{"id":226315,"date":"2011-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011"},"modified":"2017-10-12T03:09:42","modified_gmt":"2017-10-11T21:39:42","slug":"second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Second Appeal No.229\/1999 vs Unknown on 28 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Second Appeal No.229\/1999 vs Unknown on 28 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: A. B. Chaudhari<\/div>\n
     sa229.99.odt                             1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n                          SECOND APPEAL NO.229\/1999\n\n\n     APPELLANT :-         Madhukar alias Babanrao s\/o Ganpat\n                          Sabnis, aged about 67 years,\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n     Original\n     Defendant            Occupation Landlord, resident of\n                          Khaparde Bagicha, Amravati, Taluka\n                          and District Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n                                ...Versus...\n\n     RESPONDENT :-\n     Original\n     Plaintiff\n                       ig Smt. Kantabai wd\/o Shankarrao Sangole,\n                          aged about 50 years, Occupation\n                          Household, resident of Ravi Nagar,\n                          Amravati, Taluka and District Amravati.\n                     \n     ------------------------------------------------------\n                     [Shri Rahul Dhande, Adv. for appellant]\n                     [None for respondent]\n     ------------------------------------------------------\n      \n\n\n                                    CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI J.\n   \n\n\n\n     Date of reserving the judgment   :                   08.07.2011\n     Date of pronouncing the judgment :                   28.07.2011\n\n\n\n\n\n     J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     1.              Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree<\/p>\n
     dated 13.9.1993, passed by the 10th Jt. Civil Judge<\/p>\n
     (J.D.),        Amravati   in   Regular       Civil     Suit      No.30\/1991,<\/p>\n
     decreeing the suit of the respondent\/plaintiff in the<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:04 :::<\/span>
\n      sa229.99.odt                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
     sum of Rs.23,400\/- with future interest @ 18% per<\/p>\n
     annum from the date of suit till its realization and<\/p>\n
     confirmed in appeal by the Extra Joint District Judge,<\/p>\n
     Amravati       on       3.2.1999       in        Regular          Civil        Appeal<\/p>\n
     No.4\/1994,        the      present     appeal          was      filed        by     the<\/p>\n
     appellant\/defendant.\n<\/p>\n
     2.             In support of the appeal, Shri Rahul Dhande,<\/p>\n
     the     learned  ig   Counsel    for        the     appellant           vehemently<\/p>\n
     argued that though there is concurrent finding of fact<\/p>\n
     recorded by both the Courts below while decreeing the<\/p>\n
     suit    of     the    respondent\/plaintiff,                 the      findings         of<\/p>\n
     facts are utterly perverse and thus would constitute<\/p>\n
     substantial          question    of    law.       The      findings         are     not<\/p>\n
     based on evidence on record documentary as well as<\/p>\n
     oral.     According         to   the    learned            Counsel         for      the<\/p>\n
     appellant, the suit was clearly barred by limitation<\/p>\n
     but the Courts below have relied on the documents Exh.\n<\/p>\n
     81 and 82 dated 14.1.1988 and 24.2.1988, showing the<\/p>\n
     payment of Rs.200\/- each allegedly made by the present<\/p>\n
     appellant\/defendant in order to bring the suit within<\/p>\n
     limitation.          The   learned     Counsel          for      the      appellant<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:04 :::<\/span>
\n      sa229.99.odt                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
     vehemently argued that these documents Exh.81 and 82<\/p>\n
     if carefully perused, would show that they had never<\/p>\n
     been signed by the appellant\/defendant and have been<\/p>\n
     stoutly        denied   by   him.      According           to     the      learned<\/p>\n
     Counsel for the appellant when the documents Exh.81<\/p>\n
     and 82 were never signed by the appellant, the Courts<\/p>\n
     below could not have taken them into consideration as<\/p>\n
     acknowledgments within the meaning of the provisions<\/p>\n
     of     the     Limitation       Act    in       order       to      extend        the<\/p>\n
     limitation. The learned Counsel then went on to argue<\/p>\n
     that the documents Exh.81 and 82 show that the alleged<\/p>\n
     payment of Rs.200\/- was received by one Shri Rambhau<\/p>\n
     Loney allegedly from the appellant and that the said<\/p>\n
     Shri Loney had thereafter made the payment to one<\/p>\n
     Shri    Pattalwar       Advocate      and       further       that      the      said<\/p>\n
     Advocate Shri Pattalwar had made the said payment to<\/p>\n
     the respondent\/plaintiff. The Courts below ought to<\/p>\n
     have     rejected        this      theory          propounded             by      the<\/p>\n
     respondent\/plaintiff         in       order      to    sustain        the      money<\/p>\n
     claim in question. The learned Counsel thus submitted<\/p>\n
     that the suit having been thus filed on 10.1.1999 was<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:04 :::<\/span>
\n      sa229.99.odt                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
     clearly barred by law of limitation and was required<\/p>\n
     to be dismissed as such, rejecting the evidence of<\/p>\n
     said      Rambhau         Loney       also.       The      said        Advocate<\/p>\n
     Shri Pattalwar was never examined by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
