{"id":33309,"date":"1979-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-01-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979"},"modified":"2017-04-01T23:23:37","modified_gmt":"2017-04-01T17:53:37","slug":"rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979","title":{"rendered":"Rajendera Nath Kar vs Gangadas &amp; Gangadhar Rathi &amp; Ors on 12 January, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rajendera Nath Kar vs Gangadas &amp; Gangadhar Rathi &amp; Ors on 12 January, 1979<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR  566, \t\t  1979 SCR  (2) 945<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Y Chandrachud<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nRAJENDERA NATH KAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGANGADAS &amp; GANGADHAR RATHI &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/01\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)\nTULZAPURKAR, V.D.\nSEN, A.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR  566\t\t  1979 SCR  (2) 945\n 1979 SCC  (1) 531\n\n\nACT:\n     West  Bengal   Premises  Tenancy\tAct,  1956-Scope  of\nSections 17A  and 39  read with\t s. 5 of the Limitation Act,\n1963-Condonation of  delay does\t not mean  extension of\t the\nperiod of limitation prescribed under the Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In the  eviction suit  filed by the respondents against\nthe appellant  under the  West Bengal  Premises Tenancy Act,\n1956, on  the ground  that the\tappellant was  in arrears of\nrent,  that  he\t had  sub-let  the  premises  and  that\t the\nrespondents required  the premises  for their  personal use,\nthe appellant  deposited the arrears of rent within a period\nof 30  days i.e.  within the  time but\tdid not\t deposit the\ninterest due  on the  arrears as required by s. 17(i) of the\nAct. The  respondents therefore,  filed an application under\ns. 17(3)  of the  Act to  strike off the appellant's defence\nfor failure  to deposit\t the interest.\tThe said application\nwas  accepted\tby  the\t Trial\tCourt  and,  therefore,\t the\nrespondents  filed  a  civil  revision\tapplication  in\t the\nCalcutta High  Court against  that order which was dismissed\non April 4, 1968.\n     During the\t pendency of  the said revision application,\ns.  17A\t  was  newly   introduced  in\tthe  1956  Act\twith\nretrospective from  26-8-1967. By  that section tenants were\ngiven the  right, if  the proceedings  for eviction  was not\ndisposed of,  to apply\twithin 30  days of the said date for\nsetting aside  the order  for striking\toff the\t defence. In\nview of\t the challenge by way of revision application in the\nHigh Court  against the\t order striking\t off his defence the\nappellant did  not take\t recourse to  the provisions  of the\nnewly introduced  s. 17A of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy\nAct.\n     After the\tdismissal  of  the  revision  petition,\t the\nappellant filed\t an application\t under the new s. 17A of the\nAct praying that the order dated July 25, 1963 passed by the\nTrial Court,  striking off  his defence\t be set aside. Along\nwith the  said application,  an application  to condone\t the\ndelay under  section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed.\nThe Trial Court dismissed both the applications and the High\nCourt confirmed that order in revision.\n     Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The true\t meaning and effect of s. 39 is that\nif any\tspecial period\tof limitation  is prescribed  by the\nAct, that period will govern the proceeding under the Act in\npreference  to\t the  period,  if  any,\t prescribed  by\t the\nLimitation Act. But apart from such an over-riding effect of\nthe period  of limitation  prescribed by  the Act,  not only\nthat the other provisions of the Limitation Act do not stand\nexcluded  or   superseded,  but\t  they\tare  expressly\tmade\napplicable by s. 39 of the Act. [949 A-B]\n     2. Section\t 39 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,\n1956, which  is clear and specific, leaves no doubt that the\nprovisions of the Limitation Act\n946\nwould apply  to proceedings  under the\tWest Bengal Premises\nTenancy Act,  subject to  the condition\t that if  there is a\nprovision in  the West\tBengal Act  relating to\t limitation,\nthat provision\twould prevail  over the\t provisions  of\t the\nIndian Limitation Act relating to limitation. Since the West\nBengal Act  prescribed a  specific period  of limitation for\nfiling an  application for  setting aside  an order striking\nout the\t defence, namely  a period  of 30 days commencing on\nAugust 26.  