{"id":76946,"date":"2011-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-04-09T17:32:46","modified_gmt":"2017-04-09T12:02:46","slug":"rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"R\/At: Sidhewadi vs 4 Yahdeo Vishnu Chavan on 29 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
R\/At: Sidhewadi vs 4 Yahdeo Vishnu Chavan on 29 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: V.M. Kanade<\/div>\n
                                   1\n                                                                  (SA60.07)\n\n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n                    SECOND APPEAL NO.60 OF 2007\n\n    Shri Namdeo Bhau Chavan            )\n    Age: 76, Occ: Agriculturist        )\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    R\/at: Sidhewadi, Tal. Miraj,       )\n    Dist: Sangli                       ) .... Appellant.\n\n              V\/s\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n    1 Smt. Shantabai Kundlika Chavan )\n    Age: 55, Agriculturist\n                        ig           )\n    Occ:Household                    )\n                                     )\n                      \n    2 Shri Mahadeo Vishnu Chavan     )\n    Age : 45, Occ: Agriculturist     )\n                                     )\n    3 Shri Sahadeo Vishnu Chavan     )\n    Age : 45, Occ: Service           )\n       \n\n\n                                     )\n    \n\n\n\n    4 Yahdeo Vishnu Chavan           )\n    Age: 42, Occ: Service, All R\/o.  )\n    Sidhewadi, Tal: Miraj.           )\n    Dist : Sangli.                   ) .... Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Ms. A.R.S. Baxi for the appellant.\n    Mr. S.K. Chinchlikar for Respondent No.1.\n\n\n\n\n\n                    CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                    DATE : 29TH APRIL, 2011<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT:\n<\/p>\n
    1.   Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    appellant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:13:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                       2<\/span>
\n                                                                      (SA60.07)<\/p>\n
    Respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
    2.   Following two substantial questions of law were framed<\/p>\n
    at the time of admission of the appeal:-\n<\/p>\n
              “1     Whether the decree passed by<\/p>\n
              courts below is sustainable u\/s 36A of<\/p>\n
              Preventionig     of    Fragmentation        Act,<\/p>\n
              1947?”\n<\/p>\n
              “2      Whether the courts below were<\/p>\n
              correct in issuing injunction against<\/p>\n
              Appellant who is co-owner of Gat No.<\/p>\n
              347?”\n<\/p>\n
    3.   Appellant    herein    is   the   original     Defendant              and<\/p>\n
    Respondent No.1 is the original Plaintiff. For the sake of<\/p>\n
    convenience, parties shall be referred to as “Plaintiff” and<\/p>\n
    “Defendant”.\n<\/p>\n
    4.   Plaintiff filed a suit in the Civil Court for an order of<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:13:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                    3<\/span>
\n                                                                    (SA60.07)<\/p>\n
    injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with<\/p>\n
    her possession. Trial Court decreed the suit and injunction<\/p>\n
    was also granted in favour of the Plaintiff, restraining the<\/p>\n
    Defendant from interfering with her possession. Against this<\/p>\n
    judgment and decree, Defendant preferred an appeal before<\/p>\n
    the lower appellate court.     The order passed by the trial<\/p>\n
    court was not stayed during pendency of             appeal. Appeal<\/p>\n
    was finally dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    5.   The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    appellant has strenuously urged that the appellant had<\/p>\n
    purchased half portion of Gat No.347 and, therefore, he was<\/p>\n
    the owner to the extent of half portion of the said land and<\/p>\n
    that in the consolidation scheme an order was passed<\/p>\n
    initially in favour of the appellant herein. It is submitted that<\/p>\n
    orders passed by the Consolidation Officer in the scheme<\/p>\n
    cannot be interfered with in a suit and the effect of granting<\/p>\n
    order of injunction amounted to interference with the order<\/p>\n
    passed by the Consolidation Officer.              Secondly, it is<\/p>\n
    submitted that since the Defendant, appellant herein was co-\n<\/p>\n
    owner of the said property, no order of injunction could be<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:13:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                     4<\/span>
\n                                                                       (SA60.07)<\/p>\n
    passed in favour of the Plaintiff.       The learned Counsel has<\/p>\n
    invited my attention to the provisions of section 36A and<\/p>\n
    also the judgment and order of the trial court and the lower<\/p>\n