     before the Court to prove the receipt of payment by<\/p>\n
     him or onward payment to the plaintiff by him. The<\/p>\n
     learned        Counsel    then    went       on    to    argue        that      the<\/p>\n
     transaction in question was money lending transaction<\/p>\n
     and that would certainly be in contravention of the<\/p>\n
     provisions of the Money Lending Act, which cannot be<\/p>\n
     enforced by a Court of law. Invoking Section 103 of<\/p>\n
     the Code of Civil Procedure, he argued that High Court<\/p>\n
     has powers to determine even questions of facts while<\/p>\n
     hearing a second appeal. Therefore, though no issue<\/p>\n
     was    framed     by     the   trial    Court      on    the     question         of<\/p>\n
     money-lending nature of transaction, this Court can<\/p>\n
     decide the said question. He also argued that the<\/p>\n
     documents        relied        upon     by        the     plaintiff            were<\/p>\n
     insufficiently stamped and hence could not be made<\/p>\n
     admissible in evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:04 :::<\/span>
\n      sa229.99.odt                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
     3.             None    appeared      for       the    respondent           despite<\/p>\n
     several opportunities. Finally, on 2.7.2011, Advocate<\/p>\n
     Shri    R.R.       Vyas     for    the    respondent           filed       pursis,<\/p>\n
     stating that the respondent had taken all his papers<\/p>\n
     and is not in a position to defend the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     Pursis is accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     4.             I    have     heard       learned        Counsel          for      the<\/p>\n
     appellant on several dates, who argued the appeal with<\/p>\n
     good preparation. I have gone through the impugned<\/p>\n
     judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. I have<\/p>\n
     also gone through the entire evidence documentary as<\/p>\n
     well as oral. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the<\/p>\n
     appellant, I find that following substantial question<\/p>\n
     of law arises in the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                    (i)     Whether      the    Courts         below       could
\n             have taken into consideration the documents
\n             Exh.81        and     82     as    the         documents            of<\/p>\n
             acknowledgments in order to bring the suit
\n             within limitation and whether consequently,
\n             the suit was barred by law of limitation ?\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:04 :::<\/span>
\n      sa229.99.odt                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
     5.              The submissions made by the learned Counsel<\/p>\n
     for the appellant on Section 103 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
     Procedure with reference to money lending nature of<\/p>\n
     transaction and insufficient stamped documents will<\/p>\n
     have to be rejected for the following reasons.\n<\/p>\n
                     Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/p>\n
     reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
                                          Power       of    High      Court       to\n                       ig   1\n                            \" 03.\n<\/pre>\n
             determine issues of fact. – In any second
\n             appeal, the High Court may, if the evidence<\/p>\n
             on the record is sufficient, determine any
\n             issue     necessary      for     the          disposal       of     the
\n             appeal, –\n<\/p>\n
                           (a)   which has not been determined<\/p>\n
                    by the lower Appellate Court or both by
\n                    the Court of first instance and the lower
\n                    Appellate court, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                           (b)   which       has            been         wrongly
\n                    determined by such such Court or Courts
\n                    by reason of a decision on such question
\n                    of law as is referred to in section 100.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.              Perusal of the provisions brought into force<\/p>\n
     w.e.f. 1.2.1977 shows first contingency namely that<\/p>\n
     the   issue      of    fact    not    determined           by     lower       Courts<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:04 :::<\/span>
\n      sa229.99.odt                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
     should be ‘necessary’ for disposal of the appeal; and<\/p>\n
     if the same is wrongly determined. In the case at<\/p>\n
     hand, on these two questions issues were never framed<\/p>\n
     nor   tried     and     therefore,     respondent           had    no     notice<\/p>\n
     thereof to contest. The said provision cannot read in<\/p>\n
     violation of principles of natural justice; else it<\/p>\n
     would    be    destructive      of   the     rule      of     audi      alteram<\/p>\n
     partem. No provisions should be read de hors these<\/p>\n
     principles.\n<\/p>\n
     7.             It is not in dispute that the suit was filed<\/p>\n
     on 10.1.1991 by the respondent\/plaintiff for recovery<\/p>\n
     of    money.     The    documents      Exh.81       and     82     are       dated<\/p>\n
     14.1.1988       and     24.2.1988      respectively.              These        two<\/p>\n
     documents have been treated as acknowledgments within<\/p>\n
     the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act for<\/p>\n
     the purposes of examining whether the suit was filed<\/p>\n
     within     limitation      or   not.    It    was     the      case      of    the<\/p>\n
