{"id":64223,"date":"2009-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009"},"modified":"2016-04-02T08:48:39","modified_gmt":"2016-04-02T03:18:39","slug":"shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri Shyam Dattatraya Thakur vs Smt. Gajarabai Mohanlal Rathod on 25 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Shyam Dattatraya Thakur vs Smt. Gajarabai Mohanlal Rathod on 25 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar<\/div>\n
Lsp\n                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                                 \n                                WRIT PETITION NO. 1288 of 1992\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                             \n       Shri Shyam Dattatraya Thakur                                                                                 ...Petitioner\n                          V\/s.\n       Smt. Gajarabai Mohanlal Rathod\n       since deceased by her legal heirs\n       Harish Mohanlal Rathod & ors.                                                                                ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                            \n       Mr. V.B.Rajure for the petitioner.\n       Mr. S.N.Chandrachood for respondent no.1.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n                                            CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.\n                                            DATED : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009\n\n       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       .                This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the<\/p>\n
       Constitution               of                    India          takes           exception             to         the                     Judgment<\/p>\n
       and          decree         passed              by             the          IVth              Additional               District            Judge,<\/p>\n
       Pune           dated            13th               December,             1991         in              Civil                Appeal             No.<\/p>\n
       845\/1988               whereby                    the            Appeal                            preferred                  by               the<\/p>\n
       Respondent-tenant                    was             allowed                   and                   the                   suit                for<\/p>\n
       possession                filed            by            the           Petitioner-landlord                  came             to                be<\/p>\n
       dismissed.                  The             Petitioner                had             filed            Suit            for              possession<\/p>\n
       amongst                others          on            the             ground           of            bonafide           and              reasonable<\/p>\n
       requirement                 for         personal                use            and            occupation              of           the        suit<\/p>\n
       premises,                arrears            of           rent            and           unlawful               subletting.                     The<\/p>\n
       Trial            Court            decreed                the            suit                  in           favour             of               the<\/p>\n
       Petitioner-landlord             on            29th               July,               1988             accepting                   the         two<\/p>\n
       grounds           pressed              into                service                     for                 eviction                of          the<\/p>\n
       Respondent-tenant,                    namely,                        bonafide                                requirement                      and<\/p>\n
       unlawful               subletting.                             Against          the           said                  decision,                  the<\/p>\n
                                                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:19 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
    Respondent-tenant                              carried                      the           matter              in           Appeal                           before<\/p>\n
    the              District                Judge            who              in          turn            allowed             the             Appeal            filed<\/p>\n
    by            the                     tenant               and            dismissed            the          suit                    for               possession<\/p>\n
    filed                by                  the                   Petitioner-landlord.                          This                     decision                  is<\/p>\n
    subject matter of challenge in the present Writ<\/p>\n
    Petition.\n<\/p>\n
    2.             During the course of arguments Counsel for the<\/p>\n
    Petitioner                        stated             on               instructions                   that            the                  landlord            was<\/p>\n
    not                  pressing            ig    ground               of                     reasonable                           and                     bonafide<\/p>\n
    requirement                      of                suit          premises               and            would             proceed               in              the<\/p>\n
    matter           only                    in              relation                 to       the               ground                       of            unlawful<\/p>\n
    subletting.                             In                the         circumstances,                   I       am              examining                       the<\/p>\n
    matter          only                    in          the               context                  of              ground                     of            unlawful<\/p>\n
    subletting.                            For        the           nature            of          order          that          I          propose                   to<\/p>\n
    pass,           it                will              not          be         necessary             to         advert            to               all            the<\/p>\n
    events that led to the filing of the suit for<\/p>\n
    possession.\n<\/p>\n
    3.             Suffice it to observe that the plaintiff- landlord<\/p>\n
    claims                    that          husband             of             defendant              no.1             was              the         tenant          in<\/p>\n
    respect                     of           suit            premises                and             after             his              demise             defendant<\/p>\n
    no.1                 not          only            changed             the              business             which              was                     conducted<\/p>\n
    in              the              suit           premises              and              started             using           the             premises            for<\/p>\n
