{"id":5166,"date":"1994-03-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-03-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994"},"modified":"2018-11-03T16:58:49","modified_gmt":"2018-11-03T11:28:49","slug":"shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994","title":{"rendered":"Shantibai vs Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya on 2 March, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shantibai vs Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya on 2 March, 1994<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC  (4)\t85, \t  JT 1994 (2)\t187<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Mohan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Mohan, S. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSHANTIBAI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDINKAR BALKRISHNA VAIDYA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/03\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nMOHAN, S. (J)\nBENCH:\nMOHAN, S. (J)\nMUKHERJEE M.K. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  (4)\t85\t  JT 1994 (2)\t187\n 1994 SCALE  (1)836\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nS.   MOHAN, J.- The short facts leading to this civil appeal<br \/>\nare as under.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   The suit property was originally owned by Trimbak\tHari<br \/>\nAwate.\t He executed a simple mortgage on April 28, 1947  to<br \/>\nan extent of 11,000 square feet which represented the entire<br \/>\nproperty  for  a  sum of Rs 20,000 in favour  of  Dinkar  S.<br \/>\nVaidya.\t  On or about July 7, 1948, Awate executed  a  lease<br \/>\ndeed  in  favour  of  Shankar  Godaji  Gore.   The   purpose<br \/>\nmentioned in the lease deed was residence and shops.   Under<br \/>\nthe lease deed, the lessee was authorised to sub-lease.\t The<br \/>\nperiod\tof lease was 25 years.\tThe annual rent was Rs\t1500<br \/>\npayable\t monthly  at  the  rate of Rs  125.   There  was  no<br \/>\nprohibition from the assignment in the said lease.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   On\t February 17, 1949, Shankar Godaji Gore, the  lessee<br \/>\nexecuted a registered sub-lease in respect of entire land in<br \/>\nfavour\tof  two persons Sulochanabai Thakur  and  Krishnabai<br \/>\nSarde, original defendants 2 and 3. The sub-lease was for  a<br \/>\nperiod of 99 years and 9 months.  The monthly rent was fixed<br \/>\nat  Rs 50.  Defendants 2 and 3 the  sub-lessees\t constructed<br \/>\nfourteen  shops\t on a portion of the land, sublet  to  them.<br \/>\nThese shops were let out for rent to several persons.\tThey<br \/>\nin their turn assigned their interest to different  persons.<br \/>\nOn  November 7, 1949, an area of 4000 sq. ft. was sublet  by<br \/>\ndefendants 2 and 3 in favour of Sardar Biwalkar on a rent of<br \/>\nRs  135 p.m. for a period of 67 years.\tOn the same  day  of<br \/>\nthe  lease,  defendants 2 and 3 sold seven out\tof  fourteen<br \/>\nshops to Biwalkar.  On December 6, 1952, defendants 2 and  3<br \/>\nassigned all their rights, title and interest in respect  of<br \/>\nthe suit land in favour of Bayajabai Ganpat Gore, Sundarabai<br \/>\nBabasaheb Gore and Yashodabai Balasaheb Gore, defendants  6,<br \/>\n7 and 8 respectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   In 1952, Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya, the mortgagee  filed<br \/>\na  suit\t being\tSpecial\t Civil\tSuit  No.  89  of  1952\t for<br \/>\nenforcement of mortgage.  In that suit, mortgagor Awate\t and<br \/>\ndefendants 1 to 4 were made party-defendants.  Thai suit was<br \/>\ndecreed.   In execution of the final decree in the  auction,<br \/>\nthe  mortgagee\tDinkar\tBalkrishna Vaidya  himself  came  to<br \/>\npurchase  the  suit land measuring about 1000 sq.  ft.\t The<br \/>\nsale  was  confirmed  on  December  19,\t 1957.\t  Symbolical<br \/>\npossession  was granted on March 2, 1960.  It  appears\tthat<br \/>\nduring\tthe pendency of the suit, mortgagee was\t declared  a<br \/>\nlunatic.   Therefore,  Nazir of the court was  appointed  as<br \/>\nguardian  and  the property was taken possession of  by\t the<br \/>\nNazir under the provisions of Court of Wards Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   The Nazir filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1142 of 1965  in<br \/>\nthe Small Cause Court, Poona for recovery of possession\t and<br \/>\narrears\t of  rent  since his demand for\t rent  from  Shankar<br \/>\nGodaji\tGore  was not complied with.   