{"id":74432,"date":"2009-02-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009"},"modified":"2019-02-14T15:48:15","modified_gmt":"2019-02-14T10:18:15","slug":"dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Dheeraj Keshav Konglekar vs Shankar Nagesh Shetty on 21 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Dheeraj Keshav Konglekar vs Shankar Nagesh Shetty on 21 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: A.S.Bopanna<\/div>\n
in mm man count or KARNATAKA C \" if if  *' \n\ncmcurr BENCH A1'  *  f .  '\n\nDATED 'mm 'run 2151 DAY (5,?  \n\n33?\"-F %\nTHE Hommm MR.  5.3.\" B'd?Ql\ufb01\u00a3i\nI-I.R..R.I5:;_._iEn\u00bb'.'  H H\nBETWEEN:     '   '\nDHEERAJ KEsH;aV'K\u00a3\u00a71vG1\u00a7EILA\u00a7.V\":   = \nAGE : 52 YEAE'$,\"~OC%'}_:_='\u00a3:3USII\\IE$S  \n\nR\/O E:HEERA.i} TAILQRWG MATERIAVL  '\nSHOP No.3, 169.5\/'2,:'.1g,5MDxEv GAL1__._1_, \n\nBELGAUM \"\"\" ; \n .   PETITIONER\n\n{BY SR1 sjv. uAi~J(3AD1, A[D%j.\";2,\"~-OCC ; RETIRED\n=52\/0 T16?9;.1,':2A:g4::3:3v GALLI, BELGAUM\n\nTHROUGH HES PAHOLDER Ms. SHEELA SHANKAR\nSI~EE'I\"I'I, AC}E3':Tj_3G\"YI\u00a73ARS, OCC : PRIVATE SERVICE\n\n _ R\/O '14579_g1', RAMEEV GALLI, II-SELGAUM\n\nK \" '  {$32 535 R E: KULKARN1, ADV.)\n\n RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
”   THES PETITION IS FILED U\/S 115 OF CFC AGAINST THE<\/p>\n
 \u00ab.’.’om;:\u00bbE12 DATED 5.1.200? msszap IN HRCRP.NO.’?3\/2005 on THE
\n f FIL-E OF THE I ADDL. DIS’I’RiC’I’ JUDGE, BELGAUM, DISMISSING
\n“.’I’HE Rsvisiou PE’I’I’I’iON FILED AGAINST THE ORDER AND<\/p>\n
” DEGREE DATED 29.10.2005 PASSED IN f-IRC.No.88\/2003 52.? THE<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
“4<\/p>\n
1: ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) 85 JMFC, BELQA:;i\u00a7\u00e9.;’A:\u00a7:;::)_iai-::si<1_<\/p>\n
THE PETITION FILED 'U\/S :27('.2)(r} as 31(1)( cg OF :\u00bb;I\u00a7;\u00bb=.c,%r'.  '<\/p>\n
THIS pmmow COMING ON z='<:a-R HE'.'\u00a7RE\u00a73IG,.; :\u00a7A*{7,: 143:3 V<\/p>\n
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:\n<\/p>\n
o R 1:i”‘E.;\u00a7 M
\nThe pe\ufb01\ufb01oner–te\ufb01az.{f is   in this second
\nrevision against the concuficnt   by the Eviction<\/p>\n
Court as Well  ‘_VE?\u00a2:i.*isi%;1i.  V’  the said 0:121:31′, the<\/p>\n
Courts  \ufb01led by the respondent
\nherein xgnglegVsc\u00a2\ufb01\u00e9:L 2i(1).ga*) and Section 31(1)(c) of the<\/p>\n
Kamataka R\u00e911tV_:Ac\u00a3,’.’–19 99\u00ab(iiereinaftcr refcrmd to as the ‘Act’).
