{"id":40779,"date":"2009-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009"},"modified":"2016-04-12T02:33:48","modified_gmt":"2016-04-11T21:03:48","slug":"shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shrikant Gopalkrushna Tare vs Vasant Nagorao Mahalley on 7 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shrikant Gopalkrushna Tare vs Vasant Nagorao Mahalley on 7 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: C.L. Pangarkar<\/div>\n
                                       1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR \n                        BENCH NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n                   SECOND   APPEAL   NO.   448    OF  1996\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n                                          \n    1. Shrikant Gopalkrushna Tare,\n    aged 37 yrs., Occu. Service,\n                            \n    R\/o Prajapati Nagar, Wadgaon \n    Road, Tq. And Distt. Yavatmal.\n                           \n    2. Kishorkumar Chhanumaharaj Dubey,\n    aged 47 yrs. Occu. Service, \n    R\/o Akanksha Apartment, Gedam\n    Nagar, Yavatmal.                                 APPELLANTS.\n          \n       \n\n\n\n                                  VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n\n    1. Vasant Nagorao Mahalley,\n     Aged 42 yrs. Occu. Service, R\/o\n    Anand Nagar, Yavatmal.\n\n\n\n\n\n    2. Ambadas Shriram Deshpande\n    aged 42 yrs. Occu. Service,\n    R\/o Parate's House.  Seth\n    Mahadev Nagar, Yavatmal. \n\n\n\n\n                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 06\/01\/2014 00:17:15 :::\n                                        2\n\n    3. Pratibha w\/o Prabhakar\n    Deshpande, aged 47 yrs.,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n    R\/o Om Society, Yavatmal.\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n    4. Pushpa Khanderao Pande,\n    aged 52 yrs., Occu. Household,\n    R\/o Waghapur, Distt.Yavatmal.  \n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    5. Rambhau Sambhaji Dhagale,\n    aged 44 yrs. Occu. Service,\n    R\/o Urban Bank Datta Chowk,\n    Yavatmal. \n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    6. Vishnu Shriram Pardhi,\n    aged 37 yrs. Occu. Service,\n                             \n    Bangar Nagar, Yavatmal.\n\n    7. Shankar Wagare, aged \n                            \n    42 yrs., Occu. Service,\n    R\/o District Forest Office,\n    Yavatmal. \n           \n\n\n    8. Ganpat Vithobaji Bhoyar,\n    aged 42 yrs., Occu. Cultivator,\n        \n\n\n\n    R\/o V. N. Mahalley, Anand Nagar,\n    Yavatmal.  \n\n    9. Priya wd\/o Prakash Kamavisdar,\n\n\n\n\n\n    aged 43 yrs. R\/o 61, Mathura\n    Nagari, Darvha Road, Yavatmal.\n\n    10. Radhika d\/o Prakash Kamavisdar,\n    Minor, through her Guardian \n\n\n\n\n\n    Mother Smt. Priya wd\/o Prakash\n    Kamavisdar, aged 43 yrs. R\/o 61,\n    Mathura Nagari, Darvha Road,\n    Yavatmal.  \n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 06\/01\/2014 00:17:15 :::\n                                          3\n\n    11. Sheela Shamrao Kamavisdar (dead):\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n    11(a) Vilas Shamrao Kamavisdar\n    adult, New Pragati Society,\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n    Mahadeo Nagar, Yavatmal. \n\n    11(b) Mahesh Shamrao Kamavisdar,\n    Adult, Amba Apartment,\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n    S-2 Hanuman Nagar, Yavatmal.\n\n    11(c) Varsha Shamrao Kamavisdar,\n    Adult, C\/o Mahesh S. Kamavisdar,\n    Amba Apartment, S-2 Hanuman\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n    Nagar, Yavatmal.\n                              \n    Shri.   Abhijit  Deshpande, Counsel for the appellants.\n                             \n    Shri.   R. R. Deshpande, Counsel  for the respondents.   <\/pre>\n
                       CORAM:   C.  L.  PANGARKAR  J.\n<\/p>\n
                        Date:      7th   OCTOBER   2009.\n        \n\n\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT:  \n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                This appeal is preferred by the original plaintiffs who lost <\/p>\n
    in the first appellate Court.  The facts giving rise to the appeal are as <\/p>\n
    follows:\n<\/p>\n
               Plaintiffs   and   defendants   mutually   agreed   to   purchase <\/p>\n
    field Survey No. 93\/3 of village Lohara district Yavatmal from one <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 06\/01\/2014 00:17:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
    Sonabai.  Each of the plaintiffs and defendants contributed a sum of <\/p>\n
    Rs.4546\/- towards the consideration.   The sale deed was however <\/p>\n
    obtained in the name of defendants 1 to 5.  In order to evidence this <\/p>\n
    arrangement   an   agreement   was   executed   on   15.04.1982   between <\/p>\n
    plaintiffs and defendants.   It was agreed that each of the plaintiffs <\/p>\n
    and defendants i. e. 11 persons would have equal share in the said <\/p>\n
