{"id":54229,"date":"1995-03-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-03-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995"},"modified":"2018-08-25T02:11:42","modified_gmt":"2018-08-24T20:41:42","slug":"shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995","title":{"rendered":"Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) … vs Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande & … on 20 March, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) … vs Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande & … on 20 March, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 1211, \t\t 1995 SCC (3) 413<\/div>\n
Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n
Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHANKAR BALWANT LOKHANDE (DEAD) BY L.RS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCHANDRAKANT SHANKAR LOKHANDE & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/03\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nHANSARIA B.L. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 AIR 1211\t\t  1995 SCC  (3) 413\n JT 1995 (3)   186\t  1995 SCALE  (2)318\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
K.   RAMASWAMY, J.:\n<\/p>\n
1.   These appeals by special leave arise from the  judgment
\nof the High Court of Bombay dated April 7, 1977 by which LPA
\n15\/77  was  dismissed in limine.  The facts lie in  a  short
\ncompass\t for deciding the question of law arising  in  these
\nappeals.   On  August  2,  1955,  a  preliminary  decree  in
\nSpl.Civil   Suit   No.296\/49  was  passed   declaring\tthat
\nChandrakant-first respondent was entitled to 1\/6th share and
\nthe  appellants\t were entitled to 5\/6th share  in  the\tsuit
\nproperties.   An order was made on April 19, 1958  directing
\npreparation of a final decree.\tOn December 19, 1960,  first
\nrespondent supplied non-judicial stamps to engross and\tsign
\nthe  final  decree  to the extent of his  1\/6th\t share.\t  On
\nJanuary\t 11,  1961,  a final decree,  in  that\tbehalf,\t was
\nengrossed  on  the  stamped paper and signed  by  the  trial
\ncourt.\t Since\tthe  appellants had not\t supplied  the\tnon-
\njudicial stamps, no final decree was made qua them.  On\t the
\nother  hand,  Darkhast\tNo.41\/63  was  filed  by  them\t for
\nexecution  of the preliminary decree which was\tsubsequently
\ndismissed  as withdrawn.  Darkhast No. 70 was filed in\t1965
\nwhich was dismissed on March 13, 1968 as the application was
\nbarred\tby limitation.\tIn First Appeal No.605\/68, the\tHigh
\nCourt  held that “in view of the fact that no  final  decree
\nwas  passed on non-judicial stamps, there was no  decree  in
\nexistence  for\tits execution”.\t Therefore,  on\t August\t 12,
\n1975,  the  appeal was dismissed.  On August 14,  1975,\t the
\nappellants  filed  Misc.Application No.538\/  75\t before\t the
\ntrial  court to accept the nonjudicial stamps and to pass  a
\nfinal  decree.\t The said application was contested  by\t the
\nrespondent  pleading  bar of limitation.   The\ttrial  court
\noverruled  the\tobjection  and allowed\tthe  application  on
\n3.2.76\tholding\t that  the application\twas  not  barred  by
\nlimitation.  In First Appeal No.229\/76, Learned Single Judge
\nof the High Court held that the limitation began to run from
\nthe date when the direction was given to pass final  decree.
\nSince  the application was filed after the expiry of  period
\nof  limitation\tcounted from that date, the  Court  held  on
\nMarch  7, 1977 that it was barred by limitation.  As  stated
\nearlier, on further appeal, the division bench dismissed the
\nappeal in limine.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The  crucial question for consideration is as  to\twhen
\nthe  limitation begins to run for filing an  application  to
\npass  final  decree on stamped papers.\tThere is  no  direct
\ndecision  of  this court on this  point.   Therefore,  after
\nhearing\t counsel at length, we reserved the judgment in\t the
\nappeal\tand independently made detailed examination.   There
\nis  divergence\tof  opinion  in\t the  High  Courts  on\tthis
\nquestion.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Order 20 Rule 7 of CPC envisages that the decree “shall
\nbear the day on which the judgment was pronounced, and, when
\nthe  judge  has satisfied himself that the decree  has\tbeen
\ndrawn up in accordance with the judgment, he shall sign\t the
\ndecree”.  Section 2(2) of CPC defines “decree” to mean\t“the
\nformal\texpression  of\tan adjudication\t which,\t so  far  as
\nregards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the
\nrights\tof  the\t parties with regard to all or\tany  of\t the
\nmatters\t in  controversy  in  the suit\tand  may  be  either
\npreliminary  or final”.\t A preliminary decree is  one  which
\ndeclares  the rights and liabilities of the parties  leaving
\nthe  actual result to be worked out in further\tproceedings.
