{"id":83477,"date":"2009-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009"},"modified":"2017-05-14T08:10:13","modified_gmt":"2017-05-14T02:40:13","slug":"second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Second Appeal No. 115 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 16 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Second Appeal No. 115 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 16 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Bhangale<\/div>\n
                                     1\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n\n                NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                                            \n    Second Appeal No. 115 of 1997\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n    Appellant       :   Atmaram son of Ganu Nagrale, aged about\n\n                        53 years, occ: cultivator, resident\n\n                        Baman Wada, tahsil Rajura, District\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n                     ig Chandrapur\n\n                        versus\n\n    Respondent      :   Baliram son of Ganu Nagrale, aged about<\/pre>\n
                        35 years, occ: cultivator, resident of<\/p>\n
                        Baman wada, Tahsil Rajura, District<\/p>\n
                        Chandrapur<\/p>\n
    Mr M.B. Badiye, Advocate for appellant<\/p>\n
    Mr M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for respondent<\/p>\n
                                 Coram :   A.P. Bhangale, J<\/p>\n
                                 Dated :   16th December 2009<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
    Judgment<\/p>\n
    1.          This is an appeal from judgment and order dated<\/p>\n
    26.8.1996     passed       by     the    Additional            District           Judge,<\/p>\n
    Chandrapur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 165 of 1985 whereby<\/p>\n
    judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 20 of<\/p>\n
    1981   by   the    Civil      Judge,     Junior         Division,          Rajura        on<\/p>\n
    29.3.1985 was reversed.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          It is not in dispute that Ganu Nagrale had died<\/p>\n
    in the year 1974-75 and his wife had predeceased him in<\/p>\n
    1973-74.     Ganu had three sons.                  Eldest son Hari died in<\/p>\n
    the year 1973.          However, he was separated in 1950-51 and<\/p>\n
    land admeasuring 12 and half acres was given to his share.\n<\/p>\n
    The joint family property viz. old survey number 23 (re-\n<\/p>\n
    numbered as survey number 289) and old survey number 25<\/p>\n
    (re-numbered       as     survey        numbers        209       and       210)        was<\/p>\n
    partitioned       in    the      year       1966      after        appellant           and<\/p>\n
    respondent were separated. Old                     survey number               23 (new<\/p>\n
    289) was given in the share              of plaintiff Atmaram and                      old<\/p>\n
    survey no.     205 (new 209, 210) was given in the share of<\/p>\n
    defendant Baliram.              Mutation entries in revenue record<\/p>\n
    relied upon in the suit proceedings as exhibits 69, 70,<\/p>\n
    77, 78 and 79 indicated            that partition had been effected<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
    accordingly and since 1966-67 parties were cultivating the<\/p>\n
    land   given      in   their      share       separately         as     Ganu      Nagrale<\/p>\n
    himself had effected partition during his life-time.\n<\/p>\n
    3.            Plaintiff Atmaram instituted Regular Civil Suit<\/p>\n
    No.    20   of    1981    in     the   Court        of    Civil       Judge,        Junior<\/p>\n
    Division, Rajura claiming              possession             of 3 acres of land<\/p>\n
    from    his       brother        Baliram        (defendant)             or       in      the<\/p>\n
    alternative,        for    partition          of     entire       landed        property<\/p>\n
    equally by metes and bounds, claiming half share in the<\/p>\n
    entire property.          According to plaintiff, after the death<\/p>\n
    of    his   father       Ganu,    immoveable          property          of     Ganu      was<\/p>\n
    partitioned between him and defendant.                        Land survey number<\/p>\n
    289 came to the share of plaintiff as also                                    further 4<\/p>\n
    acres of land from survey no. 210 while land survey no.\n<\/p>\n
    209 (remaining land) and survey no. 210 was given to the<\/p>\n
    share of defendant.            Plaintiff referred to the dispute as<\/p>\n
    to immovable property initiated by defendant Baliram under<\/p>\n
    Section     145    Cr.P.C.       which        was        decided        by     the     Sub-\n<\/p>\n
    Divisional Officer, Rajura in favour of plaintiff, but the<\/p>\n
    revisional        court    decided       it     in       favour       of     defendant.\n<\/p>\n
    Plaintiff sent registered notice through his counsel to<\/p>\n
    defendant and demanded            3 acres and 20 gunthas out of land<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
    survey no. 210, but the defendant denied the claim.                           Thus,<\/p>\n
