{"id":72241,"date":"2011-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011"},"modified":"2018-05-03T05:06:59","modified_gmt":"2018-05-02T23:36:59","slug":"no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"No. 5 To 7 vs Giridhar on 31 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
No. 5 To 7 vs Giridhar on 31 January, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
                                          1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF  BOMBAY\n                       BENCH  AT NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n                      Second Appeal No. 23\/2011\n\n\n    1]      Hansraj s\/o Premlal Rahangdale,\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n            since deceased through its LRS. \n\n    A.      Smt. Puja wd\/o Hansraj Rahangdale\n            Aged about 46 years, Occ. Agriculture\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    B.      Vivek s\/o Hansraj Rahangdale,\n            Aged about 19 years, Occ. Student.\n                           \n    C.          Ku. Diksha d\/o Hansraj Rahangdale\n                Aged about 15 years, Occ. Student.\n                          \n            All R\/o Kelwad, Po. Tukumnarayan, \n            Ta. Arjuni\/ Mor Distt. Gondia.\n\n            Nos. (B) and (C ) through their mother\n      \n\n\n            no. (A) the natural guardian.\n   \n\n\n\n    2]      Mahesh s\/o Premlal Rahangdale\n            Aged about 40 years.\n\n\n\n\n\n    3]      Kausalyabai wd\/o Premlal Rahangdale, \n            aged about 68 years.\n\n    4]      Sau. Sushila w\/o Vasant Shahare,\n            aged about 50 years, Occ. household,\n\n\n\n\n\n            R\/o Pune, Ta & Distt. Pune.\n\n    5]      Sau. Kamal Premendra Bhagat\n            aged about 48 years.\n\n    6]      Sau. Tameshwari w\/o Hajraj Katare\n            aged about 48 years.\n\n    7]      Sau. Sangita w\/o Dhalsingh Bhagat,\n            aged about 36 years.\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:48:33 :::\n                                                 2\n\n                 No. 5 to 7 r\/o Paraswada, Ta. Tirora, \n                 Distt. Gondia.                          ...           Appellants. \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         \n                 VERSUS \n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n         1]           Giridhar s\/o Gumanbhau Rahangdale\n                      Since died through its LRs. \n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n         A.       Dinesh Giridhar Rahangdale, \n                  aged about 53 years, \n                  R\/o Kelwad, Tq. Arjuni (Mor)\n                  Distt. Gondia. \n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n         B.       Sau. Pramilabai w\/o Moreshwar Katare,\n                  aged  about 65 years, \n                                  \n                  R\/o Hirdamali, Ta. Goregaon,\n                  Distt. Gondia.\n                                 \n         C.           Sau. Shakuntalabai Bhupendar Katare,\n                      aged about 62 years,\n                      C\/o Dr. Katre, Civil Lines, Gondia,\n                      Tahsil and District Gondia.\n          \n\n\n             D.         Sau. Vidya w\/o Chandrasen Patel,\n                        aged about 59 years, \n       \n\n\n\n                        R\/o Rampuri, Post Murmadi (Tupkar)\n                        Tq. Lakhni, distt. Bhandara.\n\n          E.       Sau. Munishwaribai Narayan Bisen,\n\n\n\n\n\n                   R\/o Rawanwadi, Shakti Rice Mill,\n                   Gondia. \n\n          F.       Sau. Geetabai w\/o Khilendra Yede,\n                   aged about 49 years,\n                   R\/o Pathargaon, Ta. Lanji, distt. Balaghat\n\n\n\n\n\n          2.           The State of Maharashtra.\n                       representing the Revenue Department,\n                       through the Collector, Bhandara, Tahsil\n                       and district Bhandara. \n\n          3.           The District Inspector of Land Record,\n                       Bhandara, Tahsil and district Bhandara.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:48:33 :::\n                                                3\n\n    4.           The Taluka Inspector, land records, Arjuni\n                 Morgaon, Tah. Arjuni Morgaon, district \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n                 Bhandara.                         ...              Respondents. \n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n \n    Mr.  Sharma,  Advocate  holding  for  Mr.    Anand  Parchure, Advocate   for  the \n    appellants.\n    Mr. R.K. Borkar, Advocate for respondent nos.1-A to 1-F.. \n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    Mr. S. M. Bhagde, AGP for respondents 2 to 4.\n\n                                   ...........\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n                                  CORAM : R. M.  SAVANT,  J. \n<\/pre>\n
                             ig   DATED   :31\/1\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
    1]             Heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   parties.   With   the <\/p>\n
    consent of the parties heard finally  at the admission stage.\n<\/p>\n
    2]             The   above   Second   Appeal   takes   exception   to   the <\/p>\n
    judgment and decree dated 4th August 2010 passed in Regular Civil <\/p>\n
    Appeal No. 48\/2007; by which the judgment and decree passed by <\/p>\n
    the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 163\/1997 came to be set <\/p>\n
