{"id":88479,"date":"2009-08-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009"},"modified":"2016-07-11T19:51:42","modified_gmt":"2016-07-11T14:21:42","slug":"rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rukhminibai W vs Vijay Vithalrao Bijwe on 21 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Rukhminibai W vs Vijay Vithalrao Bijwe on 21 August, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: C. L. Pangarkar<\/div>\n
                                      1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR \n                        BENCH NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                 SECOND   APPEAL   NO.  96    OF    1996\n                             AND\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n                SECOND  APPEAL   NO.  242  OF  1998\n\n\n                    SECOND  APPEAL  NO.  96 OF 1996\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n                            \n    1. Rukhminibai wd\/o Sadhuram Katiyari\n                           \n    aged 85 yrs., Occu. Household. \n\n    2. Govardhan Sadhuram Katiyari,\n    aged 35 yrs., Occu. Business.\n          \n\n\n    Both residents of Sindhi Camp, \n       \n\n\n\n    Arvi, Distt. Wardha.                          APPELLANTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                  VERSUS\n\n\n    Vijay Vithalrao Bijwe,\n    aged 34 yrs. Through  Court\n\n\n\n\n\n    appointed guardian\/next friend \n    Raju Vithalrao Bijwe,  aged 38 yrs.,\n    Occu. Business, R\/o Sindhi Market, \n    Tailor Line, Opposite Nagar Palika\n    Office, Arvi Distt. Wardha.                   RESPONDENT.<\/pre>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
                          SECOND  APPEAL  NO. 242  OF   1998<\/p>\n
    Kisan Teyumal Kodwani
\n    aged 44 yrs., Occu. Business,
\n    R\/o Sindhi Coloney, Lokmanya<\/p>\n
    Ward, Arvi, Wardha.\n<\/p>\n
                                         VERSUS<\/p>\n
    Gulab Sadashivrao Kadave,<\/p>\n
    aged 49 yrs., Occu. Tailor,<\/p>\n
    R\/o Sindhi Cloth Market,
\n    Tah. Arvi, Distt. Wardha.\n<\/p>\n
    Shri.   S.   V.  Purohit, Counsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    Shri.   D.  L.   Dharmadhikari, Counsel  for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
                        CORAM:   C.  L.  PANGARKAR  J.\n<\/p>\n
                         Date:      21st  AUGUST   2009.\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT:  \n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                 These   two   appeals   can   be   disposed   of   by   a   common <\/p>\n
    judgment since the substantial questions of law are identical and the <\/p>\n
    dispute is also identical.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
    2.          The   original   plaintiffs   have   preferred   these   two   appeals <\/p>\n
    they having lost before both the Courts.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          The facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                A single set of facts is being narrated since the facts are <\/p>\n
    almost identical.\n<\/p>\n
                Both plaintiffs are the owner of wooden stall 9 X 7 Ft.   in <\/p>\n
    an area known as   Sindhi Market at Arvi.   The said wooden stall is <\/p>\n
    located on the Municipal Land.  The said wooden stall was let out by <\/p>\n
    plaintiffs   to   the   defendants.     It   is   their   contention   that   the <\/p>\n
    defendants had agreed to pay rent of Rs.400\/- P. M.  The defendants <\/p>\n
    had   agreed   to   vacate   the   said   stall   as   and   when   required.     The <\/p>\n
    defendants have not being paying the rent.   The plaintiff therefore <\/p>\n
    issued   a   notice   to   the   defendants  calling   upon   the   defendants   to <\/p>\n
    vacate the said stalls and hand over the possession.  Defendants did <\/p>\n
    not vacate, hence the suits came to be instituted.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          Defendants resisted the suit and denied that the rent was <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
    Rs. 400\/- P. M.   They also deny that they have not paid the rent as <\/p>\n
    alleged.  Their  contention is that plaintiff was  not even passing rent <\/p>\n
    receipts  though rent was paid.  Defendants also contended that the <\/p>\n
    said wooden stalls have been embedded in the earth and therefore <\/p>\n
    are governed by the provisions of C. P. & Berar Rent Control Order.\n<\/p>\n
    Suits could not therefore  have been instituted without obtaining the <\/p>\n
    permission of the Rent Controller.   The learned Judges of the trial <\/p>\n
    Court   held   that   this   property   was   governed   by   the   Rent   Control <\/p>\n