\n  I  The respondent herein had instituted the cvic\ufb01on<\/p>\n
pv-f\u00e9\ufb01\ufb01san  No.88\/2003 seeking possession of the Shop<\/p>\n
1″;\u00a5G4\u00e9M’.}D  \ufb01r at C.’I’S.No. 1694\/02 measuring east to<\/p>\n
.V west’. 8..  1:011:11 to south 7 feet 6 inches with the<\/p>\n
u as indicated therein. The said shop premises is<\/p>\n
.’ ois;\u00a7”ofA–thc shop premises out of the total six pmmises located<\/p>\n
 itithe building. The said building was said to “be in the joint<\/p>\n
I,<\/p>\n
‘a<\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\nownership of the respondent herein. and his sister Stat. Stglshila<\/p>\n
Bigambar Gohagarkar. Amongst themselves ttesye<\/p>\n
paltiitioned the said property wherein \ufb02ame shope  <\/p>\n
have failen to the share of the respondent   u<\/p>\n
the said three shops, the petition  ‘ehop iejene I\u00e9m;;g5n.g<\/p>\n
them. The respondent heI*e:i_l\u00e9’–eoutght  for    L’<\/p>\n
petitioner who was the tenant K The  schedule<\/p>\n
ggxernises was not sought for  voe\u00e9iup\u00e9ation for their own<\/p>\n
bene\ufb01t and bene\ufb01ttof theAean.t1e~wae the petitioner<\/p>\n
is a    avaiiable under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner  contested the said petition.<\/p>\n
Among other’ At1’1eV’*~;’:$etitioner also disputed the jural<\/p>\n
 = tmaaegeseip bcm\u00e9\u00e9neee-,-V respondent herein and the petitioner.<\/p>\n
 —peti\ufb01oner herein, he was the tenant of Smt.<\/p>\n
sushila eiggm\ufb01ef, who was the owner of the bujiding and as<\/p>\n
fsuch   hvdtispute\ufb01. that the petitioner herein is neither the<\/p>\n
  e1x\ufb01’1er..oftt1e building nor the landloz\ufb01 of the respondent<\/p>\n
  -\u00a33. The trial Court after considering the rivai contentions<\/p>\n
  of the View that there is jural relationship between the<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
‘1<\/p>\n
parties and further found that the respondent heIeinjh\u00ab.e<_':i\u00ab.ti:ade<\/p>\n
out a case for grant of eviction order.\n<\/p>\n
dated 29.10.2095, the petition WasJ.aJloWe<i\u00a7W '  f5eti_iti;o:2e'i9V'o. <\/p>\n
hezein \ufb01led 21 Rent Revision Petition 15:12:: <\/p>\n
Rent Revisional Court after ooz1–.sv;ide1invgV– the tioiiteniio\ufb01s p1i$.. <\/p>\n
forth concuned with the 0I'C1C}.'_\u00a7j}uE'1SSf3{1_\u00bb by..ti1e_ : Eviotion Court
\nanti as such dismissedv  _Iet!_isi3)3:t 'pg\ufb01\ufb01iog granting 30 days
\nTime to vacate and ha11r1..oVer '  ;5o:3'se'ssion. In this<\/p>\n
second revisitaxi '\ufb01:i:ion,v:'–the iesue revolves around the<\/p>\n
jam! mlo\ufb01onsiiip 'A \ufb01ei\u00e9 against the petitioner
\nherein v\u00e9xxozci ._  \u00bb.&\u00a7$~pect of the matter requires
\nConsideI'atio:i<…A " A S<\/p>\n
 -._answering the said question, the contention<\/p>\n
 iaeti\ufb01oner herein has been noticed by the trial<\/p>\n
 z  ariverting to that aspect of the matter, the trial<\/p>\n
 V’  also noticed as to whether in the present facts, the<\/p>\n
—  Court itself could consider that issue or if the same is<\/p>\n
 mbe considered by regular Civii Court. Rightiy, the trial Court<\/p>\n
3 has come to the conclusion that, all that the tenant had sought<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
‘1<\/p>\n
5 .\n<\/p>\n
to contend is that the petitioner befoze the $3531  not<\/p>\n
the landlord an\u00e9 this aspect could be considered  .<\/p>\n
adverting to this aspect of the matterhthe   ” to <\/p>\n
noticeti the contention of the peti\ufb01onero  <\/p>\n
Sushila Digambar Gohagarkar-‘w1_1o i\u00e9;’..1_ione     L.<\/p>\n
sister of the petitioner before it _x ti;zeV  ‘owxier and to
\nthat extent, there was no; \u00a2’iisp1.\u00a7te :1\u00a7e’i11;{cei1..t11e pex\ufb01es. After
\nnoticing this aspect of the  Court has also<\/p>\n
noticed the evidx\u00e9notieitlhof  ~  is none other<\/p>\n
than  of V\u20ac.t3il(24\u00a7.I\\v\u00a3\u00b0:t_~;’a1.\u00a5(}’12%.\u20ac3tC;:Vt’1’\u00a3 herein viz., the eviction
\npetiu’one:’.’A’\u00ab VP’.’W.S3 other than the son of Smt. Sushila<\/p>\n
Digambar   regalti, it was noticed that the<\/p>\n
