{"id":243589,"date":"2009-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009"},"modified":"2019-02-03T05:06:48","modified_gmt":"2019-02-02T23:36:48","slug":"maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Maruthi Jaiwant Nakadi vs Eknath G.Navarekar (Dead) By … on 14 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Maruthi Jaiwant Nakadi vs Eknath G.Navarekar (Dead) By … on 14 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: T Chatterjee<\/div>\n
Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, Dalveer Bhandari<\/div>\n
                                                                     1\n\n\n                                          REPORTABLE\n\n            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n            CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1027 OF 2001\n\nMaruthi Jaiwant Nakadi                                  ...\n\nAppellant\n\n                        VERSUS\n\nEknath G. Navarekar(Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors.        ....\n\nRespondents\n\n\n\n                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.\n<\/p>\n
  1) This   appeal by special leave arises from the<\/p>\n
    judgment and order dated 4th June, 1998 passed<\/p>\n
    by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in<\/p>\n
    LRRP No. 1960 of 1989, whereby the High Court<\/p>\n
    had      allowed    the   Petition   filed     by   the<\/p>\n
    Landlords\/Respondents, under Section 121A of the<\/p>\n
    Karnataka Land Reform Act,1961(in short `the Act’)<\/p>\n
    setting aside the orders passed by the Additional<\/p>\n
                                                          1<\/span>
\n                                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
  Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Sirsi and the<\/p>\n
  Land Tribunal, Halyala.\n<\/p>\n
2) The Tenant\/Appellant in this appeal, claiming to be<\/p>\n
  the tenant of Block No. 20 measuring 11 acres and<\/p>\n
  17 guntas of Kumbarkoppa Village in Haliyal<\/p>\n
  Taluk (hereinafter referred to as `land in question’),<\/p>\n
  filed an application in Form No. 7 before the Land<\/p>\n
  Tribunal, Halyala claiming occupancy rights under<\/p>\n
  the Act. In his application it was alleged that he<\/p>\n
  was    cultivating the land in question for many<\/p>\n
  years and was paying rent on crop share basis. It<\/p>\n
  was further alleged by the tenant\/Appellant that<\/p>\n
  since the Landlords\/Respondents never stayed in<\/p>\n
  the   Kumbarkoppa      Village,   the   question    of<\/p>\n
  cultivating the land in question by them would not<\/p>\n
  arise at all. Accordingly, the appellant prayed for<\/p>\n
  an order of occupancy right in respect of the land<\/p>\n
  in question on the aforesaid allegations.<\/p>\n
                                                       2<\/span>
\n                                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
3) The Landlords\/Respondents denied the material<\/p>\n
     allegations made in the application filed by the<\/p>\n
     Tenant\/Appellant, inter alia, alleging that the land<\/p>\n
     in question was never leased to anybody and was<\/p>\n
     cultivated   through   coolies,   even   the   revenue<\/p>\n
     records from the year 1956 onwards showed the<\/p>\n
     names of the landlords themselves and the mode of<\/p>\n
     cultivation as No.2, i.e. through hired labourers.<\/p>\n
     Accordingly, Landlords\/Respondents prayed for<\/p>\n
     rejection of the application filed by the appellant<\/p>\n
     claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land in<\/p>\n
     question.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4)   By an order dated 6th of December,1998, the Land<\/p>\n
     Tribunal, Halyala allowed the application of the<\/p>\n
     tenant\/Appellant holding that it was the appellant<\/p>\n
     who continued to cultivate the land in question<\/p>\n
     and therefore entitled to claim occupancy rights.<\/p>\n
                                                          3<\/span>
\n                                                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
  5) Feeling aggrieved, the Landlords\/Respondents filed<\/p>\n
     an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Sirsa<\/p>\n
     which dismissed the appeal of the Landlords\/<\/p>\n
     Respondents         and    confirmed   the    grant    of<\/p>\n
     occupancy rights relating to the land in question in<\/p>\n
     favour of the tenant\/Appellant inter alia holding<\/p>\n
     that :-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 1) The Landlords\/Respondents could not prove by<\/p>\n
cogent and sufficient evidence that they were in<\/p>\n
cultivation of the land in question;\n<\/p>\n
2) The presumption of the entry in the record of rights<\/p>\n
stood   rebutted    by    the    oral   evidence    of     the<\/p>\n
tenant\/appellant;\n<\/p>\n
3) The admission of the Landlords\/Respondents that<\/p>\n
they were not staying in the Kumbarkoppa village would<\/p>\n
itself be sufficient to grant occupancy rights in favour of<\/p>\n
the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             4<\/span>
\n                                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
6) Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority,<\/p>\n
  the Landlords\/Respondents filed a revision petition<\/p>\n
  under Section 121A of the Act which came to be<\/p>\n
  registered as No. 1960 of 1989 before the High<\/p>\n
  Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The High Court,<\/p>\n
  by the impugned judgment, had set aside the<\/p>\n
  concurrent findings of fact of the Tribunals below<\/p>\n
  and    thereby   allowed    the    application   by   the<\/p>\n
  landlords\/respondents under Section 121A of the<\/p>\n
  Act     and      rejected    the       application     of<\/p>\n
  tenant\/appellant for grant of occupancy rights in<\/p>\n
  respect of the land in question. It was, inter alia,<\/p>\n
  held    in    the    impugned         order   that    the<\/p>\n
  tenant\/appellant     had     failed     to    rebut   the<\/p>\n