    Order   and   dismissed   the   suit.     It   was   held   that   since   the   land <\/p>\n
    beneath the stall belonged to the Municipal Corporation the plaintiff <\/p>\n
    was not the owner of the stall.  Holding so the suits were dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    Appellate Court confirmed the finding.  Hence these second appeals.\n<\/p>\n
    5.              Second   Appeal   No.   96   of   1996   was   admitted   on   6 <\/p>\n
    substantial questions of law.   However the learned   counsel for the <\/p>\n
    appellant\/respondent agreed that the appeal  may be heard on two <\/p>\n
    substantial questions of law i. e. 1 and 4.\n<\/p>\n
                 1.  In the face of the finding of the trial Court
\n                 to the effect that the suit property (Wooden <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
                Thela)   is   a   movable   property,   whether   the
\n                Trial   Court   as   well   as   the   Lower   Appellate <\/p>\n
                Court was justified in holding that the suit of
\n                the   appellant-plaintiff   for   possession   of   the <\/p>\n
                suit   property   was   not   maintainable   as   the
\n                appellant-plaintiff   had   no   obtained   any
\n                permission   from   the   Rent   Controller   to
\n                institute the suit?\n<\/p>\n
               2.     Whether   the   Lower   Appellate   Court   was
\n               justified in refusing to consider the appellants
\n               claim in respect of the arrears of rent and the <\/p>\n
               damages as claimed?\n<\/p>\n
    6.         Second Appeal No. 242 of 1998 was admitted on following <\/p>\n
    two substantial questions of law:\n<\/p>\n
                I. Whether moveable wooden Thela which is <\/p>\n
                leased out by the appellant to the respondent
\n                for   running   business   is   protected   by   the
\n                provisions of C. P. & Berar Letting of Premises
\n                & Rent Control Order, 1949?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                II.   Whether   for   terminating   the   tenancy   of
\n                moveable wooden Thela prior permission of
\n                the Rent Control Authority is necessary?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    I   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   and   the <\/p>\n
    respondent.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
    7.           In Second Appeal No. 96 of 1996 learned Judge of the trial <\/p>\n
    Court   has   made   a   very   strange   observation.       In   para   14   of   the <\/p>\n
    judgment he observed that the suit property is a movable property <\/p>\n
    and therefore notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property <\/p>\n
    Act   was   not   necessary.     However   in   para   16   he   relied   on   the <\/p>\n
    definition of the word “premises”   in Rent Control order and held <\/p>\n
    that property is covered by that definition and dismissed the suit. If <\/p>\n
    it   is   a   movable   property,   it   is   obviously   not   covered   by   the   Rent <\/p>\n
    Control order.\n<\/p>\n
    8.           In appeal No. 242 of 1998 also a very strange observation is <\/p>\n
    made by the learned Judge of trial Court.  He observed that since the <\/p>\n
    land   beneath   the   stall   is   not   proved   to   be   let   out   to   plaintiff   by <\/p>\n
    Municipal Council there could be no relationship of   landlord and <\/p>\n
    tenant between plaintiff and defendant with regard to the wooden <\/p>\n
    stall.   Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that wooden stall alone was <\/p>\n
    let   out   to   defendants.     The   question   as   to   whom   the   open   land <\/p>\n
    belonged is absolutely immaterial .   Only question that could have <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
    been considered is whether wooden stall was let out or not.   The <\/p>\n
    learned   Judge   does   not   seem   to   understand   even   the   basics.\n<\/p>\n
    Defendant   does   not   even   enter   the   witness   box   to   rebut   the <\/p>\n
    statement   of   plaintiff   that   he   is   a   tenant   of   the   plaintiff   and   the <\/p>\n
    adverse   inference   should   have   therefore   been   drawn   against   the <\/p>\n
    defendant.   Learned Judge further seems to be swayed by the fact <\/p>\n
    that plaintiff in his evidence states that he also wants possession of <\/p>\n
    the land beneath the stall.  This could have been ignored as having <\/p>\n
    not been pleaded but it could not be a ground to hold non existence <\/p>\n