‘ Vearidenee of P.=\u00a5\u00a7’.2 woi\ufb01titvbe most relevant evidence to answer<\/p>\n
 inasmuch as when P.W.2 being the son of<\/p>\n
Stat.’   Gohagarkar admits that there has been<\/p>\n
   ‘in vzespect of the property and the shop in question<\/p>\n
    to the share of the eviction pe\ufb01tioner v:iz., his uncle,<\/p>\n
  asgect wouid clinch the issue. 01:; noticing that<\/p>\n
 V  “vaetleect of the matter, the Eviction Court has also noticed the<\/p>\n
suggestion put to the wimess P.W.1, Whexein a similar line was<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
“-\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span>
\nsuggested by the petitioner herein that the property belongs to<\/p>\n
Smt. Sushila Digambar Gohagarkar. On noticing thatiof<\/p>\n
the matter, the Eviction Court has also stated tijeit Vmeiely’ 3<\/p>\n
producing a parbltion deed alone wouid.  voztt ‘ ; 2<\/p>\n
the petitioner before it and in addition    <\/p>\n
Court has also noticed that thetzeepondent isefooe  xoot set L’<\/p>\n
up title in any other person byV_ste:\u00a7:i1_3.g’w..that.  had been
\npaid to such other  T .   _ rent was neither<\/p>\n
paid to Smt. Sush\u00e9la  of the respondent<\/p>\n
herein.     was of the View that the
\njum} re1\u00e9t1;ions1V11’p:and the other contention with<\/p>\n
regard to ..;oetitio:1 to-obtidtictoci through the GPA holder was<\/p>\n
  ve.i$o—placing Ieiiance on a judgment of this<\/p>\n
(.3o.1Vii>tvth’e of KAJU oew –vs- H.S. RUDRAPPA 11.12 2ms<\/p>\n
 “4’\u00a33′?(}  this Court had. considered the decision<\/p>\n
t;y t11e Honfble Supreme Court and was of the View<\/p>\n
Vt ” ttlttznatt the cm. holder can maintain petition.<\/p>\n
   O31 merits, the Eviction Court has Il\ufb02tic\u00e9d the need<\/p>\n
T ” et\u00e9ted by the p\u20actiii(}I}.6I;\u00a3lL0 run their business in the said<\/p>\n
‘5<\/p>\n
which is also noticed by the First Revision Court  <\/p>\n
that both the Courts have noticed the evidet1c_c;’~an\u00a3i1yeed  V’ <\/p>\n
same and has thereafter come to its cohciaeioc;  on<\/p>\n
the face of 11;, the ieasaning does not \u00e9dttiit of aI1fE’.tApe1xrern’sity;. e’ ” <\/p>\n
7. Having said.    by the
\npetitioner with xegard to  also requires to
\nbe noticed by   out by the Courts
\nbelow, the  in any way disputed the
\ntitle toV~the’ ”  Digambar Gohagarkar
\nunder   admittedly was the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
Subsequeittiyt\u00e9 it fast’ ttte’.cG33;te11tion of the eviction petitioner that<\/p>\n
 u  theV_*sft;op_iAiauque$’tio1t__]:te.s fallen. to his share. Though the said<\/p>\n
 ‘co”n’teVn.tionc he\u00e9svbeen disputed by the petitioner herein, there is<\/p>\n
 placed and in any event, the son of Suit.<\/p>\n
~V  Gohagarkar was aimed by the eviction<\/p>\n
u x V’ pctitionet and he did not dispute that the shop in question has<\/p>\n
.’   to the share of the eviction petitioner. When that is the<\/p>\n
 “position, merely because there is no document executed<\/p>\n
between the parties, the theory of partition cannot be discaztled<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
‘2’<\/p>\n
since the admitted position is that the parties  <\/p>\n
the properties by oral partition. ‘I’heMHqnestiQ’n”‘oi\u20ac:i0ek\u00a7.ngV \ufb01ned  <\/p>\n
the correcmess or otherwise of sueh\u00bb.1pa:\ufb01ti{)n’wo’t11ei  cn\ufb01y<\/p>\n
if the parties to the said pa1’titi:5n..1aise’n_n’y Qthetbbisntxe  *<\/p>\n
to the same or dispute the said  ann\u00e9n\u00e9sfljthenaselves.<\/p>\n
8. Themfore,’ when   between the
\nparties to the   bind the mm
\nparties more   bof the premises and
\nmerely   been attorned by the
\nearlier o’:\u20ac\u00a3’e’:r1e:1*’.   not. give any better right to the<\/p>\n
tenant to dispute. _\u00a3i1eA’–._oWnersh.ip when the owner of the<\/p>\n
 *   independen\ufb02y established the same before the<\/p>\n
  :”‘I’.herefo1’e, once the ownership of the pmperty<\/p>\n
is esfab\ufb01sbeei when the tenant himself admits that he is a<\/p>\n
 of  building, which was originally owned by Stat.<\/p>\n
 V’ “:.$uxshiL.’~:1  Crohagarkar, there can be no \u00e9ispute with<\/p>\n
 the jam} relationship and both the Courts below were<\/p>\n
