{"id":226462,"date":"1984-10-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1984-10-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984"},"modified":"2016-08-29T02:42:30","modified_gmt":"2016-08-28T21:12:30","slug":"dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984","title":{"rendered":"Dakshina Maharashtra Jain Sabha vs Rabiyabi on 11 October, 1984"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Dakshina Maharashtra Jain Sabha vs Rabiyabi on 11 October, 1984<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: ILR 1985 KAR 1405, 1985 (1) KarLJ 57<\/div>\n
Author: M Rao<\/div>\n
Bench: M Rao<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT <\/p>\n
Murlidher Rao, J.<\/p>\n
1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in Long Cause Suit No. 97\/61 on the file of the Prl. Munsiff, Hubli. The
\nappellants have challenged the order of remand.\n<\/p>\n
2. This appeal is against the order in R.A. No. 6\/74. The Learned Civil Judge while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the Court below, has
\nre-manded the suit to the Trial Court with a direction to record the findings on Issues 1, 2 and 4 and dispose of the suit, as early as possible, in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
3. The brief facts which need mention are as follows : The plaintiffs filed the present suit on  (sic)-11-1961 for recovery of possession, rent and mesne profits  in respect of the
\npremises  bearing Municipal  Nos. 2707\/1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E situated at Hubli.  Before filing  the suit, the plaintiffs had applied to the State Government to exempt the premises from the operation of Bombay Rent Control Act under Section 4 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947  (for short ‘the Bombay Act’).  The State
\nGovernment, by a notification dated 11-11-1959 (Ex. 43) granted  the said exemption; as  consequence  of which the plaintiffs instituted the present suit,  in the  Civil  Court on 1-11-1961. It is pertinent to mention that the Bombay Act  was in force till 30th December 1961 and on 31st December 1961 the
\nKarnataka Rent Control  Act,  1961  (for short the Karnataka Act) came into force.  Since the relief relates to the eviction of the tenants in Hubli-Dharwar Municipal Corporation area which is included in Schedules I, II and III of the Karnataka Act, in the normal course, the plaintiff should have  initiated proceedings under the Karnataka  Rent Control Act.\n<\/p>\n
However, by virtue of  the  exemption  granted under  Ex. 43, the plaintiffs have instituted this Long Cause Suit.\n<\/p>\n
4. Defendants took up several contentions. One of the important contentions, so far the present appeal is concerned is, whether the notification Ex. 43 issued under the provision of the Bombay Act would govern the  proceedings instituted on 1-11-1961 after the coming into force of the Karnataka Rent Control Act.  In this appeal, we are mainly concerned with this question. At this stage, it is necessary to mention that the respondents have  filed cross objections in  this  Court, against the finding on issue No. 7 which relate to the issuing of the quit notice to the tenant before instituting the present suit. It is the validity of these two findings so recorded by the Appellate Court that are challenged in this Miscellaneous Second Appeal and in the cross objections respectively.\n<\/p>\n
5. The trial  Court by  its order dated  27-(sic)-1973 rejected the plaint under Order  7 Rule  II  C.P.C  holding that the plaintiffs have no cause of action and cannot maintain a suit. The Trial Court is also of the opinion, that the notification Ex. 43, issued and the provisions  of the Bombay Act, were not helpful to the plaintiffs  and  therefore the suit was not maintainable    Against this order of rejection of plaint, the plaintiffs filed R.A. No. 6 74.\n<\/p>\n
6. In the appeal before the lower Appellate Court, the contentions that were urged resulted in framing four points for determination.   The said four points are :\n<\/p>\n
1. Whether the repeal of Bombay Act, by Mysore Act would put an end to exemption granted under Ex. 43?\n<\/p>\n
2. Which is  the provisions of law  that  is  applicable to the  suit, viz., Bombay Act or  T.P. Act ?\n<\/p>\n
3. Whether the notice  quit as per Ex. 59 dated 12-5-61 is valid?\n<\/p>\n
4. Whether there is Cause of action for the suit ?\n<\/p>\n
5. What order ?\n<\/p>\n
On the first point, the learned Appellate Judge answered in the affirmative, holding that the exemption, under the Bombay Act, could not
\nensure to the benefit of the plaintiff after the coming into force of the Karnataka Act. On the second point, the Court below held that the Bombay Act is applicable to the suit and not the Transfer of Property Act. On the third point, the Court held that the notice to quit issued on 12-5-1961. 59 was valid and it terminated the tenancy as such the suit could be instituted on the basis of the said nonce. On the fourth point, the Court held that there is a cause of action for the plaintiffs to institute the present suit and therefore the suit was maintainable. Having held so, the lower Appellate Court set aside the order of rejection of plaint and has remanded the matter to the Trial Court to give findings on issues 1, 2 and 4. (sic) is the validity of this order that is challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
7. Sri U.L. Narayana Rao, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that in view of the provisions contained in
\nsub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 2 and Section 62 of the Karnataka Act, the plaintiffs had a vested right, by virtue of Ex. 43, to institute the proceedings under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore, the finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court to the effect that the suit is maintainable under the Bombay Act is not correct. To appreciate this argument, it is necessary to find out the provisions contained in the Bombay Act as well as in the Karnataka Act. The relevant provision of Section 2 of the Bombay Act, reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