    field.  It was agreed that the suit field should thereafter be converted <\/p>\n
    to non agricultural use.  It was also agreed that after the said field is <\/p>\n
    converted   to   non   agricultural   use,   all   the   plots   will   be   equally <\/p>\n
    distributed among the plaintiffs and defendants.   Accordingly the <\/p>\n
    said   field   was   converted   into   a   non   agricultural   land.     Another <\/p>\n
    agreement was executed on 07.05.1990 under which it was agreed <\/p>\n
    that each of the plaintiffs would be entitled to get three plots out of <\/p>\n
    the said layout and the remaining   three plots would be sold and a <\/p>\n
    piece of one acre of land was also agreed to be sold.   It was also <\/p>\n
    agreed that the consideration obtained from sale of one acre of land <\/p>\n
    would be distributed equally amongst the plaintiffs and defendants.\n<\/p>\n
    Defendants also got executed a letter of consent from plaintiffs on <\/p>\n
    04.05.1990 to that effect.   Accordingly  the plaintiffs were paid Rs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 06\/01\/2014 00:17:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
    8484\/- towards the consideration of sell of one acre of land.   The <\/p>\n
    plaintiffs called upon the defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed in <\/p>\n
    respect   of   plot   Nos.   24   to   31   and   43   in   favour   of   plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
    Defendants failed.  Hence the suit.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          Defendants 1 to 8 filed their Written Statement which is <\/p>\n
    infact   a   very   cryptic   written   statement.     They   have   denied   all <\/p>\n
    adverse allegations.   The defendant No.1 admits receipt of notice <\/p>\n
    from   plaintiff   dated   13.05.1991.     According   to   defendants   the <\/p>\n
    plaintiffs failed to pay revenue tax which was payable and therefore <\/p>\n
    the sale deed could not be executed.  It was next contention of the <\/p>\n
    defendants that the suit for injunction as filed by the plaintiffs is not <\/p>\n
    maintainable   and   plaintiffs   should   have   claimed   specific <\/p>\n
    performance of contract.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          Learned Judge of the trial Court found that plaintiffs were <\/p>\n
    entitled to execution of the sale deed in their favour and he directed <\/p>\n
    the   defendants   to   do   so.     Feeling   aggrieved   thereby   defendants <\/p>\n
    preferred   an   appeal   before   the   District   Judge.     Learned   District <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 06\/01\/2014 00:17:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
    Judge found that suit was not maintainable on two counts.   First, <\/p>\n
    that the transaction in suit was a benami transaction and two, the <\/p>\n
    plaintiffs should have claimed specific performance instead of an <\/p>\n
    injunction.   Holding so  he allowed  the appeal  and dismissed  the <\/p>\n
    suit.\n<\/p>\n
    4.       Appeal was admitted initially on the following substantial <\/p>\n
    question of law:\n<\/p>\n
                          Whether the appellate Court could
\n               ignore   the   admission   of   defendant   No.1   in
\n               letter   dated   13.05.1991   and   also   in   the
\n               Written   Statement   about   the   ownership   of <\/p>\n
               the plaintiffs of the plots?  <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             However after hearing the parties substantial questions of <\/p>\n
    law were reformulated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
               1.         Whether the suit is hit by provisions
\n               of   Section   41(h)   of   the   Specific   Relief   Act
\n               inasmuch   as   the   plaintiffs   ought   to   have <\/p>\n
               claimed specific performance of contract?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               2.           Was   the   first   appellate   Court
\n               justified   in   holding   that   suit   was   hit   by   the
\n               provisions   of   Benami   Transaction <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 06\/01\/2014 00:17:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
                 (Prohibition Act 1988)?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    5.         I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and <\/p>\n
    the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
    6.         Learned Judge of the first appellate Court has set aside the <\/p>\n
    decree mainly on the above grounds.  He finds that suit for specific <\/p>\n
    performance ought to have been filed instead of one for mandatory <\/p>\n
    injunction.  The prayer clause in the plaint reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                              “PRAYER:   It   is   therefore,   most
