{"id":34797,"date":"1996-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996"},"modified":"2016-04-25T03:17:30","modified_gmt":"2016-04-24T21:47:30","slug":"pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996","title":{"rendered":"Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade vs Ganpat Bhairu Kadam &amp; Ors on 30 July, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade vs Ganpat Bhairu Kadam &amp; Ors on 30 July, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1996 SCALE  (5)675<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Agrawal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Agrawal, S.C. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPANDURANG GANPAT TANAWADE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGANPAT BHAIRU KADAM &amp; ORS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t30\/07\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\nNANAVATI G.T. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 SCALE  (5)675\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nS.C. Agrawal, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Special leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant<br \/>\nfor specific performance under an agreement for sale of land<br \/>\nby Smt. Janabai to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Respondents Nos.  1, 3  and 4  are\t the  sons  of\tSmt.<br \/>\nJanabai while  respondent No.  2 is  her daughter-in-law. On<br \/>\nFebruary 20, 1975 Smt. Janabai entered into an agreement for<br \/>\nthe sale  of suit  lands to  the appellant  under which\t the<br \/>\nappellant agreed to purchase the lands for Rs. 7000\/-. A sum<br \/>\nof Rs.\t2,000\/- was paid by the appellant to Smt. Janabai as<br \/>\nearnest money.\tAs per\tthe agreement the balance amount was<br \/>\nto be  paid at\tthe time  of the execution of the sale deed.<br \/>\nThe case  of the  appellant is\tthat on\t May 5, 1976 he gave<br \/>\nnotice to  Smt.\t Janabai  to  execute  the  sale  deed.\t The<br \/>\nappellant paid\ta further  sum of Rs. 1000\/- to Smt. Janabai<br \/>\non July\t 30, 1976  and on  August 20, 1977 further amount of<br \/>\nRs. 800\/-  was paid  to Maruti,\t the son of Smt. Janabai and<br \/>\nhusband of  respondent No.  2. Thus the appellant paid a sum<br \/>\nof Rs.\t3,800\/- towards\t consideration for  the sale  of the<br \/>\nland under  the agreement.  The case  of  the  appellant  is<br \/>\nfurther that  on March\t13, 1978  after the  death  of\tSmt.<br \/>\nJanabai, he  sent a  registered\t notice\t to  the  respondent<br \/>\ncalling upon  them to execute the sale deed in favour of the<br \/>\nappellant and  since they  failed to  comply with  the\tsaid<br \/>\nnotice, he  filed a  suit for  specific performance  of\t the<br \/>\ncontract in  1978. In  the said\t suit of  the appellant\t the<br \/>\nCivil Judge, Junior Division, Karmala, by his Judgment dated<br \/>\nDecember 10,  1982, declined to grant the relief of specific<br \/>\nperformance on\tthe view  that the  transaction was  only  a<br \/>\nmoney lending  transaction and was not agreement for sale of<br \/>\nthe land.  The trial  court, however, granted a money decree<br \/>\nof Rs. 3,800\/- in favour of the appellant. On appeal the Vth<br \/>\nExtra Assistant\t Judge, Solapur, by Judgment dated April 24,<br \/>\n1984, reversing\t the finding  of the  trial court, held that<br \/>\ntransaction between  the parties  was an  agreement to sell.<br \/>\nThe appellate  court, however,\theld that  the appellant had<br \/>\nnot made  necessary averments  in the  plaint as required in<br \/>\nform 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as Section 16\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)  of\t  the  Specific\t Relief\t Act  and  consequently\t the<br \/>\nappellant  was\t not  entitled\tto  a  decree  for  specific<br \/>\nperformance. The  appellate court, therefore, maintained the<br \/>\ndecree of  the trial  court denying  the relief\t of specific<br \/>\nperformance and\t affirmed the  decree for Rs. 3,800\/- passed<br \/>\nin favour  of the  appellant.  The  High  Court,  in  Second<br \/>\nAppeal, has agreed with the view of the appellate court that<br \/>\nthere is non-compliance with the provisions of Section 16(c)<br \/>\nof the Specific Relief Act inasmuch as the appellant has not<br \/>\nmade a specific averment in the plaint that he was ready and<br \/>\nwilling to perform his part of the cortract.