{"id":254339,"date":"2010-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-29T13:35:47","modified_gmt":"2017-12-29T08:05:47","slug":"3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"3] Yadav Rajram Raut vs Agriculture on 28 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">3] Yadav Rajram Raut vs Agriculture on 28 January, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A.V. Nirgude<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">                                      1                  S.A.NO.162.89\n\n\n              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n                SECOND APPEAL NO. 162 OF 1989\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n        \n       1]    Ramkrishna Rajaram Raut\n      2]     Vishwanath Rajram Raut\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n      3]     Yadav Rajram Raut\n          All   R\/o   Kanadkhed,   Taluka \n          Hingoli   District   Parbhani,   Now \n          District Hingoli.\n\n\n\n\n                                \n                                                           APPELLANTS\n\n\n      1]\n                     ig V E R S U S\n             Narayan   S\/o   Limbaji   Raut,Since \n             deceased through his L.Rs.\n                   \n     1-a] Smt. Alkabai (widow) w\/o Narayan \n          Raut,     Age   70   years   Occupation \n          Household   R\/o   Pain   Kali   Ta. \n          Washim District Washim\n      \n\n\n     1-b] Sow   Gangabai   Ramchandra   Thombe \n          (Daughter)   Age   50   years \n   \n\n\n\n          Occupation   Agriculture,   R\/o \n          Jabbrum Thombe Post Pardi Asra, \n          Ta. and District Washim.\n     1-c] Mahadeo   S\/o   Narayan   Raut   (Son) \n\n\n\n\n\n          Age   40   years   occupation \n          Agriculture   R\/o   Pain     Kali,   Ta \n          and District Washim.\n     1-d] Gajanan   S\/o   Narayan   Raut \n          (   Son   )Age   35   years   occupation \n\n\n\n\n\n          Agriculture, R\/o Washim.\n                                                         RESPONDENTS\n\n\n                          ...\n     Mr.A.M.Dabir,Advocate for Appellants\n     Mr.A.R.Kale,Advocate holding for\n     Mr.S.V.Natu,Advocate for respondents\n                           ...\n\n\n\n\n                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:33:33 :::\n                                          2                  S.A.NO.162.89\n\n\n                             CORAM  : A.V. NIRGUDE, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">                             DATED  : 28th JANUARY, 2010<\/p>\n<p>     ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">     1]     When   the   appeal   was   admitted   in   1989,   no<br \/>\n     substantial question of law was formulated. Having <\/p>\n<p>     heard   the   learned   Advocates   appearing   for   the<br \/>\n     parties   and   having   gone   through   the   record<br \/>\n     following substantial question would arise for my <\/p>\n<p>     consideration-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">                 (1) Whether the suit of the respondent\/<br \/>\n                       plaintiff is barred by limitation ?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">     2]     The  respondent\/plaintiff filed  the  suit. He<br \/>\n     said   that   he   is   owner   and   possessor   of   the   suit <\/p>\n<p>     land   (Agricultural   land   situated   at   village<br \/>\n     Kanadkhed).     He   said   that   the   suit   land   was   his <\/p>\n<p>     ancestral   property   and   during   his   father&#8217;s   life<br \/>\n     time   his   father   alienated   it   in   favour   of   the <\/p>\n<p>     appellant&#8217;s   father   in   the   year   1966,   without<br \/>\n     having   legal   necessity.   He   said   further   that<br \/>\n     though   property   was   sold   in   1966,   his   father<br \/>\n     remained   in   possession   till   his   death   and <\/p>\n<p>     thereafter   he   cultivated   the   same   till   1980.   He<br \/>\n     said in the month of May 1980, appellants who are<br \/>\n     brothers   inter-se   dispossessed   him   forcibly.   So,<br \/>\n     he   brought   this   suit   in   the   year   1985   for<br \/>\n     declaration that the he was owner of the land and<br \/>\n     that the alienation made by his father in 1966 in<br \/>\n     favour   of   the   appellant&#8217;s   father   was   not   binding <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:33:33 :::<\/span><br \/>\n                                         3                  S.A.NO.162.89<\/p>\n<p>     upon him and for possession.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">     3]   The   Trial   Court   initially   held   that   the<br \/>\n     respondent did not prove that sale effected by his <\/p>\n<p>     father   was   not   binding   on   him.   The   Trial   Court<br \/>\n     also held that the respondent could not prove his<br \/>\n     possession   till   1980.   In   other   words,   the   Trial <\/p>\n<p>     Court   held   that   in   1966   possession   of   the   suit<br \/>\n     land   was   delivered   to   the   appellant&#8217;s   father   and<br \/>\n     since then father of the appellants and appellants <\/p>\n<p>     are in possession.   