{"id":252153,"date":"1994-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994"},"modified":"2016-11-28T16:35:49","modified_gmt":"2016-11-28T11:05:49","slug":"ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994","title":{"rendered":"Ratna Alias Ratnavati(Smt) vs Syndicate Bank And Others on 24 November, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ratna Alias Ratnavati(Smt) vs Syndicate Bank And Others on 24 November, 1994<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC  (1) 407, 1994 SCALE  (5)283<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           PETITIONER:\nRATNA ALIAS RATNAVATI(SMT)\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSYNDICATE BANK AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT24\/11\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nVENKATACHALA N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 SCC  (1) 407\t  1994 SCALE  (5)283\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">ORDER\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">1.   Delay condoned.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">2.   The  father of the petitioner was the 2nd defendant  in<br \/>\nOS  No.\t 232 of 1986 filed in the Court of  Civil  Judge  at<br \/>\nUdipi.\t The suit had been filed under Order 34 Rule  4\t for<br \/>\nthe  recovery  of  the\tmoney due  under  an  hypotheca.   A<br \/>\npreliminary  decree was passed in the suit on  28-6-1989  on<br \/>\nthe basis of a joint memo filed by the parties.\t Thereafter,<br \/>\nMuthu Marakala, the second<br \/>\n+  From\t the  Judgment\tand Order  dated  19-4-1994  of\t the<br \/>\nKarnataka High Court in C.R.P. No. 782 of 1994<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">408<\/span><br \/>\ndefendant\/surety, died.\t An Application No. 316 of 1991,  to<br \/>\npass final decree, when was filed by the plaintiff, it\talso<br \/>\nmade  an  application  to  bring  the  petitioner  as  legal<br \/>\nrepresentative\tof  deceased second  respondent,  which\t was<br \/>\nopposed\t on the ground that such application was  barred  by<br \/>\nlimitation  and the preliminary decree, itself,\t had  abated<br \/>\nafter  the  expiry  of 90 days from the\t date  of  death  of<br \/>\ndefendant  2.  An objection had also been  raised  that\t the<br \/>\npetitioner  was not liable to pay the amount of\t the  decree<br \/>\nunless\tprincipal  debtor-defendant was\t proceeded  against.<br \/>\nThat  application  was\tallowed\t by  the  trial\t court.\t  On<br \/>\nrevision,  while leaving open the second question, the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  of  Karnataka by its impugned order  dated  19-4-1994<br \/>\nmade  in CRP No. 782 of 1994 upheld the order of  the  trial<br \/>\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">3.Shri\tSantosh\t Hegde,\t learned  Senior  Counsel  for\t the<br \/>\npetitioner,  contended that though a preliminary decree\t had<br \/>\nbeen  passed  by  the trial court, it, by  itself,  was\t not<br \/>\nexecutable  unless  final  decree thereon  was\tpassed.\t  In<br \/>\nmaking\tthe  final decree, an adjudication on  issues  which<br \/>\narise,\t needs\t to   be   made.    Therefore,\t the   legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives of the deceased defendant 2 should have been<br \/>\nbrought on record within 90 days from the date of his  death<br \/>\nunder  <a href=\"\/doc\/1226884\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article\t120<\/a> and if 60 days&#8217; time expires  after\t the<br \/>\nexpiry\tof  90\tdays,  an  application\tfor  setting   aside<br \/>\nabatement  under <a href=\"\/doc\/598239\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 121<\/a> of Schedule to <a href=\"\/doc\/1317393\/\" id=\"a_2\">Limitation\tAct<\/a>,<br \/>\n1963 should have been made.  Since such applications had not<br \/>\nbeen filed within the periods of limitation, the preliminary<br \/>\ndecree\titself, stood abated.  The trial court and the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  were  not  right in directing to\t implead  the  legal<br \/>\nrepresentative of the second defendant.\t We find no force in<br \/>\nthe contentions.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">4.It  is  seen\tthat the decree in  question  is  a  consent<br \/>\ndecree, which had become final.\t The preliminary decree made<br \/>\nunder  Order 34, Rule 4 CPC clearly mentions in\t clause\t (1)<br \/>\nthat  &#8220;the defendants jointly, severally and  personally  do<br \/>\npay  to\t the plaintiff a sum of Rs 7,31,984.10\twith  future<br \/>\ninterest  on Rs 3,45,461.55 (loan account Serial Nos. 1,  3,<br \/>\n4, of the &#8216;C&#8217; Schedule) at the rate mentioned therein&#8221;.\t  It<br \/>\nis,  thereby, clear that the adjudication of  and  fastening<br \/>\nthe   liability\t  on  the   respective\t defendants   became<br \/>\nconclusive.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">5.   