    aside and the suit came to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    3]             The appellants are the original plaintiffs, who had filed <\/p>\n
    the   said   Regular   Civil   Suit   No.   163\/1997   for   declaration   and <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
    correction   of   revenue   record   in   respect   of   the   suit   tank,   more <\/p>\n
    specifically described in para 2 of the plaint.  The suit property is old <\/p>\n
    Khasra No. 107,  which is  now part of Gat No.47 wherein the suit <\/p>\n
    water   tank   known   as     Mahuri   Bodi.       The   plaintiffs   and   the <\/p>\n
    defendants   claim   through   a   common   ancestor   Ladkanbapu.     The <\/p>\n
    plaintiffs’   father   is   one   Premlal,   who   was   the   grandson   of <\/p>\n
    Ladkanbapu, whereas the father of defendant no.4  Giridhar was the <\/p>\n
    son of one Gumanbhau, who was the son of said Ladkanbapu.   It <\/p>\n
    was   the   case   of   the   plaintiffs     that   the   ancestral   property   had <\/p>\n
    undergone   partition   whereby   the   said   Premlal   and   the   said <\/p>\n
    Gumanbhau  were enjoying the property separately.\n<\/p>\n
    4]               It was the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property <\/p>\n
    had come to the share of the said Premlal and that after the death of <\/p>\n
    said Premlal, the plaintiffs were in exclusive possession of the said <\/p>\n
    property.  The cause for filing of the said suit was that the defendant <\/p>\n
    no.4 had filed an application for correction of the record of rights.\n<\/p>\n
    The plaintiffs came to know of the said fact on 1.10.1996 when they <\/p>\n
    obtained   certified   copy   of   the   7\/12   extract.     The   defendant   no.4 <\/p>\n
    taking advantage of the said order dated 1.10.1996 had come on the <\/p>\n
    site and obstructed the plaintiffs from fishing in the tank.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
    5]                     The defendants in their written statement took a <\/p>\n
    stand that they were owners of the suit property and that it was <\/p>\n
    jointly owned and possessed   by Premlal and defendant no.4 and <\/p>\n
    that on 19.12.1973  the plaintiffs’ father had applied for mutation of <\/p>\n
    the said suit tank only in his name and accordingly, the name of <\/p>\n
    defendant   no.4   was   deleted   vide   mutation   entry   no.189   which <\/p>\n
    resulted in the defendant no.4 filing a complaint before the higher <\/p>\n
    revenue   authority  and   by  an  order   dated  16.5.1996   the  name   of <\/p>\n
    defendant no.4 was reinstated.\n<\/p>\n
    6]             It was  the case of the  defendants  that the said order <\/p>\n
    was not challenged by the plaintiffs before the next higher authority <\/p>\n
    and, therefore, the plaintiffs do not have right to file the suit.   It <\/p>\n
    was, therefore, case of the defendants that Khasra no.107, area 5.83 <\/p>\n
    acres i. e. suit tank is used for irrigation of lands of both the brothers <\/p>\n
    and as such there was joint ownership of both brothers which has <\/p>\n
    continued   from   the   past   the   defendants   denied   the     exclusive <\/p>\n
    ownership of the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
    7]             Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed relevant <\/p>\n
    issues.     The   Trial   Court   on   the   basis   of   the   evidence   that   was <\/p>\n
    adduced before it decreed the suit.  The Trial Court considered the <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
    mutation entry at           (Ex. 80), notice (Ex. 34) addressed by one <\/p>\n
    Advocate   M.   R.   Ghodichore,     notice   (Exhibit   61)   under   the <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling and Holding) Act and the <\/p>\n
    copy  of   Wajib-Ul-Arz     (Ex.   62).     Notice   (Ex.  117)   which   is   also <\/p>\n
    notice under  Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling and Holding) <\/p>\n
    Act   came   to   the   conclusion   that   the   said   documentary   evidence <\/p>\n
    suggests that since long the father of the plaintiff nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7 <\/p>\n
    namely Premlal was in  possession of the suit tank.  The Trial Court <\/p>\n
    resultantly issued declaration in favour of the plaintiffs that they are <\/p>\n
    exclusive owners of said Gat No. 107 at mouza Kelwad.\n<\/p>\n
    8]              Being aggrieved by the decree of the Trial Court dated <\/p>\n
    8th  December, 2004 the defendants filed Regular Civil Appeal No. <\/p>\n
    48\/2007.  In view of the finding of the Trial Court that the partition <\/p>\n
    between the various branches was proved and  in the absence of any <\/p>\n
    direct   evidence   on   the   said   aspect,   the   Appellate   Court   on   a <\/p>\n
    re-appreciation of the documentary evidence which was on record <\/p>\n
    came to the conclusion that the Trial Court had misinterpreted  and <\/p>\n
    misread the document (Exhibit 80) as well as notice Exhibit 34 of <\/p>\n
    which much reliance was placed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the <\/p>\n
    Trial Court.  Significantly, reading of the order of the First Appellate <\/p>\n
    Court makes it clear that the Appellate Court has not referred to the <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
    document   known   as   Wajib-Ul-Arz   or   by   notices   under   the <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling and Holding) Act   namely <\/p>\n