     respondent\/plaintiff that she had paid Rs.20,000\/- by<\/p>\n
     way of loan and the appellant had signed hand loan<\/p>\n
     receipt        Exh.22    on     22.2.1986.         According            to     the<\/p>\n
     respondent, the appellant used to pay amount in small<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:04 :::<\/span>
\n      sa229.99.odt                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
     installments through one Rambhau Loney and Advocate<\/p>\n
     Shri    Pattalwar.          The     plaintiff            relied        on    the     last<\/p>\n
     receipts Exh.81 and 82 dated 14.1.1988 and 24.2.1988<\/p>\n
     to contend that these two receipts clearly brought the<\/p>\n
     suit within limitation and they were acknowledgments<\/p>\n
     for    that     purpose.           The    question              that     arises         for<\/p>\n
     consideration before this Court is interpretation of<\/p>\n
     the     documentsig      Exh.81          and        82    since        all      earlier<\/p>\n
     documents       are    of     no    relevance             for    determining            the<\/p>\n
     issue in question.                Section 18 of the Limitation Act<\/p>\n
     reads thus.\n<\/p>\n
                           ” 18.   Effect           of     acknowledgment               in<\/p>\n
            writing. – (1) Where, before the expiration of
\n            the     prescribed           period           for        a      suit        or<\/p>\n
            application       in       respect       of       any     property          or
\n            right,    an      acknowledgment                  of     liability          in
\n            respect of such property or right has been
\n            made in writing signed by the party against<\/p>\n
            whom such property or right is claimed, or by
\n            any person through whom he derives his title
\n            or    liability,       a    fresh        period         of    limitation
\n            shall    be     computed          from       the       time     when     the
\n            acknowledgment was so signed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:04 :::<\/span>
\n      sa229.99.odt                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
                    (2)            Where       the       writing         containing
\n           the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence<\/p>\n
           may be given of the time when it was signed;
\n           but subject to the provisions of the Indian
\n           Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), oral evidence<\/p>\n
           of its contents shall not be received.\n<\/p>\n
                    Explanation.- For the purposes of this<\/p>\n
           section. –\n<\/p>\n
                    (a)    an acknowledgment may be sufficient
\n           though it omits to specify the exact nature<\/p>\n
           of the property or right, or averse that the
\n           time      for    payment,         delivery,          performance           or
\n           enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied<\/p>\n
           by refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit
\n           to   enjoy,       or       is     coupled       with      a    claim       to<\/p>\n
           set-off, or is addressed to a person other
\n           than     a     person      entitled       to      the     property         or<\/p>\n
           right;\n<\/p>\n
                    (b)    the        word     s\n                                               \" igned\"       means         signed\n           either         personally          or     by      an      agent         duly\n           authorised in this behalf; and\n\n\n\n\n\n                    (c)    an application for the execution of\n<\/pre>\n
           a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an
\n           application           in    respect       of     any      property         or
\n           right.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:04 :::<\/span>
\n      sa229.99.odt                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
                    Perusal of the above provision shows that<\/p>\n
     the ‘acknowledgment’ spoken of must be in ‘writing’<\/p>\n
     and ‘signed’ by a party or its duly authorised agent.\n<\/p>\n
     The    burden      of    proof     about        it    is     surely        on      the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff. There is no doubt that it can be express or<\/p>\n
     implied. The plaint is silent about the agent Rambhau<\/p>\n
     Loney having any express or implied authority. Rambhau<\/p>\n
     stated     in     his
\n                       ig      cross-examination              that      he      had      no<\/p>\n
     authority        whatsoever       from     the        appellant          to      make<\/p>\n
     payment        under    Exh.81    and    82.         Hence,      there        is    no<\/p>\n
     ‘acknowledgment’ for extending the limitation.\n<\/p>\n
     8.             I have perused the documents Exh.81 and 82<\/p>\n
     and the relevant oral evidence of the parties. The<\/p>\n
     documents Exh.81 and 82 both do not bear the signature<\/p>\n
     of        the           appellant\/defendant.                   Both             these<\/p>\n
     documents\/receipts             show     that         Rambhau         Loney         had<\/p>\n
     collected Rs.200\/- each on both occasions from the<\/p>\n
     appellant        and    paid     Rs.200\/-        on     each       occasion         to<\/p>\n
     Advocate         Shri       Pattalwar           and         then         Advocate<\/p>\n
     Shri       Pattalwar           paid      the          said         amount           to<\/p>\n
     respondent\/plaintiff.                 Plaintiff              and         Advocate<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:04 :::<\/span>