Shankar\tGodaji\tGore<br \/>\nassigned his right, title and interest in the shop  premises<br \/>\nto<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">87<\/span><br \/>\ndefendants  19\tand  20.   Likewise,  on  August  27,\t1963<br \/>\ndefendant  5 assigned his right, title and interest  in\t the<br \/>\nshop  in favour of defendant 21.  Therefore, another  ground<br \/>\nof  sub-letting\t was also added.  That suit was\t decreed  on<br \/>\nNovember  27, 1968.  Aggrieved by the said  judgment,  Civil<br \/>\nAppeal Nos. 279, 354 and 265 of 1969 were preferred  against<br \/>\nthe same.  Civil Appeal Nos. 279 and 354 of 1969 came to  be<br \/>\nallowed while Civil Appeal No. 265 of 1969 was dismissed for<br \/>\nnon-prosecution.  Thereupon, the first respondent moved\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of  India.<br \/>\nThat  was numbered as Special Civil Application No.  242  of<br \/>\n1973.  By the impugned order dated July 15, 1980, that\tcame<br \/>\nto be allowed.\tHence, the present civil appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   The learned counsel for the appellants Shri U.R.  Lalit<br \/>\nafter  taking  us  through the relevant\t provisions  of\t the<br \/>\nBombay\tRents,\tHotel and Lodging House Rates  Control\tAct,<br \/>\n1947 (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Act&#8217;) submits that the<br \/>\nlease  deed  in favour of Shankar Godaji  Gore\tspecifically<br \/>\nenabled\t him to sublet.\t Under the lease deed dated July  7,<br \/>\n1948, Awate the original owner permitted the lessee  Shankar<br \/>\nGodaji Gore to construct therein and give the said  building<br \/>\nor  any portion thereof to any person on lease rent  and  he<br \/>\ncould  take the income derived therefrom.  Therefore,  there<br \/>\nwas clear enablement to sub-lease.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   Under the Transfer of Property Act, there is no bar for<br \/>\na lessee to sublease.  In such a case that right or interest<br \/>\ncould  be assigned in favour of third party.  That was\twhat<br \/>\nwas  done  by the lease-deed dated February 17,\t 1949.\t The<br \/>\nsub-lessees  constructed the building and let out a few\t and<br \/>\nassigned their rights in favour of other defendants.  If the<br \/>\nsub-lessees  continued in possession prior to May 21,  1959,<br \/>\nthey  would be entitled to the statutary protection  because<br \/>\nprior  to 1959, if there was subletting, the landlord  could<br \/>\nnot  proceed to evict.\tSection 15 of the Act  barring\tsub-<br \/>\nleases\tcame  into force only by amendment Act 49  of  1959,<br \/>\nthat too, subject to the contract to the contrary.  Here  is<br \/>\na  case of a contrary contract.\t Under\tthese  circumstances<br \/>\nthe  ruling  reported  in <a href=\"\/doc\/1784838\/\">Sardar Tota Singh  v.\t Gold  Field<br \/>\nLeather\t Works, Bombay,<\/a> would squarely apply.\tNo  eviction<br \/>\nwas  possible under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act\t because  it<br \/>\nmust  be an unlawful subletting.  Therefore, there is  total<br \/>\nprotection both under 1959 Act and 1973 Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   There  is no warrant to hold that first  defendant\t has<br \/>\nunlawfully sublet.  In any event, if defendants 2 and 3\t are<br \/>\nsub-tenants in accordance with Section 14 of the Act, unless<br \/>\nspecial sub-tenancy is determined, no eviction is possible.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   Mr\t S.K. Dholakia, learned counsel for the\t respondents<br \/>\n24, 26 and 27 supporting this argument submits that there is<br \/>\nprivity\t of  contract between the original  lessor  and\t the<br \/>\noccupant.   The\t predecessor  of  the  original\t lessor\t had<br \/>\nauthorised   defendant\t1  to  build   the   superstructure.<br \/>\nDefendant 1 had absolute right to transfer his interest\t and<br \/>\nhaving transferred his right of construction to defendants 2<br \/>\nand 3, the construction was made by defendants 2 and 3<br \/>\n1  (1985) 1 SCC 414: (1985) 2 SCR 563<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">88<\/span><br \/>\nlawfully  and binding on the original lessee as he  had\t not<br \/>\nmade  any  contract  to the contrary.\tThe  occupants\twere<br \/>\ninducted  lawfully as tenants of the  superstructure  before<br \/>\n1959  or 1973 and therefore are eligible to  the  protection<br \/>\navailable  under  Sections 14 and 15 of the  Act.   