    some          other              business,               but              also           allowed              the              third                party       to<\/p>\n
    conduct                that                   business                    from          the         suit       premises                        on              the<\/p>\n
    specious                   plea                   that          the             said          business             was              conducted                   in<\/p>\n
                                                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:19 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
    the name and style of Chetna Enterprises, a Partnership<\/p>\n
    Firm of defendants 1 to 5 as partners thereof.\n<\/p>\n
    4.                 It is matter of record that after institution of<\/p>\n
    suit,          injunction                       order                  was                    passed                   against                    defendant                  no.1<\/p>\n
    not                 to                  create               third                 party             right,            title           or           interest                   in<\/p>\n
    the         suit           premises.                            It            is           the             case            of              the            plaintiff          that<\/p>\n
    notwithstanding                            the                        said                           injunction,                           defendant                         no.1<\/p>\n
    inducted           defendants                   2          to             5          in          the              garb            that             they             are       the<\/p>\n
    Partners                       of        ig Chetna                    Enterprises                     of            which                  defendant                         no.1<\/p>\n
    was                also                 one            of            the            Partner.                      In           this         background,                       the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff             amended                        the                  plaint                 and                   asserted                    that                defendant<\/p>\n
    no.1                     has               unlawfully                         sublet                            the              suit                premises                  to<\/p>\n
    defendants                 2               to               5.                          The          parties           went                  for               trial           in<\/p>\n
    respect                       of                     the                                said                       allegation                             of                  the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff-landlord.                                              The                Trial                  Court                amongst                    others,             in<\/p>\n
    Paragraph                      11,                   dealt             with               this             aspect          of              the        matter                   in<\/p>\n
    extenso.                                   The              Trial                  Court               referred                 to               relevant              evidence<\/p>\n
    produced             on              record.                          In             the              first            place,               the            Trial            Court<\/p>\n
    proceeded                to            hold                 that               the               documents                      such                as              Partnership<\/p>\n
    Deed,                    Certificate                issued             by            Bank                 of          India            and           Shop                    Act<\/p>\n
    Licence                   were                      not          proved                 by           the          defendants.                         The                   Trial<\/p>\n
    Court                    then                       examined                   other                 evidence              and              considered                        the<\/p>\n
    same                in                  Paragraph                    11            of          its          Judgment                  to          conclude                   that<\/p>\n
    defendant                     no.1                  had              inducted              defendants                  2        to          5                  in             the<\/p>\n
    suit          premises                 and                 thus                the               suit                 premises                    were              unlawfully<\/p>\n
    sublet                   to          the             said             defendants                     by           defendant                 no.1.                      It      is<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:19 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
    on        that          basis              the              Trial              Court             decreed                    the          suit             in           favour<\/p>\n
    of the Petitioner-plaintiff by Judgment and order dated<\/p>\n
    29th July, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
    5.               In Appeal, at the instance of Respondent-tenant,<\/p>\n
    however,                    the              Appellate                    Court                 dealt             with                 the           said              ground<\/p>\n
    in               Paragraph             10              of           the          impugned                    Judgment.                          In             the        first<\/p>\n
    place,                  the            Appellate                     Court                 proceeded                    to             record               that           the<\/p>\n
    Trial         Court             has              given               undue                 weightage                    to             the           decision               of<\/p>\n
    High              Court                instead
\n                                            ig                           of          Supreme                Court               Judgment                      on               the<\/p>\n
    point                 directly               applicable                    to             the              fact              situation               of                    the<\/p>\n
    present            case.                         It             then                      proceeded               to                hold                  that             the<\/p>\n
