{"id":229524,"date":"1997-03-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-03-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997"},"modified":"2016-08-19T03:40:40","modified_gmt":"2016-08-18T22:10:40","slug":"namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997","title":{"rendered":"Namdev Shripati Nale vs Bapu Ganapati Jagtap & Anr on 11 March, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Namdev Shripati Nale vs Bapu Ganapati Jagtap & Anr on 11 March, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: Paripooran.<\/div>\n
Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, K.S. Paripoornan<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNAMDEV SHRIPATI NALE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBAPU GANAPATI JAGTAP & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t11\/03\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nParipooran. J.\n<\/p>\n
     The plaintiff  in Civil  Suit No.\t40 of  1970 — Civil
\nJudge, Junior  Division, Vaduj, is the appellant herein. His
\nfather one  Shripati executed  a possessory  mortgage of the
\nsuit property,\tR.S. No.  244\/23 situate  at  Lalgun  Taluka
\nKhatav, Distt. Satara, by Exhibit 35A dated 3.4.1947 for Rs.
\n1,200\/- in  favour of the first respondent, (1st defendant),
\nBapu Ganapati  Jagtap. Pending this appeal, first respondent
\ndied on\t 1.6.1985. His\tthree sons  Nivruti Bapusaheb Katkar
\n(Jagtap), Dnyandev  Bapusaheb Katkar  (Jagtap) and  Sahelrao
\nBapusaheb Katkar  (Jagtap) have\t been impleaded as his legal
\nrepresentative. The  second respondent\tLaxmi Devi  Shripati
\nNale is\t the appellant’ mother. Exhibit 35A mortgage was for
\na period  of 12\t years. The mortgages was to take the income
\nof  the\t property  and\tappropriate  the  same\ttowards\t the
\ninterest due  etc. Appellant’s\tfather\tdied  in  1953.\t The
\nappellant was  a minor\tthen.  The  mortgage  could  not  be
\nredeemed within\t the period  fixed. After  the expiry of the
\nsaid period,  the appellant  caused  a\tnotice\tto  be\tsent
\nagreeing to repay the mortgage amount Rs. 1,200\/- and sought
\nredemption. The\t first respondent  declined to accede to the
\nrequest. So,  the  suit\t was  laid  for\t redemption  of\t the
\nmortgage, Exhibit  35A. The  first respondent  pleaded\tthat
\ntransaction  Exhibit   35A  was\t  really  a   sale.  In\t the
\nalternative, he\t pleaded that the plaint item is an inam and
\nit was\tabolished by  the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watans
\n(Abolition)  Act,   1950  (Maharashtra\t Act  60   of  1950)
\n(hereinafter referred  to as  the Act). The land was resumed
\nby the\tGovernment and was regranted to the first respondent
\n(Ext. 26).  So, the  appellant has  no subsisting  right  to
\nredeem. The  first respondent  also pleaded  that in case of
\nredemption he should be paid compensation.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The trial\tcourt, by  order dated\t8.12.1971, dismissed
\nthe suit.  In appeal  the District  Judge, Satara,  in Civil
\nAppeal No. 29 of 1972, by order dated 30.1.1974, decreed the
\nsuit and  passed a  preleminary decree\tfor  redemption\t and
\nrecovery of possession of the property. In second appeal No.