    Exhibit 61 and 117 which were issued to Premlal and Gumanbhau <\/p>\n
    though   whom the plaintiffs and defendants are claiming.   In fact, <\/p>\n
    there is  no discussion  at all in the judgment of the First Appellate <\/p>\n
    Court concerning the aforesaid three documents.   It is well settled <\/p>\n
    by the judgments of the Apex Court that the First Appellate Court <\/p>\n
    has  to come to close quarters with the findings recorded by the Trial <\/p>\n
    Court if it wants to up-set the findings recorded by the  Trial Court <\/p>\n
    and assign its own reasons a useful reference would  be made to the <\/p>\n
    judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2001 (2) Mh. L. J. 786  in <\/p>\n
    the matter of Santosh Hazari Vs.Purushottam Tiwari deceased by L.\n<\/p>\n
    Rs.   Paragraph 15 of the said report is material and is reproduced <\/p>\n
    hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
         “A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that
\n         it has extensively dealt with the oral and documentary <\/p>\n
         evidence adduced by the parties for deciding the issue on
\n         which   the   parties   went   to   trial.     It   also   found   that   in
\n         support   of     his   plea   of   adverse   possession   on   the
\n         disputed   land,   the   defendant   did   not   produce   any
\n         documentary evidence while the oral evidence adduced
\n         by   the   defendant   was   conflicting   in   nature   and   hence
\n         unworthy of reliance.  The first Appellate Court has, in a <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
     very cryptic manner, reversed the finding on question of <\/p>\n
     possession and dispossession as alleged by the plaintiff
\n     as also on the question of adverse possession as pleaded <\/p>\n
     by the defendant. The Appellate Court has jurisdiction to
\n     reverse  or affirm the  findings  of the  trial Court.   First
\n     appeal   is   a   valuable   right   of   the   parties   and   unless <\/p>\n
     restricted   by   law,   the   whole   case   is   therein   open   for
\n     rehearing   both   on   questions   of   fact   and   law.     The
\n     judgment of the appellate Court must,  therefore, reflect <\/p>\n
     its   conscious   application   of   mind,   and   record   findings <\/p>\n
     supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with
\n     the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for <\/p>\n
     decision of the Appellate Court.  The task of an Appellate
\n     Court     affirming   the   findings   of   the   trial   Court   is   an
\n     easier one.  The Appellate Court agreeing with the view <\/p>\n
     of   the   trial   Court   need   not   restate   the   effect   of   the <\/p>\n
     evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     expression of general agreement with reasons given by
\n     the   Court,   decision   of   which   is   under   appeal,   would <\/p>\n
     ordinarily   suffice   (See   Girijanandini   Devi   &   Ors.   vs.
\n     Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 1124).  We would,
\n     however, like to sound a note of caution.  Expression of <\/p>\n
     general   agreement   with   the   findings   recorded   in   the
\n     judgment   under   appeal   should   not   be   a   device   or
\n     camouflage adopted by the Appellate Court for shirking
\n     the duty cast on it.  While writing a judgment of reversal
\n     the   appellate   Court   must   remain   conscious   of   two
\n     principles.     Firstly,   the   findings   of   fact   based   on
\n     conflicting  evidence  arrived  at  by  the   trial  Court  must <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
     weigh   with   the   Appellate   Court,   more   so   when   the <\/p>\n
     findings   are   based   on   oral   evidence   recorded   by   the
\n     same presiding Judge who authors the judgment.   This <\/p>\n
     certainly   does   not   mean   that   when   an   appeal   lies   on
\n     facts, the Appellate Court is not competent to reverse a
\n     finding of fact arrived by the trial Judge.  As a mater of <\/p>\n
     law if   the  appraisal  of  the  evidence  by the  trial  Court
\n     suffers   from   a   material   irregularity   or   is   based   on
\n     inadmissible   evidence   or   on   conjectures   and   surmises, <\/p>\n
     the   Appellate   Court   is   entitled   to   interfere   with   the <\/p>\n
     finding of fact (See Madhusudan Das vs. Smt. Narayani
\n     Bai & Ors., AIR<\/a> 1983 SC 114).   The rule is – and it is <\/p>\n
     nothing more than a rule of practice – that when there is
\n     conflict of oral evidence evidence of the parties on any
\n     matter   in   issue   and   the   decision   hinges   upon   the <\/p>\n
     credibility of witnesses, then unless there is some special <\/p>\n
     feature about the evidence of a particular witness which
\n     has   escaped   the   trial   Judge’s   notice   or   there   is   a
\n     sufficient balance of improbability to displace his opinion <\/p>\n
     as to where the credibility lie, the Appellate Court should
\n     not interfere with the  findings  of the  trial Judge  on  a
\n     question of fact .   (See Sarju Pershad Ramdeo Sahu vs. <\/p>\n
     Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh & Ors., AIR<\/a> 1951 SC\n<\/p>\n
     120).     Secondly,   while   reversing   a   finding   of   fact   the
\n     Appellate Court must come into close quarters with the
\n     reasoning assigned by the trial Court and then assign its