    Partnership                   Deed               has            been                 proved                by           the             defendants.                        On<\/p>\n
    the               assumption                            that              Partnership                   Deed                has           been                        proved,<\/p>\n
    the        Appellate              Court                 then               proceeded                    to             hold              that             the           same<\/p>\n
    would               indicate                          that          the           legal              possession                   of                 the                  suit<\/p>\n
    premises                  has          not             been               parted            by             defendant                   no.1.                     On        the<\/p>\n
    other             hand,                defendants                          2         to          5                were                    merely                      Partners<\/p>\n
    alongwith defendant no.1 in Chetna Enterprises; for<\/p>\n
    which reason, it was not a case of unlawful subletting.\n<\/p>\n
    6.               The real question to be considered is: whether the<\/p>\n
    Appellate                  Court                 was            right                in          disposing                   of          the                         argument<\/p>\n
    in               such            cryptic               manner                   especially                 when               the            Trial                      Court<\/p>\n
    had          recorded             as             of            fact               that               the           relevant                    documents                 were<\/p>\n
    not           proved                  in                evidence                by         the                  defendant;                            and                only<\/p>\n
    thereafter                 the                        Trial          Court                proceeded                    to                    consider                      the<\/p>\n
                                                                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
    other                  evidence                     to           answer                   the          point             in             issue.                              Whereas<\/p>\n
    the                    Appellate              court              without                       recording                any               reason              as                 to<\/p>\n
    why         it            was           inclined                 to                 overturn                the           finding                 so           record           by<\/p>\n
    the                Trial                     Court              straightway                      jumped                 to                       the                    conclusion<\/p>\n
    that             the             Partnership                        Deed                       has                been                   proved                    by           the<\/p>\n
    defendants                     and                  on              that              basis           proceeded                    to                  answer                   the<\/p>\n
    point              in                  issue                   with                        reference                         to                  the                  stipulations<\/p>\n
    therein.                       However,                        if          it          were            to          be          held,             as          found               by<\/p>\n
    the                    trial         Court,               that              Partnership                       Deed                 was            not                       proved,<\/p>\n
    the         stipulations                therein
\n                                                ig                 will                  be           of              no               avail.                      Indeed,            I<\/p>\n
    am               not                 expressing                any              opinion              as           to          whether                        the               view<\/p>\n
    taken                   by           the           Appellate                    Court                in           that             behalf              is            just       and<\/p>\n
    proper.                         It                 would              have                 been           a            different               matter           if              the<\/p>\n
    Appellate              Court            were              to           record                    some              reasons                  as          to            why        it<\/p>\n
    was                    inclined              to           take                  the             view              that              the            Partnership                Deed<\/p>\n
    has               been           duly              proved             in              evidence.                          That             is           not           the       case<\/p>\n
    on               hand.                             Indeed,             Counsel                    for             the             Respondent                 tried               to<\/p>\n
    pursuade               me            that           there              is                 ample                evidence                   on             record               which<\/p>\n
    would                   support                    the                      conclusion                    noted              by                   the                    Appellate<\/p>\n
    Court                   that           the         Partnership                       Deed              has             been              proved              by                 the<\/p>\n
    defendants.                                  However,                  it                 is         not               possible                  for           this           Court<\/p>\n
    to           appreciate                      the                evidence                         for                   the                first                time              to<\/p>\n
    ascertain                       that                      fact                  in              exercise                 of              writ                        jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    That                   however               was           expected                       from              the           Appellate                    Court                   who<\/p>\n
    ought                   to                   have              adverted                   to          the           relevant                   evidence                       which<\/p>\n
    would              substantiate                     the                finding                       that                    the                 Partnership                  Deed<\/p>\n