\n514 of\t1974 by\t order dated  19.11.1979, a  learned  single
\nJudge of  the High Court of Bombay restored the judgment and
\ndecree\tof  the\t trial\tcourt.\tThat  has  resulted  in\t the
\nappellant’s coming in appeal before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The trial court, the lower appellate court and the High
\nCourt have found that the Exhibit 35A is a deeds of mortgage
\nand not\t a sale.  The trial  court found that as per the Act
\nthe land  vested in  the Government and was regranted to the
\nfirst respondent  was only  a trustee  and Section 90 of the
\nIndian Trust  Act, 1882\t was  attracted,  was  repelled.  In
\nappeal the,  District Judge  held that the first respondent-
\nmortgagee failed to remit the occupancy price as enjoined on
\nhim, and  by putting  forward the plea that he is tenant, he
\nobtained the regrant and thus gained an advantage; it should
\nenure for  the benefit of the mortgagor and so, the right to
\nredeem still  vested in\t the appellant.\t It is\ta case where
\nsection 90 of the Indian Trust Act was clearly attracted. In
\nsecond appeal,\tthe learned  single Judge  of the High Court
\ntook the  view that  (1) due to non-payment of the occupancy
\nprice by the plaintiff within the period of five years(on or
\nbefore 25.1.1956) the suit property vested in the Government
\nand this  was not  challenged; (2)  the first respondent was
\ntaken to  be a\ttenant and  the land  was regranted  to him,
\n(Ext. 26);  and\t (3)  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  first
\nrespondent gained  and advantage by availing his position as
\nmortgagee in getting the regrant. In the above premises, the
\nsuit for redemption was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
4.   We heard  counsel.\t Counsel  for  the  appellant  urged
\nbefore us  that the  first respondent-mortgagee was bound to
\npay the\t occupancy price  and by failing to do so he brought
\nabout the situation, enabling him to obtain a regrant of the
\nproperty in his name by posing himself as a tenant; in other
\nwords, first  respondent committed  a default or a wrong and
\nby taking  advantage of\t his position,\tas one possession of
\nthe property,  obtained\t a  benefit  or\t advantage,  He\t has
\ncommitted a  wrongful act,  in not  remitting the  occupancy
\nprice as  contemplated\tby  law.  The  resultant  advantage,
\nobtained  thereby   should  enure  to  the  benefit  of\t the
\nappellant or, in other words, the resultant advantage should
\nbe deemed  to have  been obtained  for the  benefit  of\t the
\nappellant. So, the suit for redemption should be decreed. On
\nthe other  hand, counsel  for the respondents contended that
\nin view\t of the\t failure  of  the  mortgagor  to  remit\t the
\noccupancy price\t within the  time limited  by law,  the land
\nvested\tin  the\t Government;  it  cannot  be  said  that  he
\ncommitted any  default and  obtained any  undue advantage in
\nthe subsequent\tregrant made  in his  favour. The ******* of
\nSection 90 of the Indian Trust Act are not attracted.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The following  statutory  provisions  are\trelevant  to
\nadjudicate the controversy in this case. They  are:-\n<\/p>\n
     (I)  Section 2(1)(b),  3 and  4  of
\n     the  Bombay  Pargana  and\tKulkarni
\n     Watans   (Abolition)    Act,   1950
\n     (Maharastra Act 60 of 1950):-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t  Definitions –\t (1) In this Act
\n     unless there  is anything repugnant
\n     in the subject or context, —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)……….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) “code” means the Bombay Land
\n     Revenue Code, 1879:”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “3.  Abolition  of\t certain  watans
\n     together with  the right  to office
\n     and incidents.  — With effect from
\n     and   on\t the   appointed    day,
\n     notwithstanding anything  contained
\n     in\t any   law,  usage,  settlement,
\n     grant, sanad or order —
\n     (1)  all  Paraganas   and\tKulkarni
\n     watans shall be deemed to have been
\n     abolished;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  all rights  to hold office and
\n     any  liability  to\t render\t service
\n     appertaining to the said watans are
\n     hereby extinguished;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3)  subject to  the provisions  of
\n     section 4, all watan land is hereby
\n     resumed and  shall be  deemed to be
\n     subject  to  the  payment\tof  land
\n     revenue under the provisions of the
\n     Code and  the rules made thereunder
\n     if it were an unalienated land;
\n     Provided that such resumption shall
\n     not  affect  the  validity\t of  any
\n     alienation such  watan land made in
\n     accordance with  the provisions  of
\n     section 5\tof the\tWatan Act or the
\n     rights of an alienee thereof or any
\n     person claiming  under  or\t through
\n     him;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4)  all incidents\t appertaining to
\n     the   said\t   watans   are\t  hereby
\n     extinguished.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “4.  Holder of  watan  land  to  be
\n     occupant.\t—   (1)  A  watan  land
\n     resumed  under  the  provisions  of
\n     this  Act\t shall\tsubject\t to  the
\n     provisions\t of   section  4-A,   be
\n     regranted\tto  the\t holder\t of  the
\n     watan to which it appertained price
\n     equal to  twelve time of the amount
\n     of the full assessment of such land
\n     within five  year from  the date of
\n     the coming\t into force  of this Act
\n     and the  holder shall  be deemed to
\n     be an  occupant within  the meaning
\n     of the Code in respect of such land
\n     and shall\tprimarily be  liable  to
\n     pay  land\t revenue  to  the  State
\n     Government in  accordance with  the
\n     provisions\t of  the  Code\tand  the
\n     rules  made   thereunder;\tall  the
\n     provisions of  the Code  and  rules
\n     relating to unalienated land shall,
\n     subject to\t the provision\tof  this
\n     Act, apply to the said land:
\n\t  Provided that\t in  respect  of
\n     the watan\tland which  has not been
\n     assigned towards  the emoluments of
\n     the  officiator,\toccupancy  price
\n     equal to six times of the amount of
\n     the full  assessment of  such  land
\n     shall be  paid by the holder of the
\n     land for its regrant:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided further  that if  the
\n     holder fails to pay the occupancy
\n     price within  the\tperiod\tof  five
\n     years as  provided in this section,
\n     he\t  shall\t   be\tdeemed\t to   be
\n     unauthorisedly occupying  the  land
\n     and shall be liable to be summarily
\n     ejected  in   accordance  with  the
\n     provisions of the Code.