\n                 humbly prayed that, this Hon’ble Court   may
\n                 graciously   be   pleased   to   pass   a   decree   of <\/p>\n
                 mandatory   injunction   directing   the   defts.   to
\n                 execute the sale deeds of plot no.24 to 31 and <\/p>\n
                 43   from   layout   plan   of   field   Sr.No.   93\/3   of
\n                 village   Lohara   in   favour   of   the   plffs.   before,
\n                 selling any other plot\/plots of layout of fields
\n                 SR.No. 93\/3 of Lohara to any other person.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              Cost of the suit may be saddled on
\n                 the defts.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7.         Shri R. R. Deshpande learned counsel for the respondents <\/p>\n
    submits   that   prayer   itself   would   show   that   plaintiff   should   have <\/p>\n
    prayed  for specific performance and when he makes a prayer for <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 06\/01\/2014 00:17:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
    mandatory   injunction   the   suit   ought   to   be   held   to   be   hit   by <\/p>\n
    provisions   of   clause   (h)   of   Section   41   of   the   Specific   Relief   Act.\n<\/p>\n
    Section 41(h) reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                            “41(h)   when   equally   efficacious   relief <\/p>\n
                 can   certainly   be   obtained   by   any   other   usual
\n                 mode of proceeding except in case of breach of
\n                 trust.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8.          There   cannot   be   any   dispute   with   the   proposition   that <\/p>\n
    where   equally   efficacies   relief   can   be   had   injunction   cannot   be <\/p>\n
    granted.   The law is well settled that mofussil pleadings   are to be <\/p>\n
    interpreted liberally.     While doing so mere reading of the prayer <\/p>\n
    clause would not do.  The prayer clause will have to be read in the <\/p>\n
    context of the pleadings and then interpreted to hold whether the <\/p>\n
    relief   is   infact   one   for   injunction   or  specific   performance.     If   the <\/p>\n
    plaint   is   read   as   a   whole   it   would   be   very   clear   that   plaintiffs <\/p>\n
    essentially   filed   suit   for   conveyance   of   the   plots   in   favour   of   the <\/p>\n
    plaintiffs   which   defendants   had   agreed   to   convey.     Thus   what <\/p>\n
    plaintiffs essentially want is conveyance of plots in their favour.   I <\/p>\n
    particularly reproduce here paras 9 and 10 of the plaint also.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 06\/01\/2014 00:17:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
                  “9. Inspite of the plaintiffs demand the
\n     defendants   did   not   executed   the   sale   deed   of <\/p>\n
     plot no.24 to 31 and 43 on the contrary by dt\/-\n<\/p>\n
     13\/5\/1991 they have given the threats to sale the <\/p>\n
     said   plot   to   the   vendees   by   breaking   the
\n     agreement.  Thus, the plffs. Issued a notice dt\/-
\n     24\/6\/1991 to the defdts. Through their Advocate
\n     Shri  A. N. Gajbhiye, and informed them that the <\/p>\n
     defts.     are   selling   the   plots   to   the   vendees
\n     without   conveying   the   plots   as   agreed   to   the
\n     plffs.   The defts. no.1 replied the said notice on
\n     29\/6\/1991   and   deft.   no.   3   to   7   submitted   and
\n     acknowledge the same reply by their notice dt\/-\n<\/p>\n
     2\/.7\/1991.  The defts. Denied the contentions of
\n     the plffs.   From these notices of the defts. It is <\/p>\n
     crystal   clear   that   for   either   of   the   reason   they
\n     want   to   commit   the   breach   of   agreement   and
\n     thus   they   want   to   commit   the   breach   of <\/p>\n
     agreement   and   thus   they   are   not   inclined   to
\n     execute the sale deeds of plot no. 24 to 31 and 43
\n     in favour of the plfs.  The defts conduct appears
\n     to   defrauds   the   plffs.   and   therefore,   they   are <\/p>\n
     selling   the   plot   by   committing   the   breach   of
\n     agreement.   Infact, all the amounts of Revenue <\/p>\n
     Taxes   and   assessment   are   paid   incash   to   the
\n     deft.   No.1,   but   fradulently   he   is   denying   the
\n     same.\n<\/p>\n
                  10. That, the plffs. Are entitled to get
\n     the   sale   deeds   of   plot   no.   24   to   31   and   43
\n     executed   from   the   defts.     As   of   right   and   the
\n     defts. Are under obligations to execute the sale
\n     deeds in favour of the plffs.   and thus the plffs.\n<\/p>\n
     Have   prima   facie   good   case   and   balance   of
\n     convenience lies in their favour and against the
\n     deft.   If, the mandatory injunction is not issued
\n     against the defdt. Ordering them to execute the