\nThen,  as a result of the further inquiries  conducted\tpur-
\nsuant  to the preliminary decree, the rights of the  parties
\nare fully determined and a
\n189<\/span>
\ndecree is passed in accordance with such determination which
\nis  final.   Both the decrees are in the same  suit.   Final
\ndecree may be said to become final in two ways: (i) when the
\ntime  for appeal has expired without any appeal being  filed
\nagainst\t the  preliminary  decree or  the  matter  has\tbeen
\ndecided\t by  the highest court; (ii) when,  as\tregards\t the
\ncourt  passing\tthe  decree,  the  same\t stands\t  completely
\ndisposed  of It is in the latter sense the word “decree”  is
\nused  in,  s.2(2) of CPC.  The appealability of\t the  decree
\nwill, therefore, not affect its character as a final decree.
\nThe  final decree merely carries into fulfillment  the\tpre-
\nliminary decree.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Order  20\tRule 18 envisages passing of  a\t decree\t for
\npartition of property or for separate possession of a  share
\ntherein.  Sub-r. (2) is material which provides that “if and
\nin  so\tfar as such decree relates to  any  other  immovable
\nproperty  or  to  movable property, the Court  may,  if\t the
\npartition or separation cannot be conveniently made  without
\nfurther\t inquiry,  pass a preliminary decree  declaring\t the
\nrights of the several parties interested in the property and
\ngiving\t such  further\tdirections  as\tmay  be\t  required”.
\n(Emphasis ours) Thus, it could be seen that where the decree
\nrelates\t to  any  immovable property and  the  partition  or
\nseparation  cannot  be\tconveniently  made  without  further
\ninquiry,  then the court is required to pass  a\t preliminary
\ndecree declaring the rights of several parties interested in
\nthe  property.\t The court is also empowered  to  give\tsuch
\nfurther\t directions  as\t may be required in  this  behalf  A
\npreliminary  decree in a partition action, is a step in\t the
\nsuit which continues until the” final decree is passed.\t  In
\na suit for partition by a coparcenar or cosharer, the  court
\nshould\tnot give a decree only for the plaintiffs share,  it
\nshould\tconsider shares of all the heirs after\tmaking\tthem
\nparties\t and then to pass a preliminary decree.\t  The  words
\n“declaring  the rights of the several parties interested  in
\nthe  property” in sub-rule(2) would indicate that shares  of
\nthe  parties, other than the plaintiff(s), have to be  taken
\ninto account while passing  preliminary decree.\t  Therefore,
\npreliminary  decree for partition is only a  declaration  of
\nthe  rights of the parties and the shares they have  in\t the
\njoint family or coparcenary property, which is the  subject-
\nmatter\tof  the suit.  The final decree should\tspecify\t the
\ndivision by metes and bounds and it needs to be engrossed on
\nstamped paper.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The preliminary decree, in these appeals declared\tthat
\nthe properties belong to the joint family of the  plaintiffs
\nand  defendant No. 1 set out in Schedules ‘A’ and ‘B’.\t The
\ndetails of the properties have been enumerated and they\t are
\nliable\tto  partition  as  per\tthe  right  of\tthe  parties
\nmentioned  in  the  preliminary\t decree.   In  other  words,
\nChandrakant  has 1\/6th share and the appellants\t have  5\/6th
\nshare.\t The former is directed to pay certain\tsum  towards
\nmarriage  expenses  of\this sisters with  a  charge  on\t the
\nproperty  allotted  to his share.  He is  also\tentitled  to
\nmesne  profits from the date of the institution of the\tsuit
\nin respect of certain properties specified in para 7 of\t the
\npreliminary  decree.   A  Commissioner was  directed  to  be
\nappointed to partition the properties mentioned in paragraph
\n8 of the decree.  Para 9 declares certain charges in respect
\nof  specified  properties.   It would, thus,  he  seen\tthat
\nexcept\tdeclaration  of the rights of the  parties  and\t the
\ncharge\ton  the\t shares,  there is  no\tfinal  decree.\t The