\n     (2)  The  occupancy   of  the  land
\n     regranted\tunder\tsub-section  (1)
\n     shall  not\t  be   transferable   or
\n     partible  by   metes   and\t  bounds
\n     without the  previous  sanction  of
\n     the Collector and except on payment
\n     of\t such\tamount\tas   the   State
\n     Government\t may   be   general   or
\n     special order determine.
\n     (3)  Nothing in sub-section (1) and
\n     (2)  shall apply to any land —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  the commutation  settlement in
\n     respect of which provides expressly
\n     that the  land appertaining  to the
\n     watan shall  be  alienable\t without
\n     the   sanction    of   the\t   State
\n     Government; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  which\t  has\t been\t validly
\n     alienated with  the sanction of the
\n     State Government under section 5 of
\n     the Watan Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Explanation —  For the purposes of
\n     this   section    the    expression
\n     “holder” shall include —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  all\tpersons\t  who\ton   the
\n     appointed day  are the watandars of
\n     the same  watan to\t which the  land
\n     appertained, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) in the  case of  a  watan  the
\n     commutation settlement  in\t respect
\n     of which  permits the  transfer  of
\n     the land  appertaining  thereto,  a
\n     person in\twhom  the  ownership  of
\n     such  land\t  for  the   time  being
\n     vests.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (emphasis supplied)
\n     (II) Sections 65(c)  and  76(c)  of
\n     the Transfer of Property Act are to
\n     the following effect :-
\n     “65. In  the absence  of a contract
\n     to\t the   contrary,  the  mortgagor
\n     shall be  deemed to  contract  with
\n     the mortgagee–<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  that the  mortgagor  will,  so
\n     long as  the mortgagee  is\t not  in
\n     possession\t  of\tthe    mortgaged
\n     property, pay  all\t public\t charges
\n     accruing  due  in\trespect\t of  the
\n     property;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “76. When, during\tthe  continuance
\n     of\t the   mortgage,  the  mortgagee
\n     takes possession  of the  mortgaged
\n     property,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  he must,  in the  absence of a
\n     contract to  the contrary,\t out  of
\n     the income\t of  the  property,  pay
\n     Government\t  revenue,   all   other
\n     charges of\t a public nature and all
\n     rent  accruing   due   in\t respect
\n     thereof during  such possession and
\n     any arrears  of rent  in default of
\n     payment of\t which the  property may
\n     be summarily sold.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (emphasis supplied)
\n     (III) Section 90 of the Indian
\n     Trust Act, 1882 :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “90. Advantage gained  by qualified
\n     owner.– Where  a tenant  for life,
\n     co-owner,\t mortgagee    or   other
\n     qualified owner of any property, by
\n     availing himself of his position as
\n     such,   gains   an\t  advantage   in
\n     derogation of  the\t rights\t of  the
\n     other  persons  interested\t in  the
\n     property, or  where any such owner,
\n     interested in  such property, gains
\n     any advantage,  he must  hold,  for
\n     the  benefit   of\tall  persons  so
\n     interested,   the\t  advantage   so
\n     gained, but subject to repayment by
\n     such persons  of their due share of
\n     the expenses properly incurred, and
\n     to\t and   indemnity  by   the  same
\n     persons\t against     liabilities
\n     properly contracted in gaining such
\n     advantage.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (Emphasis supplied)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.\t  The\trelevant   portions   of
\n     Exhibit 35A, deed of mortgage dated
\n     3.4.1947 are as follows :-
\n     “For repaying  the\t loan  mentioned
\n     above and\tfor the\t house\texpenses
\n     (the amount mentioned above) I give
\n     my land  (as  mentioned  below)  as
\n     Mudat Kharadi.  I\thave  given  the
\n     land in  your  possession\tfor  the
\n     period 12 years to-day. So till the
\n     period of\tsale you  should pay the
\n     assessment and  cultivate the  land
\n     and should\t take the  income of the
\n     land. At  the expiry of the term of
\n     the deed,\t(I) will  pay the Rupaya
\n     and will  take  back  the\tland  by
\n     (“Sadavun”) redeeming  the same. If
\n     the amount\t will not be paid within
\n     the  time\t then  this   should  be
\n     treated as\t permanent sale\t and you
\n     should enjoy the suit land absolute
\n     for yourself  and\tby  your  heirs.