Clause (5) of the preliminary decree mentioned:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>\t      &#8220;And it is hereby further ordered and  decreed<br \/>\n\t      that, if the money realised by such sale shall<br \/>\n\t      not  be sufficient for payment in full of\t the<br \/>\n\t      amount payable to the plaintiff as  aforesaid,<br \/>\n\t      the plaintiff shall be at liberty (where\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      remedy  is open to him under the terms of\t his<br \/>\n\t      mortgage and is not barred by any law for\t the<br \/>\n\t      time  being in force) to apply for a  personal<br \/>\n\t      decree  against the defendants for the  amount<br \/>\n\t      of  the balance; and that the parties  are  at<br \/>\n\t      liberty  to  apply to the Court from  time  to<br \/>\n\t      time  as they may have occasion, and  on\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      application  or otherwise the Court  may\tgive<br \/>\n\t      such directions as it thinks fit.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_6\">From this, it is contended that a further adjudication needs<br \/>\nto be made and that, therefore, it is necessary to bring the<br \/>\nlegal representatives within the limitation prescribed under<br \/>\nArticles 120 and 121 of Schedule to the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">409<\/span><br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1317393\/\" id=\"a_3\">Limitation Act<\/a>, 1963.  It is seen that clause (1) determined<br \/>\na personal liability against each individual defendant.\t But<br \/>\nsince  suit is based on hypotheca, a preliminary decree\t was<br \/>\npassed.\t Several clauses are introduced for diverse steps to<br \/>\nbe taken.  Rule 4 of Order 34 provides that the court should<br \/>\npass a preliminary decree in terms of clauses (a), (b),\t (c)<br \/>\nand  (i) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2. It further directs\tthat<br \/>\nin  default of the defendant paying the amount as  mentioned<br \/>\ntherein,  the  plaintiff shall be entitled to  apply  for  a<br \/>\nfinal decree directing that the hypotheca or sufficient part<br \/>\nthereof\t to  be\t sold and the proceeds of  the\tsale  (after<br \/>\ndeducting  therefrom  the expenses of the sale) to  be\tpaid<br \/>\ninto court and applied in payment of what has been found  or<br \/>\ndeclared  under or by the preliminary decree as due  to\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff  together  with  such\t amount\t as  may  have\tbeen<br \/>\n&#8216;adjudged&#8217; in the appeal against preliminary decree etc. due<br \/>\nin  respect  of\t subsequent  costs,  charges,  expenses\t and<br \/>\ninterest.  The balance, if any, be paid to the defendant  or<br \/>\nother persons entitled to recover the same.  Clause (5) says<br \/>\nthat  &#8220;in  the\tevent of non-payment  and  the\tdecree\tdebt<br \/>\nremains\t unrealised, for such balance amount due,  plaintiff<br \/>\nhas  been empowered to apply for a personal  decree  against<br \/>\nthe defendant.\tIt would be in terms of the mortgage and  is<br \/>\nnot barred by any law.\tThe defendant(s) is\/are required  to<br \/>\npay  the money within the time specified in the\t preliminary<br \/>\ndecree and in default, the plaintiff was directed to proceed<br \/>\nagainst\t  the  defendant(s)  in\t terms\tof   final   decree.<br \/>\nThereafter, the decree holder is entitled to proceed against<br \/>\nthe judgment-debtors individually, severally and jointly.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">6.   Order  22 Rule 1 says that &#8220;the death of  plaintiff  or<br \/>\ndefendant shall not cause the suit to abate if the right  to<br \/>\nsue  survives&#8221;.\t  Rule\t2  says that  in  case\tof  multiple<br \/>\nplaintiffs or defendants, if any of them dies and where\t the<br \/>\nright  to  sue\tsurvives  to  the  surviving  plaintiff\t  or<br \/>\nplaintiffs\/defendants,\tthe  court shall cause an  entry  to<br \/>\nthat effect made and shall proceed with the suit under\tRule<br \/>\n4,  if\tthe  right does not survive  against  the  surviving<br \/>\ndefendants  alone, on an application made, the\tcourt  shall<br \/>\ncause the legal representative substituted and shall proceed<br \/>\nwith  the suit.\t A decree passed confers rights and  imposes<br \/>\nliabilities which are fixed until the decree is reversed  or<br \/>\nvaried in appeal.  The preliminary decree declares rights of<br \/>\nthe  plaintiff and liabilities of the respective  defendants<br \/>\nand they become final.\tThe suit would not abate between the<br \/>\ndate  of preliminary decree and final decree.  In this\tview<br \/>\nof  the matter, the question which emerges is whether it  is<br \/>\nnot  necessary for the decree-holder to make an\t application<br \/>\nwithin\tthe limitation prescribed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1226884\/\" id=\"a_4\">Article 120<\/a>  of\t the<br \/>\nSchedule  to  the  <a href=\"\/doc\/1317393\/\" id=\"a_5\">Limitation Act<\/a>, 1963 to  have  the  legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives\t  brought   on\trecord.