1967 when  the first  Ordinance came into force,\nthat period  would undoubtedly\tapply to  the making  of the\napplication under s. 17A of the Act. Since the appellant did\nnot file  his application  under s. 17A before the due date,\nthat is\t to say,  before September 25, 1967, the application\nmust be\t held to  be barred by limitation. But, by reason of\ns. 39 of the Act, all other provisions of the Limitation Act\nwould be attracted including s. 5 of the latter Act. [948 D-\nF]\n     In the  instant case  since the  appellant did not file\nhis application\t under s.  17A of  the Act,  before the\t due\ndate, that  is\tto  say,  before  September  25,  1967,\t the\napplication under  s. 17A is barred by limitations. However,\nthe application\t filed by  him under  s. 5 of the Limitation\nAct for condonation of delay is maintainable. [948 A-B, G]\n\t  M\/s. Pakarmal\t Gurudayal v.  Sagarmal\t Bengani  76\nC.W.N. 486 approved.\n     3. When  a Court  condones the delay caused in filing a\nproceeding, it\tdoes not  extend the  period  of  limitation\nprescribed by law for filing it. It treats the proceeding as\nif it  is filed within limitation, which it has the power to\ndo  if\t sufficient  cause  is\tshown  for  not\t filing\t the\nproceeding within the prescribed period. [949 B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1931 of<br \/>\n1969.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order<br \/>\ndated 3-6-1969\tof the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No.<br \/>\n2924\/68.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Sukumar Ghosh for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     CHANDRACHUD, C.  J.-On November  27,  1962\t respondents<br \/>\nfiled a\t suit for  eviction against  the appellant under the<br \/>\nWest Bengal  premises Tenancy  Act, 1956  (&#8220;The Act&#8221;) on the<br \/>\nground that  the appellant  was in  arrears of rent, that he<br \/>\nhad sublet  the premises  and that  the respondents required<br \/>\nthe premises for their personal use. The summons of the suit<br \/>\nwas served  on the  appellant on  January  9,  1963  and  he<br \/>\ndeposited the arrears of rent within a period of thirty days<br \/>\nthereafter i.e. on February 5, 1963. On July 10, respondents<br \/>\nfiled an  application under  section 17(3)  of the  Act\t for<br \/>\nstriking off the defence of the appellant on the ground that<br \/>\nthough the  appellant had  deposited the arrears of rent, he<br \/>\nhad not\t deposited the\tinterest  due  on  the\tarrears,  as<br \/>\nrequired by section 17(1) of the Act. By an order dated July<br \/>\n25,  1963   the\t trial\t court\taccepted   the\trespondents&#8217;<br \/>\ncontention and struck off the appellant&#8217;s defence. On August<br \/>\n26, 1963 the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">947<\/span><br \/>\nappellant filed a civil revision application in the Calcutta<br \/>\nHigh Court  against that  order but  it was dismissed by the<br \/>\nHigh Court on April 4, 1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Between August  26, 1963  when the\t appellant filed the<br \/>\nrevision application  in the  High Court  and April  4, 1968<br \/>\nwhen  the   revision  application   was\t dismissed,  certain<br \/>\nimportant events  happened. On\tAugust 26, 1967 an Ordinance<br \/>\nwas passed  by the  West Bengal\t Government by\twhich a\t new<br \/>\nsection, namely, Section 17B was introduced into the Act. By<br \/>\nthat  section,\t tenants  were\t given\tthe  right,  if\t the<br \/>\nproceeding for\teviction was  not yet  disposed of, to apply<br \/>\nwithin thirty days of the commencement of the Ordinance, for<br \/>\nsetting aside  the order  striking off\tthe defence.  On the<br \/>\nexpiry\tof  that  Ordinance,  another  Ordinance  containing<br \/>\nidentical provisions  was passed  on  January  8,  1968.This<br \/>\nOrdinance was  replaced on March 26, 1968 by President&#8217;s Act<br \/>\n4 of 1968. Section 17-B which was inserted in the Act by the<br \/>\ntwo Ordinances\twas  numbered  as  section  17-A  under\t the<br \/>\nPresident&#8217;s Act,  the provisions  of the  section  remaining<br \/>\nunaltered. Section 1(2) of the President&#8217;s Act provided that<br \/>\nthe said  Act shall  be deemed\tto have\t come into  force on<br \/>\nAugust 26,  1967 which\twas the\t date  on  which  the  first<br \/>\nOrdinance had come into force.