{"id":5485,"date":"2008-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008"},"modified":"2015-07-30T00:24:30","modified_gmt":"2015-07-29T18:54:30","slug":"tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Tikaram Ragho Choudhary vs Shaikh Gaffar Shaikh Bismillah on 11 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Tikaram Ragho Choudhary vs Shaikh Gaffar Shaikh Bismillah on 11 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar<\/div>\n
                             (1)\n\n\n\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY\n\n                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                  SECOND APPEAL NO. 156 OF 1991\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     1.      Tikaram Ragho Choudhary\n             Since deceased by his Heirs -\n     1A      Sumanbai Pralhad Firke\n             At & post Navi, Taluka\n             Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     1B.     Mrs. Vijaya Sudhakar Narkhede,\n             R\/o Navi, Taluka Yawal,\n             District Jalgaon.\n     2.      Popat Narso Choudhary,\n             R\/o Savda, Taluka Raver,\n             District Jalgaon.\n\n\n\n\n                             \n     3.      Kusumbai w\/o Namdeo Choudhary\n     4.      Mohan Yadav Choudhary\n     5.\n     6.\n     7.\n                  \n             Krishna Keshav Choudhary\n             Ravindra Keshav Choudhary\n             Watcchalabai Keshav Choudhary\n             Nos. 3 to 7 residents of\n                 \n             Savda, Taluka Raver,\n             District Jalgaon.\n     8.      Tukaram Bhikaji Patil\n             Since deceased by his Heirs\n     8A.     Sudhakar Tukaram Patil\n     8B.     Hemantkumar Sudhakar Patil\n      \n\n\n     8C.     Arunabai Sudhakar Patil\n     8D.     Kasibai Tukaram Patil\n   \n\n\n\n     9.      Sudhakar Tukaram Patil\n     10.     Hemantkumar Sudhakar Patil\n     11.     Arunabai Sudhakar Patil\n     12.     Kasibai Tukaram Patil\n     13.     Govinda Ananda Mahajan\n\n\n\n\n\n             Nos. 8 to 13 residing at\n             Big Waghode, Taluka Raver,\n             District Jalgaon.                        APPELLANTS\n\n             VERSUS\n\n     1.     Shaikh Gaffar Shaikh Bismillah,\n\n\n\n\n\n            R\/o Municipal House No. 25,\n            Bhavani Peth, Jalgaon, Dist.\n            Jalgaon.\n     2.     Sugrabi w\/o Shaikh Bismillah,\n            R\/o 68, Bhavani Peth, Jalgaon,\n            District Jalgaon.                      RESPONDENTS\n\n             .....\n     Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate for the appellants.\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:03:21 :::\n                                             (2)\n\n     None for both respondents.\n             .....\n\n                                             [CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]\n\n           DATE OF JUDGEMENT RESERVED   : 24th October, 2008\n           DATE OF JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED : 11th November, 2088\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n           --------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     JUDGEMENT :\n<\/pre>\n
     1.         Challenge          in     this    appeal       is     to     judgement<\/p>\n
     rendered         by        learned      Additional        District             Judge,<\/p>\n
     Jalgaon,        in an appeal (R.C.A.               No.    119\/1983) whereby<\/p>\n
     and     whereunder judgement and decree of Trial Court in<\/p>\n
     Spl.     Civil Suit No.              28\/1977 came to be reversed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n     2.         Original\n                            ig     defendants           No.     2     to       14         are\n                          \n     appellants        herein.          Respondent No.         1 - Shaikh Gaffar\n\n     is     original plaintiff and respondent No.                        2 - Sugrabi\n\n     is     original        defendant No.         2.     Respondent No.               1    -\n      \n\n\n     Shaikh     Gaffar is son of respondent No.                       2 -      Sugrabi.\n   \n\n\n\n     He     filed suit (Spl.              C.S.    No.    28\/1977) for           setting\n\n     aside     alienation made by her and for his 7\/8th                              share\n\n<\/pre>\n
     by way of partition and separate possession in respect<\/p>\n
     of the suit fields.\n<\/p>\n
     3.         Briefly          stated, case of the respondent No.                        1<\/span><\/p>\n
     (plaintiff)        before          the Trial Court was that                he     and<\/p>\n
     respondent        No.       2 had filed a partition suit                   bearing<\/p>\n
     Spl.     C.S.     No.        3\/1956 against his uncles, etc.                     That<\/p>\n
     suit     ended        in     a compromise decree           passed         on     30th<\/p>\n
     November        1956.       By virtue of such compromise                   decree,<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
     the     suit properties were allotted to him as shown                             in<\/p>\n
     the schedule appended with the plaint.                       They comprised<\/p>\n