    appellate court. It is submitted that both the courts below<\/p>\n
    have lost sight of the fact that by virtue of Sale Deed,<\/p>\n
    appellant was owner to the extent of 50% and he was also in<\/p>\n
    possession of the suit property. It is further submitted that,<\/p>\n
    initially, suit was filed by the Defendant and the said suit<\/p>\n
    was dismissed by the Trial Court and against the said<\/p>\n
    judgment    and    order   Defendant      preferred          an      appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    However, the said appeal was allowed to be withdrawn with<\/p>\n
    liberty to file fresh suit. It is submitted that no fresh suit was<\/p>\n
    filed. However, in view of the withdrawal of the appeal, the<\/p>\n
    finding recorded by the trial court also stood withdrawn. It is<\/p>\n
    submitted that, both, the trial court and the lower appellate<\/p>\n
    court had erred in holding that the said finding recorded by<\/p>\n
    the trial court had attained finality.\n<\/p>\n
    6    On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on<\/p>\n
    behalf of Plaintiff submitted that provisions of section 36A<\/p>\n
    would not create a bar for filing a suit where reliefs are not<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:13:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            5<\/span>
\n                                                                                (SA60.07)<\/p>\n
    in the nature of challenge to the order passed in the<\/p>\n
    consolidation         proceedings.         In     support          of     the       said<\/p>\n
    submission, he relied upon the judgment of the learned<\/p>\n
    Single Judge of this Court in Prabhakar Kushaba Hagwane<\/p>\n
    and others vs. Yashwant Bhau Hagwane<\/a> since deceased by<\/p>\n
    Lrs. Ganpat Yashwant Hagwane 1. He further submitted that,<\/p>\n
    therefore, the suit for injunction simpliciter filed against the<\/p>\n
    Defendant was maintainable and both the courts below,<\/p>\n
    therefore,      had      accordingly       held      that       the       suit      was<\/p>\n
    maintainable.          So far as the second submission of the<\/p>\n
    learned       counsel         appearing         on        behalf            of       the<\/p>\n
    Defendant\/Appellant herein is concerned, he submitted that<\/p>\n
    the specific case of the Plaintiff was that she was owner of<\/p>\n
    the specific portion of the land and, therefore, there was no<\/p>\n
    question of the Defendant being co-owner of the said land.\n<\/p>\n
    7.    I   have        given   my   anxious        consideration               to     the<\/p>\n
    submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on<\/p>\n
    behalf of the Plaintiff and Defendant.\n<\/p>\n
    1 1993 Mh.L.J. 1291<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:13:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                     6<\/span>
\n                                                                        (SA60.07)<\/p>\n
    8.   Before considering the rival submissions, it will be<\/p>\n
    relevant to consider the provisions of section 36A of the said<\/p>\n
    Act which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            \"36A    (1)   No     Civil     Court        or\n\n            Mamlatdar's     Court        shall     have\n\n<\/pre>\n
            jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal<\/p>\n
            with any question which is by or<\/p>\n
            under this Act required to be settled,<\/p>\n
            decided or dealt with by the State<\/p>\n
            Government     or    any      officer       or<\/p>\n
            authority.\n<\/p>\n
                   (2) No order of the State<\/p>\n
            Government or any such officer or<\/p>\n
            authority made under this Act shall<\/p>\n
            be questioned in any Civil, Criminal<\/p>\n
            or Mamlatdar’s Court.”\n<\/p>\n
    9.   A plain reading of the aforesaid provision clearly<\/p>\n
    reveals that Civil Court is precluded from deciding any<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:13:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                         7<\/span>
\n                                                                              (SA60.07)<\/p>\n
    question which is required to be decided by the State<\/p>\n
    Government or any officer or authority.                         As a natural<\/p>\n
    corollary, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted<\/p>\n
    expressly in respect of the matters which are decided by the<\/p>\n
    State Government or any Officer or authority under this Act.\n<\/p>\n
    A preamble to this Act reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
              “An Act to provide for the prevention<\/p>\n
              of    fragmentation       of       agricultural<\/p>\n
              holdings and for their consolidation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               WHEREAS it is expedient to prevent<\/p>\n
              the    fragmentation      of       agricultural<\/p>\n
              holdings and to provide for the<\/p>\n