    plaintiff filed suit for possession of land or in the<\/p>\n
    alternative for       equal partition.\n<\/p>\n
    4.           Defendant resisted suit claim by filing written<\/p>\n
    statement.      He contended that property was partitioned in<\/p>\n
    the   year   1966-67      and    entries   in      revenue        record         were<\/p>\n
    effected accordingly.            He denied claim of plaintiff that<\/p>\n
    there was no partition and that there was oral family<\/p>\n
    arrangement of temporary nature.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           The trial Court by judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
    29.3.1985 directed equal division of land survey nos. 289,<\/p>\n
    210, 209 of village Bamanwada between the parties.                            Being<\/p>\n
    aggrieved     by    the   said    judgment     and      decree,        defendant<\/p>\n
    filed   Regular      Civil   Appeal      No.   165      of     85.         The     1st<\/p>\n
    Appellate Court reversed judgment and decree of the trial<\/p>\n
    Court and thereby dismissed the suit.                Hence, this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    6.           This appeal was admitted on 30.4.1998 on the<\/p>\n
    following substantial question of law :-\n<\/p>\n
          “Whether the appellate court was justified<\/p>\n
          in reversing the          judgment of the trial<\/p>\n
          Court ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7.            The    question of law framed earlier was                           re-\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
    formulated vide order dated 30.9.2009 as under :\n<\/p>\n
         “Whether the conclusion of the First<\/p>\n
         Appellate Court that there was in fact<\/p>\n
         a partition of the suit property on<\/p>\n
         account of the long standing entries in<\/p>\n
         the revenue record was correct or as<\/p>\n
         suggested by the plaintiff it could<\/p>\n
         only be treated as family arrangement ?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8.          The answer to this substantial question of law<\/p>\n
    has to be answered in the manner that it was a partition<\/p>\n
    of joint family property acted upon since 1966-67 and<\/p>\n
    evidenced    by   long-standing      mutation       entries        in       revenue<\/p>\n
    records.      In other words, it was not a temporary oral<\/p>\n
    family arrangement as claimed by the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
    9.          In support of the appeal, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
    the appellant submitted that partition can be reopened on<\/p>\n
    the ground that it was not equal division between the two<\/p>\n
    brothers and therefore, 1st Appellate Court was in error to<\/p>\n
    direct    dismissal     of   the   suit.        According          to       learned<\/p>\n
    counsel     for   the   appellant,      the    division          of     property<\/p>\n
    between    appellant    and   respondent        was      merely         a    family<\/p>\n
    arrangement as orally set out by their father Ganu and,<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
    therefore, appeal deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other<\/p>\n
    hand,    submitted   that   arguments       advanced        on     behalf        of<\/p>\n
    appellant    are   contrary   to       settled   legal        position.          He<\/p>\n
    submitted that plaintiff and defendant had separated since<\/p>\n
    the year 1959 and parties were separate in residence since<\/p>\n
    then and agricultural lands were partitioned between them<\/p>\n
    inasmuch as land survey no. 23 (old) 289 (new) was given<\/p>\n
    in the share of plaintiff Atmaram and land survey no. 25<\/p>\n
    (old),      209 and 210 (new) was given in the share of<\/p>\n
    defendant Baliram and accordingly, entries in the revenue<\/p>\n
    records were taken which are at exhibits 56, 57, 58, 77<\/p>\n
    and 78.     He submits that entries in revenue records show<\/p>\n
    that plaintiff and defendant were separately cultivating<\/p>\n
    the lands partitioned.\n<\/p>\n
    11.         Learned counsel for respondent has pressed into<\/p>\n
    service judgment of the Supreme Court in Gangabai and ors<\/p>\n
    v. Frakirgowda and ors reported in Indian Appeals, Vol.\n<\/p>\n
    LVII 61.    The Apex Court in the said case found that there<\/p>\n
    was no allegation that entries in revenue records were<\/p>\n
    made in collusion     and the entries were made after public<\/p>\n
    enquiry.    The Court observed thus –\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
     “…..   These       entries          were       made        after       public<\/p>\n
     inquiry and it is impossible to believe that<\/p>\n
     Somappa would not have heard of them during his<\/p>\n
     lifetime.            There          was         no     cross-examination<\/p>\n
     suggesting that the entries were collusive, nor<\/p>\n
     was any evidence led                      on this point. Bahaguni<\/p>\n
     was nominated to his office by Somappa as his<\/p>\n
     deputy,       and     was       a     friend           of     his.            Their<\/p>\n
