{"id":39715,"date":"2011-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011"},"modified":"2016-05-18T16:38:31","modified_gmt":"2016-05-18T11:08:31","slug":"ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ganeshi (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Ashok & Anr on 4 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ganeshi (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Ashok & Anr on 4 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: M Katju<\/div>\n
Bench: Markandey Katju, Gyan Sudha Misra<\/div>\n
                                                                                                         1\n\n\n\n                                                                           REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n\n                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5514 OF 2005\n\n\n\n\nGaneshi (D) through LRs & Ors.                                   ..      Appellants\n\n\n             -versus-\n\n\nAshok & Anr.                                                     ..     Respondents \n\n\n\n\n                                      J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Markandey Katju, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.           This   appeal   has   been   filed   against   the   judgment   and   order   dated <\/p>\n
29.3.2005  of  the  Punjab  &  Haryana   High  Court  at  Chandigarh  in  Regular <\/p>\n
Second Appeal No. 476 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
2.           Heard  learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
3.           The respondents herein filed a Civil Suit being No. 58 of 1980 with a <\/p>\n
prayer that the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 476 of 1978 <\/p>\n
titled Jagbir and others vs. Ganeshi and others dated 27.10.1978 relating to <\/p>\n
                                                                                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
the suit land   be declared null and void and a declaration be given that the <\/p>\n
plaintiffs have a right to inherit the suit land on the death of defendant No. 1 <\/p>\n
and in the alternative for declaration that the alienation of the suit land made <\/p>\n
by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants 2 to 5 by the aforesaid judgment <\/p>\n
and decree dated 27.10.1978 is null and void being against the custom and <\/p>\n
will  not operate  against the right for succession of the plaintiffs and other <\/p>\n
heirs of defendant No. 1 on his death.   Plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 were minors <\/p>\n
and the suit was filed on their behalf by the mother Smt. Padam Devi who <\/p>\n
was also one of the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
4.      The case of   plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 was that they are the sons of one <\/p>\n
Ramgopal and Padam Devi, widow of deceased Ramgopal.   It was alleged <\/p>\n
that   the  plaintiffs   as   well  as   the   other   defendants   were   the   descendants   of <\/p>\n
defendant  No. 1 as  given in the pedigree  table given in para of the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are minors and they filed the present suit through <\/p>\n
their   mother   Smt.   Padam   Devi.     It   was   alleged   that   defendant   No.   1   is   a <\/p>\n
Hindu   Jat   and   is   governed   by   the   agricultural   custom   according   to   which <\/p>\n
ancestral immovable property cannot be alienated except for legal necessity <\/p>\n
and consideration.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
5.      It   was   alleged   that   defendant   No.1   Ganeshi   had   three   sons,   being <\/p>\n
Ramgopal,  Dharambir  and   Jugal.     Ramgopal   ,  father   of  the   plaintiffs   died <\/p>\n
some   years   ago.     It   was   also   alleged   that   defendant   No.   1   was   under   the <\/p>\n
influence   of   his   surviving   sons   namely,   Dharambir   and   Yugal   Kishore   @ <\/p>\n
Jugal Singh.    Defendant No. 2 is the son and defendant No. 3 is the wife of <\/p>\n
Dharambir.   Defendant No. 4 is the son and defendant No. 5 is the wife of <\/p>\n
Yugal Kishore @ Jugal Singh.\n<\/p>\n
6.      It  was  alleged that  a  month  before  filing  of  the plaint,   the plaintiffs <\/p>\n
came to know the that in order to deprive them of   their right to inherit the <\/p>\n
suit   land   on   the   death   of   defendant   No.   1,   defendant   Nos.   2   to   5   filed   a <\/p>\n
collusive suit against defendant No. 1 bearing suit No. 476 of 1978 in the <\/p>\n
Court of sub-Judge, IInd  Class, Palwal for declaration that they are owners <\/p>\n
of the suit land.     Defendant No. 1 suffered that decree against him on his <\/p>\n
admission   on   27.10.1978.       It   was   alleged   that   the   said   decree   could   not <\/p>\n
extinguish the rights of ownership of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land, <\/p>\n
and it was null and void and would not operate against the plaintiff’s right of <\/p>\n
succession   on   the   death   of   defendant   No.1.     It   was   further   alleged   that <\/p>\n
plaintiffs   Nos.1   and   2   are   sons   of   Ramgopal   and   the   land   is   ancestral <\/p>\n
property.     According   to   agricultural   custom   defendant   No.1   could   not <\/p>\n
                                                                                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
transfer   the   suit   land   in   favour   of  defendant   Nos.2   to   5   who   were   not   his <\/p>\n
heirs to the exclusion of the plaintiffs who were his heirs.       It was further <\/p>\n
alleged   that,   in   the   alternative,   the   said   decree   amounts   to   alienation   and <\/p>\n
without   consideration   and   legal   necessity.     It   was   alleged   that   defendants <\/p>\n
Nos.6 & 7 have colluded with defendant Nos.1 to 5.\n<\/p>\n
7.      The   defendants   contested   the   suit.     It   was   alleged   in   the   written <\/p>\n
submissions  that  defendant  No.  1  did  not  transfer  and   alienate  the  land  in <\/p>\n
suit in favour of the answering defendants, but the suit land was settled on <\/p>\n
them by way of family settlement arrived at between the defendants.    Some <\/p>\n
agricultural land was already gifted by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiffs <\/p>\n
Nos.1 and 2.   It was because of that reason that the family settlement was <\/p>\n
arrived at in order to avoid family dispute.\n<\/p>\n
8.      It   was   alleged   that   since   defendant   No.1   gifted   some   of   his   land   in <\/p>\n
favour   of   plaintiff   Nos.1   &   2,   this   resulted   in   a   family   unrest   and   hence <\/p>\n
defendant No. 1 pacified all the members of the family by way of a family <\/p>\n
settlement.  It was denied that the land was ancestral.  It was also denied that <\/p>\n
defendant No.1 was under the influence of his surviving sons.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
9.     The trial court decreed the suit holding that the judgment and decree <\/p>\n