“(1) Parts I and IV of this Act shall extend to the  (Bombay  area of the State of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Parts II and III shall extend respectively to the areas specified in Schedules I and II to this Act and shall continue to extend to any such area notwithstanding that the area ceases to be of the description therein specified.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The  (State)  Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette extend to any other area any or all of the  provisions of Part II or Part HI or of both.\n<\/p>\n
(4) The (State) Government may, at any time by like notification direct that any or all the provisions of Part II or Part III or of both,  as  the case  may be, shall cease to extend to such area and on such date as may be specified in the notification ; and on that date the said provisions shall cease to be in force in such area.\n<\/p>\n
Section 4(ii) of the Bombay Act reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
4(2) (ii) “to premises held by a public trust for  a  religious   or charitable purpose and let at a nominal or concessional rent;”\n<\/p>\n
We are mainly concerned with sub-section (2)(ii) of Section 4 of the Bombay Act in this case. It is under this provision viz., Section 4(2)(ii), that Ex. 43 has been issued by the State Government on 17-11-1989. In the Karnataka Act sub-Sections (5) and (6) of Sections 2 deal with the power given to the State Government in respect  of the application of the parts in the enactment. The said sub-sections read thus : 2…….\n<\/p>\n
(5) The State Government may, by notification apply all or  any of the provisions of Parts II, III, IV, V, or VI to such other area from such  dates as may be specified in the notification.\n<\/p>\n
(6) The State Government may at any time by notification direct that all or any of the provisions of Parts II, III, IV, V  or VI shall cease to be applicable to any area whether specified in  Schedule It  II  or  III  or  not,  on such date as may be specified in the notification and on that date the said provisions shall cease to be applicable to such areas :\n<\/p>\n
Provided that section 6 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act 1899 shall apply when any provision of the Act
\nceases to be applicable to any area, as if it had then been  repealed by a Karnataka Act:\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that the issue of a notification under this sub-section shall not preclude the issue of a notification under sub-section (5) applying all or any of the provisions of the said Parts to such area”.\n<\/p>\n
It has to be mentioned that the word “area” occurs in this Section in more than one place. In sub-section (2) of Section 2, the Karnataka Act says that Parts II and III of this Act shall be applicable to the “area” specified in Schedule I. Similarly, in sub-section (3) of the said Act it is stated that Parts IV and V of this Act shall be applicable to the areas specified in Schedule II. So also sub-section (4) of Section 2 of Part VI of this Act shall be applicable to the “area” specified in Schedule. III. The Schedule attached to the Act which is under Section 2(2) mentions the  various places in which Various parts of the Act are applicable. So far as the “area” within the Corporation is concerned, all the parts in that Act are applicable by virtue of the Corporation area being included in Schedules, I, II and III. The controversy that arises for consideration, is whether the word ‘area’ occurring in Section 2 must be understood to destroy the right or privilege or the immunity granted to the plaintiff under Ex.43, issued under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Bombay Act. Having extracted the provisions of  Section 2 of the Bombay Act, it is clear, that the said Section enables the State Government to issue a notification specifying that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to the
\npremises held for religious or charitable purpose and let out at a nominal or concessional rate. A plain reading of this Section manifests that the Government has been given the power to exempt the ”premises” held by public trust for religious or charitable purpose or which are let out at anominal or concessional rate from the operation of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
8. In the Karnataka  Act sub-section (7) of  Section 2 also mentions   certain    premises which are exempted from the operation of the    Karnataka  Act    Those premises are enumerated in Clauses\n(a), (b), (bb), (bc) and (c) of sub-section (7) of Section 2.  There   is no   provision corresponding to sub-section (2) of Section 4, occurring in the  Bombay Act in the Karnataka Act.\n \n\n9. Sri U. L.  Narayana Rao, however urged that sustenance can be got from the word 'areas' occurring in sub-sections (5)   and (6) of Section 2 and therefore, it should be understood that the State  Government  has got the power to exempt a building   from    the    operation of the Act.  Sri U.L. Narayana  Rao's  contention was that there is nothing contrary in the Karnataka Act which destroys or takes away the  exemption   granted    under  Exhibit 43.   It is difficult to   accept   this   contention,  for   the   simple   reason that while sub-section   (2)  of   Section 4 of   the Bombay Act clearly   mentions  that the \"premises\" held by a public trust for a religious or  charitable  purpose  and  let out at a nominal or   concessional  rent,  could be exempted by issue of a notification    under   sub-section  (2) of Section 4 of the Bombay Act.  There is no  provision  which  enables  the Government to  exempt a   particular   building or class of building except those which are   enumerated in sub-section (7) of section 2.   Similar contention was    raised in the case of Union of India v. T.R.  Rao,<\/a> 1970 (1 ) KLJ. 43 4 @ 444.  The  Court has made the following observations :\n  \n\n<\/pre>\n