    was                      duly              proved                in                 evidence.                            Instead                  of            reappreciating<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
    the           evidence                   for                   the             first      time          by                 this                   Court,               the<\/p>\n
    appropriate                     course,                       in           my             opinion,              is             to             relegate                 the<\/p>\n
    parties               before                        the             Appellate                 Court            which                will          have                  to<\/p>\n
    reconsider                    the                    entire            matter                 with            regard                to          ground                  of<\/p>\n
    unlawful            subletting                  on              its               own                merits               in                  accordance              with<\/p>\n
    law. All questions in that behalf are left open to be<\/p>\n
    considered by the Appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
    7.                Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the<\/p>\n
    decision                 of             ig   our          High             Court              in        the          case                of              Bachansingh<\/p>\n
    Dualsing                 Sikh                      &          ors.v\/s.                    Rasulbi              w\/o.                        Shaikh                 Ismail<\/p>\n
    Sikilkar             &          ors.                   reported            in          1987           Mah.                     R.C.J.                   113             to<\/p>\n
    contend                  that          the           Partnership                  Deed             was          a          sham                 and                  bogus<\/p>\n
    document.                            However,                         once             again          that           is         a             matter                 which<\/p>\n
    will              have                  to           be            examined               by            the          Appellate                  court                since<\/p>\n
    the                 parties                  are                relegated                            before                    that                Court               for<\/p>\n
    reconsideration of the issue on its own merits in<\/p>\n
    accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
    8.                Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, has<\/p>\n
    relied              on          the            decision               of           the         Apex             Court                in         the        case         of<\/p>\n
    Helper                    Girdharibhai                       v\/s.                        Saiyed                Mohmad                         Mirasaheb              Kadri<\/p>\n
    &            ors.                   reported            in          AIR            1987            SC          1782            to             contend         that       if<\/p>\n
    it           is                 a               case            of             “genuine            partnership                            agreement”                   and<\/p>\n
    defendant                  no.1           is           one            of           the          Partner              of             the         said                 firm,<\/p>\n
    the               question                     of                     unlawful                subletting             does                        not                 arise.\n<\/p>\n
    There               is                  no                     difficulty                in          accepting                           the               proposition<\/p>\n
                                                                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
    expounded                         in              the          decision                    of            the           Apex           Court             referred               to<\/p>\n
    above.                              However,                  that             decision               would             be           of         avail            to           the<\/p>\n
    Respondent-tenant                        only                       if                   the                Respondent-tenant                         was                    able<\/p>\n
    to           prove                       the             existence                  of          a        Partnership            and                   that                   too<\/p>\n
    that              the                  Partnership                   was              a         genuine               one.                      This                       matter<\/p>\n
    will                have                to              be           considered                     by           the          Appellate               Court                while<\/p>\n
    considering the restored Appeal on its own merits with<\/p>\n
    regard to ground of unlawful subletting.\n<\/p>\n
    9.                My attention was also invited to another decision<\/p>\n
    of           the                     Apex               Court             in             the         case         of          Delhi        Stationers                        and<\/p>\n
    Printers                 v\/s.                      Rajendra                 Kumar                   reported            in          1990         (@)                        SCC<\/p>\n
    331                 to               contend                  that              the              ingredients                 such          as           transfer               of<\/p>\n
    exclusive                     right                      to          enjoy                 property              in          favour                of                       third<\/p>\n
    party        and              that            the             said              right               created            must           be         in             lieu           of<\/p>\n
    payment                  of                   some                        compensation                   or        rent        and                parting                      of<\/p>\n
    legal         possession,                         has                to               be              established                   from           the                 record.\n<\/p>\n
    In            absence                  thereof,                it          is             not         open             to        conclude               that                   it<\/p>\n
    is            a              case            of          unlawful                   subletting.                        Once           again           this            is       a<\/p>\n