  presumption of entries in the record of rights by<\/p>\n
  adducing reliable evidence and, therefore, had<\/p>\n
  failed to prove their tenancy relating to the land in<\/p>\n
  question.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          5<\/span>
\n                                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
7) Before us, the pivotal issues raised by the learned<\/p>\n
     counsel for the parties were as follows:<\/p>\n
a)    Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction<\/p>\n
      under Section 121A of the Act can re-appreciate<\/p>\n
      the evidence and come to a contrary finding to<\/p>\n
      that of the Tribunals below ?\n<\/p>\n
b)    Whether     the   High   Court,    while     exercising<\/p>\n
      jurisdiction under Section 121A of the Act, could<\/p>\n
      set aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded<\/p>\n
      by the Tribunals below only because another view<\/p>\n
      was possible ?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8) We have heard Mr. Chandrashekhar, learned<\/p>\n
     counsel     appearing     on       behalf       of   the<\/p>\n
     tenant\/appellant   and    Mr.   S.N.    Bhat,    learned<\/p>\n
     counsel     appearing     on       behalf       of   the<\/p>\n
     landlords\/Respondents.      We         have     carefully<\/p>\n
     examined the impugned judgment of the High<\/p>\n
     Court as well as the orders of the Tribunals below.<\/p>\n
     Before proceeding any further it is necessary to<\/p>\n
                                                             6<\/span>
\n                                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
     understand the scope of Section 121A of the Act.<\/p>\n
     The power conferred on the High Court to revise<\/p>\n
     the order of the Tribunal below has been provided<\/p>\n
     in Section 121A of the Act which reads thus:<\/p>\n
“The High Court may at any time call for the records of
\nany other order of proceeding recorded by the Appellate
\nAuthority under this Act or any other law for the purpose
\nof satisfying itself as to the legality of such order or as to
\nthe regularity of such proceeding and may pass such
\norder with respect thereto as it thinks fit.”<\/p>\n
  9) The scope of Section 121A of the Act has been<\/p>\n
     widely discussed in the case of Jagdeesh v. State of<\/p>\n
     Karnataka [AIR 2008 SC 1304], in which one of us<\/p>\n
     was a party (Chatterjee J.). In paragraphs 8 and 9<\/p>\n
     of the said decision it has been made clear as to<\/p>\n
     when the High Court could interfere with the<\/p>\n
     concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the<\/p>\n
     Tribunals below in exercise of its jurisdiction under<\/p>\n
     Section 121A of the Act for setting aside the<\/p>\n
     concurrent orders of the Tribunals below. In this<\/p>\n
     view of the matter, it would be appropriate to<\/p>\n
                                                             7<\/span>
\n                                                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
     reproduce Paragraphs 8 & 9 of the decision which<\/p>\n
     reads as below:\n<\/p>\n
\n“8. From a plain reading of Section 121A of the Act, under
\nwhich revisional jurisdiction can be exercised, it would be
\nclear that the High Court, while exercising such power is
\nentitled to re-appreciate the evidence when it finds that
\nthe conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority runs
\ncontrary to the materials on record and when it finds that
\nthere is no evidence to support the conclusion of the
\nappellate authority or when it finds that the reasons
\ngiven by the appellate authority are absolutely perverse
\nand cannot be supported by the evidence on record. It
\nwould also be clear from a plain reading of Section 121A
\nof the Act that the High Court is also entitled to interfere
\nwith the orders of the Tribunals below when the material
\nevidence on record was ignored or a finding was such
\nthat no court would come to such conclusion or that the
\ndecision of the Tribunals below was manifestly unjust.<\/p>\n
   9. We have carefully examined the provisions under
\nSection 121A of the Act, which is the revisional power
\nunder the Act, and also the provisions under Section 115
\nof the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”). So far
\nas Section 115 of the Code is concerned, it has been
\nmade clear that it is only in case of a jurisdictional error
\nor when the courts below had acted with material
\nirregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction that the
\nquestion of interfering with such an order can arise,
\notherwise, the High Court is not entitled to interfere with
\nany other order which does not satisfy the conditions laid
\ndown for interference under Section 115 of the Code. On
\nthe other hand, in our view, under Section 121A of the
\nAct, it would be open to the High Court to interfere with
\nthe orders of the tribunals below as the High Court is
\nempowered to look into the legality of the order or
\nregularity of the proceedings although, in the exercise of<\/p>\n
                                                            8<\/span>
\n                                                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code, the
\nHigh Court is not entitled to look into the legality of the
\norder or the regularity of the proceedings but only entitled
\nto interfere with the orders of the Tribunals or the courts
\nbelow when it finds that they have a) exercised a
\njurisdiction not vested in them by law, or b) failed to
\nexercise a jurisdiction so vested, or c) acted in the
\nexercise of their jurisdiction illegally or with material
\nirregularity. Reading the aforesaid provisions viz., Section
\n121A of the Act and Section 115 of the Code, we have no
\nhesitation in our mind to hold that the revisional power
\nexercised by the High Court under Section 121A of the
\nAct is wider than the one exercised by the High Court in
\nits revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code.