    of relationship of  landlord and tenant.  Statement of the plaintiff in <\/p>\n
    the absence of the rebuttal by the defendant has to be accepted to <\/p>\n
    hold that plaintiff in Appeal no. 242 of 1998 was the landlord and <\/p>\n
    defendant was tenant.\n<\/p>\n
    9.           In fact the material question that needs to be decided is <\/p>\n
    whether wooden stall could be said to be covered by the provisions <\/p>\n
    of C. P. & Berar Rent Control Order.   Undisputed fact is that only <\/p>\n
    wooden stalls were let out to both the defendants.  In Appeal No. 242 <\/p>\n
    of 1998 it has come in evidence that the legs of the wooden stalls are <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
    embedded in cement platform.  While in Appeal No. 96 of 1996 it has <\/p>\n
    come in evidence that the legs of the stall are embedded in the earth.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the fact that stall <\/p>\n
    is embedded in earth clearly goes to show that the stall becomes an <\/p>\n
    immovable   property   and   therefore   covered   by   the     definition   of <\/p>\n
    premises in the Rent Control Order.   There is no manner of doubt <\/p>\n
    that in both the cases legs of the stall seem to be embedded in the <\/p>\n
    earth.     Question   is   whether   due   to   the   fact   that   the   legs   are   so <\/p>\n
    embedded     the   stall   becomes   premises   within   the   meaning   of <\/p>\n
    definition   as   given   in   C.   P.   &   Berar   Rent   Control   Order.     To <\/p>\n
    determine this the definition of premises as given in C. P. & Berar <\/p>\n
    Rent Control order needs to be looked into.   The word Premises is <\/p>\n
    defined thus:\n<\/p>\n
                               “Premises” means,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                            (a)   any   land   not   being   used   for
\n                  agricultural purposes,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                             (b)   any   building   or   part   of   a <\/p>\n
                  building (other than a  farm building) let or
\n                  given   on   licence   [for   residence   or   for   the
\n                  purpose   of   practising   any   profession   or
\n                  carrying   on   any   occupation   therein]   and
\n                  includes,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
                            (i) the garden grounds, garages and
\n                  outhouses,   if   any,   appurtenant   to   such <\/p>\n
                  building or part of a building;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                            (ii)   any   furniture   supplied   by   the
\n                  landlord for use in such building or part of a
\n                  building; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                             (iii)   any   fittings   affixed   to   such
\n                  building   or   part   of   a   building   for   the   more
\n                  beneficial enjoyment thereof; <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  but   does   not   include   a   room   or   other <\/p>\n
                  accommodation in a hotel or lodging house]<\/p>\n
    What is essential therefore is that it must be a building or a part of <\/p>\n
    the building.  In no case a wooden stall can be termed as a building .\n<\/p>\n
    To   my   mind   any   structure   can   be   called   a   building   if   it   is   not <\/p>\n
    portable.  A wooden stall though its legs are embedded in the earth <\/p>\n
    for stability does not become a building for it can always be removed <\/p>\n
    and reinstalled at another place.  It is brought  in cross examination <\/p>\n
    of P. W. 2 Kamalnarayan in Civil Suit No. 289 of 1989 that a stall can <\/p>\n
    be shifted at any place.  It is thus clear that both these wooden stalls <\/p>\n
    are movable and portable.  They are, therefore, not premises to my <\/p>\n
    mind   as   covered   by   the   definition   in   the   Rent   Control   Order.\n<\/p>\n
    Consequently both stalls cannot be said to be governed by the C. P.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
    &   Berar   Rent   Control   Order.     Since   both   stalls   can   be   treated   as <\/p>\n
    movable property they do not fall within the scope of the Section 106 <\/p>\n
    of the Transfer of Property Act also.   Therefore there is no need to <\/p>\n
    even give notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.\n<\/p>\n
    The  occupation  of the  defendants  therefore would become illegal <\/p>\n
    only from the date of institution of suit.\n<\/p>\n
    10.