    matter        which                    will              have               to                 be          considered                by          the             Appellate<\/p>\n
    Court                   in                    remanded                    proceedings.                            All          questions              in                     that<\/p>\n
    behalf as aforesaid are left open to be considered on<\/p>\n
    its own merits.\n<\/p>\n
    10.          My attention has been rightly invited by the<\/p>\n
    Counsel                 for                  the                    Respondent                        in         all            fairness                   to                 the<\/p>\n
    exposition                   in               the                   case            of          Suresh                 D.                   Zamakade                         v\/s.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
    Narayandas                  V.             Shah            &            ors.                 reported            in          2003           (2)       Bombay<\/p>\n
    C.R.           830               which           has        expounded                  about             the           role         and            duty       of<\/p>\n
    the          Appellate                    Court                in          examining                        and                 answering                    the<\/p>\n
    matter                 before              it.                 Needless                       to               observe                that                   the<\/p>\n
    Appellate               Court                shall                     bear                         those                   parameters                     while<\/p>\n
    considering the Appeal which is restored to its file for<\/p>\n
    reconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
    11.         Accordingly, this Writ Petition partly succeeds.\n<\/p>\n
    The         impugned               Judgment\n                                         ig                     and                decree              passed               by            the           Appellate\n\n    Court                  is          set           aside             and               instead             Civil              Appeal                No.845\/1988\n\n    is            restored             to        the            file           of           the           District               Judge,           Pune           for\n                                       \n    reconsideration                     on             its         own                  merits            with              regard              to            ground\n\n<\/pre>\n
    of unlawful subletting only. All questions in that<\/p>\n
    behalf are left open.\n<\/p>\n
    12.         The parties shall appear before the Appellate Court<\/p>\n
    on           16th                  March,           2009           on              which           date          the          Appellate                    Court<\/p>\n
    may             proceed              to          indicate              date           of           hearing             of        the                  Appeal,<\/p>\n
    however,               shall               ensure                       that          Appeal                    shall                  be                 finally<\/p>\n
    disposed                of         not           later       than              31st           July,            2009.                   It          will       be<\/p>\n
    open              to                the          parties           to              request         the           Appellate             Court                  to<\/p>\n
    consider               further                   material                     if       any          in          addition                     to              the<\/p>\n
    material already on record. That request will have to<\/p>\n
    be dealt with in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
    13.          Office to transmit the record forthwith to the<\/p>\n
    District Court Pune, if necessary by a special<\/p>\n
    messenger.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:20 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shri Shyam Dattatraya Thakur vs Smt. Gajarabai Mohanlal Rathod on 25 February, 2009 Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar Lsp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1288 of 1992 Shri Shyam Dattatraya Thakur …Petitioner V\/s. Smt. Gajarabai Mohanlal Rathod since deceased by her legal heirs Harish Mohanlal […]<\/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-64223","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Shyam Dattatraya Thakur vs Smt. Gajarabai Mohanlal Rathod on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Shyam Dattatraya Thakur vs Smt. Gajarabai Mohanlal Rathod on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-02T03:18:39+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\\\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Shyam Dattatraya Thakur vs Smt. Gajarabai Mohanlal Rathod on 25 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-02T03:18:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1707,\"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\\\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri Shyam Dattatraya Thakur vs Smt. Gajarabai Mohanlal Rathod on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-02T03:18:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Shyam Dattatraya Thakur vs Smt. Gajarabai Mohanlal Rathod on 25 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri Shyam Dattatraya Thakur vs Smt. Gajarabai Mohanlal Rathod on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Shyam Dattatraya Thakur vs Smt. Gajarabai Mohanlal Rathod on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-02T03:18:39+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\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Shyam Dattatraya Thakur vs Smt. Gajarabai Mohanlal Rathod on 25 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-02T03:18:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009"},"wordCount":1707,"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\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009","name":"Shri Shyam Dattatraya Thakur vs Smt. Gajarabai Mohanlal Rathod on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-02T03:18:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-shyam-dattatraya-thakur-vs-smt-gajarabai-mohanlal-rathod-on-25-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Shyam Dattatraya Thakur vs Smt. Gajarabai Mohanlal Rathod on 25 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64223","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=64223"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64223\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64223"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64223"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64223"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}