caste\/tribe certificates should have been sent to <\/p>\n
     the appropriate and competent authority i.e. Caste <\/p>\n
     Scrutiny Committee for verification\/validation and <\/p>\n
     thereafter   only   Maharashtra   Revenue   Tribunal   or <\/p>\n
     Tahasildar should have proceeded further to decide <\/p>\n
     the   controversy   before   them.   Therefore,   the <\/p>\n
     argument   of   the   learned   Counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
     petitioners   that   the   caste\/tribe   claim   of <\/p>\n
     respondent   Nos. 1 to  9  should  have  been referred <\/p>\n
     to   the   Caste   Scrutiny\/Verification   Committee, <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:21 :::<\/span>
\n                              7               wp2642.92<\/p>\n
     should   have   been   accepted   by   the   Tahsildar   and <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and Tahasildar should <\/p>\n
     have   referred   caste\/tribe   claim   of   the <\/p>\n
     claimants\/respondent   Nos.1   to   9   to   the   Caste <\/p>\n
     Scrutiny Committee.\n<\/p>\n
                This   Court   in   the   cases   of  Raju   s\/o <\/p>\n
     Pundlikrao  Burde  vs. Esrtablishment  Officer  (III-\n<\/p>\n
     B)   MSEB   and   another,   reported   in   2003(4)   Mh.L.J.\n<\/p>\n
     780,   Ulhas   Bimba   Choudhari   and   Anr,   vs.   Burhan <\/p>\n
     Samsa   Tadvi   (deceased   heirs)   Abbaskhan   Burhan <\/p>\n
     Tadvi and others, reported in 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 165 <\/p>\n
     and   Writ   Petition   No.1636   of   1994   on   17th   June, <\/p>\n
     2010 (Aurangabad Bench), has taken a view that in <\/p>\n
     such  cases,  like  the  case in  hand,  the authority <\/p>\n
     i.e.  Tahasildar    should  refer  the  caste  claim  of <\/p>\n
     the   claimants\/Adivashi   to   the   Caste   Scrutiny <\/p>\n
     Committee for verification\/scrutiny. Therefore, in <\/p>\n
     my   opinion,   the   caste   claim   of   the   respondent <\/p>\n
     Nos.1   to   9   should   have   been   referred   to   the <\/p>\n
     Scrutiny Committee by the Tahasildar.  This Court, <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:21 :::<\/span>
\n                             8                wp2642.92<\/p>\n
     while   considering   the   various   judgments   on   the <\/p>\n
     subject,   has   taken   a   view   in   Writ   Petition <\/p>\n
     No. 1634 of 1994 that the findings recorded by the <\/p>\n
     authority   i.e.   Additional   Commissioner,   that   the <\/p>\n
     respondents   therein   are   belonging   to   Tadvi   S.T.\n<\/p>\n
     category cannot be accepted since the said finding <\/p>\n
     was   without   jurisdiction.     Therefore,   this   Court <\/p>\n
     in that matter has taken view to refer matter to <\/p>\n
     the   Scrutiny   Committee   for   verification   and <\/p>\n
     scrutiny of tribe claim of the respondent therein.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore,   in my opinion,  the facts  of  this case <\/p>\n
     are   similar   to   the   facts   of   this   case   referred <\/p>\n
     above and which are decided by this Court holding <\/p>\n
     that Tahasildar should have referred caste \/ tribe <\/p>\n
     claim   of   the   claimants   to   the   Caste   Scrutiny <\/p>\n
     Committee.\n<\/p>\n
                In   the   result,   the   Tahasildar,   Yawal, <\/p>\n
     District   Jalgaon   is   directed   to   refer   the <\/p>\n
     caste\/tribe claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 9 to the <\/p>\n
     Caste Scrutiny Committee within one month from the <\/p>\n
     date   of   receipt   of   copy   of   this   order.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:21 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                             9                wp2642.92<\/p>\n
     Thereafter,   the   Caste   Scrutiny   Committee   to   take <\/p>\n
     final decision within six months from the date of <\/p>\n
     receipt   of   the   caste   \/   tribe   claim.     If   the <\/p>\n
     decision   of   the   Caste   Scrutiny   Committee   becomes <\/p>\n
     final   in   favour   of   the   contesting   respondents   or <\/p>\n
     petitioners  herein,  the  concerned  authority  shall <\/p>\n
     ensure that the possession of land should be with <\/p>\n
     the   appropriate   party   under   the   Maharashtra <\/p>\n
     Agricultural   Lands   (Ceiling   on   Holdings)   Act, <\/p>\n
     1961.\n<\/p>\n
     5.         With   the   above   observations,   Writ <\/p>\n
     Petition   stands   disposed   of.     Rule   made   absolute <\/p>\n
     on the above terms.\n<\/p>\n
                                  [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]<\/p>\n
     sut\/Mar11\/wp2642.92 <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:21 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Dhana Mohan Talele vs Nabab Saraj Tadvi on 11 March, 2011 Bench: S. S. Shinde 1 wp2642.92 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2642 OF 1992 1. Dhana Mohan Talele, 2. Smt. Radhabai w\/o Dhana Narkhede, 3. Pandurang s\/o Ramu Waghudade, 4. Nimba Shrawan Ingale, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-223586","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDhana Mohan Talele vs Nabab Saraj Tadvi on 11 March, 2011 - 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\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dhana Mohan Talele vs Nabab Saraj Tadvi on 11 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-05T13:51:36+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dhana Mohan Talele vs Nabab Saraj Tadvi on 11 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-05T13:51:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":984,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Dhana Mohan Talele vs Nabab Saraj Tadvi on 11 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-05T13:51:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dhana Mohan Talele vs Nabab Saraj Tadvi on 11 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Dhana Mohan Talele vs Nabab Saraj Tadvi on 11 March, 2011 - 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\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dhana Mohan Talele vs Nabab Saraj Tadvi on 11 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-05T13:51:36+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dhana Mohan Talele vs Nabab Saraj Tadvi on 11 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-05T13:51:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011"},"wordCount":984,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011","name":"Dhana Mohan Talele vs Nabab Saraj Tadvi on 11 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-05T13:51:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhana-mohan-talele-vs-nabab-saraj-tadvi-on-11-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dhana Mohan Talele vs Nabab Saraj Tadvi on 11 March, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/223586","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=223586"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223586\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223586"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}