{"id":89474,"date":"2009-04-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009"},"modified":"2016-04-26T00:58:25","modified_gmt":"2016-04-25T19:28:25","slug":"mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mubarak U N Ni S vs Mr.B.G.Tangsali For on 1 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Mubarak U N Ni S vs Mr.B.G.Tangsali For on 1 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: R. S. Dalvi<\/div>\n
                                   1\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n             ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                        SUIT NO.2643 OF 1987\n\n\n    Mubarak u n ni s w\/o Moham med Naseem & ors\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n                                               ..Plaintiffs\n            vs.\n\n    Moinuddin Mohd Usman Khan & ors.              ..Defenda n t s\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                          \n    Mr. A.N.Maniyer for the Plaintiff\n\n    Mr.P.R.Gyani, Sr. Advocate i\/b Mr. N.R.Gandhi for Defenda nt\n                         \n    No.1 to 5, 6(b) & 7\n\n\n    Mr.B.G.Tangsali for Defendant No.6(c)\n          \n       \n\n\n\n                               CORAM: Smt. ROSHAN DALVI, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                               DATED: 1 st April, 2009<\/p>\n
    Oral Order :\n<\/p>\n
    1. The original Plaintiff has sued for administra tion of the
\n      estate of her father. She has expired. Her heirs have been<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
      brought on record. They shall be referred to as the Plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
      Pleadings   are    filed.   The   issues   have     been       framed         on
\n      20.06.2007. The first issue is with regard to the bar of<\/p>\n
      limitation. The Plaintiff has thereafter taken out various
\n      Notices of Motion being Notice of Motion No.3870 of 2007,
\n      Notice of Motion No. 1834 of 2008 and Notice of Motion<\/p>\n
      No.904 of 2009.     The Defendant s Advocate contend that the
\n      issue of limitation be decided as preliminary issue. That<\/p>\n
      issue is required to be decided under the provisions of order
\n      14 Rule 2 of the CPC as a preliminary issue.\n<\/p>\n
    2. Issue of limitation is framed as under:\n<\/p>\n
      Whether the claim in the suit is barred by law of Limitation.\n<\/p>\n
    3. This is an administr ation suit. The Plaintiff is the daughter
\n      of the deceased father whose estate the Plaintiff seeks to
\n      have administered. It is the Plaintiff’s case that her father left<\/p>\n
      only two heirs – her mother and herself. The parties are
\n      Muslims governed by Muslim person al law. Her mother is
\n      entitled to 1 \/ 8 share in the estate of the deceased. The<\/p>\n
      Plaintiff claims    2 \/ 3 rd of the remaining 7 \/ 8 estate of the
\n      deceased. The Plaintiff claims that the deceased as a partner
\n      in various businesse s such as Muslim Bakery, Gulsha n
\n      Bakery, Shahi Bakery and Javed Resta ur a n t had 1\/ 5 th share<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
      in the profits and assets of the partners hip firm along with<\/p>\n
      Defenda nt s who were the other partner s. The extent of the
\n      share of the Plaintiff’s father in the partner s hip firm is not<\/p>\n
      denied. The Plaintiff has also claimed similar share in certain
\n      immovable properties of her father as his estate. These
\n      properties are enumer ated in the list of partner s hip firm and<\/p>\n
      immovable properties annexed as Exhibit A to the Plaint.\n<\/p>\n
    4. The suit is filed for declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to
\n      88 paise share in a rupee in the estate of the deceased, that<\/p>\n
      the sale of one immovable property Kohinoor Manzil is<\/p>\n
      invalid and be canceled, for directions against Defenda n t s
\n      No.1   to 7 to disclose      the    assets   of the      deceased,          to
\n      administer the estate of the deceased under directions of the<\/p>\n
      Court, to sell the properties mentioned in Exhibit A to the<\/p>\n
      Plaint and pay off the Plaintiff’s share, to take account s of
\n      the properties of the deceased and secure the Plaintiff’s
\n      share, and make such inquiries as necessary.\n<\/p>\n
    5. The Plaintiff’s father expired in April 1955. This suit has
\n      been filed initially as pauper Petition on 14.01.1985. It has<\/p>\n
      been num bered in 1987.\n<\/p>\n
    6. It may be mentioned that the Plaintiff’s mother who was also
\n      an heir of her father has never sued. The Court has been<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
      informed that the Plaintiff’s mother was appointed as partner<\/p>\n
      in the place and stead of her father in various partners hip
\n      firms. She retired in December 1955 as such partner. The<\/p>\n
      partner s hip firms were reconstitu ted in Jan u a ry 1956.                   The
\n      Plaintiff has not sued for accounts of the share of her father
\n      as deceased partner. The Plaintiff claims instead a 1\/ 5 th<\/p>\n
      share    in    the     properties       and    assets    of the         various
\n      partner s hip firms where her father had such share. The<\/p>\n
      Plaintiff has not shown any Partner s hip Deed. The Plaintiff
\n      claims to have no docume nt s.\n<\/p>\n
    7. Mr. Maniar on behalf of the Plaintiff argued that the suit is
\n      filed under Muslim Personal Law. He relied upon Mulla’s
\n      Principles of Mohamme d a n Law Chapter V, section 41 at<\/p>\n
      page 25 in the 19 th Edition relating to the devolution of<\/p>\n
      inheritance.     It   shows   that       the   estate    of     a    deceased
\n      Moham med a n who died intestate devolves on his heirs at the
\n      moment of his death . This concept is explained under the<\/p>\n
      said section itself. The estate vests immediately in each heir
\n      in proportion to the share ordained by Mohammeda n Law.
