{"id":99196,"date":"2007-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007"},"modified":"2015-07-18T11:08:46","modified_gmt":"2015-07-18T05:38:46","slug":"manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"Manohar S\/O Shankar Nale And … vs Jaipalsing S\/O Shivlalsing … on 20 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Manohar S\/O Shankar Nale And … vs Jaipalsing S\/O Shivlalsing … on 20 November, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5323 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nManohar S\/o Shankar Nale and others\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJaipalsing S\/o Shivlalsing Rajput and others\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/11\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 25959 of 2005]
\nS.B. SINHA, J.\n<\/p>\n
    1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
    2.\tApplicability of the provisions of Article 136 as contained in the
\nSchedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 is in question in this appeal
\nwhich arises out of a judgment and order dated 26.7.2005 passed by a
\nlearned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in
\nWrit Petition No. 5927 of 2004 affirming an order dated 26.10.2004 passed
\nby the Civil Judge, Junior Division in Regular Darkhast No. 32 of  2001.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tShivlalsing, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a suit in
\nthe Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malkapur.   The said suit was
\nmarked as Regular Civil Suit No. 250\/1965.   It was dismissed on
\n24.12.1968.  An appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed.  However,
\na second appeal filed by the plaintiff-decree holder was allowed upon setting
\naside the judgment and decree of the Courts below, the operative portion
\nwhereof reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons stated in the accompanying judgment,
\nthe court allows the appeal, sets aside the decrees of both
\nthe courts below dismissing the suit and instead.   The
\nCourt orders that the plaintiffs suit for possession of 32
\ngunthas area, as shown in the copy of the map Exh. 30,
\nfrom out of Survey No. 59\/1 area 3 acres 12 gunthas,
\nshall stand decreed with costs throughout.  The appellant-
\nplaintiff is also entitled to an enquiry under the
\nprovisions of the Order XX Rule 12(1) C.P.C. for mesne
\nprofit in respect of the suit land from the date of the suit
\ntill the actual delivery of possession.<\/p>\n
 4.\tAn application for review thereof was filed by the predecessor-in-
\ninterest of the appellants herein.  The said review petition was dismissed by
\nan Order dated 12.8.1985.  Appellants preferred a special leave petition
\nthereagainst before this Court and leave having been granted, the matter was
\nmarked as Civil Appeal No. 1836 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tBy an Order dated 21.3.1988, this Court passed an order of stay in the
\nfollowing terms :\n<\/p>\n
The Application for Stay above mentioned being called
\non for hearing before this Court on the 21st day of March,
\n1988 upon hearing Counsel for the parties herein.  This
\nCourt Doth Order that the order of this Court dated the 8th
\nMay, 1986 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.
\n10447 of 1986 be and is hereby confirmed and that
\npending the hearing and final disposal by this Court of
\nthe appeal above mentioned, the operation of the Order
\ndated the 1st July, 1985 of the High Court of Judicature at
\nBombay (Nagpur Bench) Nagpur in Miscellaneous Civil
\nApplication No. 134 of 1984 in Second Appeal No. 158
\nof 1972 be and is hereby stayed and the Civil Judge,
\nJunior Division, Malkapur, Maharashtra be and is hereby
\ndirected to ascertain the amount of mesne profits which
\nshall be deposited by the appellant herein.<\/p>\n
6.\tThe said appeal, however, came to be dismissed as being incompetent
\nby this Court opining that no appeal lay in terms of Order 47 Rule 7 of the
\nCode of Civil Procedure rejecting a review application.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tAdmittedly, an application for executing the said decree was filed by
\nthe decree holder only on 10.12.2001.  Appellant, having been noticed in the
\nsaid execution proceeding, inter alia, raised a contention about
\nmaintainability thereof on the premise that the same was barred by
\nlimitation.  The Executing Court by an Order dated 26.10.2004 rejected the
\nsaid contention holding :\n<\/p>\n
It is only a disputed point as to whether the decree was
\nstayed by Honble Apex Court.  If it was stayed, the
\nDarkhast would be within limitation and if not, it would
\nnot be Record of original darkhast is called for copy of
\nwrit in respect of stay is on the said record, from Honble
\nApex Court stayed the effect and operation of the order
\npassed by Honble High Court while deciding review
\npetition against the order passed in Second Appeal.  It is
\nsubmitted by Shri Tarkase, learned counsel for the J.D.