In view of these two findings <\/p>\n<p>     the Trial Court dismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">     4]   The   matter   went   to   appeal   court   and   the<br \/>\n     learned   Additional   District   Judge   Hingoli   held<br \/>\n     that the respondent not only proved that the suit <\/p>\n<p>     property was his ancestral property but could also<br \/>\n     prove that the alienation of the suit property was <\/p>\n<p>     not for legal necessity. So, It was held that he<br \/>\n     was entitled to get the possession back.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">     5]   Although,   the   appellants   in   the   pleadings<br \/>\n     clearly stated that they are in possession of the<br \/>\n     suit   land   since   1966,   both   the   Courts   below   did <\/p>\n<p>     not frame necessary issue of limitation. <a href=\"\/doc\/880040\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 3<\/a><br \/>\n     of the Limitation Act reads as under-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>             3.Bar   of   Limitation  :(1)   Subject   to<br \/>\n             the provisions contained in <a href=\"\/doc\/1393166\/\" id=\"a_1\">sections 4<\/a><br \/>\n             to   <a href=\"\/doc\/769768\/\" id=\"a_2\">24<\/a>   (inclusive)   every   suit<br \/>\n             instituted,   appeal   preferred,   and<br \/>\n             application   made   after   the   prescribed<br \/>\n             period   shall   be   dismissed,   although<br \/>\n             limitation   has   not   been   set   up   as   a <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:33:33 :::<\/span><br \/>\n                                          4                  S.A.NO.162.89<\/p>\n<p>             defence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>             (2) for the purposes of this Act-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_2\"><p>             (a) A suit is instituted-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_3\"><p>             (i)   in   an   ordinary   case   when   the <\/p>\n<p>             plaint   is   presented   to   the   proper<br \/>\n             pauper is made; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_4\"><p>             (ii) in the case of a pauper, when his<br \/>\n             application   for   leave   to   sue   as   a <\/p>\n<p>             pauper is made; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_5\"><p>             (iii)in the case of a claim against a<br \/>\n             company which is being would up by the <\/p>\n<p>             Court, whn the claimant first sends in<br \/>\n             his claim to the official liquidator;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_6\"><p>             (b) any claim by way of a set off, or<br \/>\n             a counter claim, shall be treated as a<br \/>\n             separate   suit   and   shall   be   deemed   to <\/p>\n<p>             have been instituted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_7\"><p>             (i)   in   the   case   of   set   off,   on   the<br \/>\n             same date as the suit in which the set <\/p>\n<p>             off is pleaded;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_8\"><p>             (ii)in the case of a counter claim, on<br \/>\n             the date on which the counter claim is<br \/>\n             made in Court;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_9\"><p>             (c) an application by notice of motion<br \/>\n             in   a   High   Court   is   made   when   the<br \/>\n             application is presented to the proper<br \/>\n             officer of that Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_7\">     6]   It   is   clear   from   the   above   provision   that,<br \/>\n     even   though   defendant   fails   to   take   up   specific<br \/>\n     defence   based   on   limitation,     it   is   duty   of   the<br \/>\n     Court   to   frame   such   issue,   if   it   is   found<br \/>\n     necessary.   The   question   is   whether   such   issue<br \/>\n     ought to have been framed at the trial stage or at <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:33:33 :::<\/span><br \/>\n                                          5                  S.A.NO.162.89<\/p>\n<p>     least   at   first   appeal   stage?   As   said   above,   the<br \/>\n     facts are so blatant that any one, who would read <\/p>\n<p>     the plaint, would question the maintainability of<br \/>\n     such suit for want of limitation. As said above, <\/p>\n<p>     way   back   in   the   year   1966,   admittedly   the<br \/>\n     respondent&#8217;s father alienated the suit land to the<br \/>\n     father   of   the   appellants,   it   was   through   a <\/p>\n<p>     registered sale deed. It has come on record that<br \/>\n     it is case of the respondent\/plaintiff that 10 to<br \/>\n     12   years   prior   to   filing   of   the   suit   his   father <\/p>\n<p>     died.   The   suit   is   filed   in   the   year   1985,   so <\/p>\n<p>     approximately   the   death   of   respondent&#8217;s   father<br \/>\n     took place some time between 1973 to 1975. The age <\/p>\n<p>     of the plaintiff on the date of filing of suit is<br \/>\n     shown to be 50 years.   