\n      sa229.99.odt                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
     Shri Pattalwar had signed Exh.81 and 82 in token of<\/p>\n
     receipt. Neither Advocate Shri Pattalwar was examined<\/p>\n
     nor Exh.81 and 82 were got proved from Rambhau Loney.\n<\/p>\n
     In other words, documents Exh.81 and 82 in the first<\/p>\n
     place have not been proved according to law so that<\/p>\n
     they could be read in evidence as they are. To sum up,<\/p>\n
     if these two documents Exh.81 and 82 are ignored from<\/p>\n
     consideration and looking at the last acknowledgment,<\/p>\n
     namely         Exh.70,    dated   27.10.1987,          signed         by     the<\/p>\n
     appellant\/defendant for Rs.500\/-, the suit ought to<\/p>\n
     have been filed on or before 26.10.1990 but the suit<\/p>\n
     in the instant case was filed on 10.1.1991 i.e. beyond<\/p>\n
     the period of limitation of three years. As a sequel<\/p>\n
     to the above discussion, it will have to be held that<\/p>\n
     Exh.81         and   82     cannot   be        treated           as        valid<\/p>\n
     acknowledgments within the meaning of Section 18 of<\/p>\n
     the Limitation Act for the purposes of treating the<\/p>\n
     suit as the one within limitation. The substantial<\/p>\n
     question of law, therefore, will have to be answered<\/p>\n
     holding that the suit filed by respondent\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
     was clearly barred by limitation and the documents<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:34:04 :::<\/span>
\n      sa229.99.odt                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
     Exh.81 and 82 were not proved in accordance with law<\/p>\n
     and    were    not     the   acknowledgments,                contemplated            by<\/p>\n
     Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In the result, the<\/p>\n
     second appeal must succeed. As a sequel, I make the<\/p>\n
     following order.\n<\/p>\n
                                        O R D E R<\/p>\n
                    (i)
\n                      ig  Second    Appeal        No.229\/1999             is     allowed<\/p>\n
     with costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
                    (ii) The judgment and decree passed by the<\/p>\n
     10th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Amravati in Regular Civil<\/p>\n
     Suit    No.30\/1991      on    13.9.1993          and      the     judgment         and<\/p>\n
     decree     passed      by    the    Extra        Joint      District          Judge,<\/p>\n
     Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal No.4\/1994 on 3.2.1999<\/p>\n
     are set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                    (iii)         The     suit        of     the      plaintiff           is\n\n     dismissed with costs.\n\n\n\n\n\n                    Decree be drawn up accordingly.\n\n\n\n                                            JUDGE\n\n\n     ssw\n\n\n\n\n                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:34:04 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Second Appeal No.229\/1999 vs Unknown on 28 July, 2011 Bench: A. B. Chaudhari sa229.99.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.229\/1999 APPELLANT :- Madhukar alias Babanrao s\/o Ganpat Sabnis, aged about 67 years, Original Defendant Occupation Landlord, resident of Khaparde Bagicha, Amravati, Taluka and […]<\/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-226315","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSecond Appeal No.229\/1999 vs Unknown on 28 July, 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\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Second Appeal No.229\/1999 vs Unknown on 28 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-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=\"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-11T21:39:42+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\\\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Second Appeal No.229\\\/1999 vs Unknown on 28 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-11T21:39:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1837,\"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\\\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Second Appeal No.229\\\/1999 vs Unknown on 28 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-11T21:39:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Second Appeal No.229\\\/1999 vs Unknown on 28 July, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Second Appeal No.229\/1999 vs Unknown on 28 July, 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\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Second Appeal No.229\/1999 vs Unknown on 28 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-11T21:39:42+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\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Second Appeal No.229\/1999 vs Unknown on 28 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-11T21:39:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011"},"wordCount":1837,"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\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011","name":"Second Appeal No.229\/1999 vs Unknown on 28 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-11T21:39:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-2291999-vs-unknown-on-28-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Second Appeal No.229\/1999 vs Unknown on 28 July, 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:\/\/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\/226315","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=226315"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226315\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226315"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226315"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226315"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}