\nAs noted herein earlier, since Section 121A of the Act
\nclearly empowers the High Court to look into the legality
\nof the orders impugned, therefore, it would be open to the
\nHigh Court to consider the material evidence on record,
\nwhen it finds that such evidence was not at all
\nconsidered by the tribunals below or when the conclusion
\narrived at by the tribunals below run contrary to the
\nmaterials on record or when it finds that there is no
\nevidence to support the conclusion of the tribunals below
\nor that the reasons given by the tribunals below are
\nabsolutely perverse or a finding was such that no court
\nwould come to such a conclusion or that the decisions of
\nthe tribunals below were manifestly unjust.”<\/p>\n
  10)In the present case while setting aside the findings<\/p>\n
     of the Tribunal, the High Court made the following<\/p>\n
     findings:\n<\/p>\n
  “In the present case, except the oral evidence of the
\ntenant no material has been placed before the court.
\nAccording to the tenant, he is cultivating the land since
\n1962 and has been paying 40 bags of paddy per year<\/p>\n
                                                           9<\/span>
\n                                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
towards rent. He has stated that he has got a residential
\nhouse at Kumbarkoppa Village and also a cattle shed in
\nthe land. He has admitted that he has not taken any
\nreceipt from the landlords and that on the say of Eknath
\nGopal Navarekar, one of the landlords, he was coming to
\nKumbarkoppa to cultivate the land in question. As
\nagainst this evidence there is evidence of the landlord
\nwho has stated that, though his two brothers are staying
\naway from the land in question as they are in service, it
\nis one of the brothers,, viz., Shankar Gopal Navarekar,
\nPetitioner 2, who is staying at Haliyal which is just 5 km
\naway, is getting the land cultivated through hired
\nlabourers or coolies. He has also stated the land was
\nnever leased to anybody and that sometimes the tenant
\nwas also engaged as a coolie……………………..”<\/p>\n
“He has further stated apart from the oral evidence that
\nthe landlords have produced the revenue records from the
\nyear 1962 onwards which shows that it is the petitioners
\nwho are in possession and cultivation of the land in
\nquestion. The mode of cultivation is also shown as No. 2
\nwhich is through hired labourer or coolie. There is
\nabsolutely no rebuttable evidence produced or even
\nsuggested from him to show these entries are false and
\nfabricated. As observed by this Court in the case of
\nRadhakrishna Setty v. Land Tribunal, Somwarpet, &
\nAnother [1977(2) Kar.L.J., 281], the statutory presumption
\narising out of the revenue record should be given due
\nimportance and the mere subjective satisfaction of the
\nTribunal is not enough. The tribunal has to give reasons
\nto discard the entries in the record of rights. Thus there is
\nno rebuttal evidence led by the tenant to show that,
\nthough he was cultivating the land in question, his name
\nwas not entered for some reason or even due to high
\nhandedness of the landlords. The only circumstance
\nrelied upon by the Tribunal and the Appellate authority is
\nthe statement of the landlord that the tenant is residing
\nat Kumbarkoppa and one of the tenant is staying at<\/p>\n
                                                            10<\/span>
\n                                                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
Haliyal which is 5km away and it is not possible for him
\nto cultivate the land by himself or through coolie; that as
\n2 out of 3 Appellants are staying away on job it is not
\npossible for the landlords to self- cultivate the land and
\nthat by admitting that the tenant was sometimes engaged
\nas coolie, the presumption arising under Section 133 of
\nthe Act has been rebutted”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  11)Finally, while setting aside the findings of fact, the<\/p>\n
     High Court, came to a conclusion:\n<\/p>\n
“As noted by me earlier, the discussion of the Appellate
\nAuthority and the tribunal is absolutely based on no
\nmaterial evidence. The so called admissions of the
\nlandlord are not admissions at all…………..<\/p>\n
I find that the reasoning given by the Appellate Authority
\nas well as by the Tribunal are totally baseless without
\nany evidence and they have relied upon the so-called
\nstatement and arrived at the finding merely on
\nconjectures and surmises.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  12)From a careful examination of the findings given<\/p>\n
     by the High Court, as quoted hereinabove, it would<\/p>\n
     be clear that the High Court, while setting aside the<\/p>\n
     concurrent orders of the Tribunals below, has<\/p>\n
     rightly taken into consideration that although the<\/p>\n
     tenant\/Appellant was claiming to be cultivating the<\/p>\n
     land in question, he had failed to produce any<\/p>\n
                                                          11<\/span>
\n                                                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
  receipt taken from the Landlords\/Respondents in<\/p>\n
  lieu of rent and on the other hand, the High Court<\/p>\n
  was   fully   justified   in   holding   that   the<\/p>\n
  Landlords\/Respondents had produced the entries<\/p>\n