              consolidation of agricultural holdings<\/p>\n
              for    the    purpose     of       the    better<\/p>\n
              cultivation    thereof;       It   is    hereby<\/p>\n
              enacted as follows:-”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The purpose behind introducing this Act was, therefore, to<\/p>\n
    prevent    the    fragmentation          and       for    consolidation              of<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:13:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                           8<\/span>
\n                                                                               (SA60.07)<\/p>\n
    agricultural holding.        The Act lays down the procedure for<\/p>\n
    consolidation and also the powers of consolidation officer<\/p>\n
    have been enumerated in the Act. The Act also lays down<\/p>\n
    the effect of consolidation proceedings and consolidation<\/p>\n
    holdings.         Therefore, any order passed by the State<\/p>\n
    Government or any Officer in respect of consolidation of<\/p>\n
    holdings or redistribution of holdings cannot be challenged<\/p>\n
    before the Civil Court or Mamlatdar’s Court. It is a settled<\/p>\n
    position in law that jurisdiction of civil court is either<\/p>\n
    expressly or impliedly excluded if the provision is so made<\/p>\n
    in the special Act to that effect and not otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
    10. In      the    present    case,       section     36A        excludes           the<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction of the civil court only to the extent of decisions<\/p>\n
    which are taken by the State Government or Officers<\/p>\n
    appointed by it for implementing the provisions of this Act.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, the suit for simpliciter injunction restraining the<\/p>\n
    Defendant from obstructing possession is not specifically<\/p>\n
    barred by the said provisions of section 36A.                        In my view,<\/p>\n
    ratio of the judgment in Prabhakar Kushaba Hagwane and<\/p>\n
    others vs. Yashwant Bhau Hagwane<\/a> since deceased by Lrs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:13:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                                  (SA60.07)<\/p>\n
    Ganpat Yashwant Hagwane 1 would squarely apply to the<\/p>\n
    facts of the present case. The learned Single Judge of this<\/p>\n
    Court in the said judgment has observed in para 7 as under:-\n<\/p>\n
               “7. Had Civil Court jurisdiction to try this<\/p>\n
               suit in view of Section 36A is the second<\/p>\n
               question     of        law,    raised       before        me.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Section 36A mentions that no Civil Court<\/p>\n
               or Mamlatdar’s Court has jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
               settle, decide or deal with any question<\/p>\n
               which is by or under this Act required to<\/p>\n
               be settled, decided or dealt with by the<\/p>\n
               State      Government          or     any     officer        or<\/p>\n
               authority. Sub-section (2) of that section<\/p>\n
               mentions that no order of the State<\/p>\n
               Government         or     any        such     officer        or<\/p>\n
               authority made under the Act shall be<\/p>\n
               questioned        in     any       Civil,   Criminal         or<\/p>\n
               Mamlatdar’s Court. Now, the Plaintiff had<\/p>\n
               filed this suit on the basis that he has<\/p>\n
    1 1993 Mh.L.J. 1291<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:13:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                   10<\/span>
\n                                                                   (SA60.07)<\/p>\n
            been    illegally   dispossessed      of       the<\/p>\n
            property subsequent to his acquisition of<\/p>\n
            the title under the Act.   The Defendants<\/p>\n
            have disputed this fact. Quite clearly the<\/p>\n
            dispute of this nature would fall within the<\/p>\n
            jurisdiction of the ordinary civil Court. No<\/p>\n
            provision of the Act is brought to my<\/p>\n
            notice under which it could be said that<\/p>\n
            the controversy, like this, is required to be<\/p>\n
            settled, decided or dealt with under the<\/p>\n
            Act either by the State Government or<\/p>\n
            any officer or authority.        Under the<\/p>\n
            circumstances, the submission that the<\/p>\n
            Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the<\/p>\n
            suit, is without any merit.”\n<\/p>\n
    11. The other submissions made by the learned Counsel<\/p>\n
    appearing on behalf of the appellant are on factual findings<\/p>\n
    which are arrived at by the lower Courts and this Court while<\/p>\n