     of     agricultural          fields      bearing      Survey        No.         353<\/span><\/p>\n
     admeasuring          1     acre 29 gunthas, situated              at      village<\/p>\n
     Savda,        Taluka       Raver   and fields bearing             Survey        No.<\/p>\n
     91\/2,        admeasuring       0 acre 29 gunthas and              Survey        No.<\/p>\n
     91\/4,        admeasuring       3   acres 4      gunthas,         situated         at<\/p>\n
     village        Waghode,       Taluka Raver.        He was        minor,        aged<\/p>\n
     about        2 years, at the relevant time.                The      respondent<\/p>\n
     No.      2 – Sugrabi filed an application (Misc.                           Appln.<\/p>\n
\n\n     No.          86\/1956)        in    the     District      Court         for      her\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n     appointment          as     his guardian under provisions of                    the\n\n     Guardians        and\n                            ig  Wards Act, 1890.        The Court           appointed\n\n     her     as     his guardian as per order dated                   27th        April,\n                          \n     1957,        under section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act,\n\n     1890.         She     was in possession of the suit                 properties\n\n     after        the partition decree for and on behalf of                         both\n      \n\n\n     of     them.         She    alienated the field Survey                 No.      353<\/span>\n   \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     situated at village Savda by virtue of sale-deed dated<\/p>\n
     14th     February          1961 in favour of original               defendants<\/p>\n
     No.      2     and 3.       They subsequently got the said                    field<\/p>\n
     partitioned.             She also alienated the fields Survey No.<\/p>\n
     91\/2     and        Survey No.     91\/4 to original defendant                   No.<\/p>\n
     9,     which lateron changed hands and came to the shares<\/p>\n
     of      original           defendant      No.      10      Sudhakar.              He<\/p>\n
     transferred          the     same in favour of defendant No.                      11<\/p>\n
     Hemantkumar during implementation of the Consolidation<\/p>\n
     Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
     4.         The     respondent          No.        1 –     plaintiff           asserted<\/p>\n
     that     the     transactions were not binding on                           him.        He<\/p>\n
     demanded        partition of his share.                   The defendants              did<\/p>\n
     not     accede to his demand and, therefore, he sued them<\/p>\n
     for      partition        and      separate             possession          alongwith<\/p>\n
     declaration        that    the         sale-deeds             executed         by     the<\/p>\n
     respondent No.          2 – original defendant No.                        1 were not<\/p>\n
     binding on him.           He also claimed mesne profits.\n<\/p>\n
     5.         The     respondent No.            2 (original defendant No.<\/p>\n
     1) filed consent written statement (Exh-72).\n<\/p>\n
     6.         The     appellants          resisted           the suit.            It     was<\/p>\n
     their      contention           that     the        suit       fields         were      in<\/p>\n
     exclusive        possession of defendant No.                       1- Sugrabi who<\/p>\n
     represented to them that she was competent to alienate<\/p>\n
     the     same.     They were unaware of the fact that she was<\/p>\n
     appointed as guardian of the plaintiff.                              They asserted<\/p>\n
     that     the suit was barred by limitation.                            They further<\/p>\n
     asserted        that    the      suit     fields          were       alienated          by<\/p>\n
     defendant        No.    1 Sugrabi for the welfare and                          benefit<\/p>\n
     of     her minor son – respondent No.                       1 – Shaikh Gaffar.\n<\/p>\n
     They     further       asserted         that she          purchased           a     house<\/p>\n
     property bearing M.C.             No.        68 at Jalgaon by utilizing<\/p>\n
     the     consideration         amount         in     respect          of     the      sale<\/p>\n
     transactions.          They asserted further that they are the<\/p>\n
     bonafide        purchasers       for valuable               consideration             and<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
     deserved        legal protection.          They also contended                that<\/p>\n
     they     have      become       owners      by   adverse         possession.\n<\/p>\n
     Consequently, they sought dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     7.         The        parties went to trial over issues                   struck<\/p>\n
     below     Exhibit-73          by the learned Civil            Judge.          They<\/p>\n
     adduced       oral      and documentary evidence in support                      of<\/p>\n