\n     Hence neither  myself nor\tmy heirs
\n     shall have\t any right  of claim  in
\n     respect of\t suit property. You will
\n     be\t  full\t owner\t of   the   suit
\n     property.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (emphasis supplied)
\n     The document is a possessory mortgage. The mortgagee is
\npermitted to  appropriate the  income of  the  land.(towards
\ninterest due).\tIt  is\tstated\tthat  the  income  from\t the
\ninterest due).\tIt  is\tstated\tthat  the  income  from\t the
\nproperty will  be Rs.  500-600 per  annum.  Admittedly,\t the
\nproperty is an inam land. By Maharashtra Act 60 of 1950, the
\nland was  resumed by  the Government  (Ext. 26). There was a
\nprovision to regrant it to the holder of the land on payment
\nof the\toccupancy price\t equal to  12 times of the amount of
\nthe amount  of the  full assessment of such land within five
\nyears from the date of coming into force of the Act. The Act
\ncame into  force on 25.1.1951. So the occupancy price should
\nbe paid\t on or\tbefore 25.1.1956.  The mortgagor did not pay
\nthe occupancy price till then. The lower appellate court has
\nfound that  the first respondent was taken to be a tenant of
\nthe land.  He paid  the occupancy  price (on  his  own)\t and
\nobtained the regrant from the Government. We are of the view
\nthat the  occupancy price payable under Section 4 of the Act
\nto obtain  a regrant,  will be covered by the expression all
\npublic charges\taccruing due in respect of the property, all
\nother charges of public nature as specified in Section 65(c)
\nand 76(c)  of the  Transfer of Property Act respectively. In
\nthe absence  of a  contract  to\t the  contrary,\t during\t the
\npendency  of   the  mortgage,\twhen  the  mortgagee  is  in
\npossession of the mortgaged property, he was bound to pay or
\nremit the occupancy price under Section 4 of the Act for and
\non behalf  of the  mortgagor, so as to prevent the happening
\nof  the\t  consequence  stated  in  the\tproviso.  The  first
\nrespondent-mortgagee  failed   to   comply   the   aforesaid
\nstatutory obligation.  He committed  a wrong  or a  default.
\nWhether the  default\/wrong committed  has  as  its  basis  a
\ncontractual obligation\tor a  statutory obligation, makes no
\ndifference. He was taken, to be a tenant by the authorities,
\nwhich enabled him to get the regrant in his favour. That was
\nonly  because\tthe  first   respondent,  as   a  possessory
\nmortgagee, was\tin  possession\tof  the\t property.  He\ttook
\nadvantage of  his position  as a possessory mortgagee. In so
\ndoing he  faulted. So,\ton facts, it is clear that the first
\nrespondent obtained  regrant in\t his favour  or obtained  an
\nadvantage in his favour, by availing himself of his position
\nas a  mortgagee. In law, the advantage obtained by the first
\nrespondent, the\t qualified owner, must be held to be for the
\nbenefit\t of   the  person  interested  —  the\tmortgagor  –
\nappellant. We  are of  the view\t that in the totality of the
\nfacts and  circumstances the provisions of Section 90 of the
\nIndian\tTrust  Act  are\t attracted.  The  first\t respondent-
\nmortgagee gained  an advantage\tby availing  himself of\t his
\nposition as a possessory mortgagee and obtained the regrant.