Even  on<br \/>\nequity, they are entitled to a decision in their favour.  It<br \/>\nhas been noted by the High Court that some of the  occupants<br \/>\nare  tailors,  laundrymen  etc.\t and  their  livelihood\t  is<br \/>\ndependant  on  these  premises.\t The  eviction\twill  entail<br \/>\nsevere hardship.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  Mr\t V.A.  Bobde, learned counsel  for  the\t respondents<br \/>\nsubmits,  no  doubt under the original lease dated  July  7,<br \/>\n1948,  a permission had been given to Gore to construct\t but<br \/>\nhe  never constructed.\tHe created a sub-lease in favour  of<br \/>\ndefendants  2 and 3. It was the sub-lessees who had  put  up<br \/>\nthis  building.\t In relation to the demised  property  there<br \/>\nwas  no privity of contract between the original lessor\t and<br \/>\nthe  contesting defendants.  Defendants 2 and 3\t constructed<br \/>\n14  shops and assigned their rights in favour of  defendants<br \/>\n6, 7 and 8. How can these occupants claim the right as\tsub-<br \/>\ntenancy?  <a href=\"\/doc\/1623219\/\">Jai Singh Morarji v. Sovani P. Ltd.2<\/a> clearly\tlays<br \/>\ndown  that  no further sub-lease is  possible.\t That  would<br \/>\nsquarely  apply\t to  the facts of  the\tpresent\t case.\t The<br \/>\nreliance placed on Tota Singh case&#8217; is not correct.  In\t any<br \/>\nevent,\tSection 14 does not take within it  assignments\t and<br \/>\ntransfers.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  The short question that arises for our consideration in<br \/>\nthis case is, whether the occupants, the present  appellants<br \/>\nwho are the assignees from defendants 2 and 3 can claim\t the<br \/>\nprotection of the Act as sub-lessees.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.  The  original  lease deed dated July  7,  1948  between<br \/>\nAwate and Gore states in clause 2 sub-clauses (1) and (3) as<br \/>\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;2. (1) I have taken the said land on rent for<br \/>\n\t      the  period of 25 years from the date July  7,<br \/>\n\t      1948 and have taken the same in my  possession<br \/>\n\t      this day.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      2.    (3)\t The  land  is vacant  and  I  shall<br \/>\n\t      construct\t buildings therein as per my  wishes<br \/>\n\t      and  I  shall give the said  building  or\t any<br \/>\n\t      portion  thereof to any person on\t lease\trent<br \/>\n\t      and   I\tshall  take   the   income   derived<br \/>\n\t      therefrom.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>13.  Admittedly\t Gore  did  not\t put  up  any  construction.<br \/>\nHowever,  reliance  is\tplaced on clause  2  sub-clause\t (3)<br \/>\nextracted  above  to urge that he had a right  of  sub-lease<br \/>\nbecause\t he could build and let it out in favour of any\t one<br \/>\nhe  liked.   In\t our considered opinion\t the  permission  to<br \/>\nconstruct means nothing more than an emphasis of the  manner<br \/>\nof  enjoyment of the property.\tEven then as  stated  above,<br \/>\nGore  never  constructed.   He leased out  the\tproperty  in<br \/>\nfavour\tof defendants 2 and 3 by lease deed  dated  February<br \/>\n17,  1949.  Under clause 2 sub-clause (D), it is  stated  as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;The said land is vacant.\t We shall  construct<br \/>\n\t      structures  thereon as per our wishes  and  we<br \/>\n\t      shall  give the said building or\tany  portion<br \/>\n\t      thereof  on  sub-lease to any  person  and  we<br \/>\n\t      shall take the income derived therefrom.<br \/>\n\t      2 (1973) 1 SCC 197 (1973) 2 SCR 603<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      89<\/span><br \/>\n\t      We  shall obtain the permission  required\t for<br \/>\n\t      the said construction.  In case your signature<br \/>\n\t      or consent is required in that matter, you are<br \/>\n\t      to give the same.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>14.  These  sub-lessees (defendants 2 and 3) assigned  their<br \/>\nrights\tin favour of defendants 16, 7 and 8 and\t others\t who<br \/>\nare  the appellants.  How can they claim protection as\tsub-<br \/>\nlessees?   The\timportant  point to note here  is  that\t the<br \/>\noriginal  lessor (sic lessee) Gore, defendants 2 and 3\tsub-<br \/>\nlessees\t are no longer before us.  