\npartition  is  to  be effected by  the\tCommissioner  to  be
\nappointed and as per
\n190<\/span>
\ndirections  from  the  court in that  behalf  A\t preliminary
\ndecree in respect of 1\/6th share of the first respondent was
\nengrossed  on  the  stamped papers submitted  by  him.\t The
\nquestion  is  whether the decree then became final  and\t the
\nrights of the parties stood crystallised, as envisaged under
\ns.2(2) of CPC and, if so, when the limitation would begin to
\nrun for execution thereof?\n<\/p>\n
6.It  is seen that the single Judge of the High\t Court\theld
\nthat  the  limitation began to run from the  date  when\t the
\ndirection  was\tgiven by the civil court to pass  the  final
\ndecree\tand  since  the\t application was  not  made  by\t the
\nappellants   within   three  years  from  that\t date,\t the
\napplication  for execution stood barred.  The  single  Judge
\nconcluded thus
\n\t      “I,  therefore, hold that limitation  for\t ex-
\n\t      ecuting a final decree in a suit for partition
\n\t      starts  on the date on which the final  decree
\n\t      is  passed, that is, on the date on which\t the
\n\t      judgment\tdirecting  the final  decree  to  be
\n\t      drawn  is\t given and not from  any  subsequent
\n\t      date  on\twhich the party\t supplies  the\tnon-\n<\/p>\n
\t      judicial stamp for engrossing the final decree
\n\t      and when the Court engrosses the final  decree
\n\t      on the stamp and signs it.  ”\n<\/p>\n
7.   Question is whether the aforesaid view is\t  correct?
\nSince the decree is one which is   prior  to the  Limitation
\nAct, 1963, we are to look to the provisions contained in the
\nLimitation  Act,  1908,\t (for short,  ‘the  old\t Act’),\t for
\ndeciding the controversy.  Article 182 of the First Schedule
\nto the old Act envisages that “for the execution of a decree
\nor order of any civil court not provided for by Article\t 183
\nor  by Section 48 of CPC, the period of limitation of  three
\nyears begins to run from the date the final order was passed
\non an application made in accordance with law to the  proper
\ncourt  for  execution,\tor  to take  some  step\t in  aid  of
\nexecution  of  the decree or order. Explanation\t 1  provides
\nthat “where the decree or order has been passed severally in
\nfavour of more persons than one, distinguishing portions  of
\nthe  subject-matter as payable or deliverable to  each,\t the
\napplication  mentioned in note 5 of the article\t shall\ttake
\neffect\tin favour only of such of the said persons or  their
\nrepresentatives as it may be made by.  But where  the decree
\nor  order has been passed jointly in favour of more  persons
\nthan  one, such application, if made by any one or  more  of
\nthem, or by his or their representatives, shall take  effect
\nin  favour of them all.” Therefore, it would be\t clear\tthat
\nwhere  decree or order has been passed jointly against\tmore
\npersons than one, the application shall take effect  against
\nthem  all,  even if it is made by one or more.\tIt  is\tseen
\nthat  the preliminary decree is a declaration of the  rights
\nof  the\t parties  with\ta charge on  the  properties  to  be
\nallotted and a Commissioner is required to be appointed\t for
\npartition  of certain specified properties.   Therefore,  as
\nenvisaged in sub-r. (2) of Rule 18 of Order 20, it was\tonly
\na  preliminary\tdecree declaring the rights of\tthe  parties
\nwith  power to the court to give further directions in\tthat
\nbehalf It is settled law that more than one final decree can
\nbe passed.  With the passing of the final decree in  respect
\nof  the\t share of the first respondent, the  rights  of\t the
\nparties\t in  respect  of  other\t properties  have  not\tbeen
\ncrystallised and no final decree dividing the properties  by
\nmetes and bounds was passed nor any application was made  to
\ndivide the properties in term’s of the shares of the parties
\ndeclared in the preliminary decree.\n<\/p>\n
191<\/span><\/p>\n
8.   It\t has  been seen that after  passing  of\t preliminary