dated 27.10.1978 amounts to alienation and without consideration and legal <\/p>\n
necessity.  It was held that the decree created new rights in defendants Nos.2 <\/p>\n
to 5, and it cannot be said to be based on family settlement.  Any alienation <\/p>\n
of immovable property of value of Rs. 100\/-  had to be registered and in the <\/p>\n
present case, the alienation is not by a registered document.\n<\/p>\n
10.    The   trial   court   held   that   the   suit   land   was   ancestral   property   of <\/p>\n
Ganeshi qua the plaintiffs.   This finding is based on admission of Ganeshi <\/p>\n
that he has inherited the property from his father Pran Sukh.  The trial court <\/p>\n
also held that defendant No.1 was governed by the custom in the matter of <\/p>\n
alienation, and under that custom ordinarily ancestral immovable property is <\/p>\n
inalienable except for legal necessity or with the consent of the male lineal <\/p>\n
descendants.\n<\/p>\n
11.    The   defendants   filed   an   appeal   which   was   allowed   by   the   first <\/p>\n
appellate   court   by   the   judgment   of   the   District   Judge,   Faridabad   dated <\/p>\n
2.11.1983.     The   first   appellate   court   held   that   plaintiffs   Nos.1   &   2 <\/p>\n
(respondents in the first appeal) was given land in 1969 by way of gift by <\/p>\n
Ganeshi and because of this there was some unrest in the family, and hence <\/p>\n
the family settlement was made.     The first appellate court relied upon the <\/p>\n
                                                                                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
judgment   of   this   Court   in  Kale   &   Ors.   vs.  Deputy   Director   of <\/p>\n
Consolidation AIR<\/a> 1976 SC 807 which held that in order to sustain a family <\/p>\n
settlement it is not necessary that there must be evidence of antecedent title <\/p>\n
of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
12.     The first appellate court held that the land was not ancestral property <\/p>\n
of Ganeshi because there was no proof that the land had descended from the <\/p>\n
father of Ganeshi.  It was held that Ganeshi held the land in question along <\/p>\n
with some co-sharer’s who acquired the same in whatever manner after the <\/p>\n
death of Bhim Kaur.\n<\/p>\n
13.     In   second   appeal,   the   High   Court   has   set   aside   the   judgment  of  the <\/p>\n
first   appellate   court   and   restored   the   judgment   of   the   trial   court.     In   our <\/p>\n
opinion,   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court   cannot   be   sustained.     It   is   well <\/p>\n
settled   that   the   High   Court   in   second   appeal   cannot   interfere   with   the <\/p>\n
findings of fact of the first appellate court.\n<\/p>\n
14.     A family settlement is not a transfer of property, as rightly held by the <\/p>\n
first appellate court.  The first appellate court held that the family settlement <\/p>\n
was   bona   fide   to   avoid   disputes   in   the   family.     The   decree   in   Civil   Suit <\/p>\n
                                                                                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
No.476 of 1978 was only in pursuance of that family settlement, and hence <\/p>\n
it could not be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
15.     We   have   carefully   perused   the   judgment   of   the   first   appellate   court <\/p>\n
which was the last court of facts and we are of the opinion that the findings <\/p>\n
of fact given by it are based on relevant evidence.   Hence the High Court <\/p>\n
was not justified in interfering with those findings.\n<\/p>\n
16.     For   the   foregoing   reasons,   the   appeal   is   allowed.     The   impugned <\/p>\n
judgment   and   order   of   the   High   court   is   set   aside   and   that   of   the   first <\/p>\n
appellate court is restored.  There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 (Markandey Katju)<\/p>\n
                                                 ………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 (Gyan sudha Misra)<\/p>\n
New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
April 04, 2011<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ganeshi (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Ashok & Anr on 4 April, 2011 Author: M Katju Bench: Markandey Katju, Gyan Sudha Misra 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5514 OF 2005 Ganeshi (D) through LRs & Ors. .. Appellants -versus- Ashok & […]<\/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-39715","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGaneshi (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Ashok & Anr on 4 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ganeshi (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Ashok & Anr on 4 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-18T11:08:31+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\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ganeshi (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Ashok & Anr on 4 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-18T11:08:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1288,\"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\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Ganeshi (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Ashok & Anr on 4 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-18T11:08:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ganeshi (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Ashok & Anr on 4 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Ganeshi (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Ashok & Anr on 4 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ganeshi (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Ashok & Anr on 4 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-18T11:08:31+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\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ganeshi (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Ashok & Anr on 4 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-18T11:08:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011"},"wordCount":1288,"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\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011","name":"Ganeshi (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Ashok & Anr on 4 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-18T11:08:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganeshi-d-by-lrs-ors-vs-ashok-anr-on-4-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ganeshi (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Ashok & Anr on 4 April, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/39715","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=39715"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39715\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39715"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39715"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39715"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}