{"id":237528,"date":"1999-08-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-08-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999"},"modified":"2016-03-26T22:19:35","modified_gmt":"2016-03-26T16:49:35","slug":"smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Ramkubai Since Deceased By &#8230; vs Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak &amp; &#8230; on 13 August, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. Ramkubai Since Deceased By &#8230; vs Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak &amp; &#8230; on 13 August, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S S Quadri<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: V.N.Khare, Syed Shah Quadri<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSMT. RAMKUBAI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHAJARIMAL DHOKALCHAND CHANDAK &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t13\/08\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nV.N.Khare, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the<br \/>\njudgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay<br \/>\nin  W.P.No.362 of 1984 dated March 27, 1997.  The appellants<br \/>\nare   the  legal  representatives   of\tdeceased   landlady,<br \/>\nSmt.Ramkubai,  and  the respondents are\t original  defendant<br \/>\nNo.1,\tHajarimal   Dhokalchand\t Chandak   and\t the   legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives of the second defendant Lalchand Dhokalchand<br \/>\nChandak\t (hereinafter they are referred to as &#8216;landlady&#8217; and<br \/>\n&#8216;tenants&#8217;).\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  landlady  filed  civil suit, bearing\t Civil\tSuit<br \/>\nNo.12  of  1975 in the Court of Civil Judge J.D.   Igatpuri,<br \/>\nagainst\t the  respondent No.1 herein and the  said  Lalchand<br \/>\nDhokalchand  Chandak  who  died during the pendency  of\t the<br \/>\nproceedings,  respondent  Nos.&#8217;2A&#8217;  to &#8216;2F&#8217;  are  his  legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives, for recovery of possession of house bearing<br \/>\nMunicipal No.138 and one of the rooms in house No.150 within<br \/>\nthe  Municipal limits of Igatpuri town (for short &#8216;the\tsuit<br \/>\npremises&#8217;)  under  Sections 12 and 13(1)(e) and (g)  of\t the<br \/>\nBombay\tRents,\tHotel and Lodging House Rates  Control\tAct,<br \/>\n1947  (for  short  &#8216;the Act&#8217;).\tRecovery of  possession\t was<br \/>\nsought on the following three grounds :\n<\/p>\n<p>      (1)  the\ttenant committed default in payment of\trent<br \/>\nfor  the  period, June 1973 to November 10, 1974;   (2)\t the<br \/>\nfirst defendant sublet the premises to the second defendant;<br \/>\n(3)  bona  fide\t requirement of the  landlady  for  personal<br \/>\noccupation of her family.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The first defendant did not oppose the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The second defendant contested the suit and denied all<br \/>\nthe  grounds.\tIt was pleaded that the first defendant\t and<br \/>\nthe  second  defendant were brothers and they  constitute  a<br \/>\njoint family and that the premises was obtained by the first<br \/>\ndefendant  for\tthe family.  The learned trial\tcourt  found<br \/>\nthat  all  the grounds were established by the landlady\t and<br \/>\ngranted\t a decree for eviction of tenants.  The tenants went<br \/>\nin  appeal  before the Court of Assistant Judge of Nasik  in<br \/>\nCivil Appeal No.138 of 1981.  The Appellate Court found that<br \/>\nthere  was no wilful default in payment of rent;  there\t was<br \/>\nno  subletting of the premises and that there was no case of<br \/>\npersonal  requirement of the landlady.\tHowever, it has held<br \/>\nthat  there would not be any real hardship to the tenants if<br \/>\ndecree\tof  eviction  is  passed  on  the  ground  that\t the<br \/>\nlandlady&#8217;s requirement is bona fide and reasonable.  In this<br \/>\nview,  the Appellate Court set aside the order of the  trial<br \/>\ncourt  and  allowed the appeal on September 28,\t 1983.\t The<br \/>\ncorrectness  of\t that  judgment of the Appellate  Court\t was<br \/>\nassailed  by  the appellants in the High Court of Bombay  in<br \/>\nWrit  Petition No.362 of 1984.\tThe High Court confirmed the<br \/>\nfindings  of  the  Appellate Court on all  the\tgrounds\t and<br \/>\ndismissed  the writ petition on March 27, 1997.\t It is\tfrom<br \/>\nthat  judgment and order of the High Court that this  appeal<br \/>\narises.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  only\t point canvassed before us relates  to\tbona<br \/>\nfide personal requirement of the landlady.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Mr.   V.N.   Ganpule, learned senior counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellants,  contended that the landlady sought eviction  of<br \/>\nthe  tenants for personal requirement to establish a  Kirana<br \/>\nshop  for  her\tson &#8211; Bhikchand Jasraj Chordiya\t (for  short<br \/>\n&#8216;Bhikchand&#8217;) &#8211; which was her family business and that merely<br \/>\non  the\t ground\t that her other son is\tcarrying  on  Kirana<br \/>\nbusiness  in one shop and she is a partner in the firm which<br \/>\nis carrying on the business in the second shop, the plea for<br \/>\nbona  fide  personal requirement was negatived by  both\t the<br \/>\nAppellate Court as well as the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Mr.  V.A.