\nthat the original decree was not stayed.  It is submitted by
\nShri Rawant, learned counsel for the D.H. that the said
\norder had the effect of staying the original decree as it
\nmerged into the orders passed by Honble High Court.   I
\nam in agreement with this submission of Shri Rawant.
\nShri Tarkase, learned counsel for the J.D. placed his
\nreliance on the decision in the case of Ram Ratan
\nChoudhary Vs- Upendra Chondru Das, A.I.R. 1923 Col.\n<\/p>\n
288.   But, there was to stay is that case (sic) and hence
\nthe ratio is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
\nHence, there is no substance in the submission that the
\nexecution is not within limitation.  Hence, I hold that the
\nexecution is well within limitation as an order of stay to
\nthe order of Honble High Court was operating.<\/p>\n
8.\tAs noticed hereinbefore, a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High
\nCourt, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur by reason of the impugned judgment dated
\n26.7.2005 dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant thereagainst
\nstating;\n<\/p>\n
The learned trial court while rejecting the application
\nhas found that the judgment and decree dated 02\/09\/1983
\nhad merged into the order of this Court while rejecting
\nreview dated 01\/07\/1985.   He, therefore, submits that the
\neffect of the stay granted by the Apex Court was to stay
\nthe execution of the decree and as such the execution of
\nthe decree cannot be proceeded till vacation of the stay
\nby the Apex Court.  The execution of proceedings have
\nbeen filed within a period of 12 days from the date on
\nwhich the Apex Court had vacated the stay.\n<\/p>\n
In that view of the matter, I do not find any perversity or
\ninfirmity in the jurisdiction exercised by the learned trial
\ncourt so as to warrant any interference of this court in the
\nextraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
\nConstitution of India.  Hence the petition is rejected.<\/p>\n
9.\tMr. Satyajit A. Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nappellant in support  of the appeal would submit that the learned Courts
\nbelow acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the impugned
\njudgment insofar as they failed to take into consideration that no order
\nhaving been passed by this Court staying execution of the proceedings or
\noperation of the judgment and decree, the impugned judgment must be set
\naside being wholly unsustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Makarand D. Adkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondents, on the other hand, would submit that a composite decree having
\nbeen passed by the High Court and furthermore in view of the fact that this
\nCourt in its order dated 21.3.1988 clearly directed computation of mesne
\nprofit, the execution case was not barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was further submitted that the remedy of review being a statutory
\nremedy available to an aggrieved party, an Order passed in such proceedings
\nwould merge with the main judgment and decree.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe decree passed by the High Court in the aforementioned Second
\nAppeal No. 158 of 1972 is in two parts.  The Court granted a decree for
\npossession In respect of an area measuring 32 gunthas, as delineated in the
\nmap Exh. 30, out of Survey No. 59\/1 measuring 3 acres 12 gunthas.