\n     sale   deeds   of   plot   no.24   to   31   and   43   before <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 06\/01\/2014 00:17:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
                selling any plot to others it will cause a breach of
\n                agreement   and   consequently   will   result   in <\/p>\n
                causing irreperable loss to the plffs.”\n<\/p>\n
    9.          If the prayer is read in this context it would be clear that <\/p>\n
    plaintiffs demanded the execution of the sale deed in their favour.\n<\/p>\n
    Even     while   passing   a   decree   for   specific   performance   the   Court <\/p>\n
    would have even otherwise directed execution of the sale deed in <\/p>\n
    favour of the plaintiff.   Such a direction even in a suit for specific <\/p>\n
    performance   by   the   Court   is   nothing   less   than   a   mandate.     The <\/p>\n
    prayer clause  in the instant case at the most could be said to be not <\/p>\n
    very   happily   worded   but   the   purport   of   the   relief   is   one   to   seek <\/p>\n
    specific   performance.     Simply   because   the   words   mandatory <\/p>\n
    injunction are used it is not as such a suit for mandatory injunction <\/p>\n
    but a suit for specific performance.  The bar of Clause (h) would not <\/p>\n
    apply in such cases.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         Shri R. R. Deshpande learned counsel for the respondents <\/p>\n
    had   relied   on   a   decisions   to   advance   a   proposition   that   suit   for <\/p>\n
    injunction was not maintainable  where specific performance relief <\/p>\n
    was available.  First decision is reported in Kumud Ranjan Banerjee  <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 06\/01\/2014 00:17:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
    Vs.  Mahabendra Banerjee AIR 1974 Calcutta 342.  Proposition that is <\/p>\n
    laid   down   in   this   decision   is   that   where   a   relief   of   possession   is <\/p>\n
    available and is not claimed in suit for injunction and declaration <\/p>\n
    the suit is hit by provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.\n<\/p>\n
    This   case   therefore   has   no   bearing   in   the   case   at   hand.     Next <\/p>\n
    decision on which he relies  is reported in Dayalu Narayan Swamy <\/p>\n
    Vs.   Kanika Ramaswamy Dora and others AIR 1976 Orissa 31.   It is <\/p>\n
    held that upon extinguishment of mortgage due to operation of law <\/p>\n
    the mortgagor is supposed to file a suit for possession instead of one <\/p>\n
    for injunction.  In the case at hand essentially execution of the sale <\/p>\n
    deed was demanded by such prayer which is essentially a relief for <\/p>\n
    specific   performance.     The   other   decision   on   which   reliance   was <\/p>\n
    placed is reported in Rajendra Kumar  Vs. Mahendra Kumar Mittal  <\/p>\n
    and others AIR 1992 Allahabad 35.  In this case plaintiff had merely <\/p>\n
    sought an injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the <\/p>\n
    suit property instead of seeking relief of specific performance.   On <\/p>\n
    facts this case also has no bearing.  Identical is the ratio in AIR 1991 <\/p>\n
    Punjab And Haryana 194 as well as  1998(1) Civil LJ 1991.  None of <\/p>\n
    the above decision have a bearing on the case at hand since I find <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 06\/01\/2014 00:17:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
    that plaintiff is essentially claiming specific performance and not an <\/p>\n
    injunction as such.   Prayer is not couched in proper words.   Court <\/p>\n
    cannot non suit the plaintiff for the reason that pleadings are not <\/p>\n
    happily   worded.     It   must   look   into   entire   pleadings   and   then <\/p>\n
    interpret     as   to   what   relief   plaintiff     is   essentially   and   eventually <\/p>\n
    claiming.  In the circumstances I find that the instant suit is not hit <\/p>\n
    by Clause (h) of  Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act.\n<\/p>\n
    11.<\/p>\n
                This takes me to consider the next question with regard to <\/p>\n
    the   benami   transaction.     The   suit   property   was   admittedly <\/p>\n
    purchased   by   11   persons   by   equally   contributing   towards <\/p>\n
    consideration   but   sale   deed   was   taken   in   the   name   of   5  persons <\/p>\n
    only.   It is therefore clear that those persons in whose favour the <\/p>\n
    sale deed was executed   had contributed towards consideration.  It <\/p>\n
    is not that plaintiffs alone paid the consideration but obtained the <\/p>\n
    sale   deed   in   defendants     name.     Essential   ingredient     of   benami <\/p>\n
    transaction   is   that   the   real   owner   must   contribute   the   entire <\/p>\n
    consideration.  It was a simple case of obtaining the sale deed in the <\/p>\n