\t  Section   52\t CPC<br \/>\nadumbrates  that  a money decree passed\t against  the  legal<br \/>\nrepresentative\tof  the\t deceased  defendant,  out  of\t the<br \/>\nproperty  of the deceased in his hands, may be\texecuted  by<br \/>\nattachment   or\t sale  of  that\t property.   If\t the   legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives\t fail  to  satisfy the court  that  he\tduly<br \/>\napplied\t the property to discharge the debt or the court  is<br \/>\nnot  satisfied\tof  his so doing, the  court  would  proceed<br \/>\nagainst\t the legal representatives personally and  to  apply<br \/>\nthe  property  by sale to satisfy the decree debt.   At\t the<br \/>\ntime when the application for passing the final decree is<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">410<\/span><br \/>\nfiled,\tit  is\tenough\tif  the\t legal\trepresentatives\t are<br \/>\nimpleaded, all or any of the legal representatives or one of<br \/>\nthe  LRs  of  the  deceased  defendant\tjudgment  debtor  to<br \/>\nrepresent the estate of the deceased.  If death of defendant<br \/>\ntakes  place  pending passing of final decree  they  may  be<br \/>\nbrought\t on record under Section 151 CPC or Order 1 Rule  10<br \/>\nCPC.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">7.Considered from this perspective, we are of the considered<br \/>\nview  that the High Court was right in its  conclusion\tthat<br \/>\nthere is no need to make an application within the period of<br \/>\nlimitation  as\tprovided under Articles 120 and 121  of\t the<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1317393\/\" id=\"a_6\">Limitation  Act<\/a>\t to bring the LRs of deceased  defendant  on<br \/>\nrecord\tand  to seek to set aside the  abatement  after\t the<br \/>\nexpiry of 90 days.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">8.   The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">412<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Ratna Alias Ratnavati(Smt) vs Syndicate Bank And Others on 24 November, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (1) 407, 1994 SCALE (5)283 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: RATNA ALIAS RATNAVATI(SMT) Vs. RESPONDENT: SYNDICATE BANK AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT24\/11\/1994 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J) CITATION: 1995 [&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-252153","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>Ratna Alias Ratnavati(Smt) vs Syndicate Bank And Others on 24 November, 1994 - 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\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ratna Alias Ratnavati(Smt) vs Syndicate Bank And Others on 24 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994\" \/>\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=\"1994-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-28T11:05:49+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ratna Alias Ratnavati(Smt) vs Syndicate Bank And Others on 24 November, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-28T11:05:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994\"},\"wordCount\":1343,\"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\\\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994\",\"name\":\"Ratna Alias Ratnavati(Smt) vs Syndicate Bank And Others on 24 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-28T11:05:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ratna Alias Ratnavati(Smt) vs Syndicate Bank And Others on 24 November, 1994\"}]},{\"@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":"Ratna Alias Ratnavati(Smt) vs Syndicate Bank And Others on 24 November, 1994 - 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\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ratna Alias Ratnavati(Smt) vs Syndicate Bank And Others on 24 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-28T11:05:49+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ratna Alias Ratnavati(Smt) vs Syndicate Bank And Others on 24 November, 1994","datePublished":"1994-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-28T11:05:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994"},"wordCount":1343,"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\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994","name":"Ratna Alias Ratnavati(Smt) vs Syndicate Bank And Others on 24 November, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-28T11:05:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratna-alias-ratnavatismt-vs-syndicate-bank-and-others-on-24-november-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ratna Alias Ratnavati(Smt) vs Syndicate Bank And Others on 24 November, 1994"}]},{"@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\/252153","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=252153"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252153\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252153"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252153"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}