\n     own   reasons   for   arriving   at   a   different   finding.     This
\n     would satisfy the Court hearing a further appeal that the
\n     first Appellate Court had discharged the duty expected <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
          of it.  We need only remind the first Appellate Courts of <\/p>\n
          the additional obligation cast on them by the scheme of
\n          the present Section 100   substituted in the Code.   The <\/p>\n
          first appellate Court continues, as before, to be a final
\n          Court of facts; pure findings of fact remain immune from
\n          challenge before the High Court in second appeal.  Now <\/p>\n
          the first Appellate Court is also a final Court of law in the
\n          sense   that   its   decision   on   a   question   of   law   even   if
\n          erroneous may not be vulnerable before the High Court <\/p>\n
          in   second   appeal   because   the   jurisdiction   of   the   High <\/p>\n
          Court     has   now   ceased   to   be   available   to   correct   the
\n          errors   of   law   or   the   erroneous   findings   of   the   first <\/p>\n
          Appellate   Court   even   on   questions   of   law   unless   such
\n          question of law be a substantial one.”\n<\/p>\n
    9]             The   substantial   question  of   law,  therefore,  that  arises <\/p>\n
    for   consideration   is   viz.   Whether   the   First   Appellate   Court   could <\/p>\n
    have reversed the findings of the Trial Court without considering the <\/p>\n
    documents (Ex.34, 117, 61  and 62)?.  In my view, having heard the <\/p>\n
    learned counsel for the parties  and considering the judgment of the <\/p>\n
    Apex   Court   in   Santosh   Hazari   (supra)     the   Appellate   Court   in <\/p>\n
    reversing the judgment of the Trial Court has failed to advert to the <\/p>\n
    principles enunciated in the said judgment by not even adverting to <\/p>\n
    the documentary evidence (Exhibits  34, 61, 117 and 62).  For the <\/p>\n
    said   limited   purpose,   the   impugned   judgment   and   decree   of   the <\/p>\n
    First Appellate Court is required to be set aside and the matter is <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
    required to be relegated back to the First Appellate Court for denovo <\/p>\n
    consideration   of the said   Regular Civil Appeal No.40\/2007.   The <\/p>\n
    Appellate   Court   to   record   its   findings   in   respect   of   exclusivity   of <\/p>\n
    possession   as   claimed   by   the   plaintiffs   by   considering   the   entire <\/p>\n
    documentary evidence including the   above   four documents.   On <\/p>\n
    such remand, the First Appellate court to decide the appeal by 31 st <\/p>\n
    October, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
    10]<\/p>\n
                   The above Second Appeal is accordingly allowed with <\/p>\n
    no order as  to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       JUDGE <\/p>\n
           Ambulkar<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:48:33 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court No. 5 To 7 vs Giridhar on 31 January, 2011 Bench: R. M. Savant 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 23\/2011 1] Hansraj s\/o Premlal Rahangdale, since deceased through its LRS. A. Smt. Puja wd\/o Hansraj Rahangdale Aged about 46 years, Occ. Agriculture […]<\/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-72241","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNo. 5 To 7 vs Giridhar on 31 January, 2011 - 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\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"No. 5 To 7 vs Giridhar on 31 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-02T23:36:59+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"No. 5 To 7 vs Giridhar on 31 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-02T23:36:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1865,\"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\\\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011\",\"name\":\"No. 5 To 7 vs Giridhar on 31 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-02T23:36:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"No. 5 To 7 vs Giridhar on 31 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"No. 5 To 7 vs Giridhar on 31 January, 2011 - 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\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"No. 5 To 7 vs Giridhar on 31 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-02T23:36:59+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"No. 5 To 7 vs Giridhar on 31 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-02T23:36:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011"},"wordCount":1865,"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\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011","name":"No. 5 To 7 vs Giridhar on 31 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-02T23:36:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/no-5-to-7-vs-giridhar-on-31-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"No. 5 To 7 vs Giridhar on 31 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/72241","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=72241"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72241\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72241"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72241"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72241"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}