     Lordships       are
\n                    ig         therefore             unable           to    give        any<\/p>\n
     weight     to       mere        suggestions                 of        fraud        and<\/p>\n
     collusion       based           on        suspicion              without           any<\/p>\n
     evidence        to         support              the         same.                  The<\/p>\n
     plaintiff\/respondents                 alleged            throughout            that<\/p>\n
     the   partition           was       unequal          and     was       therefore<\/p>\n
     improbable,         but     it       seems       to      their         Lordships<\/p>\n
     that,    if     the       partition             was      improbable,               the<\/p>\n
     arrangement          of     separate                 enjoyment          of         the<\/p>\n
     properties          unequal          in        value        lasting          for     a<\/p>\n
     considerable           number              of        years,            and         the<\/p>\n
     acquiescence in the alienations by Baswantrao<\/p>\n
     and the enjoyment of the property to the same<\/p>\n
     extent    by    the       widow           of    Baswantrao,             is     more<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
         improbable.”\n<\/p>\n
                Learned counsel for respondent, thus, contended<\/p>\n
    that since partition was acted upon evidenced by long-\n<\/p>\n
    standing     revenue entries, there was acquiescence on the<\/p>\n
    part of plaintiff and he is estopped from challenging the<\/p>\n
    partition.        Learned counsel for respondent has further<\/p>\n
    relied upon Brijraj Singh and anr v. Sheodan Singh and ors<\/p>\n
    reported in Indian Appeals Vol XL 161.                             The following<\/p>\n
    observations in the said judgment are relevant \uff1a<\/p>\n
       “The    claim       of   the    plaintiffs         in     this      action<\/p>\n
       evidently       arose      from      the       suggestion          of      the<\/p>\n
       pleaders whom they consulted after quarrels arose<\/p>\n
       in the family and was based on the fact that the<\/p>\n
       document which evidences the partition is termed a<\/p>\n
       will.     It is obvious that such a partition could<\/p>\n
       not     have    been     made   by       Balwant      Singh       by     will<\/p>\n
       strictly       so   called.       But, as has been already<\/p>\n
       pointed out, the document is much more than a will<\/p>\n
       (if indeed it is in any sense a will at all), for<\/p>\n
       it describes and witnesses to a family arrangement<\/p>\n
       contemporaneously          made          and   acted       on      by      all<\/p>\n
       parties.        Every one treated it as such at the<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
          time.     The mutations of names                   showed this beyond<\/p>\n
          contro9versy.        There is nothing, therefore, in the<\/p>\n
          fact    that   the document is called a will which<\/p>\n
          invalidates        the    parties,         which       was      undoubtedly<\/p>\n
          made    in   fact,       and    which       was     acted       on     by     all<\/p>\n
          parties      for   ten     years      without          any      dispute         or<\/p>\n
          misunderstanding          as    to    their         respective           rights<\/p>\n
          under it.”\n<\/p>\n
                  Learned ig   counsel         then     relied          upon       Munna        Lal<\/p>\n
    (Dead) by LRs and ors v. Suraj Bhan and ors reported in<\/p>\n
    (1975) 1 SCC 556.              Paragraph 7 of the judgment, relevant<\/p>\n
    for the present purpose, reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
    “As   regards      the   second       contention           that      Ex.      Y    is      not<\/p>\n
    binding on defendant No. 1, he not having signed it, the<\/p>\n
    absence of defendant no. 1’s                    signature on the memorandum<\/p>\n
    of partition will not invalidate the partition effected by<\/p>\n
    the   Panch.         Besides,        as    held    by      the     High      Court,         the<\/p>\n
    conduct of the parties subsequent to the parties shows<\/p>\n
    that the arrangement effected under the guidance of the<\/p>\n
    Panch was mutually accepted and acquiesced in.                                    After the<\/p>\n
    parties, the erstwhile partners began to look after their<\/p>\n
    respective properties separately.                        The property allotte4d<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
    to the        share of the plaintiff was in the possession of a<\/p>\n
    tenant but defendants nos. 1 to 3 did not even ask for a<\/p>\n
    share in the rent of the property.                       It is urged on behalf<\/p>\n
    of the appellant that there is nothing to show that the<\/p>\n
    tenant       paid    the    rent.      But,       in     the       absence         of     any<\/p>\n
    allegation that the tenant had not paid the rent, it would<\/p>\n
    be reasonable to assume that the tenant had not committed<\/p>\n