\n<\/p>\n<p>     After the\tdismissal of  the  revision  application  on<br \/>\nApril 4,  1968,the appellant  filed an application on May 3,<br \/>\n1968 in\t the Trial Court under section 17-A praying that the<br \/>\norder dated  July 25,  1963 passed  by it,  striking off his<br \/>\ndefence be  set aside.\tIt ought to be mentioned that though<br \/>\nthe Trial  Court had  passed  the  order  striking  off\t the<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s defence  as long  back as  in 1963, the eviction<br \/>\nsuit filed  by the  respondents continued  to remain  on the<br \/>\nfile because,  on September  16, 1963  the High Court in the<br \/>\nrevision application  filed by\tthe appellant  had issued an<br \/>\norder staying  all further  proceedings in  the suit.  Along<br \/>\nwith the application under section 17-A, the appellant filed<br \/>\nan application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act,<br \/>\n1963 praying that the delay caused in filing the application<br \/>\nmay  for  reasons  stated  therein  be\tcondoned.  Both\t the<br \/>\napplications were  dismissed by\t the Trial Court by an order<br \/>\ndated August  17, 1968\twhich was  confirmed by the Calcutta<br \/>\nHigh Court  in revision\t on June 3, 1969. Being aggrieved by<br \/>\nthe judgment  of the  High Court  in Civil  Rule No. 2924 of<br \/>\n1968, the  tenant has preferred this appeal by special leave<br \/>\nof this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High  Court has  dismissed the application filed by<br \/>\nthe appellant  under section  17-A of  the Act on the ground<br \/>\nthat it was not filed within 30 days of August 26, 1967 when<br \/>\nthe first Ordinance<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">948<\/span><br \/>\ncame into force and further on the ground that since Section<br \/>\n5 of  the Limitation  Act, 1963\t had no\t application to\t the<br \/>\nproceeding, the\t Court had no power to condone the delay. It<br \/>\nis patent  that the  application under\tsection 17-A was not<br \/>\nfiled within  the prescribed period of thirty days. The sole<br \/>\nquestion for  decision, therefore, is whether the provisions<br \/>\nof  section  5\tof  the\t Limitation  Act  can  apply  to  an<br \/>\napplication under section 17-A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides, to the extent<br \/>\nrelevant, that\tany application\t may be\t admitted after\t the<br \/>\nprescribed period  if the applicant satisfies the Court that<br \/>\nhe had\tsufficient cause  for  not  making  the\t application<br \/>\nwithin the said period. On the applicability of section 5 to<br \/>\nthe  proceedings   under  section   17-A  of  the  Act,\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of  section 39 of the Act have a material bearing<br \/>\nand must be noticed. Section 39 of the Act provides:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;Subject to the provisions in this Act relating to<br \/>\n     limitation, all the provisions of the Indian Limitation<br \/>\n     Act,  1908,   shall  apply\t  to  suits,   appeals\t and<br \/>\n     proceedings under this Act.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This provision, which is clear and specific, leaves no doubt<br \/>\nthat the  provisions of\t the Limitation\t Act would  apply to<br \/>\nproceedings under  the West  Bengal  Premises  Tenancy\tAct,<br \/>\nsubject to the condition that if there is a provision in the<br \/>\nWest Bengal Act relating to limitation, that provision would<br \/>\nprevail over  the provisions  of the  Indian Limitation\t Act<br \/>\nrelating to limitation. Since the West Bengal Act prescribes<br \/>\na specific  period of  limitation for  filing an application<br \/>\nfor setting aside an order striking out the defence, namely,<br \/>\na period  of 30\t days commencing on August 26, 1967 when the<br \/>\nfirst  Ordinance   came\t into\tforce,\tthat   period  would<br \/>\nundoubtedly apply  to the  making of  the application  under<br \/>\nsection 17A of the Act. And since the appellant did not file<br \/>\nhis application under section 17-A before the due date, that<br \/>\nis to  say, before  September 25, 1967, the application must<br \/>\nbe held\t to be\tbarred by  limitation.