     the     rival contentions.            The suit was dismissed by the<\/p>\n
     Trial     Court.        The Trial Court held that the suit                     was<\/p>\n
     barred        by limitation.         The Trial Court held that                 the<\/p>\n
     appellants         were       bonafide      purchasers        for      valuable<\/p>\n
     consideration           and     deserved    legal      protection.             The<\/p>\n
     first     Appellate
\n                            ig     Court reversed such         findings.            The<\/p>\n
     first Appellate Court came to conclusion that the suit<\/p>\n
     was     not     barred by limitation.            The    first         Appellate<\/p>\n
     Court     held        that     the defendants       could       not     acquire<\/p>\n
     ownership        by     virtue of adverse possession, nor                     they<\/p>\n
     were     bonafide         purchasers.        Hence,     the      appeal        was<\/p>\n
     allowed and the suit came to be decreed.\n<\/p>\n
     8.         This        second      appeal was admitted on a               single<\/p>\n
     substantial           question     of law, which the then               Hon’ble<\/p>\n
     Judge referred to as ground No.                  2 in the appeal memo.\n<\/p>\n
     Instead       of      reproducing        the said ground, I            deem      it<\/p>\n
     proper        to redraft the substantial question of law                         as<\/p>\n
     follows :\n<\/p>\n
                “Whether,          in   the facts and circumstances                   of<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (6)<\/span><\/p>\n
                the    present        case, respondent No.              2    Sugrabi<\/p>\n
                (original       defendant No.       1) was competent                  to<\/p>\n
                transfer      the     suit properties            without          prior<\/p>\n
                permission       of     the Court under provisions                    of<\/p>\n
                the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and that due<\/p>\n
                to      her     omission      to    alienate            the         suit<\/p>\n
                properties          without     such        permission,             the<\/p>\n
                transactions        became      voidable at instance                  of<\/p>\n
                respondent No.          1 Shaikh Gaffar (plaintiff) ?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9.         Mr.      V.J.       Dixit,     learned       Senior          Counsel,<\/p>\n
     would   submit       that      the       appellants       were          bonafide<\/p>\n
     purchasers<\/p>\n
                      for valuable consideration and should have<\/p>\n
     been protected by the Court.               He would submit that the<\/p>\n
     transactions       of sale were entered into by                    respondent<\/p>\n
     No.     2- Sugrabi for welfare of the minor and,                             hence,<\/p>\n
     could   have       been saved by the first Appellate                      Court.\n<\/p>\n
     He would point out that a house property was purchased<\/p>\n
     by    her by utilizing the consideration amount received<\/p>\n
     from the purchasers of the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
     10.        On    perusal       of the impugned judgement, it                     is<\/p>\n
     amply   clear       that     the      question       of     limitation           is<\/p>\n
     properly        addressed by the first Appellate Court.                        The<\/p>\n
     respondent No.        1 – Shaikh Gaffar was minor at time of<\/p>\n
     both the sale transactions.               He was born on 17th July,<\/p>\n
     1954.      He was aged 21 years at the time of filing                            of<\/p>\n
     suit.      He became major on 17th July, 1975.                         The     suit<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (7)<\/span><\/p>\n
     was     instituted on 27th January, 1977.                    Obviously,           it<\/p>\n
     was     filed        within period of three (3) years after                       he<\/p>\n
     attained            majority.        The    first       Appellate            Court<\/p>\n
     considered           legal provisions contained in Article 8 of<\/p>\n
     the Indian Limitation Act in this behalf.                         The finding<\/p>\n
     of     the     Trial        Court    that the    suit      was      barred        by<\/p>\n
     limitation           is totally incorrect and has been                   rightly<\/p>\n
     reversed by the first Appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
     11.          The only significant question to be determined<\/p>\n
     is     whether the respondent No.               2 Sugrabi was            legally<\/p>\n
     competent           to    alienate    the   suit      properties           during<\/p>\n
     minority<\/p>\n
                     of the respondent No.           1 (plaintiff).               There<\/p>\n
     is     no dispute about the fact that he was appointed as<\/p>\n