\n      The said section further shows that the heirs succeed to the<\/p>\n
      estate as tena nt s- in- common. When the heirs                  continue to
\n      hold the estate as tenant s- in- common without dividing it
\n      and     one of the them       subseq ue n tly brings           the suit for
\n      recovery of his share, the limitation starts run ni ng from the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
     date of his ouster, or denial of title. Hence the suit would be<\/p>\n
     governed under Article 144 of Schedule 1 of the Limitation
\n     Act 1908 (equivalent to Article 65 of Schedule 1                              of the<\/p>\n
     Limitation Act, 1963)<\/p>\n
    8. The Plaintiff’s Advocate has placed reliance upon the said<\/p>\n
     article to claim that this suit is governed by Article 65.
\n     Article 65 is with regard to suits for possession of immovable<\/p>\n
     property or interest based on title. The period of limitation is
\n     12   years      from     theig date    when       the   possession           of the
\n     Defenda nt s become adverse to the Plaintiff. This suit is not<\/p>\n
     for possession. The Plaintiff has not contin ued to hold the
\n     estate of her deceased father in respect of the 1 \/ 5 share in
\n     the part ners hip assets. The Plaintiff has not been ousted<\/p>\n
     from her share at any time after she continued to hold such<\/p>\n
     share.   The Plaintiff has            been       living in one         residential
\n     premises.       Defenda nt s    have       not    ousted      her     from        that
\n     residential      premises.      The       above     provision        relating        to<\/p>\n
     limitation for recovery of Plaintiff’s share would apply only if
\n     the Plaintiff was ousted from such premises. That would be
\n     within 12 years from           the date of ouster. The Plaintiff has<\/p>\n
     claimed 1 \/ 5   th   share inter alia in the partner s hip firms. There
\n     is no question of the Plaintiffs ”continuing to hold” such
\n     share in any of the firms since the firms have been dissolved
\n     and reconstit uted after the Plaintiff’s mother was admitted<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
      as partner and later retired as partner of those firms. The<\/p>\n
      Plaintiff’s suit is      for administra tion       of the estate. The
\n      Plaintiff’s case is therefore, not covered under article 65 of<\/p>\n
      the Limitation Act.\n<\/p>\n
    9. Under Moham med a n Law the heirs become entitled to the<\/p>\n
      estate from the moment of the death of the deceased, whose
\n      estate is claimed, since the estate vests in them at the<\/p>\n
      moment of his death. The Plaintiff became an owner of the
\n      88 paise share in a rupee from the moment of death of her<\/p>\n
      father. Hence from that moment the right to sue accrued to<\/p>\n
      the   Plaintiff.   The    Plaintiff   must,        therefore,         sue       for
\n      administration of the estate of her father within the period of
\n      limitation which began to run from the moment of his death.\n<\/p>\n
      Such suit would require to be filed under Article 113 of<\/p>\n
      schedule 1 of the Limitation Act, since no other period of
\n      limitation   is    provided   elsewhere       in    the      schedule           for
\n      administration suits. Under the said article it is three years<\/p>\n
      from the accrual of the right to sue. That would be within
\n      three years from the time the estate vests in the Plaintiff and
\n      the Plaintiff becomes entitled to the estate. That would be<\/p>\n
      within three years from the moment of death of her deceased
\n      father.\n<\/p>\n
    10. The Plaintiff’s Advocate further contended that her right to<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
      sue first accrued when a Deed of settlement                         was entered<\/p>\n
      into   by and    between      the       Defenda nt s.        That    Deed      was
\n      executed in 1982. The suit has been filed in 1985. Hence it<\/p>\n
      is contended, that it is within the period of limitation.\n<\/p>\n
    11. It is seen that the right first accrued from the moment of<\/p>\n
      death of the deceased. The Plaintiff has claimed that                          the
\n      Defenda nt s assured her at all material times that they would<\/p>\n
      give her share when the estate of the deceased would be
\n      finally settled. The Plaintiff continued to wait. The wait lasted<\/p>\n
      30 years. The Plaintiff claims that the Defenda nt s finally<\/p>\n
      settled the share in 1982 and because the Plaintiff was not
\n      given her share she has sued. This would mean that                          if the
\n      Defenda nt s do not enter into a Deed of Settlement amongst<\/p>\n
      themselves for their partner s hip properties for a 100 years,<\/p>\n
      the Plaintiff would not sue. Such interpretation is absur d.