\tBut,  by  reason  of<br \/>\nsection\t 39   of  the  Act,  all  other\t provisions  of\t the<br \/>\nLimitation Act\twould be  attracted, including\tsection 5 of<br \/>\nthe  latter   Act.  Whether   the  appellant  has  made\t out<br \/>\nsufficient ground  for the  condonation of  delay is another<br \/>\nmatter but,  in view  of the provisions of section 39 of the<br \/>\nAct, it\t seems to us clear that the application filed by the<br \/>\nappellant  under   section  5  of  the\tLimitation  Act\t for<br \/>\ncondonation of\tdelay is  maintainable and has to be decided<br \/>\non merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The learned  Single Judge\tof the\tCalcutta  Court\t has<br \/>\nreferred in  his judgment  of June 3, 1969 to the provisions<br \/>\nof section  39 but  he took  the view that since section 17A<br \/>\nlays down a special period of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">949<\/span><br \/>\nlimitation for\tfiling a  petition to  set  aside  an  order<br \/>\nstriking out  the defence, that period could not be extended<br \/>\nby invoking  the provisions of the Limitation Act. This view<br \/>\nis unsupportable.  The true meaning and effect of section 39<br \/>\nis that if any special period of limitation is prescribed by<br \/>\nthe Act,  that period  will govern  the proceeding under the<br \/>\nAct in\tperference to  the period, if any, prescribed by the<br \/>\nLimitation Act.\t But, apart  from such an over-riding effect<br \/>\nof the\tperiod of limitation prescribed by the Act, not only<br \/>\nthat the other provisions of the Limitation Act do not stand<br \/>\nexcluded  or   superseded,  but\t  they\tare  expressly\tmade<br \/>\napplicable by  section 39  of the Act. When a Court condones<br \/>\nthe delay  caused in filing a proceeding, it does not extend<br \/>\nthe period of limitation prescribed by law for filing it. It<br \/>\ntreats the  proceeding as  if it is filed within limitation,<br \/>\nwhich it  has the  power to  do if sufficient cause is shown<br \/>\nfor not filing the proceeding within the prescribed period.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In M\/s.  Pakarmal Gurudayal  v. Sagarmal  Bengani(1)  a<br \/>\nDivision Bench of the Calcutta High Court took the view that<br \/>\nsection 5  of the  Limitation Act  would apply\teven  to  an<br \/>\napplication made  for setting  aside the decree passed after<br \/>\nand following  upon an order striking out of the defence. We<br \/>\nendorse the  view of  the High\tCourt which,  ex  hypothesi,<br \/>\nwould justify the application of section 5 of the Limitation<br \/>\nAct to\tan application\tfor setting  aside an order striking<br \/>\nout the defence.\n<\/p>\n<p>     That leaves  for consideration the question whether the<br \/>\nappellant has  shown sufficient cause for not preferring his<br \/>\napplication within  a period of thirty days after August 26,<br \/>\n1967. On  this aspect  of the matter, it is relevant to bear<br \/>\nin mind\t that in  the  revision\t application  filed  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant against  the order  striking out  his defence, the<br \/>\nHigh Court  on September  16, 1963  had stayed\tall  further<br \/>\nproceedings in\tthe suit.  If the, appellant were to succeed<br \/>\nin that\t revision application,\tthe  suit  would  have\tbeen<br \/>\nrequired to  be heard on merits and there would have been no<br \/>\nreason or  occasion for him to resort to the provision newly<br \/>\ninserted by  the Ordinance, under which an application could<br \/>\nbe made\t for  setting  aside  the  order  striking  out\t the<br \/>\ndefence. The  appellant was  evidently\tadvised\t wrongly  as<br \/>\nregards the  true legal\t position, as  a result\t of which he<br \/>\nawaited the  disposal of  his revision application. He filed<br \/>\nthe application under section 17A within 30 days of the date<br \/>\non  which   the\t revision  application\twas  dismissed.