\n                In Second Appeal 96 of 1996 the appeal is admitted on the <\/p>\n
    question No.4 in it.   The plaintiff’s case is that defendant has not <\/p>\n
    paid rent from 01.10.1986 to 31.03.1989 at the rate of Rs. 400\/- P. M.\n<\/p>\n
    The defendant denies the arrears and also denies that the rent was <\/p>\n
    Rs. 400\/- P. M.  Neither party has lead any documentary evidence to <\/p>\n
    show  what was  the  agreed  rent.   There is, therefore,  only  a  word <\/p>\n
    against word.    Story of the defendants that rent was only Rs. 125\/-\n<\/p>\n
    P. M. appears to me to be more probable.  Learned Judge of the trial <\/p>\n
    Court should have therefore passed a decree at least to that extent.\n<\/p>\n
    The plaintiff in Second Appeal No. 96 of 1996 would therefore be <\/p>\n
    entitled to rent for three years prior to September 1989 i. e. for 36 <\/p>\n
    months only at the rate of Rs. 125\/- which comes to Rs. 4500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:57 :::<\/span>
\n                                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
    11.         As far as  rent in  the other appeal is concerned  the  said <\/p>\n
    appeal has not been admitted on that question of law.  Hence I am <\/p>\n
    not   considering   the   award   of   rent   in   that   appeal.     In   the <\/p>\n
    circumstances, I proceed to pass the following order:\n<\/p>\n
                Both Second Appeals No. 96 of 1996 and 242 of 1998 are <\/p>\n
    allowed.     The   judgments   and   decrees   passed   by   both   the   Courts <\/p>\n
    below in both the suits and appeals are set aside.   Regular Civil Suit <\/p>\n
    No.   289   of   1989   is   decreed.     Defendant   shall   hand   over   vacant <\/p>\n
    possession of the suit property to the plaintiff forthwith.  Defendant <\/p>\n
    shall pay to the plaintiff  Rs. 4500\/- .  An enquiry into future mesne <\/p>\n
    profits be held from the date of suit till realisation of the possession.\n<\/p>\n
    Defendant shall pay costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
                Regular Civil Suit no. 324 of 1989 is decreed.   Defendant <\/p>\n
    shall handover the  possession of  the suit  property  to the plaintiff <\/p>\n
    forthwith.  Enquiry into future mesne profits from the date of suit till <\/p>\n
    realisation   of   the   possession   be   held.     Defendant   shall   pay   costs <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:58 :::<\/span>
\n                                        12<\/span><\/p>\n
    throughout to the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
              Decrees be drawn up.\n<\/p>\n
                                                JUDGE<\/p>\n
    svk<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:55:58 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Rukhminibai W vs Vijay Vithalrao Bijwe on 21 August, 2009 Bench: C. L. Pangarkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO. 96 OF 1996 AND SECOND APPEAL NO. 242 OF 1998 SECOND APPEAL NO. 96 OF 1996 1. Rukhminibai wd\/o Sadhuram Katiyari aged 85 […]<\/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-88479","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRukhminibai W vs Vijay Vithalrao Bijwe on 21 August, 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\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rukhminibai W vs Vijay Vithalrao Bijwe on 21 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-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=\"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-11T14:21:42+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\\\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rukhminibai W vs Vijay Vithalrao Bijwe on 21 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-11T14:21:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1820,\"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\\\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Rukhminibai W vs Vijay Vithalrao Bijwe on 21 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-11T14:21:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rukhminibai W vs Vijay Vithalrao Bijwe on 21 August, 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":"Rukhminibai W vs Vijay Vithalrao Bijwe on 21 August, 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\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rukhminibai W vs Vijay Vithalrao Bijwe on 21 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-11T14:21:42+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\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rukhminibai W vs Vijay Vithalrao Bijwe on 21 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-11T14:21:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009"},"wordCount":1820,"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\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009","name":"Rukhminibai W vs Vijay Vithalrao Bijwe on 21 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-11T14:21:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukhminibai-w-vs-vijay-vithalrao-bijwe-on-21-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rukhminibai W vs Vijay Vithalrao Bijwe on 21 August, 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\/88479","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=88479"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88479\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88479"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88479"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88479"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}