They have not  filed\t the<br \/>\nappeal.\t In these circumstances, the principle applicable to<br \/>\nthis  case  is as stated in Jai Singh Morarji case2  that  a<br \/>\nsub-tenant cannot create further sub-tenancy.  Therefore, we<br \/>\nare  totally  unable  to see any scope\tfor  application  of<br \/>\nSection 15 of the Act.\tThe parties are afforded liberty  to<br \/>\ncontract  out of the section.  Even then it is only  a\tsub-<br \/>\ntenant who could claim protection.  If in law, they are\t not<br \/>\nsub-tenants of the original lessor, this-section is  totally<br \/>\ninapplicable.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.  Again for the application of Section 14, there must  be<br \/>\na  lawful subtenancy.  That is not so here.   The  occupants<br \/>\nwere  not lawfully inducted into possession  as\t sub-tenants<br \/>\neither\tprior to 1959 or 1973.\tTherefore, we are unable  to<br \/>\naccept\tthe  contention urged by Mr U.R. Lalit and  Mr\tS.K.<br \/>\nDholakia,  learned  counsel.  Hence, that  section  is\talso<br \/>\ninapplicable.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.  Weighing the equitable considerations, the civil appeal<br \/>\nwas  adjourned for effecting a compromise.  But the  parties<br \/>\nhave  not  done so.  Therefore, we are unable to  grant\t any<br \/>\nrelief\t on  that  score.   The\t civil\tappeal\twill   stand<br \/>\ndismissed.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Shantibai vs Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya on 2 March, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (4) 85, JT 1994 (2) 187 Author: S Mohan Bench: Mohan, S. (J) PETITIONER: SHANTIBAI Vs. RESPONDENT: DINKAR BALKRISHNA VAIDYA DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/03\/1994 BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC (4) [&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-5166","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>Shantibai vs Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya on 2 March, 1994 - 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\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shantibai vs Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya on 2 March, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994\" \/>\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=\"1994-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-03T11:28:49+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shantibai vs Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya on 2 March, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-03T11:28:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994\"},\"wordCount\":1699,\"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\\\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994\",\"name\":\"Shantibai vs Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya on 2 March, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-03T11:28:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shantibai vs Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya on 2 March, 1994\"}]},{\"@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":"Shantibai vs Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya on 2 March, 1994 - 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\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shantibai vs Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya on 2 March, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-03T11:28:49+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shantibai vs Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya on 2 March, 1994","datePublished":"1994-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-03T11:28:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994"},"wordCount":1699,"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\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994","name":"Shantibai vs Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya on 2 March, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-03T11:28:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantibai-vs-dinkar-balkrishna-vaidya-on-2-march-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shantibai vs Dinkar Balkrishna Vaidya on 2 March, 1994"}]},{"@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\/5166","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=5166"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5166\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}