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Shri U.U. Lalit, the learned counsel for the appellant,<br \/>\nhas assailed  the judgments  of the  appellate court and the<br \/>\nHigh Court and has invited our attention to paragraphs 6 and<br \/>\n10 of the plaint which read as under :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;6. When  the plaintiff  asked  the<br \/>\n     deceased Janabai to execute a sale-<br \/>\n     deed, by a registered notice on the<br \/>\n     date 5.5.76,  the deceased\t Janabai<br \/>\n     neither gave  a reply  also to  the<br \/>\n     notice nor\t even executed\ta  sale-<br \/>\n     deed.  Thereafter,\t  the  plaintiff<br \/>\n     sent a  reply of  false  contempts.<br \/>\n     Therefore, the  plaintiff has filed<br \/>\n     this suit against the defendants to<br \/>\n     get  executed   a\tsale   deed   in<br \/>\n     pursuance of  the Deed of Agreement<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">     for sale. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4<\/span><br \/>\n     have committed breach of conditions<br \/>\n     mentioned in  the Deed of Agreement<br \/>\n     for sale.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     10. As  per the  conditions in  the<br \/>\n     Deed of  Agreement\t for  sale,  the<br \/>\n     plaintiff is  willing to  pay  fees<br \/>\n     which is  required for a sale-deed,<br \/>\n     cost of  registration and a balance<br \/>\n     amount of Rs. 3,200\/- (Rupees three<br \/>\n     thousand two hundred only).&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     In paragraph 6 the appellant has stated that the sent a<br \/>\nnotice dated  June 5,  1976 to\tSmt. Janabai  asking her  to<br \/>\nexecute the  sale-deed and  that she neither gave a reply to<br \/>\nthe said  notice nor  executed the  sale-deed. In  the\tsaid<br \/>\nparagraph the  appellant has  also stated  that\t he  sent  a<br \/>\nregistered notice  to the  respondents\ton  March  13,\t1978<br \/>\nasking them  to execute\t the  sale-deed\t but  they  did\t not<br \/>\nexecute the  sale-deed. In  paragraph 10  the appellant\t has<br \/>\nstated that  as per  conditions in the deed of agreement for<br \/>\nsale the  appellant is willing to pay fees which is required<br \/>\nfor a  sale-deed, cost\tof registration\t and  a\t balance  of<br \/>\namount of  Rs. 3,  200\/-. This\tshows that in paragraph 6 of<br \/>\nthe  plaint   the  appellant  has  averred  that  after\t the<br \/>\nexecution of  the agreement  for sale,\the sent a registered<br \/>\nnotice dated  May 5,  1976 to  Smt. Janabai  to execute\t the<br \/>\nsale-deed and  again sent  a notice  dated March 13, 1978 to<br \/>\nthe respondent asking them to execute the sale-deed, meaning<br \/>\nthereby that  the appellant  had been making efforts to have<br \/>\nthe sale-deed  executed by issuing notices dated May 5, 1976<br \/>\nand March  13,1978. Moreover,  in paragraph  10\t a  specific<br \/>\naverment  has  been  made  by  the  appellant  that  as\t per<br \/>\nconditions in  the deed of agreement for sale, he is willing<br \/>\nto pay\tfees which  is required\t for the  sale-deed, cost of<br \/>\nregistration and the balance amount of Rs. 3,200\/-. The said<br \/>\naverments clearly  contain a  statement about  the readiness<br \/>\nand willingness\t on the part of the appellant to perform his<br \/>\npart of the contract under the agreement for sale.<br \/>\nApart from  the said  averments in  the plaint, we find that<br \/>\nthe appellant,\tin his\tdeposition  before  the\t court,\t has<br \/>\nstated:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;I\t issued\t  notice  to   heirs  of<br \/>\n     Janabai to execute the sale deed. I<br \/>\n     was ready\tto pay\tremaining amount<br \/>\n     and  act\tas  per\t agreement.  The<br \/>\n     defendants did not execute the sale<br \/>\n     deed as per notice. They replied my<br \/>\n     notice (Exh. 50). As defendants are<br \/>\n     not willing  to  execute  the  sale<br \/>\n     deed I  have filed\t this suit. I am<br \/>\n     ready  to\t pay  remaining\t  amount<br \/>\n     immediately.  I  am  ready\t to  pay<br \/>\n     costs as per agreement.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Respondent No.  1, also  in his  deposition before\t the<br \/>\ncourt, has stated :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;It  is  true  that  plaintiff  was<br \/>\n     ready for\tsale-deed, but I was not<br \/>\n     ready.