    default in payment of the rent.                   Further, taxes in respect<\/p>\n
    of the shop allotted to the share of defendants Nos. 1 to<\/p>\n
    3     were     separately     paid      by       them.            Thus      the      second<\/p>\n
    contention must also fail.”\n<\/p>\n
    12.            Learned      counsel for appellant was unable to<\/p>\n
    contradict these submissions.\n<\/p>\n
    13.            The 1st Appellate Court                 appears to have arrived<\/p>\n
    at     a     correct    conclusion         in     view       of     the      facts        and<\/p>\n
    circumstances          of   the     case        that     even       if      the      family<\/p>\n
    arrangement is assumed to have taken place in the year<\/p>\n
    1966, the parties accepted and the same can be termed as<\/p>\n
    partition.          The acquiescence as to partition is evidenced<\/p>\n
    by entries in revenue records. Considering the fact that<\/p>\n
    there      was   partition        of   family      property               between         the<\/p>\n
    parties in the year 1966-67, suit for possession or for<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:41 :::<\/span>
\n                                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
    reopening of partition in the alternative, ought to have<\/p>\n
    been dismissed by the trial Court since the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
    the     defendant    were      already     in     possession            of     their<\/p>\n
    respective      share    and    there    was    no    need         for       further<\/p>\n
    partition.      The conclusion drawn by the 1st Appellate Court<\/p>\n
    that property of the family was partitioned since the year<\/p>\n
    1966 and it had been acted upon continuously as evidenced<\/p>\n
    by the entries in revenue records, cannot be interfered on<\/p>\n
    the ground raised by learned counsel for appellant that<\/p>\n
    there    was    merely   oral    family    arrangement            of    temporary<\/p>\n
    nature.\n<\/p>\n
    14.            The view taken by the 1st Appellate Court is<\/p>\n
    consistent with the         principles of law and the ratio laid<\/p>\n
    down     in    the   aforesaid     rulings.          There      would        be      no<\/p>\n
    justification to interfere with the impugned judgment and<\/p>\n
    order.    Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                            A.P. BHANGALE, J<\/p>\n
    hsj<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:41 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Second Appeal No. 115 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 16 December, 2009 Bench: A.P. Bhangale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 115 of 1997 Appellant : Atmaram son of Ganu Nagrale, aged about 53 years, occ: cultivator, resident Baman Wada, tahsil Rajura, […]<\/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-83477","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSecond Appeal No. 115 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 16 December, 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\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Second Appeal No. 115 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-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=\"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-14T02:40:13+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\\\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Second Appeal No. 115 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 16 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-14T02:40:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1822,\"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\\\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Second Appeal No. 115 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-14T02:40:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Second Appeal No. 115 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 16 December, 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":"Second Appeal No. 115 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 16 December, 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\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Second Appeal No. 115 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-14T02:40:13+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\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Second Appeal No. 115 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 16 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-14T02:40:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009"},"wordCount":1822,"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\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009","name":"Second Appeal No. 115 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-14T02:40:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/second-appeal-no-115-of-1997-vs-unknown-on-16-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Second Appeal No. 115 Of 1997 vs Unknown on 16 December, 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\/83477","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=83477"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83477\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}