\ndecree\tfor partition, the decree cannot be  made  effective
\nwithout a final decree.\t The final decree made in favour  of
\nthe  first respondent is only partial to the extent  of\t his
\n1\/6th  right  without  any demarcation or  division  of\t the
\nproperties.    Until   the  rights  in\tthe   final   decree
\nproceedings  are worked out qua all and till a final  decree
\nin that behalf is made, there is no formal expression of the
\nadjudication  conclusively  determining the  rights  of\t the
\nparties with regard to the properties for partition in terms
\nof  the declaration of 1\/6th and 5\/6th shares of  the  first
\nrespondent and the appellants so as to entitle the party  to
\nmake an application for execution of the final decree.\n<\/p>\n
9.   In\t Rameshwar  Singh-Decree holder v.  Homeswar  Singh-
\nJudgment-debtor,  AIR 1921 Privy Council 3 1, the facts,  in
\nnutshell, were: There was a joint liability for the  payment
\nof  some amount under a grant.\tA decree in that behalf\t was
\npassed\tand the property was sought to be proceeded  against
\nthe, estate for execution.  The contention was that since  a
\ndecree\twas made earlier which was executable but no  appli-
\ncation\twas  made  within  limitation,\tthe  decree   became
\nunexecutable, being barred by limitation.  That was accepted
\nby  the High Court.  On appeal, the Judicial Committee\theld
\nthat “in order to make the provisions of the Limitation\t Act
\napply,\tthe decree sought to be enforced must have  been  in
\nsuch a form as to render it capable in the circumstances  of
\nbeing enforced”.  The decree being limited in its scope,  it
\nwas held that limitation did not begin to run from the\tdate
\nof  decree  as drawn.  The contention of  Smt.Jaishree\tWad,
\nlearned\t council  for  the respondent,\tis  that  the  Privy
\nCouncil upheld the principle of making an application within
\nthree  years from the date when the right to apply  accrues,
\nas  provided in Article 181 of the old Limitation  Act,\t the
\nratio  of  the aforesaid case applies to the facts  in\tthis
\ncase  since the application had not been made  within  three
\nyears or within 12 years and so, it was hopelessly barred by
\nlimitation.   She  placed reliance on the judgment  of\tthis
\nCourt  in Yeshwant v. Walchand, AIR 1951 SC 17 also, and  on
\njudgments in Maksudan Prasad v. Smt.  Lakshmi Devi, AIR 1983
\nPatna 105, Pandivi Satyanandam v P. Nammayya AIR 1938 Madras
\n307, and Basamma v. Shivamma, AIR 1963 Mysore 323.\n<\/p>\n
10.  As\t found earlier, no executable final decree has\tbeen
\ndrawn  working\tout the rights of the parties  dividing\t the
\nproperties  in\tterms  of the shares declared  in  the\tpre-
\nliminary  decree.  The preliminary decree had only  declared
\nthe  shares of the parties and properties were liable to  be
\npartitioned  in\t accordance  with those\t shares\t by  a\tCom-
\nmissioner  to  be appointed in this  behalf  Admittedly,  no
\nCommissioner  was  appointed and no final  decree  had\tbeen
\npassed relating to all.\n<\/p>\n
11.  In\t Yashwant’s  case   (supra),  the  facts  were\tthat
\npreliminary  decree for accounting was passed in a suit\t for
\nrendition  of  account of partnership.\t There\twas  deficit
\ncourt fee payable.  It was contended that until the  payment
\nof deficit court fee was made, right had not been accrued to
\ndraw the final decree and that therefore, limitation  begins
\nto  run only from the date of paying the deficit court\tfee.
\nThis  court  negatived\tthe contention\tand  held  that\t the
\npreliminary  decree  was not a conditional  decree  and\t its
\nenforceability was not dependent upon the future act  namely
\npay-\n<\/p>\n
192<\/span><\/p>\n
ment  of  the deficit court fee; and payment  thereof  at  a
\nlater  date would not provide fresh limitation to  run\tfrom
\nthat date.\n<\/p>\n
12.  As to Maksudan’s case (supra), we state that it had not
\nbeen  correctly decided.  Limitation does not begin  to\t run
\nfrom the date when direction is given to pass final  decree.