     his     guardian          under provisions of the            Guardians          and<\/p>\n
     Wards        Act.        In case of a minor governed by               Mahomedan<\/p>\n
     Law,     the guardians of the property of a minor can                             be<\/p>\n
     only persons from following categories.\n<\/p>\n
     (i)          the father;\n\n\n\n\n\n     (ii)         the executor appointed by the father's will;\n\n\n\n     (iii)        the father's father;\n\n\n\n\n\n     (iv)         the executor appointed by the will of\n\n                  father's father.\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:03:22 :::<\/span>\n                                               (8)<\/span>\n\n     The     mother,        brother       or uncle, etc.           cannot          act     as\n\n     legal     guardian          of a minor.           The mother may be             a     de\n\n     facto     guardian          but would never be regarded as                      a     de\n\n     jure     guardian        in respect of property of                   the       minor.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n     The     power     of        a    guardian appointed by              a    Court        to\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n     dispose     of movable property is limited to the                              extent\n\n     of     movable        properties.              That too, it       shall        be     so\n\n<\/pre>\n
     disposed of carefully as a prudent man deal with it if<\/p>\n
     it     were his own.             This legal position is quite                   clear<\/p>\n
     in     view of section 27 of the Guardian and Wards                                 Act,<\/p>\n
     1890.      Article          364 of the Mahomedan Law (by                      Mulla),<\/p>\n
     (19th      Edition          by      M.         Hidayatullah         and         Arshad<\/p>\n
     Hidayatullah)<\/p>\n
                             would make it manifest that a de                        facto<\/p>\n
     guardian        under       Article 361 has no power to                    transfer<\/p>\n
     any right or interest in the immovable property of the<\/p>\n
     minor.      Such a transfer would not be merely voidable,<\/p>\n
     but     would     be        void.        A mother is only           a     de     facto<\/p>\n
     guardian        and     a bare custodian of property                     of     minor<\/p>\n
     son.     She does not possess power to sell, mortgage, or<\/p>\n
     otherwise        deal       with immovable property belonging                        to<\/p>\n
     the     minor.        She has no larger powers to deal with her<\/p>\n
     minor child’s property than a stranger or non-relative<\/p>\n
     who     happens        to       have charge of the          minor        for        time<\/p>\n
     being.\n<\/p>\n
     12.        The        principles of Mahomedan Law stated in the<\/p>\n
     treatise        by Syed Ameer Ali (Vol.                II, 5th Edition) at<\/p>\n
     pages     548     and 549 deal with the topic.                      It     is       well<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                                (9)<\/span><\/p>\n
     settled        that the mother has no right, whatsoever,                                   to<\/p>\n
     alienate           the     property         of the minor.              There         is    no<\/p>\n
     representation              of      estate        in such a case.               For,       no<\/p>\n
     sooner        deceased           father      of     the     respondent             No.      1<\/span><\/p>\n
     (plaintiff)              died, the shares of his only son and                             the<\/p>\n
     widow        have been crystalized.                 They would inherit                    his<\/p>\n
     property           as     per their shares            as      tenants-in-common.\n<\/p>\n
     The     separation             of    their        shares by        way        of     mutual<\/p>\n
     partition remains only to be done by way of subsequent<\/p>\n
     act     of     partition as a formality or matter                             of        their<\/p>\n
     mutual understanding, as the case may be.                                 They do not<\/p>\n
     inherit        jointly.             In other words, the mother                      cannot<\/p>\n
     represent the share of her minor son.                              She cannot bind<\/p>\n
     him     by acts of her alienation.                        There is no           question<\/p>\n
     of     existence           of       legal    necessity in            such          case    of<\/p>\n
     alienation              likewise      a     concept available               under         the<\/p>\n
     Hindu        Law.         It     is obvious that            respondent              No.     1<\/span><\/p>\n
     (plaintiff)              could      have        avoided       sale       transactions<\/p>\n
     entered into by the respondent No.                            2 within period of<\/p>\n
     three        (3)        years after attaining majority.                       His       suit<\/p>\n