\t Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing for<br \/>\nthe  respondents,  submitted that the reasons given  by\t the<br \/>\nAppellate  Court  and confirmed by the High Court  are\tvery<br \/>\ncogent and the order under appeal is a just order which does<br \/>\nnot warrant any interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Since,  the  only\t ground urged for  consideration  is<br \/>\nunder  Section\t13(1)(g), it may be useful to  extract\tthat<br \/>\nprovision here :-\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;13(1)(g).  When landlord may recover possession &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (1)  Notwithstanding  anything contained in  this\t Act<br \/>\n[but  subject  to  the [the provisions of  Sections  15\t and<br \/>\n15A]], a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of<br \/>\nany premises if the Court is satisfied-\n<\/p>\n<p>      (g).   That the premises are reasonably and bona\tfide<br \/>\nrequired by the landlord for occupation by himself or by any<br \/>\nperson for whose benefit the premises are held [or where the<br \/>\nlandlord  is  a trustee of public charitable trust that\t the<br \/>\npremises are required for occupation for the purposes of the<br \/>\ntrust;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      A\t plain\treading of Section 13(1)(g) shows  that\t the<br \/>\nlandlord  is entitled to recover possession of any  premises<br \/>\nif he satisfies the court, inter alia, that the premises are<br \/>\nreasonably  and bona fide required by him for occupation  by<br \/>\nhimself\t or by any person for whose benefit the premises are<br \/>\nheld.\tIt is not disputed before us that the requirement of<br \/>\nthe  landlady to set up her son Bhikchand in business  falls<br \/>\nunder  clause  (g).  What is contended is that the  landlady<br \/>\ndoes  not  bona fide require the premises to set  up  Kirana<br \/>\nbusiness  for  Bhikchand and that ground is a mere  ruse  to<br \/>\nseek recovery of possession of the premises.\n<\/p>\n<p>      We  have\talready noted above that the ground of\tbona<br \/>\nfide  requirement of the landlady was accepted by the  trial<br \/>\ncourt  but  it was negatived by the Appellate Court and\t the<br \/>\nsame  was confirmed by the High Court.\tThe Appellate  Court<br \/>\nwas  swayed  away by the fact that the landlady herself\t did<br \/>\nnot come into the witness box to support her claim.  What is<br \/>\nnot  appreciated  by  the Appellate Court is  that  her\t son<br \/>\nBhikchand  who\twas  also her G.P.A.  holder and  for  whose<br \/>\nbenefit\t the  business\tis to be set up, did come  into\t the<br \/>\nwitness\t box  to support the case of  personal\trequirement.<br \/>\nThe  Appellate\tCourt  was of the view that  the  bona\tfide<br \/>\nrequirement  is in the first place a state of mind and might<br \/>\nbe  something more and that could be established only by the<br \/>\nlandlady.   In all fairness to Mr.Mohta, we must note,\tthat<br \/>\nhe conceded that that reasoning of the Appellate Court could<br \/>\nnot  be supported.  The second reason given by the Appellate<br \/>\nCourt  is that at the time of filing of petition the son  of<br \/>\nthe  landlady  was unemployed but later on he started  doing<br \/>\nwork  as  a contractor in construction field, so he did\t not<br \/>\nreally\twant to run a Kirana shop in the suit premises.\t The<br \/>\nAppellate  Court was of the view that had he really intended<br \/>\nto  take  up  Kirana business he would not  have  started  a<br \/>\nbusiness  like that of a contractor.  The third reason given<br \/>\nby  him is that the landlady was a partner, after the  death<br \/>\nof  her husband, in the Kirana business run by her husband&#8217;s<br \/>\nbrother.  It was also noted that another son of the landlady<br \/>\nis  in possession of another shop and doing Kirana  business<br \/>\nand  thus the family is engaged in doing Kirana business  in<br \/>\ntwo  shops and if Bhikchand wanted to do Kirana business  he<br \/>\ncould\thave  joined  existing\t business.   From  this\t the<br \/>\nAppellate  Court concluded that the landlady did not require<br \/>\nthe  suit  premises  for establishing  Bhikchand  in  Kirana<br \/>\nbusiness.   The learned counsel for the respondents strongly<br \/>\nsupported  these reasons.  It is correct that Bhikchand\t was<br \/>\nunemployed  on\tthe date of filing of the suit but he  could<br \/>\nnot  be\t expected  to  idle   away  the\t time  by  remaining<br \/>\nunemployed till the case is finally decided.  It has already<br \/>\ntaken  about  25  years.  Therefore, we do  not\t think\tthat<br \/>\ntaking\tup contractor work, in the meanwhile, will  militate<br \/>\nagainst\t his carrying on the business of Kirana which is his<br \/>\nfamily\tbusiness, which was carried on by his father and  is<br \/>\nbeing  carried\ton by his brother independently.  The  facts<br \/>\nthat  the landlady during her life time was a partner in the<br \/>\nfirm  carrying\ton  Kirana  business and her  elder  son  is<br \/>\ncarrying  on Kirana business do not disentitle Bhikchand  to<br \/>\nestablish  his\town business.  We are not impressed  by\t the<br \/>\nother  reasoning and conclusion of the Appellate Court which<br \/>\nare  confirmed by the High Court.  In our view, none of\t the<br \/>\nreasons leads to the inference that Bhikchand did not intend<br \/>\nto  start family Kirana business, so relief cannot be denied<br \/>\nto  the\t landlady to recover the suit premises for  personal<br \/>\nrequirement  of\t Bhikchand  to\t establish  Kirana  business<br \/>\nindependently.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  only other aspect which is required to be noticed<br \/>\nis  requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act.