  made in record of rights relating to the land in<\/p>\n
  question from the year 1962 which amply proved<\/p>\n
  that the landlords\/respondents were cultivating<\/p>\n
  the land in question and in absence of any reliable<\/p>\n
  evidence it was difficult to       prove that the<\/p>\n
  tenant\/appellant was in cultivation of the land in<\/p>\n
  question.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13)We are also in agreement with the High Court,<\/p>\n
  when the High Court had held that the statutory<\/p>\n
  presumption arising out of the revenue record<\/p>\n
  must be given due importance and mere subjective<\/p>\n
  satisfaction of the tribunal was not enough. It was<\/p>\n
  for the tribunal to give reasons to discard the<\/p>\n
  entries made in the record of rights. The High<\/p>\n
  Court also, in our view, was fully justified that<\/p>\n
                                                    12<\/span>
\n                                                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
  there was absolutely no rebuttal evidence led by<\/p>\n
  the tenant\/appellant to show that though he was<\/p>\n
  cultivating the land in question his name had not<\/p>\n
  been entered for some reason or even due to the<\/p>\n
  high handedness of the landlords\/respondents.<\/p>\n
  Furthermore, in view of our discussions and<\/p>\n
  findings made herein above and considering the<\/p>\n
  power and scope of the High Court under Section<\/p>\n
  121A of the Act to interfere with the findings of fact<\/p>\n
  of the courts below and the power and scope of the<\/p>\n
  High Court to interfere under Section 115 of the<\/p>\n
  Code of Civil Procedure, we do not find any ground<\/p>\n
  to upset the judgment of the High Court which is<\/p>\n
  impugned before us.\n<\/p>\n
14)Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity and<\/p>\n
  illegality in the impugned judgment of the High<\/p>\n
  Court. The appeal has thus no merit and is,<\/p>\n
  therefore, dismissed and there will be no order as<\/p>\n
  to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       13<\/span>
\n                                                                 14<\/span><\/p>\n
                        ………………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      (TARUN
\nCHATTERJEE)<\/p>\n
                             ……………………………….
\n                     …J.\n<\/p>\n
                               (DALVEER BHANDARI)
\nNew Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
December 14, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 14<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Maruthi Jaiwant Nakadi vs Eknath G.Navarekar (Dead) By … on 14 December, 2009 Author: T Chatterjee Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, Dalveer Bhandari 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1027 OF 2001 Maruthi Jaiwant Nakadi … Appellant VERSUS Eknath G. Navarekar(Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors. […]<\/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-243589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMaruthi Jaiwant Nakadi vs Eknath G.Navarekar (Dead) By ... on 14 December, 2009 - 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\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maruthi Jaiwant Nakadi vs Eknath G.Navarekar (Dead) By ... on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-02T23:36:48+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maruthi Jaiwant Nakadi vs Eknath G.Navarekar (Dead) By … on 14 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-02T23:36:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2471,\"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\\\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Maruthi Jaiwant Nakadi vs Eknath G.Navarekar (Dead) By ... on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-02T23:36:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maruthi Jaiwant Nakadi vs Eknath G.Navarekar (Dead) By … on 14 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Maruthi Jaiwant Nakadi vs Eknath G.Navarekar (Dead) By ... on 14 December, 2009 - 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\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maruthi Jaiwant Nakadi vs Eknath G.Navarekar (Dead) By ... on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-02T23:36:48+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maruthi Jaiwant Nakadi vs Eknath G.Navarekar (Dead) By … on 14 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-02T23:36:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009"},"wordCount":2471,"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\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009","name":"Maruthi Jaiwant Nakadi vs Eknath G.Navarekar (Dead) By ... on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-02T23:36:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruthi-jaiwant-nakadi-vs-eknath-g-navarekar-dead-by-on-14-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maruthi Jaiwant Nakadi vs Eknath G.Navarekar (Dead) By … on 14 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/243589","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=243589"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243589\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243589"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}