    exercising its jurisdiction under section 100 of the Civil<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:13:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                    11<\/span>
\n                                                                    (SA60.07)<\/p>\n
    Procedure Code cannot interfere with the said findings.\n<\/p>\n
    Further, the contention of the learned counsel appearing on<\/p>\n
    behalf of the appellant\/original Defendant that the order was<\/p>\n
    passed by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the<\/p>\n
    appellant also cannot be accepted since it is rightly pointed<\/p>\n
    out   by   the   learned   Counsel   appearing       on      behalf        of<\/p>\n
    Respondent No.1\/Plaintiff that the said order was set aside<\/p>\n
    and the Writ Petition No.4924\/1993 filed by the appellant<\/p>\n
    herein was also dismissed by this Court by judgment dated<\/p>\n
    21\/03\/2011.      Hence, there is no merit in the submissions<\/p>\n
    made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    12. In my view, therefore, the suit which was filed by the<\/p>\n
    Plaintiff in the Civil Court for injunction was maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
    The first question of law framed by this Court, therefore, is<\/p>\n
    answered in the affirmative. So far as the second question<\/p>\n
    of law is concerned, both the Courts below have come to the<\/p>\n
    conclusion that the Plaintiff claimed to be the owner of a<\/p>\n
    specific portion in Gat No.347 and since there are concurrent<\/p>\n
    findings of both the Courts below there is no question of<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:13:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                 12<\/span>
\n                                                                 (SA60.07)<\/p>\n
    Defendant being declared to be the co-owner in respect of<\/p>\n
    the property. The second question therefore is answered in<\/p>\n
    the affirmative.\n<\/p>\n
    13   Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                            (V.M. KANADE, J.)<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:13:44 :::<\/span>
\n            13<\/span>
\n                                       (SA60.07)<\/p>\n
                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:13:44 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court R\/At: Sidhewadi vs 4 Yahdeo Vishnu Chavan on 29 April, 2011 Bench: V.M. Kanade 1 (SA60.07) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.60 OF 2007 Shri Namdeo Bhau Chavan ) Age: 76, Occ: Agriculturist ) R\/at: Sidhewadi, Tal. Miraj, ) Dist: Sangli ) …. Appellant. […]<\/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-76946","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR\/At: Sidhewadi vs 4 Yahdeo Vishnu Chavan on 29 April, 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\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R\/At: Sidhewadi vs 4 Yahdeo Vishnu Chavan on 29 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-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=\"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-09T12:02:46+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\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R\/At: Sidhewadi vs 4 Yahdeo Vishnu Chavan on 29 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-09T12:02:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1655,\"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\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011\",\"name\":\"R\/At: Sidhewadi vs 4 Yahdeo Vishnu Chavan on 29 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-09T12:02:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R\/At: Sidhewadi vs 4 Yahdeo Vishnu Chavan on 29 April, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"R\/At: Sidhewadi vs 4 Yahdeo Vishnu Chavan on 29 April, 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\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R\/At: Sidhewadi vs 4 Yahdeo Vishnu Chavan on 29 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-09T12:02:46+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\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R\/At: Sidhewadi vs 4 Yahdeo Vishnu Chavan on 29 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-09T12:02:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011"},"wordCount":1655,"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\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011","name":"R\/At: Sidhewadi vs 4 Yahdeo Vishnu Chavan on 29 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-09T12:02:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rat-sidhewadi-vs-4-yahdeo-vishnu-chavan-on-29-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R\/At: Sidhewadi vs 4 Yahdeo Vishnu Chavan on 29 April, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/76946","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=76946"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76946\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76946"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76946"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76946"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}