\nRespondent was also found to be entitled to an enquiry in terms of Order 20
\nRule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure in regard to computation of mesne
\nprofit from the date of the institution of the suit, till the date of the actual
\ndelivery of possession.  It is therefore, not correct to contend that the decree
\nwas a composite one.  The proceeding for computation of mesne profit
\nrequired to be undertaken in terms of Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil
\nProcedure was subject to institution of a proceeding but, by reason thereof,
\nthe execution of the decree in regard to the possession of 30 gunthas of land
\nwas not required to be awaited till the outcome.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIt is also incorrect to contend that in a case of this nature, namely
\nwhere a review petition was dismissed, the doctrine of merger will have any
\napplication whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is one thing to say that the respondent was entitled to file an
\napplication for review in terms of Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of
\nthe Code of Civil Procedure, but it is another thing to say that the decree
\npassed in favour of the respondent merged with the order dismissing the
\nreview application.   Matter might have been different, if the review
\napplication had been allowed either wholly or in part in terms whereof an
\napplication for execution of the decree could have been filed only in terms of
\nthe modified decree.\n<\/p>\n
     It is not the contention of the respondent that any order of stay was
\npassed in the review application.  There was, thus, no bar in proceeding with
\nthe execution case.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tKeeping in view the aforenoticed factual backdrop, we may notice the
\nlaw applicable herein.\n<\/p>\n
     Article 136 of the Limitation Act reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
Description of
\napplication
\nPeriod of
\nlimitation
\nTime from which period
\nbegins to run
\n136<\/span>
\nFor the execution
\nof any decree
\n(other than a
\ndecree granting a
\nmandatory
\ninjunction) or order
\nof any civil court
\nTwelve years
\nWhen the decree or
\norder becomes
\nenforceable or where
\nthe decree or any
\nsubsequent order directs
\nany payment of money
\nor the delivery of any
\nproperty to be made at a
\ncertain date or at
\nrecurring periods, when
\ndefault in making the
\npayment or delivery in
\nrespect of which
\nexecution is sought,
\ntakes place:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that an
\napplication for the
\nenforcement or
\nexecution of a decree
\ngranting a perpetual
\ninjunction shall not be
\nsubject to any period of
\nlimitation <\/p>\n
13.\tThe decree of possession passed in favour of the respondent became
\nenforceable immediately on its passing.  An execution petition therefor was
\nrequired to be filed within a period of 12 years.\n<\/p>\n
     In W.B. Essential Commodities Supply Corpn. v Swadesh Agro
\nFarming & Storage Pvt. Ltd., [(1999) 8 SCC 315], this Court opined;\n<\/p>\n
     (1) A decree or order is said to be enforceable
\nwhen it is executable.  For a decree to be executable, it
\nmust be in existence.  A decree would be deemed to
\ncome into existence immediately on the pronouncement
\nof the judgment.  But it is a fact of which judicial notice
\nmay be taken of that drawing up and signing of the
\ndecree takes some time after the pronouncement of the
\njudgment; the Code of Civil Procedure itself enjoins that
\nthe decree shall be drawn up expeditiously and in any
\ncase within 15 days from the date of the judgment.  If the
\ndecree were to bear the date when it is actually drawn up
\nand signed then that date will be incompatible with the
\ndate of the judgment.  This incongruity is taken care of
\nby Order 20 Rule 7 CPC which, inter alia, provides that
\nthe decree shall bear the date and the day on which the
\njudgment was pronounced.<\/p>\n
     (2)Rule 6-A enjoins that the last paragraph of the
\njudgment shall state in precise terms the relief which has
\nbeen granted by such judgment.  It has fixed the outer
\ntime-limit of 15 days from the date of pronouncement of
\nthe judgment within which the decree must be drawn up.
\nIn the event of the decree not so drawn Rule 1 of Order
\n41 CPC without filing a copy of the decree appealed
\nagainst and for that purpose the last paragraph of the
\njudgment shall be treated as a decree.  For the purpose of
\nexecution also, provision is made in clause (b) of the said
\nsub-rule which says that so long as the decree is not
\ndrawn up, the last paragraph of the judgment shall be
\ndeemed to be a decree.  Clause (b) has thus enabled the
\nparty interested in executing the decree before it is drawn
\nup to apply for a copy of the last paragraph only, without
\nbeing required to apply for a copy of the whole of the
\njudgment.  It further lays down that the last paragraph of
\nthe judgment shall cease to have the effect of the decree
\nfor purposes of execution or for any other purposes when
\nthe decree has been drawn up.<\/p>\n
     (3) It follows that the decree became enforceable
\nthe moment the judgment is delivered and merely
\nbecause there will be delay in drawing up of the decree, it
\ncannot be said that the decree is not enforceable till it is
\nprepared.  This is so because an enforceable decree in
\none form or the other is available to a decree-holder from
\nthe date of the judgment till the expiry of the period of
\nlimitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act. <\/p>\n
\tSee also Hasham Abbas Sayyad Vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad and Ors.