\t The<br \/>\nappellant acted bona fide in pursuing his remedy by way of a<br \/>\nrevision application  which he\thad already filed and which,<br \/>\nif successful, could have given him effective relief. We are<br \/>\nsatisfied that\the had\tsufficient cause  for not filing the<br \/>\napplication under<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">950<\/span><br \/>\nsection 17A  within the\t prescribed period. Accordingly, the<br \/>\ndelay caused  in filing\t that application  must be  condoned<br \/>\nunder section  5 of  the Limitation  Act and the application<br \/>\nunder section 17A must be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     For these\treasons, we  allow the\tapplication filed by<br \/>\nthe appellant  under section  17A of  the Act, set aside the<br \/>\norder dated July 25, 1963 striking out his defence and remit<br \/>\nthe  matter  back  to  the  Trial  Court  for  deciding\t the<br \/>\nrespondents&#8217; suit  for eviction\t in accordance\twith law The<br \/>\nsuit has  been pending\tsince September\t 1962 and  we direct<br \/>\nthat it shall be disposed of expeditiously.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appeal\t is accordingly allowed and the High Court&#8217;s<br \/>\nJudgment is set aside but without an order of costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V. D. K.\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">951<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Rajendera Nath Kar vs Gangadas &amp; Gangadhar Rathi &amp; Ors on 12 January, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 566, 1979 SCR (2) 945 Author: Y Chandrachud Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj) PETITIONER: RAJENDERA NATH KAR Vs. RESPONDENT: GANGADAS &amp; GANGADHAR RATHI &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/01\/1979 BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, [&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-33309","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>Rajendera Nath Kar vs Gangadas &amp; Gangadhar Rathi &amp; Ors on 12 January, 1979 - 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\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajendera Nath Kar vs Gangadas &amp; Gangadhar Rathi &amp; Ors on 12 January, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979\" \/>\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=\"1979-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-01T17:53:37+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\\\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajendera Nath Kar vs Gangadas &amp; Gangadhar Rathi &amp; Ors on 12 January, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-01T17:53:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979\"},\"wordCount\":1684,\"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\\\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979\",\"name\":\"Rajendera Nath Kar vs Gangadas &amp; Gangadhar Rathi &amp; Ors on 12 January, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-01T17:53:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajendera Nath Kar vs Gangadas &amp; Gangadhar Rathi &amp; Ors on 12 January, 1979\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajendera Nath Kar vs Gangadas &amp; Gangadhar Rathi &amp; Ors on 12 January, 1979 - 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\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajendera Nath Kar vs Gangadas &amp; Gangadhar Rathi &amp; Ors on 12 January, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-01T17:53:37+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\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajendera Nath Kar vs Gangadas &amp; Gangadhar Rathi &amp; Ors on 12 January, 1979","datePublished":"1979-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-01T17:53:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979"},"wordCount":1684,"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\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979","name":"Rajendera Nath Kar vs Gangadas &amp; Gangadhar Rathi &amp; Ors on 12 January, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-01T17:53:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendera-nath-kar-vs-gangadas-gangadhar-rathi-ors-on-12-january-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajendera Nath Kar vs Gangadas &amp; Gangadhar Rathi &amp; Ors on 12 January, 1979"}]},{"@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\/33309","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=33309"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33309\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33309"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33309"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33309"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}