“As the present Act contains no provision corresponding to S. 20 of the old Act empowering the Government to exempt any class of premises from the provisions of the present Act, the present Act must be held to manifest a ‘different intention’ as referred to in Ss. 6 and 8 of the General Clauses Act. The notification cannot survive the repeal of the old Act as the notification is inconsistent with the present Act, there being no corresponding provision in the present Act empowering the Government to exempt any class of building from any of the provision of the present Act.\n<\/p>\n
The exemption from eviction from premises leased to the MES, granted under the Notification, ceased to operate on the repeal of the old Act, and is not available when the landlords of such premises seek eviction under clause (h) of S. 21(1) of the present Act.”\n<\/p>\n
Since there is no provision in the Karnataka Act to exempt a building or a premises the exemption granted vide Ex. 43, would be contrary to the provisions of the new Act. The expression ‘premises’ in the Bombay Act cannot be
\nunderstood as “Area” in Karnataka Act. The two expressions have distinct connotation. Therefore in the instant case, Ex. 43 dated 17-11-1959 issued under the Bombay Act will not
\nensure to the benefit of the plaintiff after the coming into force of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The Courts below have followed the ruling referred to above and I affirm those findings.\n<\/p>\n
10. So far as the cross-objection is concerned, it is regarding the validity of the quit notice. In view of the full Bench decision of this Court m Papinayakanahalli Venkanna & others v. Janadri Venkanna Setty, 1981(1) KLJ 568 it is not necessary to determine the lease by issue of a notice while maintaining a petition under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. In the instant case, the Courts below have held that the suit is tried under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Control Act. Since both the parties have agreed that
\nthe suit is instituted before 31-12-1961, i.e., before the coming into force of the Karnataka Act, there is no merit in the cross objection. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Therefore, the order of remand passed by the Court below has to be affirmed.\n<\/p>\n
11. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Dakshina Maharashtra Jain Sabha vs Rabiyabi on 11 October, 1984 Equivalent citations: ILR 1985 KAR 1405, 1985 (1) KarLJ 57 Author: M Rao Bench: M Rao JUDGMENT Murlidher Rao, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in Long Cause Suit No. 97\/61 on the file of the Prl. Munsiff, Hubli. […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-226462","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDakshina Maharashtra Jain Sabha vs Rabiyabi on 11 October, 1984 - 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\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dakshina Maharashtra Jain Sabha vs Rabiyabi on 11 October, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984\" \/>\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=\"1984-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-28T21:12:30+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dakshina Maharashtra Jain Sabha vs Rabiyabi on 11 October, 1984\",\"datePublished\":\"1984-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-28T21:12:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984\"},\"wordCount\":2004,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984\",\"name\":\"Dakshina Maharashtra Jain Sabha vs Rabiyabi on 11 October, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1984-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-28T21:12:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dakshina Maharashtra Jain Sabha vs Rabiyabi on 11 October, 1984\"}]},{\"@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":"Dakshina Maharashtra Jain Sabha vs Rabiyabi on 11 October, 1984 - 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\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dakshina Maharashtra Jain Sabha vs Rabiyabi on 11 October, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1984-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-28T21:12:30+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dakshina Maharashtra Jain Sabha vs Rabiyabi on 11 October, 1984","datePublished":"1984-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-28T21:12:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984"},"wordCount":2004,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984","name":"Dakshina Maharashtra Jain Sabha vs Rabiyabi on 11 October, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1984-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-28T21:12:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dakshina-maharashtra-jain-sabha-vs-rabiyabi-on-11-october-1984#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dakshina Maharashtra Jain Sabha vs Rabiyabi on 11 October, 1984"}]},{"@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\/226462","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=226462"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226462\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226462"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226462"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226462"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}