\n      The Plaintiff must sue from the time the cause of action
\n      accrues. The aforesaid provisions of Moham med a n Law show<\/p>\n
      that it first   accrued from the moment of the death of the
\n      deceased.\n<\/p>\n
    12. The Plaintiff’s Advocate relied upon Article 58 of schedule 1
\n      of the    Limitation   Act,    with        regard       to    the     prayer     of
\n      declaration. Even under that article the limitation period is 3
\n      years from the time when the right to sue first accrued. Even<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
      if the present suit is taken to be a suit for declaration, since<\/p>\n
      in prayer (b) the Plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that
\n      she is entitled to 88 paise share in a rupee in the estate of<\/p>\n
      the deceased, the declaration that is claimed is for such
\n      estate. Such estate has to be administered. Accounts of such
\n      estate have to be taken. Properties of such estate have to be<\/p>\n
      sold. Then alone can the share of the Plaintiff be given to
\n      her. The mere declaration of the share in the estate of the<\/p>\n
      deceased would also, therefore, require the suit to be filed
\n      within 3 years from the moment of the death of the deceased<\/p>\n
      as that is when the right to sue would first accrue since that<\/p>\n
      is the time when the estate vests in the Plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
    13. Seen from both the angles upon the funda me nt al principles<\/p>\n
      of Moham med a n Law, the Plaintiff was entitled to any part of<\/p>\n
      the estate of her deceased father as also for administration of
\n      such estate of her deceased father which vested in her within
\n      three years from the date of his death. The filing of the suit<\/p>\n
      has nothing to do with the settlement inter se amongst the
\n      Defenda nt s of the five partner s hip firms which contin ued
\n      after the death of the deceased partner for as long as about<\/p>\n
      three decades.\n<\/p>\n
    14. The Plaintiff’s suit is far too delayed. It is distinctly barred
\n      by law of limitation.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:11 :::<\/span>
\n                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
    15. Hence issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.\n<\/p>\n
    16. Suit is dismissed     accordingly, Notices of Motion being
\n      Notice of Motion No.3870 of 2007, Notice of Motion No. 1834
\n      of 2008 and Notice of Motion No.904 of 2009 accordingly<\/p>\n
      also stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J)<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:11 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Mubarak U N Ni S vs Mr.B.G.Tangsali For on 1 April, 2009 Bench: R. S. Dalvi 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.2643 OF 1987 Mubarak u n ni s w\/o Moham med Naseem & ors ..Plaintiffs vs. Moinuddin Mohd Usman Khan & ors. […]<\/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-89474","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMubarak U N Ni S vs Mr.B.G.Tangsali For on 1 April, 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\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mubarak U N Ni S vs Mr.B.G.Tangsali For on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-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=\"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-25T19:28:25+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\\\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mubarak U N Ni S vs Mr.B.G.Tangsali For on 1 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-25T19:28:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1786,\"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\\\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Mubarak U N Ni S vs Mr.B.G.Tangsali For on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-25T19:28:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mubarak U N Ni S vs Mr.B.G.Tangsali For on 1 April, 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":"Mubarak U N Ni S vs Mr.B.G.Tangsali For on 1 April, 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\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mubarak U N Ni S vs Mr.B.G.Tangsali For on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-25T19:28:25+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\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mubarak U N Ni S vs Mr.B.G.Tangsali For on 1 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-25T19:28:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009"},"wordCount":1786,"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\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009","name":"Mubarak U N Ni S vs Mr.B.G.Tangsali For on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-25T19:28:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mubarak-u-n-ni-s-vs-mr-b-g-tangsali-for-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mubarak U N Ni S vs Mr.B.G.Tangsali For on 1 April, 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\/89474","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=89474"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89474\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}