<br \/>\nIt  enjoins the court not to pass decree for eviction  under<br \/>\nclause\t(g) of sub-section (1) if, having regard to all\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances  of  the case including the  question  whether<br \/>\nother reasonable accommodation is available for the landlord<br \/>\nor  the tenant, it is satisfied that greater hardship  would<br \/>\nbe  caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it<br \/>\nand  if\t the  court is satisfied that no hardship  would  be<br \/>\ncaused\teither\tto the tenant or to the landlord by  passing<br \/>\nthe  decree in respect of a part of the premises, the  Court<br \/>\nhas to pass the decree in respect of such part only.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In this case, the Appellate Court recorded the finding<br \/>\nthat  the  landlady  will suffer greater hardship  than\t the<br \/>\ntenants if decree is not passed in her favour.\tThis finding<br \/>\nhas become final and thus the requirement of sub-section (2)<br \/>\nis also satisfied.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  this connection, it is apt to notice that  Section<br \/>\n17  of\tthe Act provides for recovery of possession  of\t the<br \/>\npremises by the original tenant in the event of the landlord<br \/>\nnot  occupying\tthe premises or re- letting the premises  to<br \/>\nany other person than the original tenant.  Further, it also<br \/>\nprovides  penal action against the landlord who violates the<br \/>\nprovision  of  clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section\t 13.<br \/>\nThese  provisions amply safeguard the interest and rights of<br \/>\ntenants and prevent misuse of clause (g).\n<\/p>\n<p>      We  are  satisfied  that the present  appellants\thave<br \/>\nestablished  bona fide requirement to recover the possession<br \/>\nof the suit premises from the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>      For  all these reasons, we set aside the judgment\t and<br \/>\norder  of the High Court, under appeal, confirming the order<br \/>\nof  the\t Appellate Court and restore the order of the  trial<br \/>\ncourt  in  so far as it relates to the ground under  Section<br \/>\n13(1)(g)  of the Act.  The appeal is, accordingly,  allowed.<br \/>\nThere shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Smt. Ramkubai Since Deceased By &#8230; vs Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak &amp; &#8230; on 13 August, 1999 Author: S S Quadri Bench: V.N.Khare, Syed Shah Quadri PETITIONER: SMT. RAMKUBAI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: HAJARIMAL DHOKALCHAND CHANDAK &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/08\/1999 BENCH: V.N.Khare, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri [&hellip;]<\/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-237528","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Smt. Ramkubai Since Deceased By ... vs Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak &amp; ... on 13 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Ramkubai Since Deceased By ... vs Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak &amp; ... on 13 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-26T16:49:35+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Ramkubai Since Deceased By &#8230; vs Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak &amp; &#8230; on 13 August, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-26T16:49:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999\"},\"wordCount\":1746,\"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\\\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999\",\"name\":\"Smt. Ramkubai Since Deceased By ... vs Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak &amp; ... on 13 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-26T16:49:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Ramkubai Since Deceased By &#8230; vs Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak &amp; &#8230; on 13 August, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt. Ramkubai Since Deceased By ... vs Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak &amp; ... on 13 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Ramkubai Since Deceased By ... vs Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak &amp; ... on 13 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-26T16:49:35+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Ramkubai Since Deceased By &#8230; vs Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak &amp; &#8230; on 13 August, 1999","datePublished":"1999-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-26T16:49:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999"},"wordCount":1746,"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\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999","name":"Smt. Ramkubai Since Deceased By ... vs Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak &amp; ... on 13 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-26T16:49:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-ramkubai-since-deceased-by-vs-hajarimal-dhokalchand-chandak-on-13-august-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Ramkubai Since Deceased By &#8230; vs Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak &amp; &#8230; on 13 August, 1999"}]},{"@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\/237528","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=237528"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237528\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237528"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237528"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237528"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}