\nThis he did by committing a wrong. He committed a default in
\nnot paying  the occupancy  price within\t the time limited by
\nlaw for\t and on\t behalf of  the mortgagor.  The regrant\t was
\nobtained in  his name  by posing  himself as a tenant, which
\nwas possible  only because  he was in possession of the land
\n(as a possessory mortgagee). The  advantage so gained by him
\nin derogation  of the  right of the mortgagor should attract
\nthe penal  consequences of  Section 90\tof the\tIndian Trust
\nAct. We\t hold that  the default\t committed by  a  possessory
\nmortgagee, in the performance of a statutory obligation or a
\ncontractual obligation,\t which entails\ta sale or forfeiture
\nof right in the property, to the mortgagor, will attract the
\nprovisions of  Section 90  of the  Indian Trust Act. In such
\ncases any  benefit obtained  by\t the  qualified\t owner,\t the
\nmortgagee,  will   enure  to  or  for  the  benefit  of\t the
\nmortgagor. The\tright to redeem will subsist notwithstanding
\nany sale or forfeiture of the right of the mortgagor. We are
\nof the\tview that  the law  on this point has been laid down
\nwith admirable\tclarity by  this Court in Mritunjoy Pani and
\nanr. vs.  Narmanda Bala\t Sasmal and  anr. (1962 (1) SCR 290)
\nand by\tK.K. Mathew,  J. (as his lordship then was) in Nabia
\nYathu Ummal vs. Muhammed Mytheen & ors. (1963 KLJ 1177). The
\nsaid decisions have our respectful concurrence.\n<\/p>\n
7.   We, therefore,  set aside\tthe judgment  of the learned
\nsingle Judge  of the  Bombay High  Court rendered in S.A.No.
\n514 of\t1974 dated  19.11.1979 and  restore the judgment and
\ndecree of the District Judge, Satara, rendered in C.A. No.29
\nof 1972\t dated 30.1.1974.  The appeal  is allowed with costs
\nthroughout. The\t payment  ordered  by  the  District  Judge,
\nSatara, in  his judgement  dated 30.1.1974  inclusive of the
\namount remitted\t by the\t 1st respondent\t for  obtaining\t the
\noccupancy right,  shall be  remitted within  six months from
\ntoday and  thereupon the  appellant shall  recover from\t the
\nrespondents possession of the suit property.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Namdev Shripati Nale vs Bapu Ganapati Jagtap & Anr on 11 March, 1997 Author: Paripooran. Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, K.S. Paripoornan PETITIONER: NAMDEV SHRIPATI NALE Vs. RESPONDENT: BAPU GANAPATI JAGTAP & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/03\/1997 BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-229524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNamdev Shripati Nale vs Bapu Ganapati Jagtap & Anr on 11 March, 1997 - 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\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Namdev Shripati Nale vs Bapu Ganapati Jagtap & Anr on 11 March, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-18T22:10:40+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Namdev Shripati Nale vs Bapu Ganapati Jagtap & Anr on 11 March, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-18T22:10:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997\"},\"wordCount\":2687,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997\",\"name\":\"Namdev Shripati Nale vs Bapu Ganapati Jagtap & Anr on 11 March, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-18T22:10:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Namdev Shripati Nale vs Bapu Ganapati Jagtap & Anr on 11 March, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"Namdev Shripati Nale vs Bapu Ganapati Jagtap & Anr on 11 March, 1997 - 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\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Namdev Shripati Nale vs Bapu Ganapati Jagtap & Anr on 11 March, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-18T22:10:40+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Namdev Shripati Nale vs Bapu Ganapati Jagtap & Anr on 11 March, 1997","datePublished":"1997-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-18T22:10:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997"},"wordCount":2687,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997","name":"Namdev Shripati Nale vs Bapu Ganapati Jagtap & Anr on 11 March, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-18T22:10:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/namdev-shripati-nale-vs-bapu-ganapati-jagtap-anr-on-11-march-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Namdev Shripati Nale vs Bapu Ganapati Jagtap & Anr on 11 March, 1997"}]},{"@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\/229524","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=229524"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229524\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=229524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=229524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}