\nMere giving of direction to supply stamped paper for passing
\nfinal  decree  does not amount to passing  a  final  decree.
\nUntil the final decree determining the rights of the parties
\nby  metes  and bound is drawn up and  engrossed\t on  stamped
\npaper(s)  supplied  by the parties, there is  no  executable
\ndecree.\t In this behalf, it is necessary to note that s.2(a)
\nof the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, as amended by the local\tAct,
\nprovides  that\ta decree of civil. court is required  to  be
\nstamped as per Article 46 in Schedule-1.  Section 34 thereof
\nlays down that “no instrument chargeable with duty shall  be
\nadmitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by
\nlaw or consent of parties authority to receive evidence,  or
\nshall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such
\nperson\tor by any public officer unless such  instrument  is
\nduly  stamped”.\t Therefore, executing court  cannot  receive
\nthe  preliminary  decree unless final decree  is  passed  as
\nenvisaged under Order 20 Rule 18(2).  After final decree  is
\npassed\tand a direction is issued to pay stamped papers\t for
\nengrossing  final  decree  thereon  and\t the  same  is\tduly
\nengrossed  on  stamped paper(s), it  becomes  executable  or
\nbecomes\t  an  instrument  duly\tstamped.   Thus,   condition
\nprecedent  is to draw up a final decree and then to  engross
\nit  on stamped paper(s) of required value.  These  two\tacts
\ntogether  constitute final decree, crystallizing the  rights
\nof  the\t parties in terms of the preliminary  decree.\tTill
\nthen, there is no executable decree as envisaged in Order 20
\nRule  18(2),  attracting residuary Article 182\tof  the\t old
\nLimitation Act.\t Contrary views of the High Courts, are\t not
\ngood law.  A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
\nin  Smt.  Kotipalli Mahalakshmamma v. K. Ganeswara Rao,\t AIR
\n1960 AP 54, correctly decided the question of law which held
\nthat the limitation begins to run only after a final  decree
\nis engrossed on stamped papers.\n<\/p>\n
13.  Accordingly,  the appeals arc allowed.   The  judgments
\nand  orders of the High Court arc set aside and that of\t the
\ntrial  court stands confirmed.\tThe trial court is  directed
\nfirst to pass the final decree and then to engross the\tsame
\non the stamped papers already supplied by the appellants; if
\nfurther\t stamped papers be needed, reasonable time would  be
\ngiven  to supply the same.  The final decree would  then  be
\ndrawn  thereon.\t The court would, thereafter,  proceed\twith
\nthe execution of the final decree in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
14.  In\t the circumstances, the parties am directed to\tbear
\ntheir own costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
195<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) … vs Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande & … on 20 March, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 1211, 1995 SCC (3) 413 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: SHANKAR BALWANT LOKHANDE (DEAD) BY L.RS. Vs. RESPONDENT: CHANDRAKANT SHANKAR LOKHANDE & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/03\/1995 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: […]<\/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-54229","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) ... vs Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande & ... on 20 March, 1995 - 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\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) ... vs Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande & ... on 20 March, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995\" \/>\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=\"1995-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-24T20:41:42+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) … vs Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande & … on 20 March, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-24T20:41:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995\"},\"wordCount\":2856,\"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\\\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995\",\"name\":\"Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) ... vs Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande & ... on 20 March, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-24T20:41:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) … vs Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande & … on 20 March, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) ... vs Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande & ... on 20 March, 1995 - 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\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) ... vs Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande & ... on 20 March, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-24T20:41:42+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) … vs Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande & … on 20 March, 1995","datePublished":"1995-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-24T20:41:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995"},"wordCount":2856,"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\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995","name":"Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) ... vs Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande & ... on 20 March, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-24T20:41:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-balwant-lokhande-dead-vs-chandrakant-shankar-lokhande-on-20-march-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) … vs Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande & … on 20 March, 1995"}]},{"@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\/54229","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=54229"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54229\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54229"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54229"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54229"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}