     ought        to have been decreed by the Trial Court in view<\/p>\n
     of     the     settled legal position.                    The first           Appellate<\/p>\n
     Court was right while granting the decree of partition<\/p>\n
     and     separate           possession.             The defence           of     bonafide<\/p>\n
     purchase           is     not available in such a case.                       For,        the<\/p>\n
     purchasers were quite aware that the respondent No.                                         1<\/p>\n
     was     minor.            For, the sale deed dated 11th                       November,<\/p>\n
     1961     (Exh-158)             clearly       shows that minority                   of     the<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:03:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (10)<\/span><\/p>\n
     respondent              No.      1   was        within      knowledge            of    the<\/p>\n
     purchaser.              So also, all the revenue entries as shown<\/p>\n
     in     the     revenue          record     go    to      show       that        she    was<\/p>\n
     appointed         as      guardian       of respondent No.                  1     Shaikh<\/p>\n
     Gaffar.           The     evidence of the appellant do                      not       show<\/p>\n
     that     they       made        necessary       inquiry        as      regards         her<\/p>\n
     competency          to alienate the suit fields.                       They did not<\/p>\n
     obtain       legal advice before effecting purchases of the<\/p>\n
     properties          of        the minor.     No inquiry was made as                     to<\/p>\n
     whether       the        respondent No.          2 Sugrabi           had        obtained<\/p>\n
     sale     permission            from the Court.              Considering            these<\/p>\n
     legal        aspects, the impugned judgement is quite                              legal<\/p>\n
     and proper.<\/p>\n
\n                             \n                            \n     13.          In     the       result, the appeal is without                      merits\n\n     and as such, is dismissed.                   No costs.\n      \n   \n\n\n\n                                                        [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ]\n                                                              JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n\n     NPJ\/SA156-91\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:03:22 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Tikaram Ragho Choudhary vs Shaikh Gaffar Shaikh Bismillah on 11 November, 2008 Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 156 OF 1991 1. Tikaram Ragho Choudhary Since deceased by his Heirs – 1A Sumanbai Pralhad Firke At & post Navi, Taluka […]<\/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-5485","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTikaram Ragho Choudhary vs Shaikh Gaffar Shaikh Bismillah on 11 November, 2008 - 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\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tikaram Ragho Choudhary vs Shaikh Gaffar Shaikh Bismillah on 11 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-29T18:54:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tikaram Ragho Choudhary vs Shaikh Gaffar Shaikh Bismillah on 11 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-29T18:54:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1539,\"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\\\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Tikaram Ragho Choudhary vs Shaikh Gaffar Shaikh Bismillah on 11 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-29T18:54:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tikaram Ragho Choudhary vs Shaikh Gaffar Shaikh Bismillah on 11 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Tikaram Ragho Choudhary vs Shaikh Gaffar Shaikh Bismillah on 11 November, 2008 - 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\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tikaram Ragho Choudhary vs Shaikh Gaffar Shaikh Bismillah on 11 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-29T18:54:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tikaram Ragho Choudhary vs Shaikh Gaffar Shaikh Bismillah on 11 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-29T18:54:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008"},"wordCount":1539,"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\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008","name":"Tikaram Ragho Choudhary vs Shaikh Gaffar Shaikh Bismillah on 11 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-29T18:54:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tikaram-ragho-choudhary-vs-shaikh-gaffar-shaikh-bismillah-on-11-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tikaram Ragho Choudhary vs Shaikh Gaffar Shaikh Bismillah on 11 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/5485","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=5485"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5485\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}