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     In view  of the  aforesaid statements  of the appellant<br \/>\nand respondent\tNo. 1  as well as the averments contained in<br \/>\nparagraphs 6  to 10  of the plaint, it must be held that the<br \/>\nappellant has  not only averred, but has also proved that he<br \/>\nwas ready  and willing\tto perform  his part of the contract<br \/>\nunder the  agreement for  sale. The  appellant court and the<br \/>\nHigh Court  were, therefore,  in error\tin holding  that the<br \/>\nappellant and  failed to  comply with  the  requirements  of<br \/>\nSection 16(c)  of the  Specific Relief Act and the appellant<br \/>\nmust be\t held entitled\tto a decree for specific performance<br \/>\nof the\tcontract in  the suit filed by him. We find that the<br \/>\npossession of  the land\t was delivered\tto the\tappellant in<br \/>\n1976 at\t the time of execution of the agreement for sale and<br \/>\nhe is  in possession  of the  same and has been enjoying the<br \/>\nsame since  then. Having  regard to  the depreciation in the<br \/>\nvalue of  the rupee  during this  period, we  feel that\t the<br \/>\nappellant should be required to pay a sum of Rs. 16,000\/- in<br \/>\nlieu of the balance amount of Rs. 3,200\/- payable by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>     For the  reasons aforementioned,  the suit for specific<br \/>\nperformance filed by the appellant is decreed subject to the<br \/>\nappellant depositing  in  the  trial  court  a\tsum  of\t Rs.<br \/>\n16,000\/- along\twith the stamp duty and registration charges<br \/>\nfor the\t execution of  the sale\t deed within a period of one<br \/>\nmonth from  the date of this judgment. The respondents shall<br \/>\nexecute the sale-deed in respect of the suit lands in favour<br \/>\nof the appellant within one month of the deposit of the said<br \/>\namounts. In  the event\tof the\tfailure on  the part  of the<br \/>\nappellant to  deposit the  said amounts within the period of<br \/>\none  month,   the  judgment   under  appeal   shall   remain<br \/>\nundisturbed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order<br \/>\nas to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade vs Ganpat Bhairu Kadam &amp; Ors on 30 July, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 SCALE (5)675 Author: S Agrawal Bench: Agrawal, S.C. (J) PETITIONER: PANDURANG GANPAT TANAWADE Vs. RESPONDENT: GANPAT BHAIRU KADAM &amp; ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/07\/1996 BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) NANAVATI G.T. (J) [&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-34797","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>Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade vs Ganpat Bhairu Kadam &amp; Ors on 30 July, 1996 - 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\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade vs Ganpat Bhairu Kadam &amp; Ors on 30 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-24T21:47:30+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\\\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade vs Ganpat Bhairu Kadam &amp; Ors on 30 July, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-24T21:47:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1380,\"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\\\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996\",\"name\":\"Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade vs Ganpat Bhairu Kadam &amp; Ors on 30 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-24T21:47:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade vs Ganpat Bhairu Kadam &amp; Ors on 30 July, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade vs Ganpat Bhairu Kadam &amp; Ors on 30 July, 1996 - 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\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade vs Ganpat Bhairu Kadam &amp; Ors on 30 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-24T21:47:30+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\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade vs Ganpat Bhairu Kadam &amp; Ors on 30 July, 1996","datePublished":"1996-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-24T21:47:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996"},"wordCount":1380,"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\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996","name":"Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade vs Ganpat Bhairu Kadam &amp; Ors on 30 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-24T21:47:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandurang-ganpat-tanawade-vs-ganpat-bhairu-kadam-ors-on-30-july-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade vs Ganpat Bhairu Kadam &amp; Ors on 30 July, 1996"}]},{"@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\/34797","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=34797"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34797\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34797"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34797"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34797"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}