”  in zznming to their conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
‘.1’<\/p>\n
if}\n<\/p>\n
9. Having come to the said conclusion, both the<\/p>\n
have appreciated the evidence on moonti to  , a<\/p>\n
conclusion that the eviction petitioner has. madc:; o’ut Vioru\ufb01<\/p>\n
seeking vacant possession of the pxtzznises.  T13;4eivo1’e~xve,v  ‘<\/p>\n
the said reasons, this second xevisioiteisl\u00e9ilexioici “m.e;ri_t Lie<\/p>\n
same is liable to be rejected.   V_ _V\n<\/p>\n
10. However, before di\u00e9posiog of’t1je”pet\u00a7tion, it is
\nnecessary to notice ‘ Aqfigat   “.reof)<)ndent-tenant was<\/p>\n
  since it is 8. commercial
\npm-mise.\u00a7\u00a7,–.   '1\u00a7e1"e;o:1 would have to make alternate<\/p>\n
an*ange;J:1en\u00a3"'~toV'  to  other possession of the vacam,<\/p>\n
 " –.r:;!31riVso1:oe'  would have to be granted for vacating<\/p>\n
   oonsiilexing this aspect, this Court also<\/p>\n
wen-11iiM\u00ab h:va{:e:"f be conscious of the 3eng\ufb02:1 of the litigation<\/p>\n
Cbetween {he pm\ufb01es and it is seen that the eviction petition was<\/p>\n
  in the year 2003 and already six years have elapsed<\/p>\n
  such keeping this aspect also in mind, it would be<\/p>\n
" \u00e9frpmp\ufb01ate to giant three months time to the petitioner herein<\/p>\n
1;\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span>
\nto vacate and hand over vacant possession of the petition<\/p>\n
schedule premises.\n<\/p>\n
Acccmeiiirigly, with the above observations, tla-.e.”i$<\/p>\n
dismissed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Dheeraj Keshav Konglekar vs Shankar Nagesh Shetty on 21 February, 2009 Author: A.S.Bopanna in mm man count or KARNATAKA C ” if if *’ cmcurr BENCH A1′ * f . ‘ DATED ‘mm ‘run 2151 DAY (5,? 33?”-F % THE Hommm MR. 5.3.” B’d?Ql\ufb01\u00a3i I-I.R..R.I5:;_._iEn\u00bb’.’ H H BETWEEN: ‘ ‘ DHEERAJ KEsH;aV’K\u00a3\u00a71vG1\u00a7EILA\u00a7.V”: […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-74432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDheeraj Keshav Konglekar vs Shankar Nagesh Shetty on 21 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\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dheeraj Keshav Konglekar vs Shankar Nagesh Shetty on 21 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-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=\"2009-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-14T10:18:15+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dheeraj Keshav Konglekar vs Shankar Nagesh Shetty on 21 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-14T10:18:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1560,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Dheeraj Keshav Konglekar vs Shankar Nagesh Shetty on 21 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-14T10:18:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dheeraj Keshav Konglekar vs Shankar Nagesh Shetty on 21 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":"Dheeraj Keshav Konglekar vs Shankar Nagesh Shetty on 21 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\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dheeraj Keshav Konglekar vs Shankar Nagesh Shetty on 21 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-14T10:18:15+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dheeraj Keshav Konglekar vs Shankar Nagesh Shetty on 21 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-14T10:18:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009"},"wordCount":1560,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009","name":"Dheeraj Keshav Konglekar vs Shankar Nagesh Shetty on 21 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-14T10:18:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dheeraj-keshav-konglekar-vs-shankar-nagesh-shetty-on-21-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dheeraj Keshav Konglekar vs Shankar Nagesh Shetty on 21 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\/74432","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=74432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}