    name   of   few   though   large   members   have   contributed.     Parties <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 06\/01\/2014 00:17:15 :::<\/span>
\n                                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
    always   intended   that   each   one   of   the   contributor   would   be   joint <\/p>\n
    owner to the equal extent.  That is so evident from agreement Ex. 42.\n<\/p>\n
    Further defendants had not raised a plea of benami at all in their <\/p>\n
    pleadings.   In the absence of such a plea being raised no issue in <\/p>\n
    fact could arise.  In a decision reported in Heirs of Vrajlal J. Ganatra  <\/p>\n
    Vs.  Heirs of Parshottam S. Shah  Judgment Today 1996(4) S. C. 725, <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court holds that the question whether sale is benami or <\/p>\n
    not is a question of fact.  If it is  question of fact then such a question <\/p>\n
    cannot be raised for the first time in Second Appeal.  Further if the <\/p>\n
    grounds   of  appeal   before  the District   Court  are  seen   it  would  be <\/p>\n
    clear   that   in   those   grounds   of   appeal   such   a   plea   was   not   at   all <\/p>\n
    raised.     Learned  Judge  of   the  First   Appellate   Court  therefore   had <\/p>\n
    erred   in   holding   the   transaction   to   be   a   benami   transaction   and <\/p>\n
    dismissing the suit.   In the circumstances substantial questions of <\/p>\n
    law are answered and the appeal deserves to be allowed.  Appeal is <\/p>\n
    allowed.  Judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court <\/p>\n
    is set aside and that of trial Court restored.   Plaintiff shall however <\/p>\n
    not be able to execute the decree unless and until they pay Court fee <\/p>\n
    as is payable in a suit for specific performance.  Respondents shall <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 06\/01\/2014 00:17:15 :::<\/span>
\n                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
    pay costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n
    svk<\/p>\n
                                   ::: Downloaded on – 06\/01\/2014 00:17:15 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shrikant Gopalkrushna Tare vs Vasant Nagorao Mahalley on 7 October, 2009 Bench: C.L. Pangarkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO. 448 OF 1996 1. Shrikant Gopalkrushna Tare, aged 37 yrs., Occu. Service, R\/o Prajapati Nagar, Wadgaon Road, Tq. And Distt. Yavatmal. 2. Kishorkumar […]<\/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-40779","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShrikant Gopalkrushna Tare vs Vasant Nagorao Mahalley on 7 October, 2009 - 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\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shrikant Gopalkrushna Tare vs Vasant Nagorao Mahalley on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-11T21:03:48+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\\\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shrikant Gopalkrushna Tare vs Vasant Nagorao Mahalley on 7 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-11T21:03:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2087,\"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\\\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Shrikant Gopalkrushna Tare vs Vasant Nagorao Mahalley on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-11T21:03:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shrikant Gopalkrushna Tare vs Vasant Nagorao Mahalley on 7 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Shrikant Gopalkrushna Tare vs Vasant Nagorao Mahalley on 7 October, 2009 - 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\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shrikant Gopalkrushna Tare vs Vasant Nagorao Mahalley on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-11T21:03:48+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\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shrikant Gopalkrushna Tare vs Vasant Nagorao Mahalley on 7 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-11T21:03:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009"},"wordCount":2087,"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\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009","name":"Shrikant Gopalkrushna Tare vs Vasant Nagorao Mahalley on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-11T21:03:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-gopalkrushna-tare-vs-vasant-nagorao-mahalley-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shrikant Gopalkrushna Tare vs Vasant Nagorao Mahalley on 7 October, 2009"}]},{"@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\/40779","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=40779"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40779\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40779"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40779"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40779"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}