\n[(2007) 2 SCC 355] <\/p>\n
14.\tIn Raghunath Rai Bareja and Anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank And
\nOthers [(2006) 13 SCALE 511], this Court opined;
\n9. Under Article 136 to the Schedule of the Limitation
\nAct, 1963 the period for applying for execution of any
\ndecree is 12 years from the date when the decree
\nbecomes enforceable.  Since in the present case the final
\ndecree was passed and became enforceable on 15.1.1987,
\nthe period of limitation for filing an execution application
\nexpired on 15.1.1999<\/p>\n
15.\tThe order of purported stay passed by this Court in terms of its Order
\ndated 21.3.1988 is also of no assistance to the plaintiff-decree holder.  The
\nSpecial Leave Petition was filed only against the Order dated 1.7.1985
\nrefusing to review its judgment and decree dated 2.9.1983.  The stay of
\noperation of the Order dated 1.7.1985 for all intent and purport was
\nmeaningless as the review petition already stood dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tFurther direction of this Court that computation of mesne profit would
\ngo on and the same would be deposited by the appellant is of no
\nconsequence inasmuch as by reason thereof neither proceeding was stayed
\nnor the operation of the judgment and decree had been stayed.  In fact, it was
\nan order passed in favour of the decree holder.  The said direction did not
\ncome in his way to execute the decree for possession.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tWe, therefore, do not see any reason to hold that the said order could
\nbe construed to be one passed in favour of the decree holder-respondent as
\nwas contended or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Adkar relies upon the decision of this Court in Rekha Mukherjee
\nv. Ashis Kumar Das and Others<\/a> [(2005) 3 SCC 427] which has no
\napplication in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tWe, therefore, are of the opinion that the Executing Court as well as
\nthe High Court committed a manifest error in opining that the Execution
\nPetition was not barred by limitation.  The appeal is allowed.  The impugned
\njudgment is set aside with costs.  Counsel fee quantified at Rs. 5,000\/-.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Manohar S\/O Shankar Nale And … vs Jaipalsing S\/O Shivlalsing … on 20 November, 2007 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5323 of 2007 PETITIONER: Manohar S\/o Shankar Nale and others RESPONDENT: Jaipalsing S\/o Shivlalsing Rajput and others DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/11\/2007 BENCH: S.B. […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-99196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nManohar S\/O Shankar Nale And ... vs Jaipalsing S\/O Shivlalsing ... on 20 November, 2007 - 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\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manohar S\/O Shankar Nale And ... vs Jaipalsing S\/O Shivlalsing ... on 20 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-18T05:38:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manohar S\\\/O Shankar Nale And … vs Jaipalsing S\\\/O Shivlalsing … on 20 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-18T05:38:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2421,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007\",\"name\":\"Manohar S\\\/O Shankar Nale And ... vs Jaipalsing S\\\/O Shivlalsing ... on 20 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-18T05:38:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manohar S\\\/O Shankar Nale And … vs Jaipalsing S\\\/O Shivlalsing … on 20 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Manohar S\/O Shankar Nale And ... vs Jaipalsing S\/O Shivlalsing ... on 20 November, 2007 - 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\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manohar S\/O Shankar Nale And ... vs Jaipalsing S\/O Shivlalsing ... on 20 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-18T05:38:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manohar S\/O Shankar Nale And … vs Jaipalsing S\/O Shivlalsing … on 20 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-18T05:38:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007"},"wordCount":2421,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007","name":"Manohar S\/O Shankar Nale And ... vs Jaipalsing S\/O Shivlalsing ... on 20 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-18T05:38:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-so-shankar-nale-and-vs-jaipalsing-so-shivlalsing-on-20-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manohar S\/O Shankar Nale And … vs Jaipalsing S\/O Shivlalsing … on 20 November, 2007"}]},{"@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\/99196","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=99196"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99196\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}