So, in the year 1966 his<br \/>\n     age   was   approximately   31   years.   During   his <\/p>\n<p>     majority, if his father effected alienation of the<br \/>\n     joint   family   property,   which   included   his <\/p>\n<p>     undivided   share   and   if   such   undivided   share   had<br \/>\n     come to his share on account of his birth in the <\/p>\n<p>     family,     it   was   for   him   to   challenge   the<br \/>\n     alienation by filing the suit for declaration that<br \/>\n     the alienation was bad and not binding on him.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">     7]   The question is what would be the limitation<br \/>\n     for   such   suit?   The   <a href=\"\/doc\/1665174\/\" id=\"a_3\">Article   58<\/a>   of   the   <a href=\"\/doc\/1317393\/\" id=\"a_4\">Limitation<br \/>\n     Act<\/a> governs such a suit and provides three years<br \/>\n     period of limitation from the moment the right to<br \/>\n     sue first accrues. As said above, the right to sue<br \/>\n     accrued   to   the   respondent   on   the   same   date   when<br \/>\n     his father effected alienation. The respondent can <\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">                                             ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:33:33 :::<\/span><br \/>\n                                         6                  S.A.NO.162.89<\/p>\n<p>     not plead ignorance of the knowledge of the sale<br \/>\n     deed   because,   as   said   above,   the   transaction   was <\/p>\n<p>     through a registered sale deed.  It has also come<br \/>\n     on   record   that   pursuant   to   the   transaction   a <\/p>\n<p>     mutation   was   taken   in   the   revenue   record   and   as<br \/>\n     said   above,   the   appellant&#8217;s   father   came   in<br \/>\n     possession of the suit land. The suit is certainly <\/p>\n<p>     not   filed   within   three   years,   so   suit   is<br \/>\n     hopelessly   time   barred.   The   appeal,   therefore,<br \/>\n     deserve to be allowed. The appeal is allowed. The <\/p>\n<p>     Judgment of First Appellate Court is set aside and <\/p>\n<p>     suit   of   the   respondent   stands   dismissed   with<br \/>\n     costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">                                                     Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">                                  (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)<\/p>\n<p>     MTK\/<br \/>\n     ok<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_4\">                                            ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 15:33:33 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court 3] Yadav Rajram Raut vs Agriculture on 28 January, 2010 Bench: A.V. Nirgude 1 S.A.NO.162.89 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 162 OF 1989 1] Ramkrishna Rajaram Raut 2] Vishwanath Rajram Raut 3] Yadav Rajram Raut All R\/o Kanadkhed, Taluka Hingoli District Parbhani, Now [&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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-254339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>3] Yadav Rajram Raut vs Agriculture on 28 January, 2010 - 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\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"3] Yadav Rajram Raut vs Agriculture on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-29T08:05:47+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"3] Yadav Rajram Raut vs Agriculture on 28 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-29T08:05:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1038,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010\",\"name\":\"3] Yadav Rajram Raut vs Agriculture on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-29T08:05:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"3] Yadav Rajram Raut vs Agriculture on 28 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"3] Yadav Rajram Raut vs Agriculture on 28 January, 2010 - 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\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"3] Yadav Rajram Raut vs Agriculture on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-29T08:05:47+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"3] Yadav Rajram Raut vs Agriculture on 28 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-29T08:05:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010"},"wordCount":1038,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010","name":"3] Yadav Rajram Raut vs Agriculture on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-29T08:05:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-yadav-rajram-raut-vs-agriculture-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"3] Yadav Rajram Raut vs Agriculture on 28 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/254339","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=254339"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254339\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}